Was the USA wrong to let the Communist Chinese win the civil war?

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Penguin Classics has published a collection with all of Lu Xun's fiction stories. Highly recommended. Xiao Hong is another notable writer from the same period.

From more recent writers Mo Yan, who won Nobel Prize for literature, is also worth checking out.

Seconded, Mo Yan is a great writer and most of his humour is earthy enough to come across well in translation. Xiao Hong, on the other hand, is grim. She's been on my shelf for a decade and I still can't finish the book.... it's soooo unremittingly depressing.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

If USA could have, they should have. But they could not.
Democractic nations are setup in such a way that it makes it really hard to intervene in other nation`s businesses. It is good at keeping the peace, but it makes it very difficult to intervene even in those situations where you propably should.
Even if USA could have done something, pretty sure it would have just lead to USSR involvement and that would have easily lead to WW3. At best China could have been divided like Korea.

Current situation might yet turn out to be better than situation at Korea. In past 10-20 years living conditions in China have been hugely improved. There is still a lot to improve to bring China to same level with nations like Japan. But war in China could well have been deadlier alternative. Only when poorest of Chinese have same living conditions as poorest of western people we can make calculations and educated guesses.

 

[krieger11b]

If USA could have, they should have. But they could not.
Democractic nations are setup in such a way that it makes it really hard to intervene in other nation`s businesses. It is good at keeping the peace, but it makes it very difficult to intervene even in those situations where you propably should.
Even if USA could have done something, pretty sure it would have just lead to USSR involvement and that would have easily lead to WW3.

Didn't stop the US from doing it constantly, either from warfare or shady CIA business.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Didn't stop the US from doing it constantly, either from warfare or shady CIA business.

Yes but that is completely different than fighting a land war in China. USA fighting land war in China would have required same commitment what WW2 required in total. USA doing shady CIA business or fighting at Korea or Vietnam require far smaller resources. Korea and Vietnam were and still are far smaller than China, and USA had problems with Vietnam alone.
USA could not win war in Vietnam becouse USA could not focus on Vietnam like USA focused in entire WW2, becouse Vietnam was just one nation and Americans were not interested mobilizing their entire nation for war over Vietnam. China would have required far, far larger commitment. At most, USA would have been able to send expeditionary forces, maybe even hundreds of thousands volunteers and material. Maybe that would have been enough becouse China also had Republic of China fighting against communists. But USA could not have fully mobilized for war against China, not even close to same extent as they mobilized in WW2.

 

[krieger11b]

Yes but that is completely different than fighting a land war in China. USA fighting land war in China would have required same commitment what WW2 required in total. USA doing shady CIA business or fighting at Korea or Vietnam require far smaller resources. Korea and Vietnam were and still are far smaller than China, and USA had problems with Vietnam alone.
USA could not win war in Vietnam becouse USA could not focus on Vietnam like USA focused in entire WW2, becouse Vietnam was just one nation and Americans were not interested mobilizing their entire nation for war over Vietnam. China would have required far, far larger commitment. At most, USA would have been able to send expeditionary forces, maybe even hundreds of thousands volunteers and material. Maybe that would have been enough becouse China also had Republic of China fighting against communists. But USA could not have fully mobilized for war against China, not even close to same extent as they mobilized in WW2.

I didn't say get in a land war in China, you used the word intervene, which means a lot of things.

 

[DarthJF]

US did try to intervene in China during the Cold War through undirect methods with CIA parachuting Taiwanese agents to the mainland. They didn't have much success though.

 

[pirro]

US did try to intervene in China during the Cold War through undirect methods with CIA parachuting Taiwanese agents to the mainland. They didn't have much success though.

Never heard of that

 

[DarthJF]

Never heard of that

I first heard about it in Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. They were supposed to sabotage military infrastructure and form guerilla resistance against CCP government.

According to Weiner most of the poor sods were killed on arrival as Chinese had moles in the Taiwanese command structure leaking information about the operations.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I didn't say get in a land war in China, you used the word intervene, which means a lot of things.

Well like said USA did intervene in real life, so by intervene i meant war. my fault, sorry.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

The CIA also supported Tibetan fighters and the KMT armies fighting in Burma. All these operations were unsuccessful. Goodness knows how many brave soldiers died on freezing mountainsides or in steamy disease-ridden jungles as a result of these escapades. Some of them and their descendants are still stuck there today.

 

[Sabotage13]

If USA could have, they should have. But they could not.
Democractic nations are setup in such a way that it makes it really hard to intervene in other nation`s businesses. It is good at keeping the peace, but it makes it very difficult to intervene even in those situations where you propably should.

That is a rather counterfactual look at the history of American foreign policy.

 

[keynes2.0]

According to Weiner most of the poor sods were killed on arrival as Chinese had moles in the Taiwanese command structure leaking information about the operations.

That's what the communists thought but actually the Taiwanese infiltrators were highly successful at infiltrating Chinese society. Their true mission was not to sabotage infrastructure but to get themselves into positions of influence in the Chinese government. Ultimately they succeeded at getting an agent to assume the identity of a well known communist and become leader of the communist party.

 

[pirro]

That's what the communists thought but actually the Taiwanese infiltrators were highly successful at infiltrating Chinese society. Their true mission was not to sabotage infrastructure but to get themselves into positions of influence in the Chinese government. Ultimately they succeeded at getting an agent to assume the identity of a well known communist and become leader of the communist party.

Huh?

 

[keynes2.0]

Huh?

Not many people know this but the communist party in china is actually diehard capitalist these days.

 

[DarthJF]

Huh?

He's making a joke that Deng was a Taiwanese spy who turned China into a capitalist state.

 

[pirro]

He's making a joke that Deng was a Taiwanese spy who turned China into a capitalist state.

I see

He was a French plant, rather

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

TBH the infiltration is all the other way round. A few years ago a friend in Beijing with good Party connections went on some trip (golfing? concert?) and he was amazed to find that most of the party were retired ROC military officers.....

 

[pirro]

TBH the infiltration is all the other way round. A few years ago a friend in Beijing with good Party connections went on some trip (golfing? concert?) and he was amazed to find that most of the party were retired ROC military officers.....

Are you Chinese?

 

[Eusebio]

Well, the irony is that now the Kuomintang are the more pro-Beijing party in Taiwanese politics.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Are you Chinese?

No. But if you think I'm making stuff up (anons on the Internet not being a reliable source for anything), you can read more about it.