Why did the US...

let the Communists win in the Chinese Civil War?

I often wonder what condition the world would be in today if the US led a full fledged attack against the CPC with the Kuomintang after WWII ended.

And the suspension of monetary aid to Chiang Kai-shek from 46 to 48..:shock:

Synch said:

let the Communists win in the Chinese Civil War?

I often wonder what condition the world would be in today if the US led a full fledged attack against the CPC with the Kuomintang after WWII ended.

And the suspension of monetary aid to Chiang Kai-shek from 46 to 48..:shock:

Click to expand...

The US used to have a general policy of non-intervention in other countries' affairs (at least outside of Latin America, where we have a long history of meddling) if they did not attack us.

Iraq is reminding us once again why that is not a bad general policy to have.

Iriemon said:

The US used to have a general policy of non-intervention in other countries' affairs (at least outside of Latin America, where we have a long history of meddling) if they did not attack us.

Iraq is reminding us once again why that is not a bad general policy to have.

Click to expand...

But would you say our isolationist policy was the ultimate detriment to the world in not interfering in the Chinese Civil War? I'm far from a Bush or Iraq Occupation supporter but if W was president in 46, IMHO the world would be a much better place.

Synch said:

But would you say our isolationist policy was the ultimate detriment to the world in not interfering in the Chinese Civil War? I'm far from a Bush or Iraq Occupation supporter but if W was president in 46, IMHO the world would be a much better place.

Click to expand...

Let's just say we disagree.

Synch said:

let the Communists win in the Chinese Civil War?

Click to expand...

Chiang's government was totally corrupt and ineffective in fighting the Japanese, whereas Mao's people actually did fight. That, along with the fact that the US was pretty tired of war after WWII, seems to make the decision a sound one from the perspective of the time even though it didn't turn out all that well.

For a good reference work, see Barbara Tuchman's Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45.

Diogenes said:

Chiang's government was totally corrupt and ineffective in fighting the Japanese, whereas Mao's people actually did fight. That, along with the fact that the US was pretty tired of war after WWII, seems to make the decision a sound one from the perspective of the time even though it didn't turn out all that well.

For a good reference work, see Barbara Tuchman's Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45.

Click to expand...

This is not entirely accurate.
Chiang's Government was very much responsible for fighting the Japanese during WWII.
However much of the monetary aid that the US gave wound up in the pockets of a plethora of officials in the Nationalist government.
Chiang's government also started to have very close ties with Moscow including educating his son there. The US like that too much as we were ourselves in the begining of communist paranoia. Not to mention that Chiang Jing guo later married a Russian.
Though communist in name, the US found Mao to be much more approachable. While at home during WWII, Chiang sent much of his forces fighting the Japanese, Mao used much of this time spreading communist propaganda - contrast the promise of a better life with the actual events of hard core corruption on the nationalist side it was a no brainer for most Chinese of the era to "try something new".

Now, I'm not too sure if Bush today would have gone over to help the nationalists anymore then Eisenhower did. why? Simply because it may have been in the US's interest back then to have China communist vs nationalist.
Back then both Mao and Chang were totalitarian dictators.

jfuh said:

This is not entirely accurate.
Chiang's Government was very much responsible for fighting the Japanese during WWII.
However much of the monetary aid that the US gave wound up in the pockets of a plethora of officials in the Nationalist government.
Chiang's government also started to have very close ties with Moscow including educating his son there. The US like that too much as we were ourselves in the begining of communist paranoia. Not to mention that Chiang Jing guo later married a Russian.
Though communist in name, the US found Mao to be much more approachable. While at home during WWII, Chiang sent much of his forces fighting the Japanese, Mao used much of this time spreading communist propaganda - contrast the promise of a better life with the actual events of hard core corruption on the nationalist side it was a no brainer for most Chinese of the era to "try something new".

Now, I'm not too sure if Bush today would have gone over to help the nationalists anymore then Eisenhower did. why? Simply because it may have been in the US's interest back then to have China communist vs nationalist.
Back then both Mao and Chang were totalitarian dictators.

Click to expand...

Sending US troops into a civil war in China after WWII would have been just as much a mistake as it was for the French and Americans in Vietnam.

Iriemon said:

Sending US troops into a civil war in China after WWII would have been just as much a mistake as it was for the French and Americans in Vietnam.

Click to expand...

If not much more so.
Which is why I said it was not of vital US interest and more interest to side with Mao who was the seeming winner at the time (turned out to be right).

Each time the US fought with the PLA; bad.
Korean Conflict was going great until McCarther decided he wanted to cross the Ya-Lv River - involving the PLA.
Vietnam, again PLA, though later the PLA fought hard with Red Vietnamese.

jfuh said:

Back then both Mao and Chang were totalitarian dictators.

Click to expand...

True, but I don't think Chiang would've pursued the massive economic reforms that killed far more people than the IJA.

Chiang's government also started to have very close ties with Moscow including educating his son there. The US like that too much as we were ourselves in the begining of communist paranoia.

Click to expand...

Started? He son voluntarily went to Moscow in 1925.

Not to mention that Chiang Jing guo later married a Russian.

Click to expand...

Was the US gov't bigotted and racist back then? Being Russia does not mean being a communist, not to mention most Russians were oppressed at that time..

However much of the monetary aid that the US gave wound up in the pockets of a plethora of officials in the Nationalist government.

Click to expand...

Solution, stop sending money and send in troops..

Though communist in name, the US found Mao to be much more approachable.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying the Truman Administration was seduced by Communist propoganda? How was Mao easier to work with?

It was Chiang who sat with Roosevelt and Churchill in Cairo, Chiang who commanded the military that took the lives of more than 1.5 Japanese Imperalists. The same Chiang who was strictly anti-Communist.

Now, I'm not too sure if Bush today would have gone over to help the nationalists anymore then Eisenhower did. why?

Click to expand...

Eisenhower?

Simply because it may have been in the US's interest back then to have China communist vs nationalist.

Click to expand...

The KMT was already friendly with the US at the beginning of the war, and the Cold War started before the CCW ended. Why wouldn't it be beneficial to US interest to have the largest nation in Asia as an ally?
Maybe it took more of an effort than not prosecuting war criminals, but having China as an ally against Russia is far more advantageous.

Synch said:

True, but I don't think Chiang would've pursued the massive economic reforms that killed far more people than the IJA.

Click to expand...

Hind sight is 20/20. Back then there were no economic reforms or cultural revolution that anyone foresaw happening.
Mao had his cultural revolution, Chiang had his marshal law. Mao killed millions, Chiang killed thousands (on an island with 23million).

Synch said:

Started? He son voluntarily went to Moscow in 1925.

Click to expand...

Again, too close for comfort for the US's paranoid congress in 1946.

Synch said:

Was the US gov't bigotted and racist back then? Being Russia does not mean being a communist, not to mention most Russians were oppressed at that time..

Click to expand...

You're kidding right? We're talking pre-civil rights here. But I don't think that's the point you're driving at.
You're going to need to elaborate more on what you mean by "not mean being a communist"

Synch said:

Solution, stop sending money and send in troops..

Click to expand...

That outcome had already been discussed above with Iremon.

Synch said:

I don't understand what you are saying the Truman Administration was seduced by Communist propoganda? How was Mao easier to work with?

Click to expand...

No not Truman, the Chinese ppl.
Mao was gaining strength and his rule was only a matter of time.

Synch said:

It was Chiang who sat with Roosevelt and Churchill in Cairo, Chiang who commanded the military that took the lives of more than 1.5 Japanese Imperalists. The same Chiang who was strictly anti-Communist.

Click to expand...

the same Chiang who was also ignored upon the war's end begining w/ Yalta and so on. The same Chiang's gov that was corrupt to the teeth, and that's what the Chinese ppl saw, incompetance and injustice, easy prey for Mao's propaganda, especially the rual poor.

Synch said:

Eisenhower?

Click to expand...

my bad, Truman.

Synch said:

The KMT was already friendly with the US at the beginning of the war, and the Cold War started before the CCW ended. Why wouldn't it be beneficial to US interest to have the largest nation in Asia as an ally?
Maybe it took more of an effort than not prosecuting war criminals, but having China as an ally against Russia is far more advantageous.

Click to expand...

I believe simply because the US did not want to get drawn into a large confrontation on a foreign land. The sentiment back then was the the communist did not attack us, thus simply containing them in key tactical places would be enough. Certainly China was a great loss, but it could've been hundreds of thousands of american lives lost only to replace with a totalitarian regime under Chiang. The costs simply would not out-weigh the benefits.

Synch said:

let the Communists win in the Chinese Civil War?

I often wonder what condition the world would be in today if the US led a full fledged attack against the CPC with the Kuomintang after WWII ended.

And the suspension of monetary aid to Chiang Kai-shek from 46 to 48..:shock:

Click to expand...

Umm the CPC had massive popular support