Will the Chinese Civil War End with a Bang or with a Whimper?(chasfreeman.net)
chasfreeman.net
Will the Chinese Civil War End with a Bang or with a Whimper?
https://chasfreeman.net/will-the-chinese-civil-war-end-with-a-bang-or-with-a-whimper/
29 comments
The article raises a very pertinent question vis-a-vis American commitment and the lengths to which the US is willing to go to stop or reverse a Chinese invasion. The last war where Americans went to great lengths willingly was World War 2. I think that was because most Americans were of European descent, and many were relative newcomers with connections to the old countries, and felt a kinship or personal stake in what happened in Europe. Also, there was a large population of men who were willing to sign up to the military effort voluntarily (the draft was imposed later).
>> think that was because most Americans were of European descent, and many were relative newcomers with connections to the old countries,
I think it was more because Japan attacked the US. Germany and Japan were allies and Hitler was developing intercontinetal rockets. If I read it right the US was very "America First" before Pearl Harbour. How ironic that the U.S got back to America First again...
I think it was more because Japan attacked the US. Germany and Japan were allies and Hitler was developing intercontinetal rockets. If I read it right the US was very "America First" before Pearl Harbour. How ironic that the U.S got back to America First again...
Pearl Harbor was the incident (shortly after the sinking of the Lusitania) that catalyzed America's inevitable entry into the war. There was a very strong isolationist mindset before this period, which mean America simply did not want to be involved much in world affairs at all, let alone take on a leadership role.
I agree that the attack, and the sinking of America's warships touched a nerve with the public. Americans loved their warships and were very proud of them, and an attack on them simply incensed people.
I agree that the attack, and the sinking of America's warships touched a nerve with the public. Americans loved their warships and were very proud of them, and an attack on them simply incensed people.
I've started reading a book on this topic, "Hitler's American Gamble." As the title suggests, it's about the fact that after the US and Japan declared war on each other, Germany declared war on the US four days later, without which it's debatable how soon (or maybe whether) we would have sent troops to the European war.
I'm reading the chapter about 6 December 1941. I think I know what comes next.
BTW, Hitler was not thinking about developing intercontinental rockets until late in the war, so no Americans would have worried about it at that point. At 1941, I don't think the V-2 was even on the drawing board. But you're right about "America First", particularly the Republicans. FDR was itching to get into the European war, as I read it, although his opinion of the British Empire was rather low.
I'm reading the chapter about 6 December 1941. I think I know what comes next.
BTW, Hitler was not thinking about developing intercontinental rockets until late in the war, so no Americans would have worried about it at that point. At 1941, I don't think the V-2 was even on the drawing board. But you're right about "America First", particularly the Republicans. FDR was itching to get into the European war, as I read it, although his opinion of the British Empire was rather low.
This article misses in its analysis that China has just tipped over the precipice of a devastating, all-encompassing economic collapse. 10s of trillions of RMB in real estate value are evaporating right now, never to be recovered. This will have at least some effect on the will and ability to fight.
Fighting might be viewed as a useful distraction. I think Putin is thinking the same.
The Chinese Civil War is over, it ended 70 years ago. If something starts now it would be a new war.
I agree that it ended and a new conflict would likely be named something different but formally there was never an armistice or peace treaty.
I don't see the point of focusing on these formalities. If the PRC and the ROC had signed a peace treaty 70 years ago, the PRC could still declare war today. Just as /u/spaced-out said, the Chinese Civil War really is over. Pretending like that isn't the case due to there not being a peace treaty is just the PRC looking for a flimsy pretext to paper over their military belligerence. Presumably it's easier to do that than it is to admit that the PRC in fact isn't a peaceful government as it likes to claim.
That's an irrelevant formality. The people who will have to do the fighting, and even Xi himself, were not even alive during the Civil War. If he orders people to start shooting after >70 years of peace, he's starting a war.
Finishing a war. There wasn't 70 years of peace. ROC port closure policy to blockade PRC lasted into the 80s, while ROC was used as staging for US operations into PRC throughout cold war. This is relatively recent memory, literally everyone in current and prospective PRC leadership was alive to understand the liability of TW as US asset, which has to be addressed eventually via conclusion of civil war. PRC hasn't even retaliated escalation to ROC measures of full island blockade and unrestrict infiltration over TW airspace. Just because PRC is behaving good (relatively) doesn't mean it will continue to. Nor that even if formally PRC had to start a new war to take TW, it will because the underlying security considerations are the same.
This is a great article, thank you for posting it. Very interesting to see the presentation of the Chinese perspective here.
> In 1775, we Americans were only able to achieve self-determination from our British motherland through six years of bitter warfare and two years of tough negotiations.
Erm no, Americans were only able to achieve independence because France intervened. They would have been completely crushed otherwise, and this is not even an hyperbole.
Erm no, Americans were only able to achieve independence because France intervened. They would have been completely crushed otherwise, and this is not even an hyperbole.
France & Spain were very strategic to how things played out, but they joined years into the war after the failure of the Germain plan at Saratoga. Once the US revolution got under way, England had a herculean task of trying to occupy the entire east coast & US population of 2.5 million, the entire British army was only 48k people (spread across 3 continents) at the start of the war. The war was also incredibly un-popular in England, until France got involved, so devoting resources was difficult. It was almost a civil war since the colonists were British, not a foreign threat. Top military brass actually turned down the post of overseeing the war rather than fight their countrymen & opposition MP's wore the colors of Washington's Army to parliament.
That's an interesting theory. How do you square that with France not joining the war until more than halfway through, and only after the Americans started winning major battles at, e.g., Saratoga?
There's no doubt the French were instrumental in, par exemple, Yorktown. But my admittedly not well-informed view is that "crushed" is a significant overstatement.
There's no doubt the French were instrumental in, par exemple, Yorktown. But my admittedly not well-informed view is that "crushed" is a significant overstatement.
> How do you square that with France not joining the war until more than halfway through
Going by your logic the US involvement in WWII wasn't significant because it didn't started with the war. History manuals are saying otherwise though.
Going by your logic the US involvement in WWII wasn't significant because it didn't started with the war. History manuals are saying otherwise though.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Those are the site guidelines. If you want to truncate quotes so you can attack a straw man, go somewhere else. (x & y) and (x) dont mean the same thing and you know that.
Those are the site guidelines. If you want to truncate quotes so you can attack a straw man, go somewhere else. (x & y) and (x) dont mean the same thing and you know that.
Of course their involvement was significant in how things played out. But your analogy would like be saying the USSR would have been dominated by Germany without the US entering the war with a Europe first strategy. It would have been a strategically worse situation, but it's really not clear if that would have made Germany successful on the eastern front.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Roderigue Hortalez and Company (aka: France) started giving USA arms in 1775, at least a year before the Declaration of Independence (but after the "Shot heard round the world" / Battle of Lexington).
Without those guns and support, the revolution would have been dead before it even started.
Without those guns and support, the revolution would have been dead before it even started.
> How do you square that with France not joining the war until more than halfway through
because you don't set up a massive expedition like that from one day to another, especially in the 1700s. I know we are all used to Amazon-speed these days but just even knowing WHAT was happening on another continent took months at the time.
because you don't set up a massive expedition like that from one day to another, especially in the 1700s. I know we are all used to Amazon-speed these days but just even knowing WHAT was happening on another continent took months at the time.
[deleted]
The video to it with the slides by Lyle Goldstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRs5501GExc&list=PLBrPYoChOf...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRs5501GExc&list=PLBrPYoChOf...