We failed to intervene in the russian civil war, we failed in the chinese civil war, we failed in vietnam. The only example i can think of where we actually managed to defend our ally is south korea, the only remaining US ally in mainland asia. If we had stopped bolshevism before it arose, russia, china, the eastern block, north korea, vietnam, cuba none of these would have existed. Or at least they would never have gotten as powerful as they did. Perhaps even nazism never arises as a result either. The aftermath of ww1 was the decision point that would determine the rest of the 20th century. And we screwed it up, big time. And it only went downhill from there until the end of the cold war.
We need more content on Asian wars. They're often far more lethal than any wars in the West. The Vietnamese fought the Chinese and the Cambodians and still came up on top with 300k casualties inflicted on top. The Iran Iraq war was another middle eastern war fought with World War era doctrine (Chemical and trench warfare) Made an edit to "proportions" to WW era Doctrine
@@tinycockjock1967 Chemical warfare targeting civilians, urban warfare, human wave assaults, child soldiers, and a decade long. That's what everyone pictured world war 3 to look like minus the nukes
@Yarp Yarp Well of course the Iran Iraq War wasn't that catastrophic but neither was the American Civil War yet it was the bloodiest in American History. The point being it was one of the most interesting conflicts to occur due to gradual shift in maneuver warfare. Iran and Iraq fought a conventional war akin to the World Wars much like present day Myanmar could be considered Vietnam 2.0.
I assume it was the Chinese takeover that caused the US to intensify its intervention with Korea and Vietnam. It saw that it’s prior attempt had failed in China and in an effort to prevent further spread went more hardline in dealing with the next two nations to pop up.
Without the the CCP victory in China, the governments of Korea and Vietnam, would of defeated the Communist insurgents without massive US intervention.
@AeonReign Except for the fact its not a fallacy as it literally happened, just as how when you roll a snowball under the right conditions it does get bigger and bigger. Y'know, snowmen.
My grandpa was in the Marines and actually got sent to China in 48-49 as part of an advisor/training battalion. The one big event he could recall, was when the Nationalists officially lost, the Marine Corps issued a command basically telling the different companies of the battalion to get out of Dodge, and regroup in Hong Kong? by any means necessary. For his company, that meant his commander, himself, and 2 other guys holding the train crew at gunpoint and making them run the train through the night to get them there before they were cut off by the Communists.
@weirdo1060 I think it's more a reference to the constant state of civil war as a dynastic government fell and before the next one consolidated power. It wasn't uncommon for a warring state period to last 100 years.
Most people talk about Hitler’s invasion of Poland as the begining of WWII, but the Second Word War had already been raging for years in Asia with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
They also got absolutely smashed by Japan at the end of world war II in their final offensive in China, they could never recover from that apparently. I don't recall the reasons, but if Japan had by chance launched that offensive against the communist forces we might have a very different China today.
@@krysatheo It’s true Chinese communist gained a lot of opportunities by letting nationalist took the front line when fighting Japanese and part of the reason is that they simply don’t have the ability to do so. But Japan did involved with major battles with communist late in the war and heavily damaged them. Mao was royally pissed. Saying nationalist couldn’t recover is not accurate. Early in the civil war nationalists still heavily out numbered communists only when commies did land reforms in large scales later more peasants started to join
@@krysatheo What offensive are you talking about? The Japanese rarely advanced against communist positions, because there weren't any. They held no notable cities for them to take.
@@kenn8924 operation Ichi-Go, but yes in general the nationalists took the majority of japanese attacks while the communists for the most part did not. I think that's a very important fact to mention when discussing how the communists won.
@@krysatheo This is misleading. The communists didn't take fights not because they didn't want to but rather because their numbers were minimal (less than 10 percent of the nationalist force) and too spread out for any organized operations. That's why most of their work was done in sabotaging railways and small scale ambushes. They actually did fight when they had a large grouping, such as the Hundred Regiments Offensive. I must also point out that it is well known in both mainland and Taiwan that Chiang Kai Shek purposely withheld critical American/foreign weapons and aid to save it to fight the communists, which caused mass casualties and severe rifts in the Nationalist coalition (which isn't one group but rather a loose team of rival cliques) since only the central clique under Chiang was recognized for aid, leading to coalition armies suffering the most. Thus contributed heavily to their collapse afterwards.
Not to mention that the Nationalists had a very well trained, very well equipped fighting force. More well trained, experienced and equipped than the Communists by far. The US didn’t expect the Nationalists to lose as by rights they shouldn’t have. The problem is that while the Nationalists controlled the cities the Communists controlled the countryside and just starved the cities out (hence why there are so many dots in Commie held land on those maps) Ultimately the Nationalists were trained to fight like the Japanese while the Communists were trained to fight like guerrilla fighters
The communists were given the industrialized North by Russia while the nationalist only had the poor rural southern regions. They were also given massive amount of grain by the soviets. America did have poor relations with the Kuomintang and ignored them mostly.
Mao during the first 5-10 years the soviets hoped to make China a puppet state. One reason for the victory was also the land reform. That gave land to rural farmers from greedy unfair landlords. Demanding huge taxes. Giving the communists unlimited manpower.
@@ew-uy6cs that’s not true in the slightest 1) The Soviets pillaged Manchuria and stripped the land bare of anything of value 2) They never gave the Communists anything not air support and certainly not weapons 3) The Nationalists held Beijing and Nanking the two most industrialised regions of the nation 4) As the video clearly states the US sent massive amounts of aid to the Nationalists. While the US sent aid to the Communists during WW2 it was nothing compared to what the Nationalists got as simply put it was impossible to reach them until the last few months of the war
@@fireiron369 They gave the communists all Japanese weaponry they could find after the occupation of Manchuria. According to official soucres the Soviets also sent 1 million Russian riffles to the Chinese communists.14000 machine Guns, 600 tanks 4000 artillery pieces. Without the Soviets the communists would have been annhilated.
Forgot to mention public support for the Nationalists are next to nil. The populace viewed them no different than tyrants due to taxation and a crumbling economy. I know that's just too harsh since a lot of warlords and other Nationalist leaders tried to make things better for the common Chinese people. People like Yan Xishan or Feng Yuxiang, warlords who tried their best for their provinces(territories) but a few good men changes nothing. It just buries it on the ground until someone decides to dig their deeds.
One reason for that was the western media that painted the chinese communist as war heroes that pretty much defeated the japanese alone and labeled the nationalist as cowards and barbarians while the reality was pretty much the opposite.
Maybe Taiwan/ROC's _Kuo Min Tang_ (the political party of the Nationalists that exists presently) is rueing that its corruption lost it the people's support in the Chinese civil war?
@@user-lb5ti2tx1w I mean, I think there were alot of things that made both dude who thought he was jesus' brother or whatever feel or think those ways, and more that made so many people follow or believe him(I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Jesus :-p ) but..... the west has been pissing in Chinas wheaties for a long time
@@nathanielsoto4291 Yeah... everyones all "Communists bad... Chinas so self interested and agresive"..... But... like compared to what and who? Sounds like straight propaganda and hypocrisy and lies. Which isnt a pass on the force abortions and the Uighur stuff and the forced organ harvesting(Although I do support the death sentence and fully believe itd be an utter waste of resources not to use the organs, Im almost sure china is not moral about its law enforcement or sentencing, and Im sure many relatively innocent people have died at the hands of that unforgivable abomination of a system...).... but From the dalai lama and the cia, to eveything else with the CIA... the falun gong stuff.... I mean, tell me for one half of one quarter of one milisecond the CIA wasnt using falun gong and thats why shit is how it is with everything and them now.... There are legitimate criticisms against the CCP, but in general, weve been harassing and fucking with and taking advantage of and KEEP shoving back down china, and we have been overtly, aggressively, blatantly, for like 150 years.... If I was china, I wouldnt stop till everyone else who had fucked with me was dead. Mao wasnt the (Only.... necessarily main even) cause of the great famine, and the west has been ruining china on purpose since at least the first opium wars
They did, thats why the US intevened so heavily in korea and vietnam. As much as people criticize the domino theory, in the early stages of the cold war it really was true to a large extent.
I guess it makes sense, people see them as the same but USSR includes all other Soviet socialist republics like the Baltic's, Kazakhstan etc. Russia was one of these but not all of them.
@@fingmoron yes, it is very important to include other nations. It wasn't just "Russians" fighting the Germans, it was Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians etc as well.
The other part of the equation, to compliment the other comments, is that ethnically white Russia was the obvious dominant culture and ethnic group of the Soviet Union that largely had all the power, which is largely the case today in Russia, in comparison with the central Asian people groups who were also under the Soviet Union. Sadly, this cultural dominance and power dynamic is abusively the case for much of today also, with the people groups in eastern Asian Russia, as I understand it.
@@Aaron-zh4kj western Russians look after eastern Russians better than a lot of nations look after their smaller groups. Both are very respectful and loyal to each other. Also the Russian government will straight up mess you up if you try to do the gold for booze trade with the eastern groups, you will get specialists and scary people hunting you down via the Russian government so do not try to.
Theres a photo of my great-grandfather standing on the great wall during from about a month before the war was lost. He was a marine sent to train and provide aid. Story goes that they didn't know the nationalists had lost so when they saw Chinese troops driving towards them they thought it was the supply unit showing up early... until they started shooting. Needless to say they got out of there ASAP.
That’s pretty much bullsht because communists already took control the great wall well before the lost. In fact one of the first things communists did was took control of the north east China and came over the great wall to enter China Proper.
IIRC it was even more complicated than this. Originally, the Nationalists and Communists were on the same side against the Qing Loyalists, and it was only after they successfully drove out the old imperial regime that they turned on each other.
"Stilwell and the American Experience in China" elaborates upon this exact subject for anyone who loves military history, and is curious to see how these events lead up to modern-day relations with China.
Sadly, Barbara Tuchman, an otherwise excellent historian, completely missed the mark. Tuchman only used a narrow range of English-language American sources to pain Joseph Stillwell as some sort of misunderstood prophet that the Pentagon ignored. Stillwell was a terrible general who incompetently commanded his theater of WW2. He failed to do much with Chiang Kai-shek's best soldiers other than get slaughtered in a vain attempt to re-conquer the Burmese jungle.
The kmt was socialist as well and Chiang fucking hated the USA he only allied as a last resort. If kmt won china would be far more aggressive and have more military bases outside china
@@yorktown99 Absolutely true. Other American officers were known to greatly dislike Stilwell's abrasive and unprofessional habits. For example, Stilwell never met with or briefed his replacement in any way, as was customary. Stilwell also refused to communicate or coordinate with anyone. When the Chinese recognized Japan's preparations for Operation Ichi-Go and asked Stilwell to release his Chinese troops from Burma back into China, he flat out refused, resulting in a late-war collapse of Chinese lines. Even worse, he was consistently demeaning, undercutting, and racist towards his Chinese counterparts, something that no other top-ranked American liaison or commander did in all the other fronts and theaters.
The USSR was also supplying the CCP, and because the CCP had their roots in Northern China it was rather easy to get said supplies via the trans-Siberian railway.
If I remember the biggest reason we didn’t intervene was cause of Chang Kai-shek. early into the war general Stilwell and later on George Marshall both came to the conclusion that Chang was abusing his power to such a high degree that sending any more equipment or capital would just get pocketed and not be used affectively similarly like supporting the White Russians during there civil war. Even when chang’s son attempted reforms to gain US backing Chang removed his son from power because he went after his wife’s family for there exploitation.
But he also had limited material to work with, and he needed to regain strength and rebuild instead of just spamming resources and troops he didn’t have. Remember, this was after suffering through World War Two
Wrong they hated him because he was a nazi sympathizer. Also he went to university in Japan and spoke fluent Japanese better than his Chinese. They had his loyalties in question. Did you know Chiang still wanted to negotiate with Japan during the war? But his own party kidnapped him and forced him to ally with communists
Stilwell got fired. Weydemayer worked very well with Chiang. The US wanted a peace deal between CCP and KMT and under-estimated the level of support he CCP was getting from the USSR. It embargoed KMT and forced Chiang to halt his offensive - costing him the war.
Americans helping the Chinese nationalist is actually a very interesting story. A lot of American citizens volunteered to fight with them like you see people doing in Ukraine today. The all American volunteer fighter squadron called “the flying tigers” are the most known group of these American mercenaries. Commanded by retired U.S. Army Captain Claire L. Chennault and consisting of active American pilots from the USAAC, USN, and USMC. Their length of operations only lasted from 12/18/1941 - 07/04/1942, but their service records were still undoubtably impressive. With being credited for taking down roughly around 450-500 Japanese planes while only losing a small number of their own, which was around 60 or 70 I believe. Definitely worth the research, you won’t be disappointed.
The Americans wouldn't look good fighting for fascists the roc still had a lot of nazi equipment from the 3rd righ. They did already send a lot to the kmt and already sent generals to stand in place of the deserters there but it wasn't enough since no one in china supported them
The AVG was basically the US's version of the PVA. They were "retired" USAAC pilots in the sense they were discharged from service to work for the NRA as the US was not officially at war with Japan at the time.
Also, China was a major reason why we began to intervene in Asia more. Politicians intervened because they didn’t want what happened in China to happen again in Korea and Vietnam
And interesting enough, the reason China was so aggressive towards the U.S. during the Korean War was because of that intervention, and I can’t really blame them given with MacArthur was trying to do. In the Little Red Book, Mao specifically made a note about how China would continue to push back against the U.S. until the US packed up and left SK
wait, so Taiwan to China is what the Confederate States of America was to the United States of America? didn't we use military force to annex them in the end?
@@slslbbn4096 Much like Shu-Han during Three Kingdom period that Taiwan-ROC be like as a remain part of previous unity regime the Han or Chinese republic.
@@slslbbn4096 yes except in this case the confederates fleed to hawaii and set up their own goverment, so now are they still a part of the US or a different country altogether?
@@herrwolf5184 also in this case, China puts a guarantee on Hawaii and promises to attack the USA if it tries to retake Hawaii. Then it starts calling Hawaii a glorious socialist paradise.
You should cover the Beheading War (aka Federalist Revolt) in Southern Brazil. I am currently reading a book about it and it is very interesting, it would be very cool to see you talk about it.
@@domeniczattraytofficial4592 "Narrativas Militares: a Revolução do Rio Grande do Sul" by José Carvalho Lima. My comment is a year old but, still a good book nonetheless.
Not to but actually you (I greatly respect your work), but the main issue was the fact that the Nationalists treated the Chinese people terribly and were corrupt/inept. Despite having the Communists surrounded, Mai was able to escape and regroup, while simultaneously rallying the mistreated masses to his cause. Yes, the US didn’t provide as much support, but that wasn’t the central reason for the failure by the Nationalists.
If you're talking about the Long March, that was intentional. Chiang wanted to force the CCP from Jiangxi and chase them through Sichuan to give himself an excuse to extend his control to the Province. When the local governor failed to defeat the CCP, he asked Chiang to send his troops into the province to chase them to Yan'an. This gave Chiang Chongqing as a base of operations for him to fallback to during the war with Japan.
Can't wait for your alternate-history content I love alternate history I'm currently making for stories / novels the one I'm putting the most amount of work on is the German Japanese empire or German Japanese Union getting good
Generally "Chinese Civil War" refers to the most recent one. There were other Civil Wars in the past, but those are all described with different names, usually as revolts or Rebellion.
I could be wrong but, didn’t the communists forge some kind of alliance with the nationalists to fight off the Japanese, leaving the nationalists to do most of the fighting so they could just take over after the Japanese were driven out?
Yes. The Nationalists leader wanted to defeat the remaining Communists but the popular opinion swayed against him. "Chinese shouldn't fight Chinese" or so the saying went if I recalled right. The end result both sides joined the fight. However since the Nationalists had actual fighting capacity what they lost was greater than the Communists who just recuited more rural peasants for the cause. Source: My memory worth of Wiki reading.
Well that's on ww2. But after the war as if you can trust the commies not breaking their promise. Even Mao thank Imperial Japan for almost wiping the nationalist forces in ww2. If the West really did intervene their we wouldn't have this silly situation in Asia with Mainland bullying small island nations
@@pauloazuela8488 Actually I recall an incident when the west did interfere between the Nationalists and Communists. Basically the communist were all but done for, they had their last strategic supple town or city that all the nationalist generals were bent on taking. But then the US shows you, ignorant of the complexity of Chinese politics and convinced the Nationalists leader not that take that town else the US will be withdrawing support. Not sure where this fits timeline wise.
Not the nationalist Communists didn't have enough men to mount a sizable resistance Kmt didn't deploy their men either and left warlords most of the time unless you count having the expedition forces fucked but that was the english's problem
My grandpa was a US marine in China during this time after WW2. He almost got his head hit by a sniper (his helmet left shrapnel in his skull) and saw the fall of Beijing to the communist forces waiting on the horizon as they were withdrawing from the city.
Not implying your grandpa but you may want to check some of the things the American marines did in Beijing and you'd understand why the Communists won so much domestic support...
@@thatguynoonelikes4865 basically in countries still controlled by western European colonialists and countries geographically in the same hemisphere with the US
@@ernestkhalimov1007 that is true that is true I wouldn't call those revolutions though it was more like a single political movement pops up that looks slightly socialist and then the US decides "okay time to destroy the entire country & put in a dictator"
@@NeostormXLMAX Why chinese and russians dont learn western history. Why do "Anglo's" have a special obligation to hold themselves to a higher standard. I don't doubt one should learn history in the broadest context possible, but does that have to with one's ethnicity?
oversimplified said this the best: US: "you know who I haven't check in a while? my good friend, China!" *republic of china in the background burning* US: "woah what happened to you?"
I just realized that the failure to stop the communist conquest of China could have informed Domino Theory. Someone sees the communists take power in China and says "we definitely don't want THAT to happen again." Doesn't justify anything, but it shows their thinking at the time.
After the CCP took over China: the communist in N Korea invaded S. Korea. the communist in N. Vietnam invaded & conquered S. Vietnam. The CCP supported Communist invaded & conquered Laos & Cambodia. CCP supported Marxist took over Burma. There were Communist insurgency in India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Seeing millions of chinese get murdured by their own people in the name of 'progress', like Russians before them, doesn't justify stopping that from happening again?
@@chingis1154 didn't happen because if it did every thing in Asia would be communist because of it, stop supporting pro imperialist propaganda unless you want you and your kids to die in another jungle
@@chingis1154 “fell” implies bad. Communism was the answer to the horrific living conditions brought by western imperialism. The US/NATO sought to maintain that suffering and this opposed the solution (communism)
I think during that time they were more focused on Europe than China because as we all know. Europe is known as the geopoltical mess and the US was trying to fix that.
The soviets helped the communists far more than America helped the nationalists. They gave Manchuria to the communists. They also sent grains and helped the chinese communists. Truman mistrusted the nationalists and once called them "damn thieves".
I doubt the nationalists would be any different from the CCP today thou. Chang Kai Sheks son was a devout socialist and communist and studied in Moscow and married a White wife. He would probably adopt similar policies to the modern CCP earlier. Since he understood the importance of investments. But then again since both Mao and Chang Kai Shek were authoritarian socialists I do not see what America would have gained commiting itself to the nationalist side full scale. Since Changs son already was friendly with the Russians.
@@ew-uy6cs Look of difference between Taiwan and China today. The reason the CCP wants to destroy Taiwan, is because Taiwan shows what all of China could have been.
@@ew-uy6cs Chiang Kai Shek? A socialist? Now that's funny. Just because he bullied capitalists into giving him resources doesn't mean he's a socialist. He's just anti-capitalist. Otherwise fascism, monarchism, and anarchism are all the same as state socialism just because each hate western-styled free market capitalism.
The Chinese civil war was so much more complicated than "nationalists vs communists" The qing dynasty collapse triggered a succession war involving many different belligerents, with the communists being just one side of many. Lucky for them, the infighting on the nationalist side gave them a big advantage. Oh and it began before WW2, was put on pause during the war, and only later was concluded.
@@attran720f yes. I have read several incidents in which the Chinese Communists despite having more men and decent equipment fled fights against the Japanese.
Yeah like Chang Kai-Shek was captured by a communist militia and Mao after asking Stalin decided to release him in exchange for a ceasefire between nationalists and communists against the japanese
@@attran720f half of that was correct tho, the communist saved most of their strength while the nationalists did most of the work, I mean just look at the death tolls
this is vastly over generalizing the war. the nationalists were disunited and often sold their war materiel to fill warlords coffers. this is to the point that even when they're losing the war, disloyal commanders simply refused to participate or even switched sides. the communists on the other hand had poor equipment but were solidly united. they were almost eradicated by 1946-47, but their recruitment effort of poor, famished farmers eventually outpaced the nationalists.
This can also be seen as a turning point in American sentiments towards intervention. Politicians in power at the time had to deal with the political fallout of losing China to the communists. This is thought to be the reason why so many presidents decided to continue fighting the war in Vietnam, and tried to insure no other countries were “lost” to communism.
I mean, basically that and if China had not fallen to communism, it's very unlikely Communism in these other neighboring states would have succeeded. A lot of military aid flowed to Korea and Vietnam through China.
As a Chinese, the speech of some Americans who want to drop nuke on Chinese soil really scares me, and I understand why they were performing such violent acts in Afghanistan and Syria
Don't worry bro these Fat fast food ded brain illiterates won't dare a thing lmao theirs father,brothers were Brutally blowj into pieces in during afgan abd middle east war they won't dare to Attck the nation with nuke + Hypersonic one😉...
@@whosaidthat84 China is committing a genocide against its own Muslim population and wants to talk about American policy in the Middle East, give me a fuckin break 😂, CCP clowns
For a more detailed explaination. The Nationalists had two types of armies. The central army, these are well trained, well disciplined and is only loyal the the KMT. While the mercenaries and warlords regional army isnt very loyal. After the conflict with Japan, KMT lost their best troops and that is why they signed a non-aggression pact with the communist So how the communists won? 1. They broke the treaty 3 days after the treaty was signed and took the nationalists by surprise. This is the same method how the Japanese bombed Pearl Habor so easily and rendered Americans helpless. 2. The nationalists were supported by the Americans while the Communists received support from Soviet. A debt that had to paid back heavily in the 60s and 70s. 3. The nationalist leader JiangKiaShek was not as a good of military strategist as the comminist leader MaoZeDong 4. By controlling the rural regions of China, MaoZeDong was able to starve the nationalists and cut down on their food supplies. 5. As mentioned before, the KMT lost millions of well trained fighters during its war against Japan. Drained most of their resources. There has been record of MaoZeDong saying "we are in control of this nation is all thanks to the Japanese"
WW2 play a pretty big role in the balance itself. A large chunk of natonalist forces were fighting japan and forced to relocate to that front while Communist forces were able to gather strength and take territory that was now weakly guarded on the other side of the country. The main focus for the allies in the area during ww2 was japan and as such resources in the pacific were directed towards destroying japan when possible. Post ww2, not only was the focus on Russia and concerns about them taking over europe but the citizens were glad to be done with a war and supplies were already spent or scattered to different fronts that were now closing but would take time to be collected, resupplied and shipped out again.
The Communist mostly taken rural land from Japanese occupied zone. So the claim that communists fought behind the shield of the Nationalists is just bullshit.
Also, they were not really interested in defending China and Korea -only Japan at that specific moment, Tokyo was a vital ally against the Soviet Union. But also, it wasn’t that easy intervening in China in favor of Chiang Kai-shek because high ranking officials in the U.S. government were reluctant to do so. That was because of corruption and financial inefficiencies of the CKS government
US didn't intervene because nobody wanted to fight another war in 1945, especially not in China. The US wanted the KMT and CCP to strike a peace and forced the KMT to halt its offensives through the use of diplomacy and embargoes. This made it impossible for the KMT to secure the military equipment it needed and eventually lost several critical engagements in 1948 that effectively destroyed its military.
@@taoliu3949 Yes, that's true. The U.S. tried to create a coalition government with CKS as president and with both the KMT and the CCP in the governing body. But it was CKS himself who betrayed the communists, and let struggle start over. Yet, I refer to this particular time in history in 1946-1947 when KMT was again at war with the communists that the U.S. government did not want to give their total support to Chiang Kai-shek because, in the first place, it really wasn't in their interest to have a total grip in Asia but in Japan to fight the soviets. In fact, officials in the State Department barely knew where Korea was, according to records of the time: that is why they proposed Stalin to divide the peninsula through the 48th parallel, 'cause they noted it split Korea in two almost perfect halfs. But also, it was Secretary of State George Marshall who after his tour in China, in addition to the Dixie Mission, who informed President Truman that it wasn't a good idea to support such a corrupt and unstable government as Chiang Kai-shek's. To support this, they didn'y really identify Red China as a real threat until the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, when President Eisenhower and Chiang Kai-shek signed the 1955 Mutual Defense Agreement, in which the White House specifically pledged military support in case of a China invasion due to the Domino Effect theory, in which we could also add South Korea and which was the basis for tolerating corrupt and rabid anticommunist governments in East Asia. If either Taiwan or South Korea falled to the hands of communists, they thought, the rest of Asia would "surely" follow
@@taoliu3949 Also, we should not forget that during the first phase of the Chinese Civil War in 1927 and until 1946-1947, the communists had enough time to retrieve, and specialize their forces so they became a formidable enemy for the National Revolutionary Army (the KMT forces). Through perfectly executed military tactics and guerilla warfare, Mao and the nine Marshalls (namely Zhu De and Peng Dehuai, but if I'm not mistaken, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were also good at organizing guerrilla forces) outsmarted the KMT and finally took over the country. It's such a pleasure to talk to someone about this. I'm a great fan of East Asia history, given that in my country these kind of studies do not receive too much attention but in certain colleges. Greetings from Mexico!!
@@pacogonzalez952 CKS did not "betray" the CCP. The CCP were invited to draft the new Constitution, which they initially partook in, and many of their demands were written into the Constitution. However, the CCP kept dragging things out and eventually boycotted the process so the KMT ended up ratifying the Constitution without them. Ironically, the PRC Constitution ended up being more similar to what the KMT originally wanted, which shows you exactly where their intents lie. CPP was only identified as a threat when they got involved in the Korean War. During the Civil War they were regarded as being "not real communists" and as such not a concern on it becoming a puppet of the USSR. Prior to the Korean War, the US had effectively abandoned the KMT to its doom. However, prior to 1948, it was not expected that the KMT would collapse, and the US utilized various ways diplomatically to force the KMT to stop offensives against the CCP including enacting an embargo that effectively prevented the KMT from procuring necessary equipment and arms to support its military. The 34th parallel proposition was developed in haste due to the lack of time on figuring out where to split Korea. The USSR declared war on Japan 8 Aug and advanced quickly through Manchuria, and the proposition was submitted to the USSR on 10 Aug to which the USSR agreed. In otherwords, it was either submit a proposition now or don't bother. The US had been fighting Japan for 4 years, they knew absolutely where Korea was. Otherwise they would not have had the idea to divide it in the first place.
A close friend of my father was a US Marine, stationed on the coast in the late 1940s. After WW2, the Marines were deployed to northern China to secure the surrender of the Japanese and turn local government over to the Nationalists. As the Civil War began to swing towards the Communists, these Marines were controversially withdrawn. (Incidentally, this was part of the origin of the 'Red Scare' in the United States, fueling the baseless suspicion that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had infiltrated the government of the United States.)
@@joshuapaul359 An overwhelming amount of it was absolutely baseless even if he was 'right' for some of the people he pursued and regardless, he broke the law and constitution doing so.
Take a look around right now and tell me it was 'baseless'. It's just like YuriB. said. Several generations of social science and educational influence later, nobody actually knows what fashism is and many think com'nism is good when they are both wings on the same bird BUT one if them is a useful buzzword for the other. We have politicians pretending they aren't C or F while operating by the Playbook, and the famous scapegoating that soci'lism based gov'ment needs to get anywhere is well and alive while our food production is being set ablaze and most of our money launder'd into their soc'list pockets thru GUESS WHAT Yell'wBlue land Even though they still launder plenty locally without foreign corruption help, it's really easy to do it this way out in the open. Ask previous mercs and volunteers who went over there to help just how much of that is actually going to help em.
America didnt intervene since the CCP during the Civil War was outmatched, massively. The Kuomintang had control over almost all of modern China, and Manchuria was under Soviet Occupation. The CCP had to rely on starving out the major cities of the Kuomintang and Guerilla Warfare to be able to win. America didnt intervene since they thought the Kuomintang was going to win without American backing. The Kuomintang was bigger, had the stronger military, and had all the resources they needed thanks to their control over all of China. There was no way in America's mind that the Kuomintang could lose, yet they did. Had America intervene, they'd probably seperate China into 2 considering the Soviets would've intervened as well.
The Americans intervened and had the KMT and CPC hold peace talks in Chongqing, because the Communists proposed a two party democracy which was hugely popular with the Americans, much more than the corrupt one party authoritarian KMT. But as soon as the US left, the KMT attacked as Chiang believed he could do "whatever he wanted, however he wanted", since his forces outmanned the Communists 5 to 1 and had much superior American weapons. Neither the KMT nor the Americans, not even the Communists themselves expected the CPC to survive, or win the civil war in just 3 years.... Toward the end of the Chinese Civil War, the US did want to help the KMT, but it was too late.
No, the US had guns. They just refused to give/sell them to the KMT. An arms embargo was levied on the KMT which made it impossible for the KMT to procure sufficient arms which ended up being detrimental to their war effort.
I don't think any country expect India has enough people to fight a China scale war. Their wars tend to scale ridiculously. You had more than enough guns though. The US always has more than enough guns
Ngl but this has to be one of America's biggest regret tbh, If the nationalist would've won. The Korean and Vietnam war would've ended in Southern victory. However there still would've been disputes between China and India also in the South China Sea
Thanks for covering this. This is by far the most simple and straightforward answer : Because China didn't really matter that much for the US at that time. Obviously, fast forward 50 years, everything changed.
Not even 50 years Chinese retaliation in Korea is what put China back on the map on the international stage. China acquiring nukes in the 60s And Nixon establishing relations with China in the early 70s
A more interesting point was that American failure in China led to the decision for direct intervention in Korea and Vietnam. If American limited intervention in China succeeded then they would have pursued the same policy later.
Fun Fact: At the end of the fighting in the pacific, some of the Marines (many of them who fought at Okinawa) were transported to China and became guards. Eugene Sledge was one of the many of his unit (K/3/5) who were China while the civil war was going down
The US also actually thought the Communists to be genuine good guys because CCP-controlled areas during WWII, by virtue of being largely ignored by regular Japanese forces and left to unwilling collabourationist forces, were more peaceful and prosperous than Nationalist-controlled areas that bore the brunt of the Japanese offensive. In 1946 the US cut off fuel and maintenance to the weapons they supplied to the Nationalists in hope of forcing the Nationalists to the negotiation table. The problem with that plan is that CCP then saw no need to negotiate with the thrice-weakened KMT (between the Sino-Japanese war and this, there was also a disastrous economical reform and demobilization).
IIRC, the problem wasn’t the US not giving enough supplies or not intervening enough. The Nationalists just sucked REALLY bad at not losing horribly. Corruption, poor leadership, despotism, internal fractionalization, etc.
We intervened to remove Japanese imperial control of China (massive effort). We supported both Communists and Nationalists during WWII (the Chinese Civil War started before WWII), then meekly transitioned our support from ‘both sides’ to just one side (a bit too late) by the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War (which resumed after the conclusion of WWII).
as a Chinese I'm telling you: it's not a civil war，when the qing dynasty collapsed，republic china never took the whole country，there were so many war lords in each province（even the war lords claimed they were the nationalist party too），the communist part and the nationalist party（sun yat sen and chang kai shen in guangzhou province） were working together to build a new china，this is so called “the people's democratic revolution”，but chang kai shen betrayed this goal causing war lords never been swiped out from china and the japanese invasion，the communist party and people republic of china is finishing the revolution goal，it's still not finished yet
Because the Soviets weren’t really massive supporters of North Korea Only really supplying aircraft and the go ahead It was mostly China who supported North Korea and one of the reasons for the Sino-Soviet Split was because Mao saw himself as the saviour of Communism (especially after losing his eldest son defending North Korea)
@@fireiron369 that's not why. They were boycotting the UN because they wanted the PRC to be recognised as the legitimate government and get the Security Council seat. They would have veto'd it if they weren't
My father, who went through this entire scenario said that in reality, both the communists and nationalists were the same in their form of governing. They both had good and bad leaders, the people were treated both good and bad and most important of all, they shared the same dictatorship system. The bias Americans took against the communists was completely unfair since the governing policy of both parties were the same, only difference being that the communists are trained by the soviet union. America wasn't even trying to help the people, they were just hoping for collaboration of the nationalists in the eastern front(had they have won).
Exactly. US interference actually caused more casualties of people as they picied the unfavored side to support. This is actually another type of dictatorship: group of people made decisions on unclear intelligence on one side of earth, and then on the other side of earth people have to pay thousands and thousands more lives to overturn that stupid "interference"
Yes and no. US State Department had Communist sympathizers and actively worked to sabotage KMT military efforts against the PLA. The hostility against the CCP didn't become a thing until the 50s during the Red Scare and Korean War, and even then that was only the populist side of things. In reality the administration actively worked to improve relations with the PRC because the real enemy was the USSR.
After Marshall mission, they refused to supply the Nationalists until they got driven out to Taiwan. The US even tried to help to reach a ceasefire between the Communists and the Nationalists. Because Chiang’s government really wasn’t popular and there were huge waves of pro-democratic movements against the KMT at the time. The communists also got a lot of support from liberals and pro-democratic students (whom they made a lot of effort to won over but later sidelined and persecuted them after winning the civil war). It was a hopeless choice between two shitty governments. People learned a lot about the darker side of Chiang Kai Shek’s rule but they didn’t know much about Mao. Intervening in supplying the KMT didn’t have popular support, not to mention it will piss off the Soviets.
@@mmking9517 It was different. The government of First Republic of Korean were exiled military officers and supporters of old Korean royal family, they founded the country entirely by the help of the West, didn’t demonstrate much brutality when Korean war broke out, and North Korea attacked them unprovoked. Chiang Kai Shek had always been a rogue character. He turned the Republic of China from a semi-democratic regime to a full dictatorship, not a stern ally of the West. He tried to ally with Nazi Germany and at some point even the USSR supported KMT more than the weak CCP. KMT was quite nationalistic. He and his son who succeed him position only became an ally of the US and later compromised to the pro-democratic movements in Taiwan, because they had no choice, and the Chinese Nationalists who followed Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan didn’t have enough power to remain in control. On the other hand, remember that today’s South Korea is the Sixth Republic. It went through multiple dictatorships, famines, coups and brutally crushed democratic movements that made Tiananmen Square looked like a picnic. Eventually reaching the developed state it is today.
@@svyalinirnhut890 Chiang didn't turn anything into a dictatorship. The KMT was ran as a dictatorship by Sun and Chiang basically took over after he came to power. If anything, Chiang's control over the party weakened when the Warlords were absorbed after the Northern Expedition. Chiang more or less followed Sun's instructions to the letter and made democratic reforms culminating in the 1946 Constitution (the same Constitution in effect in Taiwan today, albeit with amendments). Nor was Sun a "western ally". Sun's biggest foreign ally was probably the USSR and reorganized the party on Lenist grounds when he returned to China after being exiled to Japan by Yuan. Chiang was probably closer to Western governments due to his hatred for Communism. The KMT remained in power for 2 Presidential terms post-Martial Law. It lost the election in 2000 because the party fractured and votes were split between Soong and Lien. They would win back the Presidency in 2008. This is characteristic of US politics where parties typically switch off every 8 years. Also, the Korean government was VERY brutal towards their own citizens during the Korean War. Basically any association with the Communists could get you executed.
The communists got Manchuria in the early war, if you didn’t know, Manchuria back then had a gdp ten times that of China proper, the city of Dalny alone produced 70% of all gun powder and artillery shells in China. Yes on the map it seems like the nationalists got 90% of the land but most of those lands were basically still in the Iron Age, the communists on the other hand got the industrialized/ modernized Manchuria, and it also happened to be surrounded by the Soviet Union on all three sides but south, so all they needed to do was just to push south, breach the Great Wall, after that China basically falls by itself, like so many times before in history. The nationalists wouldn’t have any chance no matter the US help them or not.
Fun fact that Europeans were actually thinking up of dividing up try not like they did with Africa but an American I think Tradesmen convince him to keep trying to around to keep the status quo spearing China from European conization
You could argue China becoming communist was what made America so interventionist. They started to take communist expansion much more seriously and preventing it at any cost
As a history teacher once said to me, the Iron Curtain in hindsight worked really well. The Bamboo curtain? Fell apart any time communism so much at looked at Asia. And a lot of it was cultural.
The great irony was that the USA ended up funding the Communists and the Soviet Union supported the Nationalists. An ideological inversion if ever the was one. Mao never forgave Stalin for helping Chiang Kai-Skek, although it doubtless helped the bromance between Nixon and Mao many years later.
As a Palestinian I think Americans intervening with any war in the world is horrible idea (I'm sorry for the American people but you really can't blame me for this opinion)
There was nothing for Chiang to steal. The US had enacted an arms embargo post war which made it impossible for the NRA to secure military arms to support their war against the PLA.
@@democraticrepublicofsprout7263 Like I said, there was very little to steal. The total amount of military aid sent to China post 1945 was minimal. The KMT was basically fighting with leftover equipment and ammo from WWII and what they took from surrendering Japanese troops.
and if I remember this fed heavily into the domino theory, making it mainstream and shaping U.S. and Western foreign policy for years. Korean War, Vietnam partcipation being the more famous results of domino theory.
Wrong wrong wrong, “the USA was too busy in Europe.” is a gross oversimplification. The Soviets invaded Manchuria at the end of WW2 and disarmed the Japanese Army. But instead of giving the territory back to the Nationalists, they gave control to the Chinese communists, including all the weapons they seized. Stalin also supplied Mao Zedong with direct military aid. The US at this point was upset with Chang Kaishek for corruption (millions $$$ in lend-lease) and in-fighting with the other warlords. The Nationalist army had also done the brunt of the fighting against Japan and had exhausted themselves. The citizens of the major cities were tired of civil war and being taxed. Meanwhile the communists hid in the mountains and built up popular support. Truman and his generals assumed the Nationalists could hold-out the same way against the Japanese. By the time the Communists went on the offensive, the balance of power had already shifted, and it was too late to intervene.
Imagine what? They can't. The KMT was deeply unpopular for the Hainanese natives, who turned to communists before they even arrived. Unless you're saying the KMT should have murdered and displaced more natives.
Fun fact:the Chinese “civil” war wasn’t actually a civil war and how communist China won? Well while ROC was fighting alone with communist China the communist China got helped from Soviet Union and North Korea
The nationalists essentially lost because they had drained themselves in an attrition war against the Japanese. When the Japanese withdrew, Mao's rebels swooped in. At one point, a Japanese official privately apologized to Mao for the invasion, only for Mao to joke they did him a favor
There was also the issue of actually somehow supplying it to them. Communists took all the ports so eventually it got to a point where they just literally couldnt get supplies to the nationalists.
Well, U.S also intervened more after China due to losing one of their biggest allies. America didn’t realize the idea of “heavens mandate,” they thought it was just a small revolt. But, it’s part of why China is so volatile and has had so many different empires. When the country(empire) goes through poor experiences, the ruling power is often blamed(it usually is their fault), and the need and motivation for a new ruling power to pass the heavens mandate to arises. In this case, Communist China quickly grew from a small rebellion to an outright civil war. Later, when proc took control, the difference is, Mao was fully aware of this idea and had extremely strict regulations in response. When a terrible situation like the great leap forward happened which killed millions, any revolts that occurred were crushed with an iron fist. The cycle has repeated many times, thriving economy, corruption, suffering, rebellion, new ruler, and repeat. PROC knows this and thus tries their best to keep an iron grip and maintain their power. It is interesting to imagine as to what would have happened if America joined the Chinese civil war. I could see an evenly split China, a struggling to develop china, or a japan/roc superpower China, or a mix of all. But yeah, would have changed a lot of future events. North korea wouldn’t exist, and russia would be isolated.
America has no business stopping the 'spread' of anything. It needs to respect the sovereignty of other nations and let them figure out for themselves the kind of government they want.
The problem these "other nations" don't respect America's or other nations sovereignty either despite claiming to do so. So by not interfering a bigger and more dangerous mess is created because when some nations abuse, destabilize and conquer other nations who are friendly or trade partners to America, it affects the economy of America, it destroys trade routes and helps create scenarios where a more dangerous future enemy can come into existance.
@JohnDoe-jg7gi this is a dammed if you do dammed if you don't and doing nothing is the US' best course. The US is in the same position as Britain was pre-ww1 except there isn't a new world to bail out the declining power. Britain intervened in the continent with that same line of thinking, to protect their empire only to lose it because they intervened in the continent.
@@JohnDoe-jg7gi Going to war to protect a trade partner is one thing. Overthrowing a government in a illegal coup because you want their lithium, or because they owe your oil corpos money, or because you just don't like a particular ideology is entirely another. America does a lot of the latter, and no one is dumb enough (except Iraq in 1994) to provoke the former.
Dont forget to check out my podcast the history of everything and the RUclips page for it ruclips.net/video/C90K0PFYH6M/видео.html
TLDR-> They tried to
Bless Your Perfection
Praise the true creators 🙌
Why are we talking about west Taiwan
@matthew cherrington
Pft nothing bad ever happens to Chi- *AAAHHHH*
*disappears
We failed to intervene in the russian civil war, we failed in the chinese civil war, we failed in vietnam.
The only example i can think of where we actually managed to defend our ally is south korea, the only remaining US ally in mainland asia.
If we had stopped bolshevism before it arose, russia, china, the eastern block, north korea, vietnam, cuba none of these would have existed. Or at least they would never have gotten as powerful as they did. Perhaps even nazism never arises as a result either.
The aftermath of ww1 was the decision point that would determine the rest of the 20th century. And we screwed it up, big time.
And it only went downhill from there until the end of the cold war.
We need more content on Asian wars. They're often far more lethal than any wars in the West. The Vietnamese fought the Chinese and the Cambodians and still came up on top with 300k casualties inflicted on top. The Iran Iraq war was another middle eastern war fought with World War era doctrine (Chemical and trench warfare)
Made an edit to "proportions" to WW era Doctrine
The history of modern Asian wars is just cold, brutal and unpleasant. Few lessons were learned, and little justice was dealt.
That’s not really world war proportions just first world war tactics
@@tinycockjock1967 Chemical warfare targeting civilians, urban warfare, human wave assaults, child soldiers, and a decade long. That's what everyone pictured world war 3 to look like minus the nukes
@Yarp Yarp Well of course the Iran Iraq War wasn't that catastrophic but neither was the American Civil War yet it was the bloodiest in American History. The point being it was one of the most interesting conflicts to occur due to gradual shift in maneuver warfare. Iran and Iraq fought a conventional war akin to the World Wars much like present day Myanmar could be considered Vietnam 2.0.
More people more death come now
I remember when General MacArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War
Should have nuked the place when he got the chance
Truly, a visionary.
Would have a lot less problems now
The comments really worry me
Ah yes are we forgetting the fact the ussr also had nukes and the us president didn’t want the world to end crazy right
I assume it was the Chinese takeover that caused the US to intensify its intervention with Korea and Vietnam. It saw that it’s prior attempt had failed in China and in an effort to prevent further spread went more hardline in dealing with the next two nations to pop up.
In some ways yes but it wasn’t the fall of China specifically
It was the fear that India would later fall too because of the Domino Effect
Sometimes, a fallacy isn't inaccurate.
Without the the CCP victory in China, the governments of Korea and Vietnam, would of defeated the Communist insurgents without massive US intervention.
@AeonReign Except for the fact its not a fallacy as it literally happened, just as how when you roll a snowball under the right conditions it does get bigger and bigger. Y'know, snowmen.
That’s why we became such good buddies with Japan after WW2. Because of communism
My grandpa was in the Marines and actually got sent to China in 48-49 as part of an advisor/training battalion. The one big event he could recall, was when the Nationalists officially lost, the Marine Corps issued a command basically telling the different companies of the battalion to get out of Dodge, and regroup in Hong Kong? by any means necessary.
For his company, that meant his commander, himself, and 2 other guys holding the train crew at gunpoint and making them run the train through the night to get them there before they were cut off by the Communists.
Interesting
Woof, while that's a rough time for the train crew I'm glad your grandpa got out.
In the end it all goes back to communist
Yeo that is sick
Holy shit. That's wild man.
When you said Chinese civil war, I immediately asked which one.😂
It was a two part civil war...with WW2 in-between.
@weirdo1060 I think it's more a reference to the constant state of civil war as a dynastic government fell and before the next one consolidated power. It wasn't uncommon for a warring state period to last 100 years.
@@weirdo1060 Bro, China has like thousand civil wars throughout its history. China held the title for the country with the most civil wars 🤣🤣
@@NguyenTran-mf9gj Indonesian states joined the chat
@@afdalridwan3813 indonesian nationalism didnt exist until 1900s, its inter ethnic war, not civil war
Most people talk about Hitler’s invasion of Poland as the begining of WWII, but the Second Word War had already been raging for years in Asia with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.
No, WW2 began all the way back in 1918 with the Treaty of Versailles
@@JamesJome123 Nah, WW2 began 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs paved the way for humans.
@@zack2804 Nah, WW2 began with a big bang.
That was a war between two nations. That wasn't a world war.
the nationalists were also highly incompetent and unpopular with the rural population.
They also got absolutely smashed by Japan at the end of world war II in their final offensive in China, they could never recover from that apparently. I don't recall the reasons, but if Japan had by chance launched that offensive against the communist forces we might have a very different China today.
@@krysatheo It’s true Chinese communist gained a lot of opportunities by letting nationalist took the front line when fighting Japanese and part of the reason is that they simply don’t have the ability to do so. But Japan did involved with major battles with communist late in the war and heavily damaged them. Mao was royally pissed. Saying nationalist couldn’t recover is not accurate. Early in the civil war nationalists still heavily out numbered communists only when commies did land reforms in large scales later more peasants started to join
@@krysatheo What offensive are you talking about? The Japanese rarely advanced against communist positions, because there weren't any. They held no notable cities for them to take.
@@kenn8924 operation Ichi-Go, but yes in general the nationalists took the majority of japanese attacks while the communists for the most part did not. I think that's a very important fact to mention when discussing how the communists won.
@@krysatheo This is misleading. The communists didn't take fights not because they didn't want to but rather because their numbers were minimal (less than 10 percent of the nationalist force) and too spread out for any organized operations. That's why most of their work was done in sabotaging railways and small scale ambushes. They actually did fight when they had a large grouping, such as the Hundred Regiments Offensive.
I must also point out that it is well known in both mainland and Taiwan that Chiang Kai Shek purposely withheld critical American/foreign weapons and aid to save it to fight the communists, which caused mass casualties and severe rifts in the Nationalist coalition (which isn't one group but rather a loose team of rival cliques) since only the central clique under Chiang was recognized for aid, leading to coalition armies suffering the most. Thus contributed heavily to their collapse afterwards.
Not to mention that the Nationalists had a very well trained, very well equipped fighting force. More well trained, experienced and equipped than the Communists by far.
The US didn’t expect the Nationalists to lose as by rights they shouldn’t have.
The problem is that while the Nationalists controlled the cities the Communists controlled the countryside and just starved the cities out (hence why there are so many dots in Commie held land on those maps)
Ultimately the Nationalists were trained to fight like the Japanese while the Communists were trained to fight like guerrilla fighters
There's also the issue that the Nationalists were deeply, profoundly corrupt.
The communists were given the industrialized North by Russia while the nationalist only had the poor rural southern regions. They were also given massive amount of grain by the soviets. America did have poor relations with the Kuomintang and ignored them mostly.
Mao during the first 5-10 years the soviets hoped to make China a puppet state. One reason for the victory was also the land reform. That gave land to rural farmers from greedy unfair landlords. Demanding huge taxes. Giving the communists unlimited manpower.
@@ew-uy6cs that’s not true in the slightest
1) The Soviets pillaged Manchuria and stripped the land bare of anything of value
2) They never gave the Communists anything not air support and certainly not weapons
3) The Nationalists held Beijing and Nanking the two most industrialised regions of the nation
4) As the video clearly states the US sent massive amounts of aid to the Nationalists. While the US sent aid to the Communists during WW2 it was nothing compared to what the Nationalists got as simply put it was impossible to reach them until the last few months of the war
@@fireiron369 They gave the communists all Japanese weaponry they could find after the occupation of Manchuria. According to official soucres the Soviets also sent 1 million Russian riffles to the Chinese communists.14000 machine Guns, 600 tanks 4000 artillery pieces. Without the Soviets the communists would have been annhilated.
Everyone: "That Peasant revolt in China will never win."
China: "You doubt my abilities to underestimate my own incompetence."
Zhang Jue: "The future is now, old man."
Nationalist forces were pretty much shattered by the Japanese attacks in WW2, which gave the communists the opportunity to attack and grow.
@@zack2804it's Zhang Jiao
@@Xetron1978 張角 = Zhang Jue
Forgot to mention public support for the Nationalists are next to nil. The populace viewed them no different than tyrants due to taxation and a crumbling economy.
I know that's just too harsh since a lot of warlords and other Nationalist leaders tried to make things better for the common Chinese people. People like Yan Xishan or Feng Yuxiang, warlords who tried their best for their provinces(territories) but a few good men changes nothing. It just buries it on the ground until someone decides to dig their deeds.
One reason for that was the western media that painted the chinese communist as war heroes that pretty much defeated the japanese alone and labeled the nationalist as cowards and barbarians while the reality was pretty much the opposite.
The irony
Tyrants replaced by tyrants
Didn't taiwan literally have a fascist dictatorship w I believe purges (could be wrong on that part but ik they had a fascist regime for a while)
Maybe Taiwan/ROC's _Kuo Min Tang_ (the political party of the Nationalists that exists presently) is rueing that its corruption lost it the people's support in the Chinese civil war?
I thought you were going to talk about the Tai Ping Rebellion and western intervention in that Chinese civil war
:)) Cuz JEZUS
@@tandavawalsh0777 Cuz Jesus Bro…
@@user-lb5ti2tx1w I mean, I think there were alot of things that made both dude who thought he was jesus' brother or whatever feel or think those ways, and more that made so many people follow or believe him(I seriously doubt it had anything to do with Jesus :-p )
but..... the west has been pissing in Chinas wheaties for a long time
Dont forget about the Boxer rebellion that happened after that one. in which the west also participated
@@nathanielsoto4291 Yeah... everyones all "Communists bad... Chinas so self interested and agresive".....
But... like compared to what and who? Sounds like straight propaganda and hypocrisy and lies.
Which isnt a pass on the force abortions and the Uighur stuff and the forced organ harvesting(Although I do support the death sentence and fully believe itd be an utter waste of resources not to use the organs, Im almost sure china is not moral about its law enforcement or sentencing, and Im sure many relatively innocent people have died at the hands of that unforgivable abomination of a system...).... but
From the dalai lama and the cia, to eveything else with the CIA... the falun gong stuff.... I mean, tell me for one half of one quarter of one milisecond the CIA wasnt using falun gong and thats why shit is how it is with everything and them now....
There are legitimate criticisms against the CCP, but in general, weve been harassing and fucking with and taking advantage of and KEEP shoving back down china, and we have been overtly, aggressively, blatantly, for like 150 years....
If I was china, I wouldnt stop till everyone else who had fucked with me was dead.
Mao wasnt the (Only.... necessarily main even) cause of the great famine, and the west has been ruining china on purpose since at least the first opium wars
Moral of the story: don't always assume the Communists will lose.
- The soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels aren't - Said Michael Corleone
- What does that tell you? - Roth responds
- They can win!
They did, thats why the US intevened so heavily in korea and vietnam.
As much as people criticize the domino theory, in the early stages of the cold war it really was true to a large extent.
What? You need to be insane to assume that
Look at them now? happy people, safe country, growing economy, non colonizing idealogy, Brics, results speaks.
@@livethefuture2492 Stop being delulu. America doesn't have the right to intervene in other countries bussiness.
I love that the map puts (includes Russia) under the Soviet Union name
Cause it was at that time? Like you don’t see a usa states map on a world map most of the time.
I guess it makes sense, people see them as the same but USSR includes all other Soviet socialist republics like the Baltic's, Kazakhstan etc. Russia was one of these but not all of them.
@@fingmoron yes, it is very important to include other nations. It wasn't just "Russians" fighting the Germans, it was Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians etc as well.
The other part of the equation, to compliment the other comments, is that ethnically white Russia was the obvious dominant culture and ethnic group of the Soviet Union that largely had all the power, which is largely the case today in Russia, in comparison with the central Asian people groups who were also under the Soviet Union. Sadly, this cultural dominance and power dynamic is abusively the case for much of today also, with the people groups in eastern Asian Russia, as I understand it.
@@Aaron-zh4kj western Russians look after eastern Russians better than a lot of nations look after their smaller groups. Both are very respectful and loyal to each other. Also the Russian government will straight up mess you up if you try to do the gold for booze trade with the eastern groups, you will get specialists and scary people hunting you down via the Russian government so do not try to.
Theres a photo of my great-grandfather standing on the great wall during from about a month before the war was lost. He was a marine sent to train and provide aid. Story goes that they didn't know the nationalists had lost so when they saw Chinese troops driving towards them they thought it was the supply unit showing up early... until they started shooting. Needless to say they got out of there ASAP.
How it feels to have a loser grandpa and running away like bish
No one cares bud
Hope your grandpa didnt make it
That’s pretty much bullsht because communists already took control the great wall well before the lost. In fact one of the first things communists did was took control of the north east China and came over the great wall to enter China Proper.
@@wisenG771 I cared... It's a part of the history and I appreciate that story
IIRC it was even more complicated than this. Originally, the Nationalists and Communists were on the same side against the Qing Loyalists, and it was only after they successfully drove out the old imperial regime that they turned on each other.
so pretty average Chynese politics
"Stilwell and the American Experience in China" elaborates upon this exact subject for anyone who loves military history, and is curious to see how these events lead up to modern-day relations with China.
Sadly, Barbara Tuchman, an otherwise excellent historian, completely missed the mark. Tuchman only used a narrow range of English-language American sources to pain Joseph Stillwell as some sort of misunderstood prophet that the Pentagon ignored. Stillwell was a terrible general who incompetently commanded his theater of WW2. He failed to do much with Chiang Kai-shek's best soldiers other than get slaughtered in a vain attempt to re-conquer the Burmese jungle.
A lot of that is bullshit. Truman was way too deferential to Communists
The kmt was socialist as well and Chiang fucking hated the USA he only allied as a last resort. If kmt won china would be far more aggressive and have more military bases outside china
Delusional Americans think that the kmt would be friendly to the USA lmao😂😂😂 the dpp are cia assets that’s why they like burgerstan
@@yorktown99 Absolutely true. Other American officers were known to greatly dislike Stilwell's abrasive and unprofessional habits. For example, Stilwell never met with or briefed his replacement in any way, as was customary. Stilwell also refused to communicate or coordinate with anyone. When the Chinese recognized Japan's preparations for Operation Ichi-Go and asked Stilwell to release his Chinese troops from Burma back into China, he flat out refused, resulting in a late-war collapse of Chinese lines. Even worse, he was consistently demeaning, undercutting, and racist towards his Chinese counterparts, something that no other top-ranked American liaison or commander did in all the other fronts and theaters.
The USSR was also supplying the CCP, and because the CCP had their roots in Northern China it was rather easy to get said supplies via the trans-Siberian railway.
If I remember the biggest reason we didn’t intervene was cause of Chang Kai-shek. early into the war general Stilwell and later on George Marshall both came to the conclusion that Chang was abusing his power to such a high degree that sending any more equipment or capital would just get pocketed and not be used affectively similarly like supporting the White Russians during there civil war. Even when chang’s son attempted reforms to gain US backing Chang removed his son from power because he went after his wife’s family for there exploitation.
I've read several stories where folks referred to him as "cash my check" since that's all he wanted.
But he also had limited material to work with, and he needed to regain strength and rebuild instead of just spamming resources and troops he didn’t have. Remember, this was after suffering through World War Two
Wrong they hated him because he was a nazi sympathizer. Also he went to university in Japan and spoke fluent Japanese better than his Chinese.
They had his loyalties in question.
Did you know Chiang still wanted to negotiate with Japan during the war? But his own party kidnapped him and forced him to ally with communists
Then again he didn’t like hitler at all he had ties with the old nazi party under Ernst rolm and even sent his son there
Stilwell got fired. Weydemayer worked very well with Chiang. The US wanted a peace deal between CCP and KMT and under-estimated the level of support he CCP was getting from the USSR. It embargoed KMT and forced Chiang to halt his offensive - costing him the war.
Americans helping the Chinese nationalist is actually a very interesting story. A lot of American citizens volunteered to fight with them like you see people doing in Ukraine today. The all American volunteer fighter squadron called “the flying tigers” are the most known group of these American mercenaries. Commanded by retired U.S. Army Captain Claire L. Chennault and consisting of active American pilots from the USAAC, USN, and USMC. Their length of operations only lasted from 12/18/1941 - 07/04/1942, but their service records were still undoubtably impressive. With being credited for taking down roughly around 450-500 Japanese planes while only losing a small number of their own, which was around 60 or 70 I believe. Definitely worth the research, you won’t be disappointed.
The Americans wouldn't look good fighting for fascists the roc still had a lot of nazi equipment from the 3rd righ. They did already send a lot to the kmt and already sent generals to stand in place of the deserters there but it wasn't enough since no one in china supported them
Wasn't that the second Sino-Japanese war, not the civil war?
Yep.
The AVG was basically the US's version of the PVA. They were "retired" USAAC pilots in the sense they were discharged from service to work for the NRA as the US was not officially at war with Japan at the time.
Some of them fights for communism also
Also, China was a major reason why we began to intervene in Asia more. Politicians intervened because they didn’t want what happened in China to happen again in Korea and Vietnam
And interesting enough, the reason China was so aggressive towards the U.S. during the Korean War was because of that intervention, and I can’t really blame them given with MacArthur was trying to do.
In the Little Red Book, Mao specifically made a note about how China would continue to push back against the U.S. until the US packed up and left SK
wait, so Taiwan to China is what the Confederate States of America was to the United States of America?
didn't we use military force to annex them in the end?
@@slslbbn4096 Much like Shu-Han during Three Kingdom period that Taiwan-ROC be like as a remain part of previous unity regime the Han or Chinese republic.
@@slslbbn4096 yes except in this case the confederates fleed to hawaii and set up their own goverment, so now are they still a part of the US or a different country altogether?
@@herrwolf5184 also in this case, China puts a guarantee on Hawaii and promises to attack the USA if it tries to retake Hawaii.
Then it starts calling Hawaii a glorious socialist paradise.
You should talk about the Eight Nation Alliance.
You should cover the Beheading War (aka Federalist Revolt) in Southern Brazil. I am currently reading a book about it and it is very interesting, it would be very cool to see you talk about it.
book name? interested to read it
@@domeniczattraytofficial4592 "Narrativas Militares: a Revolução do Rio Grande do Sul" by José Carvalho Lima. My comment is a year old but, still a good book nonetheless.
Not to but actually you (I greatly respect your work), but the main issue was the fact that the Nationalists treated the Chinese people terribly and were corrupt/inept. Despite having the Communists surrounded, Mai was able to escape and regroup, while simultaneously rallying the mistreated masses to his cause. Yes, the US didn’t provide as much support, but that wasn’t the central reason for the failure by the Nationalists.
Yes. True.
If you're talking about the Long March, that was intentional. Chiang wanted to force the CCP from Jiangxi and chase them through Sichuan to give himself an excuse to extend his control to the Province. When the local governor failed to defeat the CCP, he asked Chiang to send his troops into the province to chase them to Yan'an. This gave Chiang Chongqing as a base of operations for him to fallback to during the war with Japan.
腐敗是中國人從清朝延續下來的的傳統，你應該了解到1945年的中國官員大多數都還是從清朝延續下來的，對於三千年帝制的中國要改革並非一朝一夕就可以成功，但是腐敗不是絕對值，是相對值。所以武斷的說「國民政府腐敗」，其實是不正確的，應該說「中國人的文化就是腐敗」，這點你可以從後面中國共產黨的統治看出
相对来说，国民政府比共产党腐败多了，所以他败给了共产党
Can't wait for your alternate-history content I love alternate history I'm currently making for stories / novels the one I'm putting the most amount of work on is the German Japanese empire or German Japanese Union getting good
Where can I read it?
Interesting. Where will you release it.
I like how you both say "The Chinese Civil War" like there was only one and we know which one we're talking about.
The most recent one smartass
Generally "Chinese Civil War" refers to the most recent one. There were other Civil Wars in the past, but those are all described with different names, usually as revolts or Rebellion.
"...and thus now we have Tik-Tok and Xiaomi"
Better than what some people above think we should have done, Jesus.
I could be wrong but, didn’t the communists forge some kind of alliance with the nationalists to fight off the Japanese, leaving the nationalists to do most of the fighting so they could just take over after the Japanese were driven out?
Yes. The Nationalists leader wanted to defeat the remaining Communists but the popular opinion swayed against him.
"Chinese shouldn't fight Chinese" or so the saying went if I recalled right.
The end result both sides joined the fight. However since the Nationalists had actual fighting capacity what they lost was greater than the Communists who just recuited more rural peasants for the cause.
Source: My memory worth of Wiki reading.
@@justcometingidearshi3636 I was also just working off of memory. Lol
Well that's on ww2. But after the war as if you can trust the commies not breaking their promise. Even Mao thank Imperial Japan for almost wiping the nationalist forces in ww2. If the West really did intervene their we wouldn't have this silly situation in Asia with Mainland bullying small island nations
@@pauloazuela8488 Actually I recall an incident when the west did interfere between the Nationalists and Communists. Basically the communist were all but done for, they had their last strategic supple town or city that all the nationalist generals were bent on taking.
But then the US shows you, ignorant of the complexity of Chinese politics and convinced the Nationalists leader not that take that town else the US will be withdrawing support.
Not sure where this fits timeline wise.
Not the nationalist
Communists didn't have enough men to mount a sizable resistance
Kmt didn't deploy their men either and left warlords most of the time unless you count having the expedition forces fucked but that was the english's problem
My grandpa was a US marine in China during this time after WW2. He almost got his head hit by a sniper (his helmet left shrapnel in his skull) and saw the fall of Beijing to the communist forces waiting on the horizon as they were withdrawing from the city.
Not implying your grandpa but you may want to check some of the things the American marines did in Beijing and you'd understand why the Communists won so much domestic support...
US made what we call in the professional industry
"an oopsy Poopsy"
Don’t think the Nationalists were going to win
Like the Russian white army didn’t offer anything new to the people
@@tomhenry897 that's a good point
Makes sense,
Although Similar revolutions have failed before if they don't pick up enough momentum
I LOVE STOPPING A NATIONS SELF AUTONOMY I LOVE COUPING GOVERNMENTS INSTALLED BY THE PEOPLE FOR BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA TYSON FOODS PUT IN MY FACE
@@thatguynoonelikes4865 basically in countries still controlled by western European colonialists and countries geographically in the same hemisphere with the US
@@ernestkhalimov1007 that is true that is true
I wouldn't call those revolutions though it was more like a single political movement pops up that looks slightly socialist and then the US decides
"okay time to destroy the entire country & put in a dictator"
You should cover stuff like the Century of Humiliation, Opium wars, WW2 etc. Basically stuff that led up to it
This guy is an Anglo so of course
& my country's law minister used the Opium wars to accuse Richard Branson of hypocrisy when he opposed capital punishment for drug mules
@@NeostormXLMAX so what. He can’t cover everything that’s ever occurred in history
@@NeostormXLMAX
Why chinese and russians dont learn western history.
Why do "Anglo's" have a special obligation to hold themselves to a higher standard.
I don't doubt one should learn history in the broadest context possible, but does that have to with one's ethnicity?
Also Germany China collaboration, first sino Japanese war, Qing collapse, western values permeation
Im in taiwan now and was surprised id overlooked this fascinating part of history
oversimplified said this the best:
US: "you know who I haven't check in a while? my good friend, China!"
*republic of china in the background burning*
US: "woah what happened to you?"
I just realized that the failure to stop the communist conquest of China could have informed Domino Theory. Someone sees the communists take power in China and says "we definitely don't want THAT to happen again." Doesn't justify anything, but it shows their thinking at the time.
After the CCP took over China:
the communist in N Korea invaded S. Korea.
the communist in N. Vietnam invaded & conquered S. Vietnam.
The CCP supported Communist invaded & conquered Laos & Cambodia. CCP supported Marxist took over Burma.
There were Communist insurgency
in India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Seeing millions of chinese get murdured by their own people in the name of 'progress', like Russians before them, doesn't justify stopping that from happening again?
Domino theory was proved right. Cuz after China Vietnam then Laos then Cambodia and Indonesia with Malaysia nearly fell to communism
@@chingis1154 didn't happen because if it did every thing in Asia would be communist because of it, stop supporting pro imperialist propaganda unless you want you and your kids to die in another jungle
@@chingis1154 “fell” implies bad. Communism was the answer to the horrific living conditions brought by western imperialism. The US/NATO sought to maintain that suffering and this opposed the solution (communism)
I think during that time they were more focused on Europe than China because as we all know. Europe is known as the geopoltical mess and the US was trying to fix that.
The soviets helped the communists far more than America helped the nationalists. They gave Manchuria to the communists. They also sent grains and helped the chinese communists. Truman mistrusted the nationalists and once called them "damn thieves".
Many in the US government did NOT like that the Nationalist in China & Korea were call Nationalist and worn German helmets & goose step.
I doubt the nationalists would be any different from the CCP today thou. Chang Kai Sheks son was a devout socialist and communist and studied in Moscow and married a White wife. He would probably adopt similar policies to the modern CCP earlier. Since he understood the importance of investments. But then again since both Mao and Chang Kai Shek were authoritarian socialists I do not see what America would have gained commiting itself to the nationalist side full scale. Since Changs son already was friendly with the Russians.
@@ew-uy6cs Look of difference between Taiwan and China today.
The reason the CCP wants to destroy Taiwan, is because Taiwan shows what all of China could have been.
@@ew-uy6cs Chiang Kai Shek? A socialist? Now that's funny. Just because he bullied capitalists into giving him resources doesn't mean he's a socialist. He's just anti-capitalist. Otherwise fascism, monarchism, and anarchism are all the same as state socialism just because each hate western-styled free market capitalism.
The Chinese civil war was so much more complicated than "nationalists vs communists"
The qing dynasty collapse triggered a succession war involving many different belligerents, with the communists being just one side of many.
Lucky for them, the infighting on the nationalist side gave them a big advantage.
Oh and it began before WW2, was put on pause during the war, and only later was concluded.
Oh yeah and the communists didn’t fight the Japanese which allowed them to save their strength.
@@seanhartnett79 Did you even learn history
@@attran720f yes. I have read several incidents in which the Chinese Communists despite having more men and decent equipment fled fights against the Japanese.
Yeah like Chang Kai-Shek was captured by a communist militia and Mao after asking Stalin decided to release him in exchange for a ceasefire between nationalists and communists against the japanese
@@attran720f half of that was correct tho, the communist saved most of their strength while the nationalists did most of the work, I mean just look at the death tolls
this is vastly over generalizing the war. the nationalists were disunited and often sold their war materiel to fill warlords coffers. this is to the point that even when they're losing the war, disloyal commanders simply refused to participate or even switched sides. the communists on the other hand had poor equipment but were solidly united. they were almost eradicated by 1946-47, but their recruitment effort of poor, famished farmers eventually outpaced the nationalists.
This can also be seen as a turning point in American sentiments towards intervention. Politicians in power at the time had to deal with the political fallout of losing China to the communists. This is thought to be the reason why so many presidents decided to continue fighting the war in Vietnam, and tried to insure no other countries were “lost” to communism.
I mean, basically that and if China had not fallen to communism, it's very unlikely Communism in these other neighboring states would have succeeded. A lot of military aid flowed to Korea and Vietnam through China.
I feel so bad that the "nationalists" didn't won and kept China the poorest country in the world. Really a shame!
also you have to take into account the HUGE help that Stalin gave to Mao to turn things inhis favor via Siberia
how can Stalin sent things through japan,roc,japan,to CPC land,...Manchuria land is under japan control that time
@@yuluoxianjunmuchuria was occupied by the soviets the chinses civil war happened after ww2
As a Chinese, the speech of some Americans who want to drop nuke on Chinese soil really scares me, and I understand why they were performing such violent acts in Afghanistan and Syria
Ye the American warmongers want to dominate the world.
But they failed even against the Taliban XD
Don't worry bro these Fat fast food ded brain illiterates won't dare a thing lmao theirs father,brothers were Brutally blowj into pieces in during afgan abd middle east war they won't dare to Attck the nation with nuke + Hypersonic one😉...
I'm American and i got a few great friends in Nanjing and Chongqing. The people of China are great and don't deserve harm!
@@thatonedudenextdoor7840 at least we didn't collapse and devolve when we lost agiasnt the taliban, unlike a certain country called "Russia"
@@whosaidthat84
China is committing a genocide against its own Muslim population and wants to talk about American policy in the Middle East, give me a fuckin break 😂, CCP clowns
For a more detailed explaination. The Nationalists had two types of armies.
The central army, these are well trained, well disciplined and is only loyal the the KMT. While the mercenaries and warlords regional army isnt very loyal. After the conflict with Japan, KMT lost their best troops and that is why they signed a non-aggression pact with the communist
So how the communists won?
1. They broke the treaty 3 days after the treaty was signed and took the nationalists by surprise. This is the same method how the Japanese bombed Pearl Habor so easily and rendered Americans helpless.
2. The nationalists were supported by the Americans while the Communists received support from Soviet. A debt that had to paid back heavily in the 60s and 70s.
3. The nationalist leader JiangKiaShek was not as a good of military strategist as the comminist leader MaoZeDong
4. By controlling the rural regions of China, MaoZeDong was able to starve the nationalists and cut down on their food supplies.
5. As mentioned before, the KMT lost millions of well trained fighters during its war against Japan. Drained most of their resources. There has been record of MaoZeDong saying "we are in control of this nation is all thanks to the Japanese"
1940s: Shipping arms to China, first ROC then PRC.
80 years later: why didn't US intervene?😅
WW2 play a pretty big role in the balance itself.
A large chunk of natonalist forces were fighting japan and forced to relocate to that front while Communist forces were able to gather strength and take territory that was now weakly guarded on the other side of the country.
The main focus for the allies in the area during ww2 was japan and as such resources in the pacific were directed towards destroying japan when possible.
Post ww2, not only was the focus on Russia and concerns about them taking over europe but the citizens were glad to be done with a war and supplies were already spent or scattered to different fronts that were now closing but would take time to be collected, resupplied and shipped out again.
The Communist mostly taken rural land from Japanese occupied zone. So the claim that communists fought behind the shield of the Nationalists is just bullshit.
Also, they were not really interested in defending China and Korea -only Japan at that specific moment, Tokyo was a vital ally against the Soviet Union. But also, it wasn’t that easy intervening in China in favor of Chiang Kai-shek because high ranking officials in the U.S. government were reluctant to do so. That was because of corruption and financial inefficiencies of the CKS government
US didn't intervene because nobody wanted to fight another war in 1945, especially not in China. The US wanted the KMT and CCP to strike a peace and forced the KMT to halt its offensives through the use of diplomacy and embargoes. This made it impossible for the KMT to secure the military equipment it needed and eventually lost several critical engagements in 1948 that effectively destroyed its military.
@@taoliu3949 Yes, that's true. The U.S. tried to create a coalition government with CKS as president and with both the KMT and the CCP in the governing body. But it was CKS himself who betrayed the communists, and let struggle start over. Yet, I refer to this particular time in history in 1946-1947 when KMT was again at war with the communists that the U.S. government did not want to give their total support to Chiang Kai-shek because, in the first place, it really wasn't in their interest to have a total grip in Asia but in Japan to fight the soviets. In fact, officials in the State Department barely knew where Korea was, according to records of the time: that is why they proposed Stalin to divide the peninsula through the 48th parallel, 'cause they noted it split Korea in two almost perfect halfs. But also, it was Secretary of State George Marshall who after his tour in China, in addition to the Dixie Mission, who informed President Truman that it wasn't a good idea to support such a corrupt and unstable government as Chiang Kai-shek's. To support this, they didn'y really identify Red China as a real threat until the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, when President Eisenhower and Chiang Kai-shek signed the 1955 Mutual Defense Agreement, in which the White House specifically pledged military support in case of a China invasion due to the Domino Effect theory, in which we could also add South Korea and which was the basis for tolerating corrupt and rabid anticommunist governments in East Asia. If either Taiwan or South Korea falled to the hands of communists, they thought, the rest of Asia would "surely" follow
@@taoliu3949 Also, we should not forget that during the first phase of the Chinese Civil War in 1927 and until 1946-1947, the communists had enough time to retrieve, and specialize their forces so they became a formidable enemy for the National Revolutionary Army (the KMT forces). Through perfectly executed military tactics and guerilla warfare, Mao and the nine Marshalls (namely Zhu De and Peng Dehuai, but if I'm not mistaken, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were also good at organizing guerrilla forces) outsmarted the KMT and finally took over the country.
It's such a pleasure to talk to someone about this. I'm a great fan of East Asia history, given that in my country these kind of studies do not receive too much attention but in certain colleges. Greetings from Mexico!!
@@pacogonzalez952 CKS did not "betray" the CCP. The CCP were invited to draft the new Constitution, which they initially partook in, and many of their demands were written into the Constitution. However, the CCP kept dragging things out and eventually boycotted the process so the KMT ended up ratifying the Constitution without them. Ironically, the PRC Constitution ended up being more similar to what the KMT originally wanted, which shows you exactly where their intents lie.
CPP was only identified as a threat when they got involved in the Korean War. During the Civil War they were regarded as being "not real communists" and as such not a concern on it becoming a puppet of the USSR. Prior to the Korean War, the US had effectively abandoned the KMT to its doom. However, prior to 1948, it was not expected that the KMT would collapse, and the US utilized various ways diplomatically to force the KMT to stop offensives against the CCP including enacting an embargo that effectively prevented the KMT from procuring necessary equipment and arms to support its military.
The 34th parallel proposition was developed in haste due to the lack of time on figuring out where to split Korea. The USSR declared war on Japan 8 Aug and advanced quickly through Manchuria, and the proposition was submitted to the USSR on 10 Aug to which the USSR agreed. In otherwords, it was either submit a proposition now or don't bother. The US had been fighting Japan for 4 years, they knew absolutely where Korea was. Otherwise they would not have had the idea to divide it in the first place.
Can you make a video on the‘’interesting’’ inscriptions roman slingers wrote in their ammunition
A close friend of my father was a US Marine, stationed on the coast in the late 1940s. After WW2, the Marines were deployed to northern China to secure the surrender of the Japanese and turn local government over to the Nationalists. As the Civil War began to swing towards the Communists, these Marines were controversially withdrawn.
(Incidentally, this was part of the origin of the 'Red Scare' in the United States, fueling the baseless suspicion that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had infiltrated the government of the United States.)
Not baseless, there are plenty of Communist in the US Government.
Communism is, after all, a wholly imperialist idea.
it wasn't baseless. McCarthy was right.
@@joshuapaul359 An overwhelming amount of it was absolutely baseless even if he was 'right' for some of the people he pursued and regardless, he broke the law and constitution doing so.
Take a look around right now and tell me it was 'baseless'.
It's just like YuriB. said.
Several generations of social science and educational influence later, nobody actually knows what fashism is and many think com'nism is good when they are both wings on the same bird BUT one if them is a useful buzzword for the other.
We have politicians pretending they aren't C or F while operating by the Playbook, and the famous scapegoating that soci'lism based gov'ment needs to get anywhere is well and alive while our food production is being set ablaze and most of our money launder'd into their soc'list pockets thru GUESS WHAT
Yell'wBlue land
Even though they still launder plenty locally without foreign corruption help, it's really easy to do it this way out in the open.
Ask previous mercs and volunteers who went over there to help just how much of that is actually going to help em.
@@joshuapaul359 and the communist shouldve took over
US also had involvement in another conflict in 1910s in Russia
Tibet: 👀
America didnt intervene since the CCP during the Civil War was outmatched, massively. The Kuomintang had control over almost all of modern China, and Manchuria was under Soviet Occupation. The CCP had to rely on starving out the major cities of the Kuomintang and Guerilla Warfare to be able to win.
America didnt intervene since they thought the Kuomintang was going to win without American backing. The Kuomintang was bigger, had the stronger military, and had all the resources they needed thanks to their control over all of China. There was no way in America's mind that the Kuomintang could lose, yet they did.
Had America intervene, they'd probably seperate China into 2 considering the Soviets would've intervened as well.
The Americans intervened and had the KMT and CPC hold peace talks in Chongqing, because the Communists proposed a two party democracy which was hugely popular with the Americans, much more than the corrupt one party authoritarian KMT. But as soon as the US left, the KMT attacked as Chiang believed he could do "whatever he wanted, however he wanted", since his forces outmanned the Communists 5 to 1 and had much superior American weapons. Neither the KMT nor the Americans, not even the Communists themselves expected the CPC to survive, or win the civil war in just 3 years....
Toward the end of the Chinese Civil War, the US did want to help the KMT, but it was too late.
Because they lack the foresight we have now.
They didn't lose because the Soviets gave them supplies, weapons, and training.
So basically: we didn't have enough people or guns to fight in a China-scale war.
even if US has it, it pretty much useless due to incompetency and Rampant corruption of Nationalist china
No, the US had guns. They just refused to give/sell them to the KMT. An arms embargo was levied on the KMT which made it impossible for the KMT to procure sufficient arms which ended up being detrimental to their war effort.
I don't think any country expect India has enough people to fight a China scale war. Their wars tend to scale ridiculously. You had more than enough guns though. The US always has more than enough guns
maybe no oil?
Korea, vietnam and afghanistan also didn't have oil
If only we knew then what we know now. I think we would have given more support.
Don't let the enemy breathe!
Ngl but this has to be one of America's biggest regret tbh, If the nationalist would've won. The Korean and Vietnam war would've ended in Southern victory. However there still would've been disputes between China and India also in the South China Sea
Basically "Why didn't they intervene in Russia's CW"
Part 2
Well the british did but dont know if USA did
@@McHallel The US did almost the same thing
Send some supplies and hope it works out
The Americans did briefly intervene
The us did lol
Wow! A foreigner that know about the whole TaiWan thing situation! What a refresh sight for my view.
Thanks for covering this. This is by far the most simple and straightforward answer : Because China didn't really matter that much for the US at that time. Obviously, fast forward 50 years, everything changed.
Not even 50 years
Chinese retaliation in Korea is what put China back on the map on the international stage.
China acquiring nukes in the 60s
And Nixon establishing relations with China in the early 70s
Why are we assuming that west intervention is a must.
Because if there's any left wing movement then the US government has to fund a fascist to stop it
A more interesting point was that American failure in China led to the decision for direct intervention in Korea and Vietnam. If American limited intervention in China succeeded then they would have pursued the same policy later.
My Daddy was stationed in China during this period. Said it was ugly…at the time.
So I'm guessing the quote of the day would be: "oops"?
Fun Fact: At the end of the fighting in the pacific, some of the Marines (many of them who fought at Okinawa) were transported to China and became guards. Eugene Sledge was one of the many of his unit (K/3/5) who were China while the civil war was going down
The US also actually thought the Communists to be genuine good guys because CCP-controlled areas during WWII, by virtue of being largely ignored by regular Japanese forces and left to unwilling collabourationist forces, were more peaceful and prosperous than Nationalist-controlled areas that bore the brunt of the Japanese offensive. In 1946 the US cut off fuel and maintenance to the weapons they supplied to the Nationalists in hope of forcing the Nationalists to the negotiation table. The problem with that plan is that CCP then saw no need to negotiate with the thrice-weakened KMT (between the Sino-Japanese war and this, there was also a disastrous economical reform and demobilization).
Short answer: It's China.
This has been a joke.
Chinese understand the art of war clear
IIRC, the problem wasn’t the US not giving enough supplies or not intervening enough. The Nationalists just sucked REALLY bad at not losing horribly. Corruption, poor leadership, despotism, internal fractionalization, etc.
The US enacted an Arms Embargo which made it impossible for the NRA to source arms.
We intervened to remove Japanese imperial control of China (massive effort). We supported both Communists and Nationalists during WWII (the Chinese Civil War started before WWII), then meekly transitioned our support from ‘both sides’ to just one side (a bit too late) by the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War (which resumed after the conclusion of WWII).
as a Chinese I'm telling you: it's not a civil war，when the qing dynasty collapsed，republic china never took the whole country，there were so many war lords in each province（even the war lords claimed they were the nationalist party too），the communist part and the nationalist party（sun yat sen and chang kai shen in guangzhou province） were working together to build a new china，this is so called “the people's democratic revolution”，but chang kai shen betrayed this goal causing war lords never been swiped out from china and the japanese invasion，the communist party and people republic of china is finishing the revolution goal，it's still not finished yet
?
袁世凱死前是統一的
@@williverson3405check out the cooperation of nationalist and communist, both them were led by the national father sun yat sen.
That's what makes China a great country! They are always surprising everyone else
The policy of containment became increasingly important after this.
Why didn’t the Soviets veto to UN intervention into Korea?
Because the Soviets weren’t really massive supporters of North Korea
Only really supplying aircraft and the go ahead
It was mostly China who supported North Korea and one of the reasons for the Sino-Soviet Split was because Mao saw himself as the saviour of Communism (especially after losing his eldest son defending North Korea)
The soviets were boycotting the UN for its refusal to recognize the PRC.
@@fireiron369 that's not why. They were boycotting the UN because they wanted the PRC to be recognised as the legitimate government and get the Security Council seat. They would have veto'd it if they weren't
My father, who went through this entire scenario said that in reality, both the communists and nationalists were the same in their form of governing. They both had good and bad leaders, the people were treated both good and bad and most important of all, they shared the same dictatorship system. The bias Americans took against the communists was completely unfair since the governing policy of both parties were the same, only difference being that the communists are trained by the soviet union. America wasn't even trying to help the people, they were just hoping for collaboration of the nationalists in the eastern front(had they have won).
Exactly. US interference actually caused more casualties of people as they picied the unfavored side to support.
This is actually another type of dictatorship: group of people made decisions on unclear intelligence on one side of earth, and then on the other side of earth people have to pay thousands and thousands more lives to overturn that stupid "interference"
Yes and no. US State Department had Communist sympathizers and actively worked to sabotage KMT military efforts against the PLA. The hostility against the CCP didn't become a thing until the 50s during the Red Scare and Korean War, and even then that was only the populist side of things. In reality the administration actively worked to improve relations with the PRC because the real enemy was the USSR.
a Sovereign country decides on Finance ideology about how to Run their country
Americans: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Better dead than red
Yes because they weren’t violent at all
Yes America should just stay out of their way as they murder hundreds of millions of people, they can do with their people as they please.
communists aren't a sovereign nation. they are nothing more than uneducated rabble rebelling against a sovereign nation.
Should we nuke USA because their entire country is founded on genocidal expansion?
Please stop going to war we need a better way to settle our disputes
Not only that but there are a lot of people that were sympathetic to the Communist Chinese at that time.
After Marshall mission, they refused to supply the Nationalists until they got driven out to Taiwan. The US even tried to help to reach a ceasefire between the Communists and the Nationalists. Because Chiang’s government really wasn’t popular and there were huge waves of pro-democratic movements against the KMT at the time. The communists also got a lot of support from liberals and pro-democratic students (whom they made a lot of effort to won over but later sidelined and persecuted them after winning the civil war).
It was a hopeless choice between two shitty governments. People learned a lot about the darker side of Chiang Kai Shek’s rule but they didn’t know much about Mao. Intervening in supplying the KMT didn’t have popular support, not to mention it will piss off the Soviets.
@@mmking9517 It was different. The government of First Republic of Korean were exiled military officers and supporters of old Korean royal family, they founded the country entirely by the help of the West, didn’t demonstrate much brutality when Korean war broke out, and North Korea attacked them unprovoked.
Chiang Kai Shek had always been a rogue character. He turned the Republic of China from a semi-democratic regime to a full dictatorship, not a stern ally of the West. He tried to ally with Nazi Germany and at some point even the USSR supported KMT more than the weak CCP. KMT was quite nationalistic. He and his son who succeed him position only became an ally of the US and later compromised to the pro-democratic movements in Taiwan, because they had no choice, and the Chinese Nationalists who followed Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan didn’t have enough power to remain in control.
On the other hand, remember that today’s South Korea is the Sixth Republic. It went through multiple dictatorships, famines, coups and brutally crushed democratic movements that made Tiananmen Square looked like a picnic. Eventually reaching the developed state it is today.
@@svyalinirnhut890 Chiang didn't turn anything into a dictatorship. The KMT was ran as a dictatorship by Sun and Chiang basically took over after he came to power. If anything, Chiang's control over the party weakened when the Warlords were absorbed after the Northern Expedition. Chiang more or less followed Sun's instructions to the letter and made democratic reforms culminating in the 1946 Constitution (the same Constitution in effect in Taiwan today, albeit with amendments).
Nor was Sun a "western ally". Sun's biggest foreign ally was probably the USSR and reorganized the party on Lenist grounds when he returned to China after being exiled to Japan by Yuan. Chiang was probably closer to Western governments due to his hatred for Communism.
The KMT remained in power for 2 Presidential terms post-Martial Law. It lost the election in 2000 because the party fractured and votes were split between Soong and Lien. They would win back the Presidency in 2008. This is characteristic of US politics where parties typically switch off every 8 years.
Also, the Korean government was VERY brutal towards their own citizens during the Korean War. Basically any association with the Communists could get you executed.
The communists got Manchuria in the early war, if you didn’t know, Manchuria back then had a gdp ten times that of China proper, the city of Dalny alone produced 70% of all gun powder and artillery shells in China. Yes on the map it seems like the nationalists got 90% of the land but most of those lands were basically still in the Iron Age, the communists on the other hand got the industrialized/ modernized Manchuria, and it also happened to be surrounded by the Soviet Union on all three sides but south, so all they needed to do was just to push south, breach the Great Wall, after that China basically falls by itself, like so many times before in history. The nationalists wouldn’t have any chance no matter the US help them or not.
the question is which China war?
There’s more Chinese civil war then COD games
Fun fact that Europeans were actually thinking up of dividing up try not like they did with Africa but an American I think Tradesmen convince him to keep trying to around to keep the status quo spearing China from European conization
A history youtuber called Jabzy covers this.
You could argue China becoming communist was what made America so interventionist. They started to take communist expansion much more seriously and preventing it at any cost
As a history teacher once said to me, the Iron Curtain in hindsight worked really well. The Bamboo curtain? Fell apart any time communism so much at looked at Asia. And a lot of it was cultural.
As a Chinese,it is completely incomprehensible why many Americans want to use nuclear weapons to interfere in other countries'internal affairs
As a bot*
@@naughtywizard >amerimutt calling others bots
lmfao
Commenters: "Why didn't America intervene?"
Meanwhile America: *still intervening*
Thats the biggest "oops" of US right there
The great irony was that the USA ended up funding the Communists and the Soviet Union supported the Nationalists. An ideological inversion if ever the was one. Mao never forgave Stalin for helping Chiang Kai-Skek, although it doubtless helped the bromance between Nixon and Mao many years later.
As a Palestinian I think Americans intervening with any war in the world is horrible idea (I'm sorry for the American people but you really can't blame me for this opinion)
Kai Shek also stole many of the resources for himself. Mao saw this as an opportunity to win the people over
There was nothing for Chiang to steal. The US had enacted an arms embargo post war which made it impossible for the NRA to secure military arms to support their war against the PLA.
@@taoliu3949 It wasn't Kai Shek personally, but a lot of his cabinet was corrupt
@@democraticrepublicofsprout7263 Like I said, there was very little to steal. The total amount of military aid sent to China post 1945 was minimal. The KMT was basically fighting with leftover equipment and ammo from WWII and what they took from surrendering Japanese troops.
@taoliu3949 all this combined made it easy for Mao and his forces to win the war.
蔣介石不腐敗，從他的日記可以看出蔣介石是一個虔誠的基督徒，而且非常自律，算得上是中國官場的清流，但中國人的腐敗是刻在基因裡的，中國人骨子裡的貪婪導了所有的腐敗，直到今天也一樣
and if I remember this fed heavily into the domino theory, making it mainstream and shaping U.S. and Western foreign policy for years. Korean War, Vietnam partcipation being the more famous results of domino theory.
Wrong wrong wrong, “the USA was too busy in Europe.” is a gross oversimplification. The Soviets invaded Manchuria at the end of WW2 and disarmed the Japanese Army. But instead of giving the territory back to the Nationalists, they gave control to the Chinese communists, including all the weapons they seized. Stalin also supplied Mao Zedong with direct military aid. The US at this point was upset with Chang Kaishek for corruption (millions $$$ in lend-lease) and in-fighting with the other warlords. The Nationalist army had also done the brunt of the fighting against Japan and had exhausted themselves. The citizens of the major cities were tired of civil war and being taxed. Meanwhile the communists hid in the mountains and built up popular support. Truman and his generals assumed the Nationalists could hold-out the same way against the Japanese. By the time the Communists went on the offensive, the balance of power had already shifted, and it was too late to intervene.
I especially love that Chinese civil war map because no matter who wins, Tibet loses.
Tibet was the child that was neglected and ran off during a divorce of the parents
@@chatter4427 just come back live with abusive parents by force
Whether it was the Dai lama, the CCP or the nationalists, Tibet was always going to be the loser
@@davidk.d.7591 tibet is tonight’s biggest loser!
and his punishment is getting invaded over and over again.
@@davidk.d.7591Tibetan living stand is quite a bit better than neibouring Nepal, India, Bhutan and Pakistan though... That's due to CCP rule.
Now imagine if the Nationalists had successfully held out on Hainan.
Imagine what? They can't. The KMT was deeply unpopular for the Hainanese natives, who turned to communists before they even arrived. Unless you're saying the KMT should have murdered and displaced more natives.
Fun fact:the Chinese “civil” war wasn’t actually a civil war and how communist China won? Well while ROC was fighting alone with communist China the communist China got helped from Soviet Union and North Korea
"help from north Korea" north Korea wasn't in the position to send help, everything they sent was Soviets passing through them
@@sadfrog15 ah thanks bro
bro learn China history from a vedio.lol
@@yuluoxianjun this shi was 2 months🤣
The nationalists essentially lost because they had drained themselves in an attrition war against the Japanese. When the Japanese withdrew, Mao's rebels swooped in. At one point, a Japanese official privately apologized to Mao for the invasion, only for Mao to joke they did him a favor
It’s admirable how the CPC was able to comeback and liberate their country. Chairman Mao was an excellent strategist.
There was also the issue of actually somehow supplying it to them. Communists took all the ports so eventually it got to a point where they just literally couldnt get supplies to the nationalists.
Well, U.S also intervened more after China due to losing one of their biggest allies. America didn’t realize the idea of “heavens mandate,” they thought it was just a small revolt. But, it’s part of why China is so volatile and has had so many different empires. When the country(empire) goes through poor experiences, the ruling power is often blamed(it usually is their fault), and the need and motivation for a new ruling power to pass the heavens mandate to arises. In this case, Communist China quickly grew from a small rebellion to an outright civil war. Later, when proc took control, the difference is, Mao was fully aware of this idea and had extremely strict regulations in response. When a terrible situation like the great leap forward happened which killed millions, any revolts that occurred were crushed with an iron fist. The cycle has repeated many times, thriving economy, corruption, suffering, rebellion, new ruler, and repeat. PROC knows this and thus tries their best to keep an iron grip and maintain their power.
It is interesting to imagine as to what would have happened if America joined the Chinese civil war. I could see an evenly split China, a struggling to develop china, or a japan/roc superpower China, or a mix of all. But yeah, would have changed a lot of future events. North korea wouldn’t exist, and russia would be isolated.
Thank God they couldn't interfere. Glory to the People's Republic of China! 🇨🇳
😂
Do you like the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution?
Tiananmen Square.
The irony
"Thank God" and "Glory to the PRC"
You literally need to be atheist to join the CCP
@@kawahoshii you don't actually
America has no business stopping the 'spread' of anything. It needs to respect the sovereignty of other nations and let them figure out for themselves the kind of government they want.
The problem these "other nations" don't respect America's or other nations sovereignty either despite claiming to do so. So by not interfering a bigger and more dangerous mess is created because when some nations abuse, destabilize and conquer other nations who are friendly or trade partners to America, it affects the economy of America, it destroys trade routes and helps create scenarios where a more dangerous future enemy can come into existance.
@JohnDoe-jg7gi this is a dammed if you do dammed if you don't and doing nothing is the US' best course. The US is in the same position as Britain was pre-ww1 except there isn't a new world to bail out the declining power. Britain intervened in the continent with that same line of thinking, to protect their empire only to lose it because they intervened in the continent.
Lol no, murica has to stop spread of either communism or nazism or it will face problems
@@JohnDoe-jg7gi Going to war to protect a trade partner is one thing. Overthrowing a government in a illegal coup because you want their lithium, or because they owe your oil corpos money, or because you just don't like a particular ideology is entirely another. America does a lot of the latter, and no one is dumb enough (except Iraq in 1994) to provoke the former.
@casey b China does the same things, but instead of using force they're loan sharks and copycats.