NO one believed in the negotiation between KMT and CCP, including the US government. This statement can be trivially disproven. I would like to see some evidence.
Furthermore, I said nothing about anyone's intelligence (or lack thereof). Being smart is not necessarily proof against making mistakes. Neither is being in a position of power. Of course, smart people make mistakes, but every mistake smart people made is not without a reason.
I didn't see your justification about US government's position in Chinese civil war: where had they miscalculated, what were their strategies in those issues? Simply saying they were wrong is not sufficient.
The fact remains that the US government threatened to withhold aid from Chiang if he didn't negotiate.
I have different opinions on this. Chiang's reluctant to negotiate with CCP only attested his political short-sightedness. Essentially, war is the extension of politics. If one wants to strangle his enemy militarily, then he needs to strangle his enemy politically: especially it was a civil war. That the US government had to force him to join the negotiation table seems so bizarre: it is no different from a political suicide to me.
Also hope you can understand my stance: the negotiation is only of political significance. Another fact: the US government only cut aid from Chiang when he failed in the battleground. Actually I think I understand US's stance on this whole issue. Their mistake I'd like to say is that they didn't bet on both sides: it is of course extremely difficult considering the then political atmosphere. So I have no better solution.
First, I'd say sorry that I mistakenly thought Roosevelt was still in place during the Chinese civil war.
How come you imply that I'm engaging in character assassination, but fail to address my thesis - that the West - most notably the US - mistakenly believed that a compromise with Mao could be reached? I am not saying you're engaging in character assassination, but instead trying to say that you underestimate the intelligence of the US government and the west at that time. NO one believed in the negotiation between KMT and CCP, including the US government. Indeed, US used the time to help KMT to reinforce its military advantage over CCP. I guess it was a surprise to all parties that KMT turned out to be so weak.
Your attack of US's stance in forcing Chiang to negotiate is simply to take advantage of that fact that US government has to keep silent on this issue: they cannot stand out and say we only wanna use the negotiation as a disguise. On the other hand, if you think hard and treat them as a bunch of smart guys, then the truth is just out there.
The US helped "liberate" China in such a fashion that it pretty much handed the country to Mao on a silver platter. American leaders were foolish enough to swallow propaganda pieces like Red Star Over China and so thought that the Communists were a little rough, but they were basically nice guys who were concerned with workers' and peasants' rights. (Some of them probably were, but by then Mao was in control, and he was not a nice guy at all.) In that mistaken belief, the Americans twisted Chiang Kai-Shek's arm (by threatening to withhold aid) until he agreed to continue co-operating with the Reds rather than mopping the floor with them when he had the chance. How come this post is mod as "insightful"? I doubt the author is trying to tarnish the reputation of President Roosevelt, and many other generals of course. Lol.
But, the government of China isn't interested in the unbiased version of history. I'm sure the same can be said for Western governments on some topics as well to be fair. As a Chinese by myself, I can access both sides' stories well. My perception is that history from the Chinese side is actually more reliable, believe it or not. Most Chinese are born with the ability to detect lies because it is known that our media is biased and we strives to survive. It also gives us an edge in detecting lies in CNN, NBC or whatever. Sometimes, I just wanna laugh out loud for the awkward brainwashing techniques used in CNN, FOX. Anyway, I still frequent watching them for fun, and sorry for my low morality.
It is often hard to tell when the Chinese nationals are shouting down dissenting points of view if they actually believe that crap, or if they're just doing what they're told. I have a suspicion that a lot of them (even the ones here in Canada who were protesting against Western media bias last week) honestly don't know any different version of events. Therefore, they assume that we really are trying to hurt their national pride. They don't want to be told that their government is and has been lying to them. Pls, don't underestimate other people's intelligence. All these Chinese Canadian have more access to the whole picture than you (at least not less), so you are in no position to suspect whoever. You need to use empirically verifiable evidence to support your arguments instead.
Slashdot Mirror
I have different opinions on this. Chiang's reluctant to negotiate with CCP only attested his political short-sightedness. Essentially, war is the extension of politics. If one wants to strangle his enemy militarily, then he needs to strangle his enemy politically: especially it was a civil war. That the US government had to force him to join the negotiation table seems so bizarre: it is no different from a political suicide to me.
Also hope you can understand my stance: the negotiation is only of political significance. Another fact: the US government only cut aid from Chiang when he failed in the battleground. Actually I think I understand US's stance on this whole issue. Their mistake I'd like to say is that they didn't bet on both sides: it is of course extremely difficult considering the then political atmosphere. So I have no better solution.