3,303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: +
User talk:RJJensen (view source)
Revision as of 11:56, September 20, 2008
, 11:56, September 20, 2008→China
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)