I guess what I'm wondering is, would it have been a blunder for the US to get involved in a land war in Asia after World War 2? Would it have made any difference? If the KMT had won, rather than Mao and the communists, would the Chinese have been better off? Would it have just been another Vietnam before Vietnam? Hypothetically, without the Communist Chinese, we would have won the Korean war, right? Because the Chinese saved the North Koreans from defeat.
Earlier this year I watched Ken Burns' Vietnam War documentary. In hindsight, it was a terrible blunder. But watching the documentary and recalling what the situation was at time, each individual decision that got us deeper and deeper involved there seemed like a logical decision at the time. At first it was mainly for domestic political reasons. There was lots of finger-pointing over "Who Lost China" to the communists. It seemed like all sorts of problems followed from the fact that we hadn't supported the KMT more and helped them to win the Civil War. Presumably China would then be a crucial US ally if they had, and the problems in Korea and Southeast Asia wouldn't have happened, or could have been put down more easily.
Earlier this year I watched Ken Burns' Vietnam War documentary. In hindsight, it was a terrible blunder. But watching the documentary and recalling what the situation was at time, each individual decision that got us deeper and deeper involved there seemed like a logical decision at the time. At first it was mainly for domestic political reasons. There was lots of finger-pointing over "Who Lost China" to the communists. It seemed like all sorts of problems followed from the fact that we hadn't supported the KMT more and helped them to win the Civil War. Presumably China would then be a crucial US ally if they had, and the problems in Korea and Southeast Asia wouldn't have happened, or could have been put down more easily.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2B4pw0a
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire