Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (108642)	7/29/2003 8:14:54 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

I don't want to fight the "Who lost China" battle There’s no battle to fight. Chiang Kai-Shek lost China. No American could have lost it; it wasn’t ours to lose. but we know a lot more about FDR's "Uncle Joe" attitude now. He felt he could control things. And gave away the store in Europe. Roosevelt was dying by Potsdam, and dead soon after. Maybe if he had stayed healthy things would have been different, who knows. Dropping Truman in among Stalin, Churchill, DeGaulle, etc. was a problem. You can love Roosevelt or hate him, but he had stature, and he was accustomed to power and its uses. I suspect he’d have done better, if he’d had a bit longer to live, but who knows? I suspect if we had kept the French out of Nam, eventually the Chinese would have helped Ho take over, if he hadn't already. Hard to say. Ho’s influence in ’45 was still not that large. If we’d moved fast, we’d have had several years to consolidate before China became a factor, and there is a long history of antipathy between Vietnamese and Chinese. We would also have had the popular status achieved by keeping out the French, and that is a major factor. All academic now, of course.