The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
War with China! Another Bright Idea from the Yankee Capital
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Performers dressed as soldiers perform in front of a screen showing rockets being launched during a mass gala marking the 100th anniversary of Chinese the Communist Party in Beijing on June 28. Credit: FP
Performers dressed as soldiers perform in front of a screen showing rockets being launched during a mass gala marking the 100th anniversary of Chinese the Communist Party in Beijing on June 28. Credit: FP

Discussions of war with China over Taiwan often assume a short, regional war won by superior American technology, after which things go on approximately as before. A few observations:

First, overconfidence is an occupational disease of militaries and militarists. Wars very often fail to proceed according to the expectations of the aggressors and not infrequently end in catastrophe. The American Civil War was expected to be over in an afternoon at First Manassas; wrong by four years and 630,000 dead, equivalent to over six million today.

When Napoleon invaded Russia, he did not foresee Russian troops marching in Paris, which is what happened. When Germany invaded France in 1914, it expected a short, victorious war of movement, and got four years of a losing attrition war. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, GIs sleeping with their daughters in Tokyo was not among their war aims, but it is what happened.

When the French went back into Vietnam after WW II, being catastrophically defeated by les jaunes at Dien Bien Phu was not a strategic objective. When America invaded Vietnam, Washington did not expect a panicked flight from atop the Embassy. When Hitler invaded Russia, GIs in Berlin were not in his plans. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, it did not expect the same outcome that the Americans should have expected, but didn’t, when they did exactly the same thing. The list could be extended. Caution often is a wiser plan than martial enthusiasm.

Second, America starts its wars by overestimating its own capacities, underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the nature of the war it is getting into. There is probably a manual on this. Usually the US has no end game and no “what if” plan in case the unforeseen occurs. These traits are clear in America’s wars since Korea.

The reason for this curious behavior is that war is only tangentially a rational endeavor, being chiefly a limbic, instinctually driven habit probably of genetic provenance. War is just what men do, tribe against tribe, country against country, empire against empire, world without end. War is a major, perhaps the major, focus of human endeavor. A glance at history reveals it to be chiefly a tapestry of war. The literature of civilizations reflects this: The Gilgamesh Epic, the Iliad, the Aeneid, El Cid, Orlando Furioso, Lord of the Rings.

Does America have a clear reason for defending Taiwan? It is not of vital importance to America, and arguably not of minor importance. Few Americans know quite where it is, and few can distinguish it from Thailand. If it became part of China almost no one would notice. Before getting into an unpredictable war with a massively populous nuclear power of formidable economic and military resources on the other side of the world, it might be wise to answer the question, “Why? What do we gain? How do we get out of said war?”

Regarding war in Chinese waters:

The US fleet has not been in combat since 1945, over seventy-five years ago. American pilots have not flown against a competent enemy since 1973, almost half a century ago. Enormous changes in technology and armament have occurred in the intervening years. Nobody really knows what a battle of naval forces against modern antiship missiles would look like. Those who can guess are not sanguine. Most warships today lack armor. Anyone looking at what a couple of French Exocet missiles did to the USS Stark in 1987 would not bet on equally unarmored Ticos or Arleigh Burkes. An aircraft carrier is a large bladder of aviation fuel wrapped around high explosives. Look at the accidental launch in 1967 of one Zuni five-inch ground-attack missile aboard the USS Forrestal, igniting raging fires, cooking off bombs, killing 134 sailors and putting the ship in the repair yard for many months.

Militaries grow slack in extended periods of peace. Training decreases to save money. War stocks of tank treads are cannibalized for training and aren’t there when war comes; the company that made them has gone out of business. Supplies of critical parts dwindle as budgets go to procurement of future hardware. After all, nobody really expects war. Rapid mobilization, it turns out, is impossible.

If the war was not won as quickly and decisively as hoped, as it very likely would not be, would an American public already under severe economic stress support the heavy cost of a war having no obvious end point or relevance to their lives? Conscription?

Within the Beltway many seem to think that China is Cambodia with more people. Some in Washington harbor a residual belief that America is militarily supreme, that its mere entrance into war seals the outcome. Think again, carefully. Rand has wargamed regional war in the Strait and South China Sea and concluded that America has a very good chance of losing. he Chinese are smart, and excellent engineers. Chinese students dominate America’s best technical universities and the elite high schools. CalTech and MIT, for example. Look at the Chinese space program, the upcoming 360 mph maglev trains using high-temperature superconductivity. The Chinese are not little-leaguers. They have put many resources into antiship missiles specifically designed for US carriers. These, note, greatly outrange carrier aviation. Iraq was predicted to be a “cakewalk.” China won’t be.

Allies? In naval circles there is much talk about the First Island Chain and an assumption that Japan will join a war against China to protect Taiwan, or at least let its bases be used by American forces. Are we sure? Japan is within missile and air range of China. All of its petroleum arrives by sea, and China has pretty decent submarines. Japan’s trade mostly moves by sea. China is a crucial trading partner whose elimination in a war would devastate the Japanese economy. Japan is close to China. America is not. Tokyo might worry that America would grow weary of the war and go home, as it usually does, and leave Japan, all alone, in a shooting war with China. How would that end?

What stake does Japan have in the independence of Taiwan? Today it trades with both Taiwan and China. If China absorbed the island, Japan would continue trading with both. Only the letterhead would change. Are we quite, quite sure Tokyo would want any part of this?

South Korea? Its cities and entire economy are within missile range of China. Does it really want to get into a shooting war with its huge neighbor, which has a land border with the peninsula, to maintain American hegemony in the Pacific? Having gotten into a war, how would it get out? The Koreans may have thought of this.

Wars as imagined inside the Beltway often seem to assume that the enemy will just lie there and be bombed without doing anything untoward or unexpected. Are we sure? The United States has 28,000 troops and their families within range of Chinese weaponry, the killing of whom would force Washington into desperate measures. Could China encourage North Korea to attack southward, creating a two-front war far beyond Washington’s ability to handle? Or Kim to think he saw a chance and attack on his own initiative? Might China annex Myanmar? Perhaps this is farfetched. Perhaps it isn’t. Remember that nobody expected China’s entry into the Korean war.

One might suspect that Taipei, seeing overwhelming forces arrayed against it across the Strait, will one day cut the best deal it can with Beijing rather than be devastated first and then have to accept whatever conditions Beijing chose to impose. It could get a sweetheart deal as Beijing would much prefer this to invading with all of its risks. Here is a factor I am not competent to judge, but that might be worth judging: The Chinese, as I knew them long ago when I lived in Taiwan, are (very) racially aware and nationalistic. The Taiwanese are Chinese. You can bet they know of the Legations, the Opium Wars, the Boxers, the burning of the Summer Palace, the Korean War. As I write, the most popular movie on the mainland is about a Chinese victory over Americans in the Korean War.

What might a Chinese attack on Taiwan look like? The Chinese general staff mysteriously does not confide in me, but a good guess is easy. The Chinese often do beach-assault exercises on their side of the strait, obviously practice for the genuine assault. One of these turns suddenly into the real thing. Ballistic missiles crater Taiwan’s military runways, missiles in large numbers hit air defenses. Troop ships head for Taiwan, getting there in eight hours at fifteen knots, helicopters and paratroops in less. China’s large and reasonably good air force bombs and bombs and bombs. After twenty-four hours, the US is still trying to decide what is happening, talking to the JCS, asking the President what to do.

Nathan Bedford Forrest, the talented Confederate general, is said to have said that the secret of victory is to “git thar fustest with the mostest.” In the event of a surprise attack, how long would it take—in the real world, not in PowerPoint slides—for America to get there with how much of what? If the Chinese got substantial forces ashore, it would be the end of the story. Keeping troops out of an island is one thing, getting them out quite another. Not even John Bolton—perhaps not even John Bolton—can imagine that America could win a land war with China in Asia. Selling the American public on a large war over things in which it has no interest would be difficult. Under these circumstances, the chances are nonnegligible that the US would make loud noises, huff and puff, save face as best it could, and do nothing.

But let us assume that Washington fought and lost the regional war, Taiwan perhaps surrendering after the U.S. lost a dozen ships and a carrier was disabled. What would Washington do after such a humiliation? Never underestimate the influence of vanity on world affairs. The hawks in DC have elevated titles and, sometimes, considerable ability, but they also have the same hormones and egos as patrons in Joe’s Bar in Chicago. A Chinese victory in the style of Tsushima Strait would end the world’s view of America as an invincible hegemon. The fernbar Napoleons might well decide to up the ante and turn a regional into a world war. This it would win. “Win.” Perhaps by blocking the Strait of Malacca and threatening the Three Gorges Dam. The expectation in the Pentagon would likely be that Beijing would see the futility of resistance and surrender. But if it did not?

America’s trade with China in goods in 2020 was \$660 billion, \$120 billion of that being exports, making it America’s largest trading partner… Cutting this off would wreck the American economy. This is far more than a matter of iPhones and cheap plastic buckets for Walmart. Though most may not know it, America is an economic dependency of China. The US gets from China countless things it cannot make but cannot do without. For example, cars require computers to control their ignition and transmissions. Where do we think these are made? Companies like Boeing sound American but many vital assemblies come from China. High-end semiconductors, crucial to today’s economies, come predominantly from East Asian companies, notably Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Samsung, both of which would be hostage to Chinese attack. The great majority of rare earths, critical to the manufacture of chips, come from China. Similar considerations exist for industry after industry. While America has the technology to make most of the things it gets from China, it does not have the manufacturing capacity, and would need years to develop it.

Has anyone in Washington checked industry by industry to see what the effects of the end of imports would actually be?

Further, China is the largest trading partner of most of the world, Germany and the European Union for example, and close with most of the rest. If an American war took China out of the global supply chain, the resulting depression would make 1929 look like the height of prosperity, turn the entire earth against the US, and likely lead to the lynching of everyone in Washington.

Never mentioned is that America is trying, with considerable success, to block China’s economic progress by preventing its acquisition of advanced semiconductors. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s largest and most advanced manufacturer of chips, is in Taiwan. Reunification of Taiwan with China would solve this critical problem. Beijing has probably thought of this.

Considering the costs, risks, and benefits if any of such a war, the question may be, “How bright an idea is this?”

FRED REED describes himself as [previously] a “Washington police reporter, former Washington editor for Harper’s and staff writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, Marine combat vet from Viet Nam, and former long-haul hitchhiker, part-time sociopath, who once lived in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from the Yankee Capital.”

His essays “on the collapse of America” Mr. Reed calls “wildly funny, sometimes wacky, always provocative.”

“Fred is the Hunter Thompson of the right,” seconds Thomas E. Ricks in Foreign Policy magazine. His commentary is “well-written, pungent political incorrectness mixed with smart military commentary and libertarian impulses, topped off with a splash of Third World sunshine and tequila.”

FRED’S BOOKS ARE ON AMAZON, HERE

FRED’S ARTICLES ARCHIVE

Killer Kink

Hardboiled is back! (The exclamation point is to arouse wild enthusiasm int the reader, a boiling literary lust.) Gritty crime fiction by longtime police reporter for the Washington Times, who knows the police from nine years of riding with them. Guaranteed free of white wine and cheese, sensitivity, or social justice.

Subscribe!Unsubscribe

 
The China/America Series
Hide 158 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rich says:

    There was no “panicked flight” from Vietnam for the USA. America had withdrawn its troops 2 years earlier and the S Vietnamese had been able to slow the North’s invasion without the promised air support or supplies after the coup that took out Nixon. The flights from the tops of buildings were mercy flights by American pilots trying to save Vietnamese citizens from the communists. This is a fact that hasn’t yet been erased from the historical record.

  2. Cuffy says:

    Thanks Fred. Good read.

    Are these mfers that stupid? The only ally they would have from that part of the world in clash with China would be Japan and Australia. Despite everything mentioned in the article militating against Japan’s entry in said war, China would dearly love to settle a few scores with them. As for Australia, down under, will be quickly put way down under. Where after, a white , European outpost in Asia will never emerge again. Yeah, this same baby killing lot in Afghanistan. Yeah, the same dogs that fought with their Yankee masters against the great Vietnamese. Go ahead, you depraved bastards.
    As for the US, they can inflict damage(of course they are masters of this), but they will be so mangled that their empire will not survive. They are quite used to getting beaten but this beating will damage them militarily, economically, politically and psychologically for all time.

    At the same time, they and their NATO poodles are beating the drums of war against Russia. Russia is not afraid of a war. But they do not want a war. Remember, the Russians and Chinese are #1 and #2 in WW2 casualties. They know of war and are tough and resilient. The Russians are bending over backwards hoping that these lunatics will come to their senses, to no avail. These Yankee war mongers want a war of annihilation against the Russian people, very well they will have one.(Stalin about the Nazis in 1941).

    The Iranians are not afraid of Israel or the Yanks and can hold their own against them and are ready for a long time.

    What if there is a perfect storm and all three confrontations happen at the same time? What will be the outcome for the world? Can this go nuclear? Can this be stopped? Or are we on the Titanic with a hapless crew of Biden, Harris, Blinken, Austin? Then we are fucked..God help us all.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  3. Well, Fred’s finally back again, mocking American (((foreign policy))) without ever connecting the (((dots))).

    As usual.

    • Replies: @ulithi
    , @haha
  4. meamjojo says:

    The solution is simple – Taiwan needs to make its island disappear or move like in the TV show Lost.

    Or they could put rocket engines under the island, like in James Blish’s

    Cities in Flight stories
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_in_Flight

  5. meamjojo says:

    December 16, 20214:16 AM UTC
    U.S. builds new software tool to predict actions that could draw China’s ire

    HONOLULU, Hawaii, Dec 15 (Reuters) – U.S. military commanders in the Pacific have built a software tool to predict how the Chinese government will react to U.S. actions in the region like military sales, U.S.-backed military activity and even congressional visits to hotspots like Taiwan.

    Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks was briefed on the new tool during a visit to the United States Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii on Tuesday.

    “With the spectrum of conflict and the challenge sets spanning down into the grey zone. What you see is the need to be looking at a far broader set of indicators, weaving that together and then understanding the threat interaction,” Hicks said in an interview aboard a military jet en route to California.
    ….
    https://archive.vn/KzFEs

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  6. America’s trade with China in goods in 2020 was \$660 billion, \$120 billion of that being exports, making it America’s largest trading partner… Cutting this off would wreck the American economy. This is far more than a matter of iPhones and cheap plastic buckets for Walmart. Though most may not know it, America is an economic dependency of China.

    All true – per Peak Stupidity‘s Part 4 of our 6 part series “Will American be looted by China”*, “The Fruited Plain”, With that \$500,000,000,000 (it helps to see the digits, doesn’t it?) net that we lose every year, the Chinese could buy up all of the good American farmland in a decade, TOPS!

    Yet, when President Trump, in one of his better efforts, tried to make in-roads into the unfair deal that America’s Globalist “leaders” made, starting in the mid-1990s, this fool Reed would deride him like everyone else he rags on. Anyone who is trying to FIX the problems that Mr. Reed points out, occasionally fully-truthfully and not just from sitting on his ass in front of Lyin’ Press TV, he gives them grief too in his columns.

    It’s only complaints, never solutions, that you get out of Fred Reed’s writing.

    As for the column above, that’s no new news. I could have told you “no shit” 10 years ago.

    .

    See also:

    “Intro.”
    “Housing”
    “Big Biz”
    “The Wilderness”
    “Conclusion – The Golden Rule”

  7. @meamjojo

    U.S. builds new software tool to predict actions that could draw China’s ire

    Excellent!

    Have it engage China’s new software tool to predict actions that could draw U.S.’s ire, and everyone on both sides can let the computers handle it.

    • LOL: Negrolphin Pool
  8. ulithi says:
    @Pat Kittle

    Pat Kittle: No need for Fred to connect the (((dots))) for you, nor resort to ((((…)))). Welcome back Fred.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  9. @ulithi

    Pat Kittle: No need for Fred to connect the (((dots))) for you, nor resort to ((((…)))).

    Of course not — the goyim don’t need to know.

  10. HE’S BACK!
    Great to have you back here, Fred.
    I was just a wee lad when the War in Vietnam burned up and suddenly ended.
    I follewed the war via the nightly news.
    You guys were my heroes.
    No less than my uncles in Korea and my grandfathers in WW II.

    • Agree: Tony massey
  11. From the article:

    Never underestimate the influence of vanity on world affairs. The hawks in DC have elevated titles and, sometimes, considerable ability, but they also have the same hormones and egos as patrons in Joe’s Bar in Chicago. A Chinese victory in the style of Tsushima Strait would end the world’s view of America as an invincible hegemon. The fern bar Napoleons might well decide to up the ante and turn a regional into a world war. This it would win. “Win.” Perhaps by blocking the Strait of Malacca and threatening the Three Gorges Dam. The expectation in the Pentagon would likely be that Beijing would see the futility of resistance and surrender. But if it did not?

    NO. No we would NOT win. Simple as that.

    The United States might, might just barely, avoid catastrophic defeat and an imposed peace – but we could not win. The implication in the article is that, when it comes down to it, in an all-out conventional war, with both sides mobilizing their entire nations for conflict, America would be superior to China. A flat out wrong assumption.

    Wrong because the numbers, meaning the hard, unyielding reality, does not back it up.

    In total economic output, measured in real terms, China’s is already today 40% larger than America’s. This throws into the mix America’s massive service sector, which accounts for much less of China’s economy.

    In total industrial output, which is widely considered of more relevance to war making, China is already the equivalent of the United States + Japan + Germany, all combined. Their manufacturing industry is over 80% larger than ours. Put another way, Chinese industrial power is 180% of America’s.

    In both raw economic and specifically industrial might, the gap between China and America, gaping wide as it already is, is growing rapidly into a vast chasm.

    By 2025, China’s economy, conservatively, will be 50% larger than ours, and their industrial capacity easily TWICE as large. By 2030, China’s economy will be the equivalent of that of the U.S. and European Union, COMBINED.

    The Chinese do not seek to alter anyone’s way of life, least of all that of Americans. At most, they seek economic power and domestic progress, at a blistering pace. Violent conflict is not their desire, nor their subconscious wish, nor does it figure into their strategic plans. Subversion and sponsorship of terrorism are not in the Chinese playbook.

    Maybe we should step back before we seek war with a country that A) does not threaten us and B) would most probably defeat us in an all-out world war. Why pick fight with a someone who doesn’t want to hurt you, and who could at the same time destroy you? Monumentally stupid.

    If he geniuses in DC are smart, they would step the hell back.

    • Agree: Ray Caruso
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  12. The entire Earth is vastly overpopulated, which guarantees a catastrophic future.

    China’s one-child birth control policy did the entire world, including China, a huge favor. Imagine the mess we’re already in, but with hundreds of millions more Chinese.

    • Agree: meamjojo, VivaLaMigra
  13. @Cuffy

    Aside from his overwhelming fear of offending (((his masters))), Fred’s an insightful war gamer.

    BTW, like almost war scenarios I’ve seen, no consideration is given to the utter vulnerability of everyone’s nuclear power plants.

    Duh!

  14. meamjojo says:
    @CosmicMythos

    Maybe we should step back before we seek war with a country that A) does not threaten us and B) would most probably defeat us in an all-out world war. Why pick fight with a someone who doesn’t want to hurt you, and who could at the same time destroy you?

    I agree however, if/when China and the USA did get into a war,if either side thought that all was lost for them, they might just say “hell with it” and release the nukes or the bio-weapons each side surely has stockpiled.

    Warfare is almost never the proper answer for either side.

    I believe China basically recognizes this by inserting themselves into other countries economies worldwide building roads, mining financing infrastructure and so on, although under Xi, they are building up their war capability.

    The USA needs to cut back what we spend on so-called “defense” by at least 50% annually. That money could then go to better uses like fixing our abysmal infrastructure.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  15. PJ London says:

    Trump to the Generals :
    “Look guys the Russians and the Chinese have these incredible annual marches where they show off their troops and equipment. I think the US should do the same, Show them how the US military really is.”
    Generals to Trump:
    “Don’t be a phuqqing idiot.”

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  16. @Achmed E. Newman

    Yet, when President Trump, in one of his better efforts, tried to make in-roads into the unfair deal that America’s Globalist “leaders” made…

    The evil orange clown tried nothing of the kind; all Trump did and wanted to do was to “contain” China by any and every means possible, as per orders from his jewish-supremacist handlers.

    It’s only complaints, never solutions, that you get out of Fred Reed’s writing.

    Probably because Fred knows (like anyone else paying attention knows) that as long as jewish-supremacist madmen are running everything, there will be no solutions.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  17. @Harold Smith

    I guess you didn’t pay attention, Harold. There were lots of efforts made by the Trump Administration to enact tariffs. They had gotten through one round, but of course the President had to get things through a Senate and House full of mostly traitorous bastards who DON’T care about the ruin of the country.

    President Trump’s problem, IMO, is that he thought you could do diplomacy with the President-for-Life head Chinaman the same way you could do a business deal with an American you have known for a long time. Trump only realized this about 3/4 of the term in.

    Yes, it was one of the best efforts (“efforts”, not “big successes) that Trump did on behalf of the American people.

  18. @Achmed E. Newman

    I guess you’re completely out of your mind if you believe: (1) that Trump ever did or intended to do anything for the actual betterment of the “American people”; and (2) that Trump, the tactless, feckless, reckless, utterly disingenuous, mentally and morally defective fool and all-around-loser that he is, would be capable of successful diplomacy on behalf of the American people – with China or any other country – even if he could somehow grasp the concept.

    • Agree: Tony massey
    • LOL: Cuffy
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  19. @Harold Smith

    I guess you could actually read about it, or maybe you could have kept up with what was going both in the public eye and behind the scenes as far as his efforts on trade and immigration during those 4 years. I get the impression you have this one concept of the guy in your head, right or wrong, and I am sure that you are talking out of your ass, Harold.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  20. @PJ London

    Too late …

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/china-laughing-us-military-begins-purging-unvaxxed-us-air-force-polling-remaining-members-diversity-equity-inclusion-logos/

    https://www.rt.com/usa/543711-insurrection-military-breakdown-war-games/

    😀 😀 😀

    – Tsushima was a ritual slaughter … Gen. Nogi had already won the war,
    at Hill 203, at a cost of 48,000 elite infantry including his two sons.
    Not good example.
    Against China, the Usual Suspects´only chance is slow strangulation –
    which in turn would lay waste to the entire WestPac posture
    (the fabled “surge” in industrial capacity would take 2-3 years).
    Korea, Taiwan and the Straits are untenable (as Gen. Yamashita demonstrated,
    temporibus illis), Japan might hold – or use the opportunity to kick out the gaijin.
    OTOH, TPTB are getting desperate, and the Philippines (killing more
    gooks in 3 years than the Spaniards had in 300) have already shown their regard
    for Asian lives.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman

    I guess you could actually read about it, or maybe you could have kept up with what was going both in the public eye and behind the scenes as far as his efforts on trade and immigration during those 4 years.

    I guess you could actually try looking at the bigger picture and doing some simple reasoning, and if you could you’d perhaps realize that jew-puppet Trump never did anything for the betterment of the American people nor did he ever have any intention of doing so. And to the extent he could even conceive of such a thing in the first place (which he obviously can’t), the boorish, infantile narcissist is far too mentally and morally incompetent to have a chance at making it happen.

    I get the impression you have this one concept of the guy in your head, right or wrong…

    And I get the impression that you simply ignore anything and everything at odds with your breathtaking MAGA fantasy.

    …and I am sure that you are talking out of your ass, Harold.

    Coming from the likes of you – i.e. someone with their head up Trump’s traitorous ass – that’s a nice compliment. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  22. @Harold Smith

    Geeze, that was a lot of baseless assumptions, there, Harold. I’m not into any “MAGA fantasy”. Trump’s biggest fault was hiring people who were totally against him, due his lack of confidence that you didn’t need to be a beltway “expert” to run these cabinet departments in the RIGHT direction. His other faults were being someone as easily distracted as a house cat, and his being a bullshitter, as in not keeping his word.

    However, I’ve read VDare.com for about 20 years, catching about 95% of the writing there. They know more than you do about the immigration issue by an infinite amount, since you sound like a bloviating dumbass. Indeed, President Trump got quite a few things turned around behind the scenes. (The big problem with that is, if you don’t have a political strategy and use tactics to get actual LAWS made, the next guy reverses it all, first week – we’ve experienced that.)

    On trade, it would help if you’d read Josh Rogin’s book Chaos under Heaven. A significant part of that book is on Trump’s attempted and actual trade dealings with China. He’s got the inside story from after the fact.

    Everything you’ve been writing here, Harold, is just BS out of your head. You may be right occasionally through no fault of your own, but you are talking out of your ass here. Do you know what a book is?

    • Replies: @VivaLaMigra
  23. Geeze, that was a lot of baseless assumptions, there, Harold. Trump’s biggest fault was hiring people who were totally against him, due his lack of confidence that you didn’t need to be a beltway “expert” to run these cabinet departments in the RIGHT direction. His other faults were being someone as easily distracted as a house cat, and his being a bullshitter, as in not keeping his word.

    LOL! Well look who’s talking about “baseless assumptions.” First, if Trump hired a series of assholes who were “against him” (whatever that actually means under the circumstances) it’s because Trump himself is an asshole, so what else would you expect? Second, Trump’s biggest fault is the fact that he’s a stupid, ignorant, arrogant, grossly incompetent, utterly morally bankrupt, Israel-first, America-last con man. Third, Trump escalated in Syria, and attacked Syrian govt. forces several times, taking risks that could’ve led to WW3, and he seized Syrian oilfields; he repudiated the JCPOA agreement, reimposed sanctions on Iran and assassinated General Soleimani (which also could’ve led to WW3); he gave Syrian land to Israel and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. So it seems he wasn’t very “distracted” when it came to doing jew dirty work, thus he sure seems to have kept his promises to his jew handlers.

    So apparently he’s only an “easily distracted” “bullshitter” hampered by subordinates who are “totally against him” when it comes to doing right by the American people.

    However, I’ve read VDare.com for about 20 years, catching about 95% of the writing there. They know more than you do about the immigration issue by an infinite amount, since you sound like a bloviating dumbass.

    Please point out where I said anything about “immigration.” You can’t, because I didn’t, so apparently you’re the “bloviating dumbass,” dumbass.

    On trade, it would help if you’d read Josh Rogin’s book Chaos under Heaven. A significant part of that book is on Trump’s attempted and actual trade dealings with China. He’s got the inside story from after the fact.

    First, I don’t generally read books by jew-supremacist-propagandists like Josh Rogin (if you do that may partially explain why you’re so pathetically misinformed). Second, regarding trade with China – or anything else involving Trump’s dealings with any other country – it would help if you’d take a look at the big picture before undertaking to lecture anyone regarding what you claim Trump “attempted” to do.

    For example, the evil orange clown started insulting China before he was even inaugurated.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/donald-trump-insults-china-with-taiwan-phone-call-and-tweets-on-trade-south-china-sea.html

    You don’t use insults, threats and provocations to get concessions from China, Russia, Iran or anyone else for that matter. You start by showing mutual respect and good faith, but your evil messiah Trump isn’t capable of that, so don’t tell me that he “attempted” to do something good for the American people because he is not only not capable of it but it was never his intent in the first place.

    • Agree: Cuffy
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  24. @Harold Smith

    First, if Trump hired a series of assholes who were “against him” (whatever that actually means under the circumstances) it’s because Trump himself is an asshole,…

    No, it most certainly doesn’t. It was part of his failings as an executive. You hire the right people – in politics, that means those on your side.

    Please point out where I said anything about “immigration.”

    I never said you did. My point was that President Trump DID do some small amounts of good for regular Americans, contrary to your point. As much as he was blocked by courts, Congress, etc. he made some inroads on the problem.

    First, I don’t generally read books by jew-supremacist-propagandists like Josh Rogin ..

    Not my problem. However, that book covers lots of the internal goings on in the Trump administration, and he had a big push for fairer trade with China. If you’d read that book, you’d realize that you are wrong on the “mutual faith and respect” thing. If anything, Trump was too trusting, as if this guy Xi was one of his NYC real estate buddies.

    You just have to read, with an effort at comprehension, Harold, both books and my comments. Look back at my general opinion of Donald Trump in my previous comment, and tell me how you got that I think he’s “the Messiah” out of that. Work harder on that reading comprehension thing, mmmkay?

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  25. Rogue says:

    Was looking in the archived section for Fred’s last article (to check on any new comments) and saw his name wasn’t there.

    Thought to myself, has Fred been so excommunicated from the UR that even his name is not allowed to grace the archived area??

    However, to my pleasant surprise, I see he’s writing once more for the Unz Review.

    Good to see you back Fred. One of my favorite UR contributors.

    Now, I shall proceed to read the article…

  26. Uncle Al says: • Website

    War is not about winning, unconditional surrender, or hegemony. A successful War

    … 1) Kills off surfeits of saggressive young males for whom the warring nations have no economic berths, hence infantry engagements then, birth control now.
    … 2) Stomps the enemy so hard that it ceases to be an entity, that its very soul overflows with fear, horror, and agony; the sobbing threnodies of its women, forever. Economic acquisition.

    … 1) The DemSoc OneState degendered, ended education, and imposed univeral poverty by edict – no qualified candidates, no consequential berths.
    … 2) DemSoc OneState War is strictly an internal affair fought by sabotage and street paramilatry (re Hitler’s SA).

    If China exerts its SEATO appetites, the District of Columbia will surrender as a purchased vassal state, its borders opened wide as the social trash can of Earth, New Australia. Combined militaries will enslave or exerminate B-player nuisances, then be mothballed.

    STRENGTH THROUGH LOYALTY
    ABUNDANCE THROUGH SACRIFICE
    SAFETY THROUGH SURVEILLANCE

  27. America has pushed for a transexual/feminized military in the name of inclusion. Perhaps we’ll find out if inclusion and diversity really are our biggest strengths, or will firepower be enough?

    • Replies: @The Mestizo
  28. @Achmed E. Newman

    First, if Trump hired a series of assholes who were “against him” (whatever that actually means under the circumstances) it’s because Trump himself is an asshole, [so what else would you expect?]

    No, it most certainly doesn’t. It was part of his failings as an executive.

    What do you mean by “it most certainly doesn’t”? What doesn’t what? Anyway, to the extent I’m able to parse your statements, we both agree about his “failings as an executive,” but you apparently refuse to consider this in the context of the bigger picture. The president is supposed to be the chief executive, the head of the executive branch of government. So if Trump fails as an executive, then he’s basically a total failure as president, right? And the bigger picture shows that he’s a total failure as chief executive because he’s a total failure as a human being. So why would we not expect Trump to surround himself with assholes when as a total failure he is apparently capable of nothing else?

    You hire the right people – in politics, that means those on your side.

    First, who are the “right people” in this case? Do you mean “yes men,” i.e. unprincipled opportunists who would always agree with Trump on everything even if he reverses himself five times; people who give him the constant praise he needs, pandering to his inflated sense of self-importance, and thus for whom qualities like competence, relevant job experience and most importantly, wisdom, don’t matter?

    Second what “side” would this be in Trump’s case, the side of pre-election Trump, the professed anti-interventionist who once told Obama that sending troops into Syria would be unconstitutional, and who claimed to want to practice peaceful diplomacy, quit the pointless wars and nation building, cooperate with and get along with Russia, etc.; or the side of post-election Trump, who enthusiastically reversed himself on all of his pre-election promises and intimations, thereby betraying his supporters and his election mandate? And how were any prospective appointees supposed to know what “side” the pathological liar was on, on any given day?

    That said, what would the theoretical “right people” do or say when Trump made it known for example that he planned to withdraw from the INF treaty or that he planned to assassinate Iranian General Soleimani? Would they try and stop him from making these mistakes or would they egg him on. Please explain.

    Please point out where I said anything about “immigration.”

    I never said you did.

    Of course you did; or at least that’s what you clearly implied when you said:

    “However, I’ve read VDare.com for about 20 years, catching about 95% of the writing there. They know more than you do about the immigration issue by an infinite amount, since you sound like a bloviating dumbass.”

    Why would you tell me that VDare knows more than I do about the immigration issue if I didn’t say anything about immigration?

    My point was that President Trump DID do some small amounts of good for regular Americans, contrary to your point. As much as he was blocked by courts, Congress, etc. he made some inroads on the problem.

    Apparently you introduced the “immigration issue” into the discussion as a red herring, which I ignored because it’s ridiculous to make that assertion in light of the massive damage he did and his breathtaking general fraudulence. For that matter you could also say that the nuclear war that Trump (and his like-minded successor) have apparently set us up for will “do some small amounts of good for regular Americans” in that a lot of bad people will die.

    First, I don’t generally read books by jew-supremacist-propagandists like Josh Rogin ..

    Not my problem.

    Yep, your problem is your apparent misguided belief that there’s some value in reading books written by jew-supremacist-propagandists.

    However, that book covers lots of the internal goings on in the Trump administration, and he had a big push for fairer trade with China.

    Of course, as I’ve already stated or implied, Trump didn’t actually give the slightest damn about “fairer trade with China” anymore than he actually gave the slightest damn about “democracy in Venezuela” or the “territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The “fairer trade with China” trope is nothing more than a fig leaf for the economic aspect of the deep state’s hybrid war against China, which Trump obviously fully supports. (And btw if Trump actually gave the slightest damn about the American people, he wouldn’t have recklessly gambled with their lives and their well-being by taking the risks that he did in his dealings with Russia and China).

    If you’d read that book, you’d realize that you are wrong on the “mutual faith and respect” thing. If anything, Trump was too trusting, as if this guy Xi was one of his NYC real estate buddies.

    That’s pure jew-supremacist nonsense, reality averse and brimming with arrogance and hypocrisy.

  29. @Harold Smith

    So if Trump fails as an executive, then he’s basically a total failure as president, right?

    No, your logic is unsound. He failed in lots of his efforts, many of them his own fault (not keeping his word – or not giving it, if he knew he couldn’t), surrounding himself with swamp creatures, and not having any big coherent strategy). He was NOT a total failure. If you’d read more details., well, you could learn about that. You don’t seem to want to, Harold.

    It’s fine if you don’t want to, but why reply to me in the first place? I had to look back 4 comments each to get to what you replied to me about in the first place:

    Yet, when President Trump, in one of his better efforts, tried to make in-roads into the unfair deal that America’s Globalist “leaders” made, starting in the mid-1990s, this fool Reed would deride him like everyone else he rags on.

    Yes, he made inroads into the unfair trade deals we’ve subject ourselves to since the 1990s. Read about it, or don’t, but you’re replying to someone who has! You’ve wasted my time and your time doing so.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  30. @Harold Smith

    OK, I have to keep scrolling up to keep explaining, because you don’t seem to have read my comments fully. Here:

    … you’d perhaps realize that jew-puppet Trump never did anything for the betterment of the American people…

    I brought up the immigration issue for this reason – yes I KNOW you didn’t bring it up. This was to explain that President Trump did indeed do something for the American people. Man, this is getting old …

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  31. haha says:
    @Pat Kittle

    And what exactly may those dots be that Fred has failed to see and connect? Please enlighten us. Until such enlightenment is delivered, we should pay some serious heed to the dots that Fred has seen and very logically connected.

    • Agree: Tony massey
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  32. haha says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Enactment of tariffs is an old, old game Achmed. The word for it was Mercantilism in the early days of industrial capitalism. The idea behind it is very appealing and thus tempting: sell to the other guy and take all his money but don’t buy from him, thus keeping your money in your pocket. Unfortunately, like all seductive ideas, this one, too, is pretty dumb – and dangerous for world peace. If Trump had succeeded in putting through his grand plan, the US would have ended up with a much higher cost economy and a further erosion of its ability to compete on the world market.

    BTW, I am not a free-trader, so I supported Trump’s intentions but, to horror, realized that the Orange fellow lacked both brawns and brains to bring about any prudent and successful reform of the international economic order.

  33. Antiwar7 says:

    Of course, the US government doesn’t really care about the people of Taiwan. It only wants to use the issue as one more stick to “irritate” China with.

    PS: Good to see Fred here again.

  34. @Achmed E. Newman

    No, your logic is unsound. He failed in lots of his efforts, many of them his own fault (not keeping his word – or not giving it, if he knew he couldn’t), surrounding himself with swamp creatures, and not having any big coherent strategy). He was NOT a total failure.

    Spare me the sophistry. First, as I already pointed out – but you characteristically ignored – Trump really came through for Israel and his jewish-supremacist handlers. It was only when it came to doing right by the American people that he was a total failure. And this is primarily because he BETRAYED his supporters and his election mandate – it can’t get any more “failed” than that.

    And how much of a “big coherent strategy” would he have needed to get out of Afghanistan for example, or to NOT escalate in Syria and to NOT start a new arms race with Russia and China? Even the senile and sleazy, swamp-creature-surrounded joe biden was able to withdraw from Afghanistan but Trump couldn’t? Do you ever run out of absurdities? Apparently not.

    If you’d read more details., well, you could learn about that. You don’t seem to want to, Harold.

    Well look who’s talkin’ about “details.” In my comment #28 for example I tried to pin you down on “details” regarding the characteristics of the “right people” that Trump could’ve surrounded himself with as per your comment #24, but you ignored it.

    Yes, he made inroads into the unfair trade deals we’ve subject ourselves to since the 1990s.

    That’s a meaninglessly vague statement; apparently just another one of your throwing-shit-at-the-wall-and-hoping-something-sticks distractions. What do you mean by “he made inroads into the unfair trade deals…”? Explain what you mean, pointing out the tangible benefits to the American people, and prove it.

    Read about it, or don’t, but you’re replying to someone who has!

    I’ve read several articles on how Trump’s trade war and other policies have damaged America. I don’t see anything suggesting that he accomplished anything good. You made a claim to the contrary, now back it up.

    https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-china-failure-6111a412-9458-438e-ab2f-a4b7481f89e3.html

    https://itep.org/trump-gop-tax-law-encourages-companies-to-move-jobs-offshore-and-new-tax-cuts-wont-change-that/

    You’ve wasted my time and your time doing so.

    LOL! Sorry but your interminable disingenuous bullshit reflects poorly on you, not on me.

  35. @American Citizen

    You may find a tinnie winnie, itsie bitsie, little drop of evidence to assist you in your quest for the answer to your question IF you look up the USS Bonhomme Richard (on drums).

  36. @Achmed E. Newman

    you’d perhaps realize that jew-puppet Trump never did anything for the betterment of the American people…

    I brought up the immigration issue for this reason – yes I KNOW you didn’t bring it up. This was to explain that President Trump did indeed do something for the American people. Man, this is getting old …

    Please explain exactly what Trump did regarding immigration that resulted in benefits for the American people, and prove it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  37. @Harold Smith

    VDare had written hundreds of articles on the successes, most small, but some significant, that Trump had done on immigration. The Peak Stupidity post “President Donald Trump: the Bad, **the Good**, and the Ugly” is a summary of what is a summary itself by VDare’s “Washington Watcher II” on the many successful acts, taken from a NY Times article right before election ’20, that, of course, didn’t have the same perspective as Washington Watcher or Peak Stupidity.

    Keep in mind, the excerpts are from the NY Times, so they are not written to praise, but to bemoan. We don’t see it that way:

    [MORE]

    Between 2016 and 2019, annual net immigration into the United States fell by almost half, to about 600,000 people per year — a level not seen since the 1980s — according to an analysis by William H. Frey of the Brookings Institution. (Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, that number has certainly decreased even more.)

    The 2016-19 drop “is clearly a result of Trump’s restrictive immigration measures,” Mr. Frey told the editorial board, “including immigrant bans from selected countries, greater limits on refugees, and generating fear among other potential immigrant groups over this administration’s unwelcoming policies.”

    Border control officials said they would accept asylum applications only from people who arrived at approved border crossings, even though the law says anyone can apply for asylum once in the United States. At those crossings, asylum seekers were forced to wait for days, even weeks, in long lines just for a chance to approach the border to ask for protection. The White House packed the immigration appeals board with Trump appointees, with predictable results: Rejections increased.

    Mr. Trump also used the threat of tariffs to get Mexico to crack down on undocumented Central American immigrants and to allow frustrated asylum seekers to wait on the Mexican side of the border while their cases meandered through U.S. immigration courts.

    After Mr. Trump suspended aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in March, Guatemala and Honduras agreed to accept asylum seekers who had passed through those countries on their way north, so they could either apply for asylum there or go home.

    Mr. Trump eventually achieved a version of his Muslim ban when the Supreme Court approved of severe restrictions on entry for residents of 13 countries, the majority of them with mostly Muslim populations. While the White House said one reason the ban was needed was lax security in those countries, it also has drastically scaled back the refugee program, which involves stringent vetting by American and United Nations officials. In Barack Obama’s last year as president, the ceiling for refugee admissions was 110,000. For the current fiscal year, it’s 15,000.

    Despite Mr. Trump’s promises to protect Americans from killer immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is now more than twice as likely to pick up immigrants with no criminal record beyond immigration violations, compared with the number before he took office. After being labeled the “deporter in chief,” Mr. Obama ordered ICE to concentrate enforcement on unauthorized immigrants who had committed crimes. Within weeks of his own inauguration, Mr. Trump eliminated any deportation priorities and made all undocumented immigrants fair game for ICE. With many cities resisting ICE’s more stringent demands for cooperation, the agency has also found it easier to just pick up anyone with an existing deportation warrant.

    At the same time, applications for permanent residency have declined since the administration announced it would adopt a rule that would prevent those considered likely to receive public benefits from becoming permanent residents. Among recent green-card recipients, 69 percent had at least one of the characteristics that would be weighed, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

    Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of homeland security, recently announced that the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers would be cut by one-third because of tighter criteria for who can get them. Critics said this would make American companies shift more work abroad.

    Mr. Trump also has ended “temporary protected status” for 400,000 people from El Salvador, Haiti, Sudan and elsewhere who have legally lived and worked in the United States for decades after being provided a haven from war or natural disaster.

    This last part was encouraging, but unfortunately not true:

    There’s so much change that has happened in the last four years, there’s no way a new administration could reverse things in four or even eight years,” said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute who was a co-author of the group’s July report.

  38. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:

    Very disappointed to see Fred back to his old subversive ways. I had hoped Unz had given the old man hi walking papers.

    • Troll: Tony massey
  39. Ednguyen says:
    @Harold Smith

    Thanks, guys, for an entertaining and informative match. This one goes to Smith, I say.

    • Agree: Cuffy
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  40. @Ednguyen

    Hey, hey, Mr. Nguyen, we’re not done yet! You can’t just call it. I guess only Ron Unz can – he’s the ref here.

  41. @Harold Smith

    Mr. Smith, on the warmongering of the Trump administration, well, I really have no disagreement with you. From 3 months into his term, with the Syria bombing, I wondered Has Trump been Neo-conned?. How did the Deep State get to him? Blackmail seems hard to do on a known playboy/philanderer type. Even evangelicals let this slide on all that during election ’16 and ’20. He could have been threatened, and likely was.

    Our difference is that you think he was a shill from the get-go, and I think he wasn’t. I think he was incompetent in a lot, but, likely because he’d hired people against him and had no serious political strategy, all he could get done was stuff under the radar, such as all these immigration moves below the [MORE] tag in my other comment.

    I’ll reply on his trade dealings later in a short comment.

  42. Good to see you back. It’s great to see how polarizing your columns are. I get the biggest kick reading comments from those who think you suck; but they keep reading you. Pitiful.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  43. @Jim Richard

    Fred Reed gets lots of reads, hence lots of links. That’s the idea for me, anyway. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother.

    I used to like him a lot back in his ’00s fredoneverything days.

    • Agree: Pat Kittle, Rurik
  44. Rurik says:

    War with China! Another Bright Idea from the Yankee Capital

    Before getting into an unpredictable war with a massively populous nuclear power of formidable economic and military resources on the other side of the world, it might be wise to answer the question, “Why? What do we gain? How do we get out of said war?”

    TikTok is now more popular than (((Google)))

    https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/tiktok-google-ranking

    There’s your answer Fredo

    The International Bankster Globalist Power – that gave us communism, both World Wars, The Nakba, USS Liberty, ((9/11)), and ‘wokeness’, does not appreciate any competition for its unilateral domination of its bipedal farm animals.

    China’s version of the ((West’s Big Tech)), is seen as a potential threat.

    They will abide no encroachments into their realms of power.

    But few are more adept (and willing) to spin that truth to ((their)) advantage, than Fredo- hisownself

    who’ll blame it all on white American ‘gas station louts’ who control all the levers of our State Dept. and media and ‘intelligence’ agencies and military and so forth. All this folly with Russia and China is simply because some white American racist doesn’t want his daughter to date a beaner.

    Huh Fredo?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  45. @haha

    And what exactly may those dots be that Fred has failed to see and connect? Please enlighten us. Until such enlightenment is delivered, we should pay some serious heed to the dots that Fred has seen and very logically connected.

    Don’t play (((dumb))) with me, (((shyster))).

    (((You))) know damn well what (((dots))) we’re talking about at TUR.

    (((You)))’re out of (((your))) league here, (((doofus))).

    (PS: I’ve already given Fred credit where it’s due.)

  46. @Jim Richard

    Good to see you back. It’s great to see how polarizing your columns are. I get the biggest kick reading comments from those who think you suck; but they keep reading you. Pitiful.

    Unlike you, we read a wide variety of opinions, not just the ones we agree with.

    Try it sometime.

    • Replies: @Jim Richard
  47. @Pat Kittle

    Alright Pa Kettle! That “pitiful” jibe must have struck too close to the bone. I like that “unlike you” dig. It reminds me that I’m wrestling with pigs.

    • LOL: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Rurik
  48. Rurik says:
    @Jim Richard

    wrestling with pigs.

    to be so lucky

    since September 11, 2001, over a million innocent souls have been murdered

    Most of them by the ZUS military, and a few, American and other NATO forces just deluded enough or poor enough to end up in the military, and be forced to slaughter innocent people on behalf of ZOG. These tragic pawns are now killing themselves in record numbers, unable to live with what they’ve been tricked and otherwise forced to do.

    America today is, objectively speaking; an evil empire. A festering, putrescent stain of iniquity and disgrace upon the collective soul and historical moral ledger of humanity. That is if the word evil has any meaning whatsoever. Murderous, treasonous, treacherous, cruel, sadistic, psychopathic and racially supremacist to an all-consuming, genocidal fetish.

    What pig has ever lived that could be slandered and maligned as even coming close to that, eh?

    All of that, and the nations destroyed, lives ended or ruined, Constitutional rights subverted, and the looming destruction of Western civilization and its people, are all a direct consequence of Jewish supremacists and their absolute domination of America’s institutions. Duh. Kicked into high gear by 9/11, when these tribal supremacists murdered three thousand Americans to speed the slaughter-fest up to thier Old Testament satisfaction.

    But it would be grievously erroneous to lay the blame for all of that simply at those supremacist Jews, on whose behalf all of this is being done. Because there are also legions of Gentiles that are all too willing and eager to help out! Shekels and perks, don’t ya know!

    Dick Cheney and John [Rot in hell] McCain.

    George Bush and Colon Powell and Congosleazea Rice.

    Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Jeb, Obama, Hillary, and so many others!

    But perhaps worst, are the ‘intellectual’ and ‘journalistic’ shabbos whore\$.

    George Will, and Sean Hannity and an endless procession of moral sewer rats and professional apologists and liars for ZOG.

    Fredo is right that the ‘Yankee’ military is a grotesque abomination, run by murderous thugs, menacing nations and people in a seemingly insane way. But Fredo would also like you to believe that all of that is simply a consequence of some nebulous, indistinct tragedy of the human condition. Of “
    militaries and militarists”.

    NOT those who give America’s military their marching orders.

    And specifically, not any definable group of people (Zionists), who’ve been using America as their mindless and murderous goon to slaughter and menace any nation or people (for generations now) who so much as look cross-eyed at Israel.

    No! That has NOTHING to do with any of it! Only a reprobate, neo-Nazi genetic defect, full of jealousy for Jews because they’re smarter than him, would ever suggest such a reprehensible blood libel against the world’s foremost victims of racial supremacy!

    ‘Jews’ had nothing to do with 9/11, Fredo will hector us all, red-faced and white-fisted.

    Jews have nothing to do with America’s serial wars, moral atrocities, cultural decline, vanishing rights, torture as policy, debasement of currency, media-driven racial strife, or anything else!

    Those are anti-Semitic canards! and all the respectable whornalists and politicians and intellectuals all agree! that those tropes were all put to eternal rest when the Austrian corporal blew his brains out in his bunker 86 years ago, and his henchmen were all dutifully tortured and hanged.

    Since then, we ‘Yankees’ have been given a blank check to bomb anyone and everyone we feel like, because we saved the world from Hitler. Blah, blah, blah…

    We are now the ‘exceptional’ people, and when our Secretary of State says that five hundred thousand children dying for lack of clean water and medicine, is “worth it” (such a deal!), then all good goyim in good standing bray their grim acquiescence.

    And Zionism or Jewish supremacists in the ZUS State Dept. ~ have NOTHING to do with any wars or military agendas or saber-rattling at Russia or China or anywhere else!

    That is all because of stupid, feckless white American men who just like to be ‘macho’ and blow stuff up! (when they’re not spewing long-discredited anti-Semitic tropes)

    Huh Fredo?

    If we were only dealing with pigs, we should be so lucky.

    • Agree: Sulu, Bro43rd
    • Thanks: Pat Kittle
  49. ruralguy says:

    When a nation is stuck in a rut, war is often the only option to move forward.

  50. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    War with China!

    “Why?

    “China’s version of the ((West’s Big Tech)), is seen as a potential threat.

    They will abide no encroachments into their realms of power.”

    check out the video at 1:20 to 1:40

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u-s-drone-strikes-are-even-worse-than-we-knew/ar-AAS4cGp

    that is the ‘why’ so many people are wondering why ZOG is saber-rattling at China these days.

    Global data collection means absolute power, and it belongs to ((Big Tech)) / ZOG. And they will brook no upstart rivals elbowing in on their unilateral power.

  51. @Achmed E. Newman

    And what, exactly, would getting more “laws” dealing with immigration have accomplished, given the benefit of hindsight we have with t the [stolen] 2020 election in our rearview mirrors? Creepy Uncle Joe and his puppetmasters have simply IGNORED any and ALL laws that were on the books as of January 20th, 2017 anyway. Yes, I would like to see laws to the effect of: “Anyone deliberately jumping the border will be gunned down on sight by one of the machine gun nests placed every 200 yards with overlapping fields of fire along the border. Anyone overstaying a visa will be hanged in the public square, alongside anyone hiring said illegal alien.” But, we know the chances of such laws, even ones watered down by a factor of a gazillion, being enforced, are Slim and None. If Democrats don’t sabotage them, Stinkin’ RINO’s and the Cheap Labor wing of the Beltway GOP will.

    • Replies: @Cuffy
    , @Jokem
  52. Feliz navidad senor reed. Hope it finds you and la familia well.

  53. Cuffy says:
    @VivaLaMigra

    AH Trump did wonders for immigration like banning Muslims from the US. Oh excluding Saudis of course. The ones who supposedly carried out 911.
    Trump was such an ignoramus…..

  54. Jokem says:
    @VivaLaMigra

    Laws that are ignored are not laws at all, in practice.

  55. @Achmed E. Newman

    You do realize that the trade gap with China actually grew during Trump – right???

  56. @meamjojo

    “The USA needs to cut back what we spend on so-called “defense” by at least 50% annually. That money could then go to better uses like fixing our abysmal infrastructure.”

    In all seriousness… Why don’t American voters understand that?? why do Americans vote against their own quality of life?

  57. Sulu says:

    If an American war took China out of the global supply chain, the resulting depression would make 1929 look like the height of prosperity, turn the entire earth against the US, and likely lead to the lynching of everyone in Washington.

    Probably the best reason you could come up with for a war with China. I especially like the part about lynching everyone in Washington.

    Sometimes I wonder if we might declare war on China for just 15 minutes and then use that as an excuse to not pay our debts to them. It would be a way to default on our debts without really defaulting on our debts.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  58. Fred’s premise is flawed. Post WW2, the US stopped fighting wars to end them as quickly as possible. The Pentagon craves budget-swelling Forever Wars, where “victory” is measured by how long they’re prolonged. Seen in that light, crapghanistan was a resounding success.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  59. Jokem says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    I would say it is more likely the war industry lobby’s Congress so as to keep selling military hardware.

  60. Remember that nobody expected China’s entry into the Korean war.

    Only those who had deafened their ears to China’s repeated warnings, both directly and through neutral embassies, that any “UN” invasion North of the 38th Parallel would trigger a Chinese intervention didn’t expect this.

    A Chinese victory in the style of Tsushima Strait would end the world’s view of America as an invincible hegemon.

    The last surviving specimen of that view expired on 15 August 2021 in Kabul.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  61. Jokem says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    MacArthur underestimated Red China’s forces. He said there would be ‘greatest slaughter’, but he was not allowed to stem the arrival of supplies to Red Chinas forces. Red Chinese supply lines were strained once they got too far into Korea, cutting those off would have crippled their ability to wage war.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  62. @Jokem

    Still wishful thinking. You Septics can NEVER admit that you just got your arses handed to you.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  63. @Sulu

    And the Chinese reply by cutting off all your consumer goods, including pharmaceutical. Mass slaughter in Thanatopia in a week, tops. Plus one lock or so in the Panama Canal.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  64. Jokem says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Actually, I admit we lost the battle – in Washington DC. President Truman tied MacArthur’s hands.
    Our troops were not given permission to win. Same thing in Vietnam.

  65. Sulu says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    And the Chinese reply by cutting off all of your consumer goods…

    Sorry but that is quite the overstatement. They could cut off some of our consumer goods, at the cost of destroying their own economy, but they sure as hell couldn’t cut off all of them because China isn’t our only trading partner. And as for “one lock or so in the Panama Canal”…well you were not at all clear about what you meant. If you mean they will militarily take the Canal I find that ridiculous. There is no way in hell they could project that much power that far from their land and that close to us and prevail. I suppose they could pack a commercial ship with ammonium nitrate and then have it “accidentally” explode when transiting the Canal. That would screw things up for the entire world for quite a while.

    To be quite honest the statement I made was meant to be hyperbolic. I was simply speculating that the U.S. might declare war on China if they did something like take Taiwan. This would have the effect of canceling our debts to them, and then we could quickly negotiate a peace treaty that includes us not paying our debts. Even China might consider getting screwed out of trillions of dollars a better alternative to WWIII. But, as I said, I was simply speculating…somewhat tongue in cheek, I might add.

    Sulu

  66. Jokem says:
    @Sulu

    ‘ I suppose they could pack a commercial ship with ammonium nitrate and then have it “accidentally” explode when transiting the Canal. ‘

    That would tick off practically the entire rest of the world, and even Red China knows the result of that.

    • Replies: @Sulu
    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
  67. Sulu says:
    @Jokem

    That would tick off practically the entire rest of the world, and even Red China knows the result of that

    .

    Quite right.

    Sulu

  68. Excellent article Mr. Reed. Your insights on China are a veritable public service for those of us who lack the time to research these matters: clear, brief and devastating.

    If the neocons and cotraveling scum start a war in China, they will find their sworn-to-the-death enemy list expanded beyond anticipation.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  69. @Jokem

    Afghanistan too, Right?

    • LOL: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
  70. @Sulu

    Taiwan is worth more than 1 trillion dollars to China… Literally and figuratively… But that would still ruin the US bond market though if the US refused to pay… So it would be chaos all around.

  71. @Jokem

    “Actually, I admit we lost the battle – in Washington DC. President Truman tied MacArthur’s hands.”

    So basically you are saying the US can only win with nukes??? Yes the US was afraid of the fact the Soviets got the atom bomb also… So conventional loss is a loss.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  72. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    No I am not saying that. Nuclear weapons would not have been necessary, unless the USSR decided to use them.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  73. Taiwan has TSMC, which is being transfer to the USA as we speak. A few other companies are being forced to move at the same time.

    You know China is getting it back. USA is already taking the most important bits and leaving the rest for the China.

  74. @Jokem

    There was no way else to win…. North Korea was completely destroyed and it’s population annihilated… China stepping in changed the outcome… A loss is a loss. The only choice the US had was nukes – which is why McCarthy wanted to use them. But the US using them meant Soviets using them. Same reason North Korea won’t disarm either now that it has them. Nations don’t really fear a conventional war with the US. Even weak countries believe and have shown you can just wait the US out after the initial “shock and awe”.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
    , @Jokem
  75. @showmethereal

    North Korea ‘annihilated’. The Yankee Reich gets engorged!

  76. @Jokem

    What sort of gibbering baboon calls the PRC ‘Red China’?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  77. @Sulu

    Destroying their own economy? Are you out of your little supremacist mind? China is the world’s largest trading country BY FAR. It has plenty of other customers. It has its own banking system, owned by the Government, not the banksters. It has forty-seven trillion in savings. It has the world’s best infrastructure. Etc. They could sit back and sympathise as the Septics quickly turn on one another, armed to the teeth. As you speculate that Thanatopia could commit suicide by declaring war, then China could use a few hypersonic missiles to destroy those locks, after warning the Panamanians to get out of the way-they could be compensated after the USA loses.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  78. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    NK may soon have the ability to kill MORE murrikans than there are NKoreans!!!

  79. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    ‘There was no way else to win’

    No way else than what? Nuclear response? Not true.
    President Truman put our military under restraints which hampered our ability to win.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  80. Jokem says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    I wasn’t aware baboons could talk, gibbering or otherwise.
    based upon that I doubt any baboon could say ‘Red China’.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  81. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Meaning – they literally bombed North Korea until they had nothing else to bomb and instead resorted to war crimes. had China not stepped in – the Kim clan would have been over.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  82. @Jokem

    That is the excuse used many times.. I’ve heard sports teams use it too… The US is not good at wars of attrition… It doesn’t work… Example after example after example. In fact WW1 and 2 were US “victories” because they came in late in the came.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  83. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    Truman would not let Allied Air Power violate Red China’s air space. This is an absurd policy because the USA did not have diplomatic relations with Red China, thus, it did not have an air space. The Yalu River has a lot of tight bends in it, which means very narrow gaps between the Chinese side and the Korean side. This means the anti-aircraft gunners could stay safely on the Chinese side with allied aircraft within range of the guns. Allied forces were not permitted to attack the anti-aircraft guns.
    This means Allied air forces took unnecessary casualties and could not interdict Communist supply lines effectively. I don’t see how any war can be won if the enemy can shoot at you and you cannot shoot back.

    WW1 and 2 were victories because the objective was to crush the enemy’s ability to resist.
    It is arguable if WW1 was truly a victory as Germany came back about 20 years later to finish the job.
    The Central Powers were forced to agree to terms and that can be defined as a victory.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
  84. @Jokem

    1) you Rambo types live in a dream world…. Escalating the war by trying to bomb in China proper would have brought more Soviet anti aircraft fire from within China and more lost planes by the US.

    2) Sure.. But again – the US got in the fight well after the main warring parties were worn out in both WW1 and 2.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  85. @showmethereal

    US aggressions are ALWAYS characterised by various atrocities.

  86. @Jokem

    How red is your bum? Perhaps that is a mandrill. Which are you?

  87. @Jokem

    The old Dolchstoss, eh Adolph. If only you’d murdered MORE Koreans and Vietnamese, tortured more, raped more, disappeared more, then you would have proved yourselves ‘warriors’. Wankers is much more accurate.

  88. @Jokem

    The idea that air space is selflessly and benevolently bestowed by the US
    is novel but unsurprising; the Usual Suspects giveth,
    and the Usual Suspects taketh away; the name of the Usual Suspects be praised.

    Fortunately you won´t make it much longer.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  89. @nokangaroos

    It is just plain delusion by Jokem to think they could have done that unscathed anway.. But even when they DID do it unscathed against Laos and Cambodia some years later while fighting Vietnam – they still lost in Vietnam. Yet this guy claims that it would have worked in the Korean War. Its called “strong delusion”

  90. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    1) Explain…

    2) Both sides were pretty much at a stalemate in WW1 when the USA entered the war.
    The American forces were not very large, but enough to tip the scales.
    In WW2 Germany was still dominating the battlefield and Japan was still calling the shots in Asia before Pearl Harbor. I will agree the Allies had been hammered badly before that time, but he Axis powers were still strong.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  91. 1) should be self explanatory

    2) Germany was getting desperate already… Japan was bogged down in China and running out of supplies – which is why it attacked Pearl Harbor.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  92. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    1) No, it is not.

    2) Germany still had the upper hand in the USSR, Schicklgruber decided to give up on Moscow, which amounted to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory which spelled the end for the Axis in Europe.
    You are saying Japan was so short on supplies it decided to open another front and drain resources further? I claim the attack on Pearl harbor was one of ‘honor’. Japan considered the embargo and other expressions of USA disapproval to be an affront to national pride.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  93. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    1) you Rambo types live in a dream world…. Escalating the war by trying to bomb in China proper would have brought more Soviet anti aircraft fire from within China and more lost planes by the US.

    1) Explain…

    I’m not @showmethereal, but I think the answer is obvious. The U.S. couldn’t bomb Vietnam and Afghanistan to submission. Why do you think bombing would subdue a much vaster country like China?

    As @showmethereal said, only nuclear bombs would have had a chance of working. And in my opinion that chance was small. MacArthur wanted to use the nukes, but the US had only 50 of them at the time (approximately), and that would not have begun to destroy China’s military strength. Back then, something like 90% of Chinese lived in rural areas; a mere 50 atom bombs would not have made a dent in the population, and would only have succeeded in making China an eternal enemy.

    In other words, China would have stayed on the Soviet side. Due to this, the US would probably have lost the Cold War. Truman likely foresaw this outcome, and MacArthur did not. That could have been why Truman got support from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for firing MacArthur. (See the autobiography of General Omar Bradley; he was there.)

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
  94. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    I am not sure how to answer this. I see a three paragraph diatribe which appears to be based upon the assumption we would have had to completely subdue the entirety of Red China to drive them out of Korea. All we would have had to do was interdict the supplies coming across the Yalu river. Since we were forbidden to violate Red China’s air space, our air power had to fly through predictable routes to eliminate bridges necessary for supplies to support the Communist forces.

    Red China’s logistics were strained as it was, they did not have the industrial capacity to support their forces and had to rely on the USSR for that. The USSR was hardly a ‘mature’ industrial nation, and the Eastern USSR was even worse.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  95. Jokem says:

    OK, Unz posted my comment before it was complete.

    The USSR had an industrial capacity superior to Red China, which is not saying much. Getting all those supplies across the Ural Mountains and through a largely undeveloped Eastern USSR was possible, but problematic.

    As far as Vietnam is concerned, we were not permitted to invade. If we were, the North would have fallen like a house of cards. North Vietnam’s political leadership permitted them to invade the South. They could not have succeeded as long as we were there. Once we left, it was easy. Even easier with the dribble of supplies we provided the South.

    Afghanistan? When you say the U.S. could not bomb them and Vietnam into submission, you are right. The U.S. could not because they were not permitted to. Is there any doubt with Conventional weapons we could have flattened the entire country? Really? Our exit strategy had the same flaw it did with Vietnam, we left and dropped support for the remaining forces.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  96. @Jokem

    1) well it should have been. The US would not have been able to bomb with impunity because of Soviet anti aircraft batteries – had the US taken such action. It would have just resulted in lost US planes – while the Chinese would have just used more and more tunnels – which also worked to good effect when they taught the Vietnamese. War is not a videogame

    2) Wow… Come on man – stop the delusion… German blood was being spilled all over Russia before the US ever even engaged… And Japan was stuck in China by 1940… They weren’t making many gains and were having trouble running the territory they had won… They were losing many lives and precious materials. That is a fact and not some garbage theory of Japanese honor.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  97. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    I am not sure how to answer this. I see a three paragraph diatribe

    My points were relevant to the conversation as it was then — and you did not answer any of them. Instead, you chose to talk about some other topics.

    which appears to be based upon the assumption we would have had to completely subdue the entirety of Red China to drive them out of Korea.

    Not an assumption. If you invade China (by crossing the Yalu), congratulations, you get to fight all of China.

    All we would have had to do was interdict the supplies coming across the Yalu river.

    And all you had to do was interdict the supplies flowing south to the Vietcong. Then you would win the Vietnam War. So how did that work out?

    And never forget: China is a country many times the size of Vietnam. The US could not possibly have won the Korean War after crossing Yalu river.

  98. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    1) I never said the USA could bomb with impunity; I said the political constraints made US aircraft easy targets. Tunnels have to go underground somewhere and come out somewhere also. Those points become targets.

    2) Germany was on the outskirts of Moscow before Pearl Harbor; they could see the city. Push a bit further and Moscow would have fallen.
    So, you are saying Japan was bogged down in China, losing lives and materials, so they decided to spend lives and materials to open a second front in Hawaii? I don’t think the Japanese military was the foolhardy.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  99. @Jokem

    As far as Vietnam is concerned, we were not permitted to invade.

    But WHY?!

    • Replies: @Jokem
  100. Jokem says:
    @Deep Thought

    I cannot comment definitively on the why. I suspect political forces were in the thrall of military industry, who wanted to keep the conflict going without a win.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  101. @Jokem

    Some professional soldier thought he knew why:

    Chinese Support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War: The Decisive Edge

    by Bob Seals

    “Best turn it into a bigger war…I’m afraid you really ought to send more troops to the South…Don’t be afraid of U.S. intervention, at most it’s no worse than having another Korean War. The Chinese army is prepared, and if America takes the risk of attacking North Vietnam, the Chinese army will march in at once. Our troops want a war now.” [1]
    — Mao speaking to the North Vietnamese in 1964
    .
    .
    .
    “Thus the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy plans;” according to the learned military theorist Sun-Tzu in the Art of War. [69] In respects this is exactly what the North Vietnamese, and Chinese did in both Vietnam Wars: they successfully attacked the Western powers war plans. The considerable support for the DRV by the PRC, to include a promise to intervene with massive numbers of troops in the event of an invasion of North Vietnam, effectively eliminated this course of action, and perhaps others, as potential war winning options for the West. Thus, with the support of China, on a strategic level of war the DRV was able to remain upon the offensive throughout the war, maintaining the initiative and finally achieving victory as Saigon fell in April of 1975.
    .
    http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/chinesesupport.aspx

    • Replies: @Jokem
  102. Jokem says:
    @Deep Thought

    Mao’s promises are only valid when it is convenient for Mao.

    That promise was never tested. If it were then I am sure the USA would not have been given permission to win.

    In 1972 the North sent as much armor into the south as the Wehrmacht sent into France, they were stopped primarily by the ARVN soldiers with US Air support. It was a defeat for the Communist forces comparable to that of the Winter War in Finland.

    The Korean War was won in Washington DC, same for Vietnam.
    The ‘march’ into Saigon was enabled by the USA cutting support to a 20 round of ammunition and 2 grenades per soldier and no air support. Grenades and bullets are not very useful vs tanks.

    The link at the bottom gives me this
    500 – Internal server error.
    There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

  103. Vidi says:

    [Mao’s promise to fight a US invasion of North Vietnam] was never tested. If it were then I am sure the USA would not have been given permission to win.

    Then why did the US never invade North Vietnam? The North was bombed a lot, but it was never invaded. Why not?

    I will tell you. The US never invaded North Vietnam because Mao’s threat to fight the US in that event was very credible. The US probably still had nightmares from the Korean War, and desperately did not want another fight with China. China entered the Korean War in 1950 in a seriously weakened state, having ended her civil war only a year earlier. China was exhausted from the civil war — and yet was more than capable of holding off the US. Now fast forward a decade or so. US generals imagined fighting a strong China, and they probably shuddered. Thus they never invaded the North — and lost the Vietnam War.

    n 1972 the North sent as much armor into the south as the Wehrmacht sent into France, they were stopped primarily by the ARVN soldiers with US Air support. It was a defeat for the Communist forces comparable to that of the Winter War in Finland.

    The 1972 defeat didn’t matter. The point is that Hanoi was able to muster such a formidable force — and send it deep into South Vietnam, with very little left for defending the North. They were able to do so because China had their back. At the end of the day, with so much help from China (and Russia), North Vietnam won.

    By the way, are you over your fantasies of defeating China in Korea, if only Truman had allowed the US generals to fight?

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
  104. Sulu says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Mumblebrain…Your nick pretty much says it all.

    Sulu

  105. @Jokem

    2) germany could have – would have – should have…. but they didn’t defeat Russia and lost most of their army there rather than fighting anyone else… Losing in Russia is what changed the war… Likewise regardless of your OPINION – the facts are Japan was bogged down in China and Roosevelt cut off supplying the war machine (which the US had been) because the KMT promised that they would be pro US if the US stopped supplying Japan. Without those supplies – Japan would have been completely swallowed in China because they would have had to divert even more military to other parts of Asia to seize more supplies.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  106. @Jokem

    Vidi has already replied to you in post 104.

    The link at the bottom gives me this
    500 – Internal server error.
    There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

    Not all articles remain active forever on the web. I keep a copy of the article, which is given in full below:

    [MORE]

    Chinese Support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War: The Decisive Edge
    by Bob Seals

    “Best turn it into a bigger war…I’m afraid you really ought to send more troops to the South…Don’t be afraid of U.S. intervention, at most it’s no worse than having another Korean War. The Chinese army is prepared, and if America takes the risk of attacking North Vietnam, the Chinese army will march in at once. Our troops want a war now.” [1]
    — Mao speaking to the North Vietnamese in 1964

    So why did the powerful modern nations of France and the United States lose two wars in Vietnam to a third rate military power like North Vietnam? This is the logical question that many historians have asked and attempted to answer since the Second Vietnam War ended in April 1975 with the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese tanks. Some historians have stressed the support of the Communist party and its leadership, others point to the support of the Vietnamese people, and still other historians explain the North Vietnamese victory as an effect of the post-colonial nationalism wave that swept through Asia after the Second World War. However, few historians, with the possible exception of Qiang Zhai, among others, attribute the victory of the Vietnamese Communists in both Vietnam Wars to the considerable support provided by the communist colossus of the north, the People’s Republic of China. [2] This Chinese military support, to include equipment, advisors and planning assistance, provided from 1949-1975, would prove in both the First and Second Indochina Wars to be decisive. This substantial military support would give the People‘s Army of Vietnam an edge to resist Western forces and eventually subjugate the Republic of South Vietnam. This support, for various reasons, has never really been acknowledged by most popular histories of the conflict. This is perhaps due to the fact that such acknowledgement of the massive Chinese military support provided challenges many cherished myths of Vietnamese Communist military brilliance and the “heroic struggle” against overwhelming western imperialists. Two recent histories bear this out. Case in point A Military History of China, edited by David A. Graff makes no mention of Chinese support for Vietnam while Bruce A. Elleman’s Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989, dismisses Chinese support in a mere two sentences. [3] However, unless this decisive Chinese support is properly understood by students of both Vietnam wars the answer to the question of why North Vietnam won will remain incomplete and misunderstood. This paper will attempt to outline the Chinese communist support in both wars and explain exactly why this support was so decisive.

    Background

    As with most historical events one must first understand, in broad general terms, the background and context to a specific point in time. A brief review of the historical Sino-Vietnamese relationship sets the tone for more recent events, in many respects. Ties between China and Vietnam have existed for centuries; in fact, throughout history Vietnam has depended upon and looked towards China repeatedly for not only cultural but political assistance as circumstances warranted. Vietnam was considered by China to be part of her tributary system, or sphere of influence if you will, where by the lesser state, Vietnam, would acknowledge the leadership of Imperial China in return for trade and defense as required. In the 18th century, for example Chinese troops intervened in Vietnam to assist a threatened ruler and again less successfully in the latter half of the 19th century against France expanding her influence in the area, with the so-called “Black Flag” forces. This concern for Vietnam would continue with China declaring war on France on 27 August 1884, in fact, due to French expansion into Northern Vietnam. [4]

    This traditional relationship between China and Vietnam was not always harmonious as many have pointed out, since, for obvious reasons, no nation enjoys domination by a more powerful neighbor.

    The Chinese Vietnamese Communist ties had existed for decades, in fact, before the first Chinese military advisor arrived in North Vietnam in 1950. The life of Nguyen That Thanh, who would ultimately be known to the world under the pseudonym Ho Chi Minh, best personifies the close relationship that existed between the two communist parties, and ultimately the two armies.

    The ties go back to right after the First World War, in fact. In 1920 Ho would be one of 285 delegates, and the only “Comrade Indochinese Delegate,” that founded the French Communist Party in Tours. [5] Ho made an impassioned speech at the conference listing France’s crimes in Vietnam “…we have not only been oppressed and exploited shamelessly, but also tortured and poisoned…we have been poisoned with opium, alcohol, etc.” [6]

    The following year the Chinese Communist Party would be formed in 1921. The party from the beginning would serve as a rallying point for disgruntled Vietnamese such as Ho, and others, wanting to resist French rule in Vietnam. [7] After several years of training in Moscow, Ho eventually made his way to China, the then front lines of the revolution, to assist Mikhail Borodin, the Communist International, or COMINTERN representative to the new Nationalist government of Sun Yat-sen. Organizing Vietnamese revolutionaries in Canton, Ho lectured at the famous Nationalist Whampoa Military Academy, meeting such communist luminaries such as Zhou Enlai and others, before returning to Moscow after the Chinese Nationalist-Communist split in 1927. [8] He would also organize the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930 which in time would become the Vietnamese Worker Party. A dedicated COMINTERN agent who traveled on a Soviet passport, Ho was known as Nguyen Ai Quoc (Nguyen the Patriot) during this period and would only be known as Ho Chi Minh (Ho the Enlightened ) after 1943. He would travel between Asia and Moscow before finally returning to China in 1938 to serve as an advisor to the Chinese Communist 8th Route Army, along with other senior Vietnamese revolutionaries. [9] Ho became quite proficient in Chinese and would translate Mao’s celebrated work, “On the Protracted War,” from Chinese into French. [10]

    Second World War and French Reoccupation

    Seasoned by years of training and his experiences China Ho would found the Viet Minh independence movement in 1941, the Vietnamese Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi, the League for the Independence of Vietnam, or Viet Minh. He would spend the remainder of the war organizing in the north of Vietnam and attempting to remain out of French and Chinese jail. During the war the Viet Minh would consolidate their power in the north of Vietnam with history teacher turned General Vo Nguygen Giap building communist forces reaching some 5,000 in number. [11]

    By the time the Second World War ended in August of 1945, with the collapse of Imperial Japan, the organized and disciplined Vietnamese communists and Ho were perfectly positioned to move into the power vacuum left in the wars wake in Vietnam. In September of 1945 Ho would proclaim the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) with American Office of Strategic Service (OSS) officers beside him in Hanoi. Nationalist Chinese and British troops that same month arrived to take the surrender of the Japanese forces, with reoccupation by the returning French soon afterwards. A period of unease settled over Vietnam with the French and Vietnamese negotiated over the future of Vietnam, with Ho at one point traveling to Paris for unsuccessful meetings with the French government. Ho would formally request military aid to include advisors and equipment from Stalin and the USSR in 1945, with no response to these requests given in return. [12] The Chinese in the future would not make the same mistake.

    First Indochina War

    The First Vietnam War would finally begin in December of 1946 as the French attempted to disarm the Viet Minh Self Defense Forces in Hanoi and full scale fighting broke out. [13] By early 1947 the French had driven the Viet Minh out of the major cities throughout the country but the communists controlled the countryside in the north with a growing army of some 50,000 men capable of standing up to the best the professional French Army and Navy could throw at them. [14] The war settled down to a deadly affair of guerrilla war, ambush and counter ambush as the Vietnamese and French forces fought for control of Vietnam and the population.

    It was during these early years of the war that the Chinese military support of the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) began on a rather minor scale. This military aid started in March of 1946 as the Chinese Communist First Regiment of the Southern Guangdong People’s Force crossed into Vietnam in order to avoid Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist 46th and 64th Armies during the Chinese Civil War. [15] In addition to avoiding destruction this Chinese Regiment would begin to lay the groundwork for training and advising the less mature Vietnamese forces. This one thousand man unit of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, PLA, would provide officers to the Vietnamese Advanced Infantry School and Cadre Training Center in North Vietnam with some 830 personnel trained by the year 1947. [16] Direct contact to include cable traffic and funding existed at this early point between the two communist movements.

    The strategic balance of power, in Asia and perhaps across the globe, was forever altered with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in October of 1949. After two years of relatively small scale guerrilla warfare dating from 1947 in Vietnam, the conflict would now expand and become much more deadly. With the arrival of Chinese communist troops along the Sino-Vietnamese border, the inevitable end was in sight for the French in Vietnam. As General Giap would write years later, “This great historic event, which altered events in Asia and throughout the world, exerted a considerable influence on the war of liberation of the Vietnamese people. Vietnam was no longer in the grip of enemy encirclement, and was henceforth geographically linked to the socialist bloc.” [17]

    Understandably enough Ho and the Viet Minh wasted no time in sending representatives northward to ask for support and assistance from the new communist government. Diplomatic recognition would be granted to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) in January of 1950 by the PRC, the first nation to do so, followed soon by Stalin and the USSR also granting recognition. [18] Stalin, as the senior member of the communist firm, had informed Mao during meetings in Moscow soon afterwards that providing support and assistance to the Vietnamese struggle was a responsibility, and financial obligation, of the Chinese and the PRC. [19] This would not be an obligation that the Chairman would shirk from, far from it, he would honor Stalin’s wishes and support the Vietnamese communist cause for the next 25 years. Mao would see Vietnam as one of three areas of Western imperialism bordering on China that threatened the PRC, the other two areas being Taiwan and Korea. Additionally Mao sincerely believed in supporting “national liberation movements in colonial nations” and fancied himself as the champion of non-European peoples across the globe. [20]

    For the USSR and Stalin it was a low risk gamble. Its allies, the Chinese under Mao, and the Koreans and Vietnamese, could potentially tie down so much U.S. and Western strength in Asia that the global balance of power might shift, allowing the Soviets to strike westwards into Europe. Stalin discounted a Third World War and the west’s reaction since Germany and Japan were post-war shells, proclaiming “Should we fear this [world war]? In my opinion, we should not…If a war is inevitable, then let it be waged now, and not in a few years time.” [21] The die would be cast for warfare in Asia, and possibly elsewhere.

    Chinese military support, 1950-54

    In 1950 a classified U.S. Central Intelligence Report, CIA, stated that “The French position in Indochina is precarious,” somewhat of an understatement at the time. [22] The war had been going badly for the French and would only get worse. Ho would formally request military aid in the nature of equipment, advisors and training for the PAVN in April of 1950. Interestingly enough he would also request Chinese commanders at the regimental and battalion level to assist the Vietnamese Army, a request wisely denied by China, who would send advisors, not commanders to the North of Vietnam. [23] Such a request for Chinese commanders of PAVN units highlights the leadership problems present at the time in the Vietnamese forces, and the prevailing lack of confidence in Vietnamese commanders.

    Chinese Military Advisory Group

    After this request by Ho, the PRC in April of 1950 would begin forming the Chinese Military Advisory Group (CMAG) in order to provide military assistance to the Vietnamese forces fighting the French. General Wei Guoqing would lead the CMAG to North Vietnam, along with Senior General Chen Geng, the “scholar general,” and the PRC ambassador. The Second, Third and Fourth PLA field armies were directed to select experienced officers for service in Vietnam. Some 281 officers were selected with many having command experience. [24]

    In June, two days after the start of the Korean War, as the powerful North Korean Army crossed the 38th parallel, the Chairman spoke with his military advisors enroute to Vietnam, “It is President Ho chi Minh who has asked me for [your assistance], Who would have thought our revolution would succeed first? We should help them. It is called internationalism. You will help them to win the battles after you get to Vietnam.” [25] The advisors of the CMAG would do exactly that as the impact of these Chinese advisors and new weapons for the PAVN would soon be apparent in the war. Standard Chinese Maoist doctrine for revolutionary wars would be stressed and advisors were informed to avoid the “mentality of big-state chauvinism and not to display contempt for the Vietnamese.” [26] By 1950 the French had almost completely lost control of the border region with China with isolation garrisons in Cao Bang and Langson struggling to maintain a presence.

    The border region would be the first test of the new Chinese trained and equipped PAVN forces. General Chen Geng wrote in a report that “Some Vietnamese crack units are in high morale after receiving training and equipment in Yunnan and Guangxi, but Vietnamese cadres above the battalion level lack command experience in actual combat.” [27] This was an accurate statement concerning the PAVN but it was one problem about to be corrected.

    The CMAG would provide planning guidance, among other things, for the upcoming Border Campaigns of 1950. This campaign would begin in September with garrison after garrison falling to the Viet Minh in the north with tremendous losses for the isolated French garrisons near the Sino-Vietnamese border. Outnumbered 8 to 1 by the Vietnamese, the French would lose immense amounts of men to include 6,000 of 10,000 men in the north, and supplies to include 13 artillery pieces, 125 mortars and 450 trucks, in what some have described as the greatest defeat in French colonial history since the French and Indian War in North America. [28]

    Within 48 hours after these successful assaults on those isolated French outposts in the north, Chinese General Chen would hold what we would call today an after action review. Chen would brief Giap and other high ranking officers for four hours on the shortcomings of the Vietnamese Army. These short comings according to Chen would include not following the order for battle and attacking late, commanders not leading assaults from the front, poor communications, and cadres making false reports to superiors.[29] One wonders how such criticism was received but such reviews are vital for an army’s subsequent growth and improvement. To General Giap “The victory shows Mao’s military thought was very applicable to Vietnam.” [30]

    In addition to the training and planning guidance by the CMAG the logistical support from China began to increase steadily. The support provided was only 10-20 tons a month in 1951, increasing to 250 tons a month in 1952, further increasing to 600 tons a month in 1953 and 1,500 to 4,000 tons monthly during the last year of the war in 1954. [31] Additionally the Chinese transportation network to include roads and railways leading from China to Vietnam was improved also with some 1,000 trucks provided to the PAVN. This military aid provided by China enabled the PAVN to expand into a well armed and trained conventional force capable of defeating the French Army in large scale offensive operations. From a force in 1950 of 3 divisions the PAVN would expand two years later into a force of 7 divisions. All in all the Chinese military aid would arm a total of over 7 PAVN divisions. All this military support would not go unnoticed by the west, with the CIA, by March 1952, estimating that some 15,000 Chinese Communists were serving in Vietnam in various “technical, advisory and garrison capacities” with the PAVN against the French. [32] The Vietnamese Army now was a lethal force well equipped with small arms, machine guns, heavy 120mm mortars and 105mm howitzers, in addition to 20 and 40mm anti-aircraft guns. [33]

    Decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu

    By 1954 “Giap and the Chinese had built a tough, well-equipped, experienced, and dedicated army-a tool awaiting a great task and a master craftsman.” [34] The great task would be the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu in western Vietnam near Laos, a battle that would end the First Vietnam War and the French presence in Indochina. Evidence suggests that the Vietnamese leadership did not see the opportunity provided by the French reoccupation of the valley until Chinese advisors alerted the Vietnamese, who initially wanted to move through Laos to invade South Vietnam, until convinced otherwise by General Wei Guoqing. [35] Additionally the CMAG would provide the Viet Mihn with a copy of the Navarre Plan, outlining French goals and objectives by the new French Commander in Vietnam.

    With the signing of the Korean Armistice in July 1953 China could and would shift additional resources to Vietnam. Specific support provided for the Dien Bien Phu campaign would include planning, logistics, engineering advisors, trucks, rocket and 75mm recoilless rifle battalions, and Soviet Katyusha Rocket Launchers or “Stalin Organs.” A combined headquarters was established as the Dien Bien Phu Campaign Command with General Giap as Commander in Chief with Chinese General Wei Guoqing as General Advisor. [36]

    Giap wrote years after the battle that “I felt there needed to be a meeting with the head of the team of friendly military experts who was also present. Generally speaking, relationships between us and friendly military experts ever since the Border Campaign had been excellent. Our friends had given us the benefit of their invaluable experience drawn from the revolutionary war in China and the anti-US war in Korea.” [37] It is interesting that in his account of the battle Giap makes no mention of Chinese material support or advice and planning assistance provided throughout this decisive last battle of the First Vietnam War. The Chinese advisors, such as General Wei Guoqing, are not identified or given any credit by Giap. Perhaps this is understandable given that one of the Chinese advisors would write later that “The greatest shortcoming of the Vietnamese Communists was their fear of letting other people know their weaknesses. They lacked Bolshevist self-criticism.” [38] The siege of Dien Bien Phu was to last 8 weeks with China providing 8,286 tons of supplies, including 4,620 tons of petroleum, 1,360 tons of ammunition, 46 tons of weapons and 1,700 tons of rice from supply depots 600 miles away. [39]

    Chinese advisors would be involved at all levels during the battle including digging in the all important Vietnamese artillery into shellproof dugouts, experience learned the hard way in the hills of Korea. [40] In effect the battle of Dien Bien Phu would be planned and assisted by Chinese advisors and fought with Chinese trained, equipped, supplied, transported and fed PAVN troops in a military soup to nuts manner. This support is rarely mentioned as a contributing factor to the Vietnamese victory in 1954 but should be acknowledged in analyzing the battle.

    Post-war support, 1955-63

    In 1954, with the ending of the First Vietnam War, and the Big Power Geneva conference, Vietnam would be split into two nations, North and South Vietnam. In the north Ho and the party’s attention would be focused; at least for several years, on consolidating power and economic development. The inevitable Communist collectivization and tribunals began with confiscations, arrests, localized uprisings and the execution of 15,000 Vietnamese before order could be restored by the PAVN. [41] The CMAG returns to China in September of 1955 having accomplished its mission, quite possibly one of the most successful advisory missions ever. [42]

    China would continue; however, to provide substantial levels of military aid for North Vietnam to the tune of \$106 million from 1955 to 1963, effectively giving the North the resources needed to begin the insurgency in the South. [43] Thus, the North Vietnamese would form the National Liberation Front, NLF, in December of 1960 and the People’s Liberation Armed Forces, PLAF, the following year in 1961. Both the NLF and PLAF would be more commonly referred to as the Viet Cong, or Vietnamese Communists. [44]

    A campaign of terror and assassination against the South Vietnamese government would soon begin as thousands of officials would be killed or kidnapped by Viet Cong insurgents. [45] The United States would not sit idly by during this period but began an ambitious program of military aid to the fragile government of South Vietnam. The stage was set, for a second war in Vietnam which would be, once again, fought largely with Chinese military aid.

    Second Indochina War, 1964-75

    The catalyst for the Second Vietnam War would be the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident in August of 1964 between the U.S. Navy and North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the China Sea. [46] Perhaps convinced by President Johnson’s own words that election year that he would not expand the limited war in Vietnam by bombing the North or “committing a good many American boys to fighting a war that I think ought to be fought by the boys of Asia,” the North continued its attacks. Now with U.S. aircraft striking targets in North Vietnam the liberation war paradigm changed. The incident greatly alarmed both the Vietnamese and Chinese Communist leadership and caused both to move closer together in responding to increased U.S. military actions in Southeast Asia. China took immediate steps to move forces south towards the border with Vietnam and sent MIG jet aircraft to Hanoi to bolster the DRV’s defensives. Perhaps due to several factors, to include possible concern over Chinese intervention, the United States would gradually adopt a strategy of attempting to limit the war in Vietnam, or gradualism, not applying the maximum force possible towards defeating an enemy on the battlefield. [47] To the north Chairman Mao remained concerned about the U.S., in his opinion “the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world.” [48] Thus, when senior North Vietnamese leaders, to include General Giap, formally requested Chinese military aid in April of 1965, the response would be swift and sure. The PRC President would tell the Vietnamese that the Chinese people and party were obligated to support the North and therefore “…we will do our best to provide you with whatever you need and whatever we have.” [49]

    Support requested and provided

    The most immediate need was for anti-aircraft artillery, units to counter the overwhelming American air power over North Vietnam. Ho would request Chinese AAA units during a meeting with Mao in May of 1965 and PLA forces would begin flowing into North Vietnam in July of 1965 to help defend the capital of Hanoi and the transportation network to include railroad lines and bridges.[50] This movement of troops from China was not lost on the U.S. as reported in a Top Secret CIA Special Report which identified seven major PLA units in North Vietnam to include the 67th AAA Division, and an estimated 25,000 to 45,000 Chinese combat troops total. [51] Recent Chinese sources indicate that this PLA AAA Division did indeed operate in the western area of North Vietnam. [52] In addition to AAA forces the PLA also provided missiles, artillery and logistics, railroad, engineer and mine sweeping forces. These forces would not only man AAA sites but would also build and repair Vietnamese infrastructure damaged or destroyed by U.S. airstrikes. [53] Such units would have quite a bit of repair work to do given that there would be more than a million tons of bombs dropped by U.S. aircraft upon North Vietnam from 1965 to 1972. [54] The Second Vietnam War would drag on for years as a sort of operational stalemate existed in the skies over North Vietnam. The U.S. could and did bomb the North at will, but the sheer numbers of Chinese forces, to include a total of 16 AAA divisions serving with a peak strength of 170,000 troops attained in 1967, would ensure that a high price would be paid by U.S. pilots with targets often rapidly rebuilt after destruction. [55] Chinese engineering and logistics units would perform impressive feats of construction throughout their stay in North Vietnam effectively keeping the transportation network functioning.

    The U.S. Air Campaign over North Vietnam would thus be somewhat of a lost cause, not significantly hurting the communist North enough for Ho and the senior leadership to contemplate ending the insurgency in South Vietnam. Chinese troops in North Vietnam would eventually withdraw, for the most part, by 1970 as the Sino-Vietnamese relationship began to sour over the Paris Peace Talks, and the USSR, among other things. In addition to the AAA umbrella over the North, China would also provide the sinews of modern war that would enable the North Vietnamese Army to undertake modern, large scale offensive operations against South Vietnam in both 1972 and 1975. Chinese trucks, tanks, Surface to air missiles, MIG jet aircraft, 130mm artillery pieces, 130mm mortars, and shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, were all moved south. The PAVN had enough first class material to launch a 20 division mechanized Easter Offensive in 1972 into South Vietnam, more divisions than ever commanded by General Patton in Europe during World War II, as one American Officer would point out. [56] The North Vietnamese would pay a terrible price for this gamble, thanks to U.S. airpower and advisors on the ground, losing an estimated 450 tanks and over 100,000 troops killed in action during the 1972 offensive. [57] China would, again, make up for much of the PAVN equipment lost, after the Paris Peace Treaty was signed, in 1973 and 1974, enabling the North Vietnamese to reconstitute units for another offensive in 1975. U.S. forces would not be present this time to help its South Vietnamese allies as 18 well trained and equipped PAVN divisions rolled to Saigon in April of 1975, effectively ending the Second Vietnam War. [58] Both Vietnam Wars, from 1946-1975, ended in victory for North Vietnam against the west, but without the massive amounts of military aid provided by the PRC, most likely the outcome would have been different. As with all what-if’s of history we shall never know.

    Analysis of support

    “So the more troops they send to Vietnam, the happier we will be, for we feel that we will have them in our power, we can have their blood…They will be close to China…in our grasp. They…will be our hostages.” [59]
    – – Chou En-lai speaking to Nasser, 1965

    So how does one analyze the considerable military support provided by the PRC for the DRV during the 25 year period from 1950-1975, encompassing both the First and Second Vietnam Wars? Was the military aid provided, to include equipment, advisors and planning assistance, decisive in both conflicts or would the North Vietnamese have prevailed without this Chinese military support? In retrospect it seems clear that the Chinese military support for the DRV would be crucial. This Chinese support would be, in many respects, timely, appropriate and helpful without doing the job that the North Vietnamese needed to do themselves; that is, fight and win on the ground in South Vietnam. The PRC would not conduct an intervention on the scale that it conducted in Korea, avoiding the international perception of acting in the traditional China/tributary state relationship with Vietnam, all the while providing the tools and assistance required to “tip the scales” in both conflicts against the West. The People’s Republic would be, in effect, the world’s largest unsinkable aircraft carrier and army base, a strategic advantage that Western nations thousands of miles removed from the fighting could not hope to match.

    As a biographer of Chairman Mao would remark “It was having China as a secure rear and supply depot that made it possible for the Vietnamese to fight for 25 years and beat first the French and then the Americans.” [60]

    The numbers would be impressive enough, of the military equipment and supplies provided by China. According to Qiang Zhai, during the period 1950-54, the PRC would provide enough weapons, 116,000 small arms and 4630 artillery pieces, to equip some 5 infantry divisions, one heavy engineering and artillery division, one direct fire anti-aircraft artillery regiment and one guards regiment. [61] This infusion of equipment for almost seven divisions worth of troops could not, and would not, be matched by the French. As one U.S. military officer would comment years later “The French politicians continued their irresolute, incoherent, and penny-pinching support of military operations in Indochina, while demanding ‘decisive solutions.’” [62] The numbers would be even more impressive in the Second Vietnam War. Chinese support provided would increase by a factor of ten with arms and equipment from uniforms to tanks to small arms on a yearly basis greater than the entire military aid provided in the early 1950’s against the French. [63] Additionally the Chinese anti-aircraft artillery troops, peaking at a total of 17 divisions and 150,000 men in 1967, would claim credit for downing 1,707 U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam. [64] These Chinese combat troops who were not to be used south of the 21st parallel in North Vietnam; however, the presence of these units secured the North’s rear, turning the nation into the most heavily defended area in the world, and allowing the DRV to use resources in South Vietnam and elsewhere that would have been devoted to homeland defense. [65] In effect the U.S. would not be able to open a second front over the skies of North Vietnam, as it had been able to so successfully over Germany in the Second World War, due to these Chinese divisions.

    But the mere presence of China to the north would also be a constant “sword of Damocles” hanging over the heads of Western and South Vietnamese nations. This nearness would also ensure that the ever present possibility of massive, full scale Chinese intervention would always be a factor that had to be considered by Western political and military leaders. Any plans for taking the fight to the North Vietnamese enemy on his home field by going north could not be seriously considered given the clear warnings by the PRC that it would intervene with massive force. The Chinese took great pains to communicate this willingness to fight on behalf of North Vietnam, if seriously threatened, to the United States, communicating warnings via various channels to include ambassadorial talks in Poland, third-party leaders such as the Pakistani and Tanzania Presidents and the British ambassador in Beijing. [66] In some respects this pledge of assistance was just as valuable as the tanks, trucks and guns provided by the PRC.

    Conclusion

    “Why have the Americans not made a fuss about the fact that more than 100,000 Chinese troops help you building the railways, roads and airports although they knew about it?” [67]
    – – Chairman Mao to Vietnamese Premier Dong, 1970

    In conclusion, as we can see from the considerable historical material outlined above, the military support provided by the People’s Republic of China, to include advisors, equipment and combat troops, was the decisive factor for the Communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam prevailing during 1949-1975 in both the First and Second Vietnam Wars. The small arms, mortars, ammunition, uniforms, tanks, artillery, radars, anti-aircraft guns, jet aircraft, trucks, and naval vessels were critical in the North Vietnamese struggle. However, what was even more critical and normally not acknowledged in the laundry list of war material is the psychological and strategic advantage provided by Communist China’s pledge to intervene in the advent of a United States invasion of North Vietnam, and communicating that pledge to the U.S. This strategic advantage in effect cannot be overstated.

    As General Westmoreland’s former G-2, or Intelligence Officer would write after the Vietnam Wars “With[out] a friendly China located adjacent to North Vietnam, there would have been little chance for a Vietnamese victory against the French, and later against the Americans and South Vietnamese.” [68] It is rather ironic that most professional historians tend to downplay or ignore China’s decisive role in North Vietnam’s victory while the military and intelligence communities, U.S. at least, are much more willing to acknowledge this fact. Perhaps this is understandable since if one acknowledges the role played by China it calls into question such Vietnam myths as the “poorly armed guerrilla” and the “military genius” of Giap, among other issues. Historians such as Xiaoming Zhang and Qiang Zhai are challenging the paradigm of accepted Vietnam history and in doing so are performing a great service.

    “Thus the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy plans;” according to the learned military theorist Sun-Tzu in the Art of War. [69] In respects this is exactly what the North Vietnamese, and Chinese did in both Vietnam Wars: they successfully attacked the Western powers war plans. The considerable support for the DRV by the PRC, to include a promise to intervene with massive numbers of troops in the event of an invasion of North Vietnam, effectively eliminated this course of action, and perhaps others, as potential war winning options for the West. Thus, with the support of China, on a strategic level of war the DRV was able to remain upon the offensive throughout the war, maintaining the initiative and finally achieving victory as Saigon fell in April of 1975.

    * * *

    [1]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 482.

    [2]. Qiang Zhai, “Transplanting the Chinese Model: Chinese Military Advisers and the First Vietnam War, 1950-1954,” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 57, No. 4, October 1993.

    [3]. Bruce A. Elleman, Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989, (New York, NY: Routledge, 2001), 285.

    [4]. Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics, A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772-1991, (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co, Inc., 1995), 7-12.

    [5]. Yevgeny Kobelev, Ho Chi Minh, (Hanoi, Vietnam: The Gioi Publishers, 1999), 57-58.

    [6]. Bernard B. Fall, Last Reflections on a War, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1967), 72.

    [7]. Xiaobing Li, A History of the Modern Chinese Army, (Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2007), 35.

    [8]. Ibid, 43.

    [9]. Fall, 109-111.

    [10]. Qiang Zhai, 695.

    [11]. Li, 207.

    [12]. Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 13.

    [13]. Phillip B. Davidson, Lieutenant General USA, Ret., Vietnam at War, The History 1946-1975. (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1988), 39-40.

    [14]. Ibid, 41-48.

    [15]. Qiang Zhai, Book, 11.

    [16]. Ibid, 11-12.

    [17]. Davidson, 63.

    [18]. Qiang Zhai, 693.

    [19]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 356-357.

    [20]. Qiang Zhai, 20-22.

    [21]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 359.

    [22]. National Intelligence Estimate-5, Indochina: Current Situation and Probable Developments, CIA Report, 29 December 1950, Freedom of Information Act, accessed on line, http://www.foia.cia.gov, June/July 2008.

    [23]. Qiang Zhai, 18-19.

    [24]. Li, 208-209.

    [25]. Xiaobing Li, 209.

    [26]. Qiang Zhai, 18-25.

    [27]. Qiang Zhai, Book, 28.

    [28]. Davidson, 74-82.

    [29]. Qiang Zhai, 29-31.

    [30]. Qiang Zhai, 33.

    [31]. Clodfelter, 18-19.

    [32]. National Intelligence Estimate-35/1, Indochina: Probable Developments in Indochina through Mid-1952, CIA Report, 3 March 1952, Freedom of Information Act, accessed on line, http://www.foia.cia.gov, 30 June 2008.

    [33]. Davidson, 123.

    [34]. Ibid, 160.

    [35]. Qiang Zhai, 46.

    [36]. Ibid.

    [37]. General Vo Nguyen Giap, Dien Bien Phu, (Hanoi, Vietnam, The Gioi Publishers, 1994), 23.

    [38]. Qiang Zhai, Book, 64.

    [39]. Clodfelter, 28.

    [40]. Davidson, 204-205.

    [41]. Clodfelter, 34-35.

    [42]. Li, 215.

    [43]. Ibid.

    [44]. Ibid, 216.

    [45]. Clodfelter, 39-40.

    [46]. Davidson, 284-289.

    [47]. Ibid, 303-304.

    [48]. Qiang Zhai, Book, 140.

    [49]. Li, 217.

    [50]. Ibid.

    [51]. Special Report, Status of Soviet and Chinese Military Aid to North Vietnam, CIA Report, 03 September 1965, and Intelligence Memorandum, Chinese Communist Forces in North Vietnam, CIA Report, 29 September 1966, Freedom of Information Act, accessed on line, http://www.foia.cia.gov, 30 June 2008.

    [52]. Li, 218.

    [53]. Ibid, 217-218.

    [54]. Clodfelter, 225.

    [55]. Li, 217-219.

    [56]. Davidson, 605.

    [57]. Ibid, 634.

    [58]. Ibid, 707.

    [59]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 482.

    [60]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 357.

    [61]. Qiang Zhai, 715.

    [62]. Davidson, 47.

    [64]. Li, 217-219 and Xiaoming Zhang, 759.

    [65]. Xiaoming Zhang, 757.

    [66]. Qiang Zhai, 138-139.

    [67]. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, 578.

    [68]. Davidson, 32.

    [69]. Ralph D. Sawyer, The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, Sun-tzu’s Art of War, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2007), 161.

    * * *

    Copyright © 2008 Bob Seals.

    Written by Bob Seals. If you have questions or comments on this article, please contact Bob Seals at:
    [email protected].

    About the author:
    Bob Seals is a retired Army Special Forces officer with service in the 1st and 3rd Special Forces Group, 1st Special Warfare Training Group, SF Command, Security Assistance Training Management Organization, and Special Operations Command-Korea. He is working as an Operations Analyst for General Dynamics Information Technology at the Army Special Operations Digital Training Center, US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC.

    Published online: 09/23/2008.

    * Views expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent those of MHO.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  107. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    I don’t know where to begin.

    The North was bombed a lot, yes. It had to look like the strikes were on military targets, which is a restriction that did not exist in WW2. The Communist forces then countered with a Guerilla War – that is, make soldiers look like civilians. Regardless of that, as long as the North were not invaded, they could not be defeated. You can bomb a country into the stone age, but you don’t own it until you have a 19-year-old with a rifle occupying the soil.

    The US never invaded North Vietnam because the US Congress lacked the will to allow it. If it had and Red China had invaded, the US Forces would not have been given permission to interdict supply lines. Translation – Congress would not have given permission to win.

    I am not sure how you can say Hanoi mustered a ‘formidable’ force when it got hammered severely.
    Minimal ground support from the USA and overwhelming air support did that. When that was withdrawn, yes, the North won.

    By the way, are you over your fantasies of the invincibility of Red Chinas military?

    See? I can make snarky comments, too.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
    , @Vidi
  108. Jokem says:
    @Deep Thought

    Vidi – This article by Mr. Seals is really too long. I see a lot of detail here, but the gist of it as far as I can tell, is the historical ties are strong between China and Vietnam. I don’t see where it addresses the abandonment of the Saigon government by withdrawing air support and supplies led to Communist victory.

    Since we did not invade North Vietnam, there is no way to prove Mao’s promise was real or not.
    Similarly, there is no way to know how the USA would have responded to that.

  109. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    2) Losing in the USSR did change the war, Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for Germany, you are right about that.
    Regardless of my OPINION or your OPINION, you have not explained how an attack on Pearl Harbor was going to somehow result in a flood of supplies from the USA to Japan. The only way I could see that happening is if Japan invaded and took over the portions of the USA holding the raw materials Japan needed. To my knowledge, Japan had no plans to do that. They did not even take over Hawaii, which would have been fairly easy after the US Navy and air forces were crushed.

    So, assuming your OPINION is accurate, how would spending all those resources (which could be used in combat in China) in the attack on Pearl Harbor somehow result in the obtaining the resources Japan needed?

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  110. @Jokem

    What good was a navy in a land war???? Japan’s navy couldn’t attack the interior of China – which was wear Japan got bogged down after taking many of the coastal areas… Which is why the KMT moved the capital to Nanjing and then Chongqing…
    And you don’t get it… Japan had to take over the rest of the Pacific to hope to be able to get more raw materials. Attacking Pearl Harbor was not to take over Hawaii… It was to scare the US to stay on it’s side of the Pacific. It took those drastic steps because the US stopping selling it the war materials. Had the US not been selling them those things 3 years before none of it would have happened. Japan would have had to give up by 1939 probably. But it was able to go those three years because the US was supplying it… Not much different than the US supplying the Saudis in Yemen (except Japan was too small to take over all of China)

    • Replies: @Jokem
  111. @Jokem

    Yankee racists hate to admit that their ‘military’ is only good at coward acts like high-altitude carpet-bombing, the killing of civilians and terror/torture programs like Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. China’s military is for defending China, not roaming the world killing, destroying and terrorising. Attack China and ‘..a great Empire falls’, as the Delphic oracle told Croesus.

  112. @Jokem

    You remind me very much of some German Nazi whinging that they lost WW1 because they were ‘..stabbed in the back’. If only we coulda killed more ‘gooks’ we woulda won! But most Septic sub-fascists are like that. They can’t take recognising how second-rate they really are, even in their favourite past-time-killing.

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @Deep Thought
  113. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    ‘What good was a navy in a land war????’

    A navy takes petroleum to operate it. Unless you claim the land forces had plenty of that?
    A navy uses gunpowder for its weapons. Unless you claim the land forces had plenty of that?
    A navy has aircraft to attack targets. Unless you claim the land forces had plenty of those?
    All resources which could be used in the Chinese theater.

    ‘It was to scare the US to stay on its side of the Pacific.’

    Which the USA was largely doing. I have this mental impression of Stephen Hawking throwing a punch at Mike Tyson and expecting Mike to start cowering and begging for mercy. I don’t think the Japanese were that foolish.

    You are right about the USA supplying Japan with raw materials used for War. The USA at the time was strongly committed to a truly neutral foreign policy. We did not want to enter into an entangling alliance with other countries, let other people solve their own problems. This gradually changed as politics became more global instead of regional. Without those raw materials Jaan would have had a harder time making war on their neighbors.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  114. Jokem says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    ‘You remind me very much of some German Nazi whinging that they lost WW1 because they were ‘..stabbed in the back’. ‘

    I am not responsible for how you think. The fact remains that the US Congress put constraints on the ability of our forces to prosecute the war and abandoned friendly factions to the whims of the enemy. We have proven ourselves to be an unreliable ally. I am surprised anyone in the third world trusts us anymore.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  115. @mulga mumblebrain

    You remind me very much of some German Nazi whinging that they lost WW1 because they were ‘..stabbed in the back’.

    Exactly! And then, the Nazis started WWII, which they thought could “correct” the “stab in the back.”

    Something we need to watch out for.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  116. Jokem says:
    @Deep Thought

    Right! We did not learn our lessons in Korea and continued to make the same mistakes in subsequent conflicts. The armaments industry did not consider them to be mistakes, though.

    Similarly, Germany did not learn from its mistakes in WW1, and pursued a two-front war in WW2.
    Then after initiating a two-front war, Hitler prolonged the war by diverting forces from capturing Moscow, giving the rest of the Allies time to build up forces. He made other mistakes, too, but those were the big ones.

    I am glad he did, or we might all be speaking German, or maybe Japanese.

  117. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “fantasy n. the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need“. (Emphasis added.)

    This describes you to a T.

    I don’t know where to begin.

    Because you know you will lose.

    The US never invaded North Vietnam because the US Congress lacked the will to allow it.

    Make up your mind. Your fantasies are contradicting each other. First you say the President had tied the generals’ hands (link), and now you say that it was Congress. Both somehow happened secretly, without a constitutional crisis. Yes, your fantasies are truly unrealistic and improbable, just as the dictionary says — even if your muddled mind could keep them straight.

    By the way, are you over your fantasies of the invincibility of Red Chinas military?

    When did I say China was invincible? I merely said China was able to keep the US from winning a war. China did it — twice.

    You undoubtedly entertain yet another fantasy: that of defeating China in a new war. But a US Deputy Secretary of Defense has admitted that in 18 wargames simulating a battle over Taiwan, the US lost every time (link).

    What was Einstein’s definition of insanity? Doing the same unsuccessful thing over and over again? If you want to fight China once more, you’re insane by this definition.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
    , @Jokem
  118. @Vidi

    I merely said China was able to keep the US from winning a war. China did it — twice.

    Kissinger said,

    The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.

    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henry_kissinger_404053

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @Vidi
  119. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    ‘Make up your mind. Your fantasies are contradicting each other. First you say the President had tied the generals’ hands (link), and now you say that it was Congress. ‘

    In Korea it was the President, in Vietnam it was Congress, however, both had some blame in that regard. I thought it was manifestly obvious we were discussing more than one military conflict.

    ‘When did I say China was invincible?’

    You never did, this was in response to your claim my comment about defeating Red China in Korea was a fantasy.

    ‘You undoubtedly entertain yet another fantasy: that of defeating China in a new war.’

    No, I do not. Red China is not the paper tiger it was in the Korean and Vietnam era.

    You are right about Einstein’s comment. We did it wrong in Korea, then repeated that mistake in Vietnam.

    If you are calling me insane, you made a pejorative comment and have thus lost the argument.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  120. Jokem says:
    @Deep Thought

    I say Kissinger was at least part way wrong on that. Our conventional forces did not win in Korea, but managed to obtain a tie.

  121. @Jokem

    It’s not a videogame… Japan wanted to be an imperial nation and so needed a navy. You obviously don’t know the point of an aircraft carrier.
    And you don’t think Japan was that foolish??? Only fools thought it wise to try to get into a land war deep into China. Not even the other 7 of the 8 Nation Alliance wanted to do that. They all stuck to China’s coast for a reason. yeah those same brilliant Japanese that then attacked Pearl harbor… Just like their German allies who were foolish enough to drive into Russia

    • Replies: @Jokem
  122. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    I have no idea what the mention of a video game has to do with what we are discussing?

    The point of an Aircraft Carrier is to launch aircraft to attack targets and obtain intelligence on the opponents. This can be done on land targets as well as those on the water.

    If the Japanese war against China was going so bad, it does not make sense to withhold resources from that theater to open a second front.

    Attacking Pearl Harbor was not smart, but it was done for national pride reasons.

    Germanys drive into the Soviet Union was not smart to have been done the way to was.
    Adolph Hitlers arrogance, overconfidence and faith on the superiority of the German race was his undoing. It resulted in a careless and cavalier attitude.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  123. Vidi says:
    @Deep Thought

    Kissinger said,

    The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.

    I agree. But during the Korean War, the Chinese soldiers were a lot more than guerrillas. They actually pushed the US Army all the way back to the 38th parallel, in just a few months. Guerrillas can’t do that with their little strikes.

    In Vietnam, China was a critical influence in Dien Bien Phu (1954), just a year after the war ended in Korea.

    According to the article by Bob Seals (thanks for posting it), Ho Chi Minh didn’t realize that Dien Bien Phu would be decisive, as he wanted to do something else. It was Chinese advisors who convinced him to do it.

    Chinese support was more than wise advice: according to Seals, for Dien Bien Phu, China gave Vietnam “8,286 tons of supplies, including 4,620 tons of petroleum, 1,360 tons of ammunition, 46 tons of weapons and 1,700 tons of rice”. That may not seem like much, but (1) it was for just one battle, and (2) the quantity of donated weapons and ammunition indicate that China’s industrial capacity was recovering from its civil war quite rapidly. This suggests that if the war in the Korean peninsula had lasted longer, the result would have been a total victory for China, not just a draw (armistice).

    • Thanks: Deep Thought
    • Replies: @Jokem
  124. @Jokem

    Yeah, but you certainly helped the drug-pushers, whores, brothel-keepers and sundry other human filth that follow Septic presence anywhere it goes, in South Vietnam. You’ll always have camp followers anywhere that Evil dwells-the USA attracts them like carrion flies to a corpse flower.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  125. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    ‘Make up your mind. Your fantasies are contradicting each other. First you say the President had tied the generals’ hands (link), and now you say that it was Congress. ‘

    In Korea it was the President, in Vietnam it was Congress, however, both had some blame in that regard. I thought it was manifestly obvious we were discussing more than one military conflict.

    That was why I mentioned an improbably quiet constitutional crisis. Back when Congress still had spine, neither the Presidency nor the Congress could end a war by itself. If either had tried to do so without agreement from the other, there would have been an enormous public stink: a raging budget battle or a constitutional crisis. Neither could possibly have been hidden, from the press nor from historians. By asserting that TWO wars were somehow secretly sabotaged, you are being unrealistic and improbable still, the dictionary definition of fantasy.

    If you are calling me insane, you made a pejorative comment and have thus lost the argument.

    I was very clear in saying that conditionally. It is not my fault if you fail to understand.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  126. @Achmed E. Newman

    The US isn’t decadent because it imports everything from China; it imports everything from China because it’s decadent. And it’s decadent because it’s under Jewish domination. Jewish greed and subversion have destroyed the old American can-do spirit and pretty much everything else that was good about America. If everything didn’t come from China, it would come from other places. The only difference is that it would be greatly disruptive in the short run, resulting in multiple severe shortages, while in the long run it would be a lot less efficient and more expensive.

    It’s pointless to try to uphold national greatness in a country under Jewish domination. No set of policies can make up for the fact the worst enemies of the nation are in charge, and even if such policies could be found, the Jews wouldn’t allow them to be implemented.

  127. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    ‘Guerrillas can’t do that with their little strikes.’

    Tito managed to.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  128. Jokem says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    I am not sure how I managed to do that. I was just a youth at that time and had no position of authority at all.

    • Replies: @Pepe the Frog
  129. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    So, you admit Congress has no spine and that is why the wars were lost?

    Nothing secret about losing the two wars. I claim both wars were lost due to the same reason.
    The same mistakes were made in both. Just for the record, I do not claim the Korean conflict was lost; I give it a tie.

    I claim victory was denied by the lack of will to win. Based upon that, are you calling me insane or not?

    • Replies: @Vidi
  130. @Jokem

    Just click on his name to see his profile. You will soon notice that his obsessions follow certain patterns. Like the man says, “Forget it. He’s on a roll.”

  131. @Jokem

    It is not really a debate that Japan was stuck by the end of 1940 in China…

    • Replies: @Jokem
  132. Jokem says:
    @showmethereal

    I was not arguing that point. I was arguing the Pearl Harbor attack was going to draw resources away from the Chinese front and from that standpoint it was going to worsen the situation.

  133. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    ‘Guerrillas can’t do that with their little strikes.’

    Tito managed to.

    Tito’s guerrillas needed four years, not three months. Tito had full backing from the Soviet Union; China did not until AFTER driving the Americans down to the 38th parallel, hundreds of kilometers south of the Yalu river. And the Yugoslavian army was nowhere near as formidable as the US Army.

    Chinese soldiers in Korea were far more than just guerrillas.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  134. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    Nothing secret about losing the two wars. I claim both wars were lost due to the same reason.

    Fine. If the two wars were not sabotaged in secret, show me some official documentation of what the President or Congress did to sabotage the Korean and Vietnam wars.

    I doubt you can. You are suffering from the dictionary definition of fantasy: the creation of “especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need“.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  135. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    Nothing you have said here contradicts what I have said. Tito managed to successfully combat the Axis forces and drove them out of Yugoslavia. Probably would have happened sooner if he and Draža Mihailović had gotten along better.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  136. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    You mean it is not common knowledge the allied forces in Korea were not allowed to violate Red Chinese air space or attack targets in Red China? Is it also not common knowledge the Allied forces were not allowed to invade North Vietnam?

    You keep hammering this ‘dictionary definition of fantasy’ diatribe. Sounds like you are calling me crazy, are you or are you not? Quit straddling the fence!

    • Replies: @Vidi
  137. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    Nothing you have said here contradicts what I have said. Tito managed to successfully combat the Axis forces and drove them out of Yugoslavia. Probably would have happened sooner if he and Draža Mihailović had gotten along better.

    You miss my point once more, that guerrilla wars are slow. Against much weaker opposition, Tito took four years. In just three months, Chinese soldiers kicked the US Army’s butts hundreds of kilometers southwards, down to the North/South Korea border. The Chinese soldiers were more than just gerrillas.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  138. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    You mean it is not common knowledge the allied forces in Korea were not allowed to violate Red Chinese air space or attack targets in Red China? Is it also not common knowledge the Allied forces were not allowed to invade North Vietnam?

    I don’t care if it was or wasn’t common knowledge that the Korean and Vietnam wars were sabotaged by the President or Congress. You claim that the sabotage wasn’t secret. Fine. Show me some official documents that prove the sabotage in both cases.

    You keep hammering this ‘dictionary definition of fantasy’ diatribe. Sounds like you are calling me crazy, are you or are you not? Quit straddling the fence!

    What you are doing fits the dictionary definition of fantasy, so I call it fantasy. For your convenience, here’s the definition again: “fantasy n. the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need“. (Emphasis added.)

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @mulga mumblebrain
  139. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    Tito managed to liberate Yugoslavia using guerrilla tactics. That was the point. You claimed guerrillas cannot do that with their little strikes. I claimed Tito did that. I will admit the strikes got bigger as he gained more and more support. And for the record, the Western Allies supported him as well as the USSR, once they got tired of Mihailović’s foot dragging.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  140. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    So, you want me to provide official documentation of something which is common knowledge?
    I will see what I can do, but I think no matter what I provide you will continue to deny, deny, deny.
    I suspect this is a tactic to fatigue me into giving up the discussion.

    I have no idea how this definition of fantasy applies to this discussion.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  141. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    Tito managed to liberate Yugoslavia using guerrilla tactics. That was the point. You claimed guerrillas cannot do that with their little strikes.

    No, I did not claim that. I said “[The Chinese soldiers] actually pushed the US Army all the way back to the 38th parallel, in just a few months. Guerrillas can’t do that with their little strikes.” (link)

    Perhaps I should have put the phrase “in just a few months” in flashing red so you couldn’t possibly misinterpret it, as you are doing now. The speed of China’s counter-attack was far beyond what guerrillas do. And I’ll repeat my previous comment in hope that understanding will finally dawn on you.

    You miss my point once more, that guerrilla wars are slow. Against much weaker opposition, Tito took four years. In just three months, Chinese soldiers kicked the US Army’s butts hundreds of kilometers southwards, down to the North/South Korea border. The Chinese soldiers were more than just gerrillas.

  142. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    So, you want me to provide official documentation of something which is common knowledge?

    You were the one who said “Nothing secret about losing the two wars” (link).

    If the President or Congress sabotaged two wars, and if as you claim that was not done secretly, then show me some official documentation of the sabotage. I don’t care if it was or was not in common knowledge. If the sabotages weren’t secret, I want the official documentation. Put up or shut up.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  143. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    End of Aid to Vietnam

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180811232207/https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-asks-for-additional-aid
    https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/12/archives/congress-resists-us-aid-in-evacuating-vietnamese-congress-resists.html

    Difficulty of attacking bridges across the Yalu River.

    https://history.army.mil/books/pd-c-13.htm

    The US Congress refused to fund military support of South Vietnam.
    President Truman refused to allow the Yalu River bridges to be attacked effectively.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
    , @Vidi
  144. @Jokem

    Oh, dear-the armchair warrior still can’t take the fact that the genocidal aggressors got their arses kicked, despite the terror-bombing, the innumerable massacres, the death-squad murder, torture and disappearance operations like Phoenix in Vietnam, the greatest chemical warfare campaign in history, etc, by vastly better, braver, tougher, human beings.

  145. @Vidi

    Jokem, the human joke, is one of those Septic thugs who think that, if we just kill a few million more ‘gooks’, ‘Chinks’,’slopes’, ‘rag-heads’ etc, then we can strut and brag even more than usual. Killing, after all, is as American as apple-pie.

    • Agree: Vidi
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  146. Mevashir says:
    @mulga mumblebrain


    Fascinating video about why Asia is the dominant Center of human civilization.

  147. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    End of Aid to Vietnam

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180811232207/https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-asks-for-additional-aid
    https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/12/archives/congress-resists-us-aid-in-evacuating-vietnamese-congress-resists.html

    So what if Congress refused to fund the South Koreans in 1975. The US Army had withdrawn two years before, with the last Americans leaving on March 29, 1973 (link).

    You aren’t seriously suggesting that the ARVIND by itself was stronger than US + ARVIND and thus had even the faintest hope of beating North Vietnam if given more money? By refusing to add funding, Congress was merely being realistic; you can’t call that a sabotage.

    As for the US withdrawal, the Americans gave up. If you call that a sabotage of a potential victory, then you would have to call every concession of defeat a sabotage of that sort. Then every historian in the world would laugh at you.

    President Truman refused to allow the Yalu River bridges to be attacked effectively.

    Because bombing the bridges would have been useless. As you can see from the picture captioned “Chinese forces cross the frozen river” in a Wikipedia article (link), the Yalu was frozen, and the Chinese soldiers didn’t need bridges to cross over.

    You really are desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel. None of your links even remotely suggest a sabotage of the Korean or Vietnam wars by President or Congress.

    • Agree: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @Jokem
  148. Vidi says:
    @Vidi

    I wrote:

    So what if Congress refused to fund the South Koreans in 1975.

    Heh, of course I meant “the South Vietnamese in 1975″.

  149. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    I have already stated ARVN defeated the North Vietnam forces with minimal ground support from the USA plus air support. This was back in 1972. There is no reason they could not do it again. This could have been done when the North invaded instead of waiting until the invasion had already progressed. Even after the invasion was well under way, it still could have been done.

    The Yalu was not always frozen over. During the times it was not, these attacks could have seriously starved the Red Chinese forces of supplies. They could also have attacked supply centers in Red China which would have served much the same purpose. Even after the Yalu was frozen over it is an axiom in modern military strategy that air superiority gives a substantial advantage.

    I knew you would do this. I post evidence of sabotage; you see that and call it something else.
    I conclude no facts, no matter how persuasive, will convince you.

    Continue to remain a Soviet loyalist, I am done…

    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @mulga mumblebrain
  150. Vidi says:
    @Jokem

    I have already stated ARVN defeated the North Vietnam forces with minimal ground support from the USA plus air support. This was back in 1972. There is no reason they could not do it again.

    There was very good reason for Congress to believe the ARVN could not do it again: the South Vietnamese could not possibly replace the 18,000+ aircraft sorties (link) that were decisive in repelling North Vietnam’s Easter Offensive in 1972. In 1975, Congress was being realistic in refusing to fund the ARVN further. Brutal, yes, but realistic. The funding shortage did not lose the war — it was already lost when the US pulled out in 1973. What Congress refused to do cannot possibly be called a sabotage of a potential victory: the victory was impossible.

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @mulga mumblebrain
  151. Jokem says:
    @Vidi

    OK Vidi – Ignore the fact that do not support your position.

    As I said, I am done. Continue this discussion alone.

  152. Vidi says:

    OK Vidi – Ignore the fact that do not support your position.

    OK Jokem, be as unspecific as possible so no one can possibly contradict you.

    As I said, I am done. Continue this discussion alone.

    Good riddance. Will you keep that promise? You’ve broken it once already.

  153. nsa says:

    Vidi and Jokem agree that the amelikan army de maricones needs a tuneup fight before taking on anyone capable of fighting back…especially the 1.5 billion yellow peril armed with nukes. Grenada 2.0 anyone?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  154. Jokem says:
    @nsa

    Sorry, I think we need to put Washington D C on medication. I think Red China might be too powerful to be taken on now, certainly with the weak political will which comes out of the Federal Government. We dithered for decades and now we have an orange (yellow and red) peril to deal with.

  155. @Vidi

    Jokem’s position is that if the USA had killed another few million ‘gooks’, and kept the puppet regime of pimps, brothel-keepers, drug-runners, torturing murderers and other ‘freedom-lovers’ supplied with airstrikes and chemical devastation of the countryside, they could have prevailed, and jokem could have crowed like a cock on a dung-heap-or vice versa.

  156. @Jokem

    Is there anything more grotesque than a Yankee Doodle jingo? If we coulda, shoulda, woulda, hada done this that or the other, we’d still be the Number One Murder Incorporated, forever.This is why humanity is doomed-too many Evil imbeciles.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  157. Jokem says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    ‘Is there anything more grotesque than a Yankee Doodle jingo?’

    Yes, what is worse is a Soviet extremist so far to the left it makes Kim Jong Un look like a humanitarian.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave