The Instigator
Aadron
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AngryHermit
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should have America intervened in the Chinese Civil War?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 38046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Aadron

Pro

The Chinese Civil War was a conflict that started in 1927, with intermittent peace to defeat a common enemy of Japan, and basically ended in 1950. What I support is what should have been an American intervention on the side of the Republic of China(Nationalist China) against the People's Republic of China(Communist China). Had we intervened in this conflict, we could have prevented a lot headache over Vietnam and Korea because the communist revolutionaries would have lacked a major ally who supplied weapons, supplies, and even soldiers in the case of the Korean conflict. Our lack of support to the Republic of China led to their eventual loss and the rise of a government that would kill millions of people with their policies along with the loss of a political and strategic ally on the Asian mainland that quite basically made U.S. intervention a hardship for the future.
AngryHermit

Con

Sir I accept your challenge. When one thinks to the scope of united states intervention in china, one must first state a time period for intervention, for the purposes of the argument, I will assume you mean in the era following the second world war, as any time before would have seriously altered the course of the second world war, as Japan first invaded manchuria in 1933. I mean to make the claim that, had the untied states supported chinese nationalists during the civil war, the outcome itself would have still been in flux. The Chinese nationalists had little support from the majority of the populace, all the united states would have done is enraged other communist nations, like the USSR, by intervening in a foreign nation attempting to prop up government with little popular support. At least in Vietnam and Korea there was some kind of popular support for intervention within the country, in china the nationalists were seen as useless and barley managed to hold Taiwan once the fled to it. The Communists had the support of the populace from their valiant efforts fighting the Japanese and a charismatic leader in Mao Zedong, whereas the Nationalists couldn't hold onto a leader for longer than a few years. This outcome is bad enough without considering that the USSR would probably have intervened on behalf of the Maoists, likely turning this into a new Vietnam war in the late 40's. The only upside to your proposal is the thought that we wouldn't need wait until 2015 for Fallout 4, we would be living it.
Debate Round No. 1
Aadron

Pro

However sir, if America had intervened immediately the war would not have been uncertain. Consider the fact that immediately after World War 2 the ROC had around 3,650,000 troops compared to PRC 2,800,000. An easy 850,000 soldier difference there. If we had intervened immediately in 1946, when hostilities resumed, we would have engaged before the popular Communist land reform campaign which started in 1947 which was the main reason why the Communist party had such strong support from the lower class. America still had strong troop numbers in the area, easily able to be deployed, occupying Japan and various islands within the Pacific as well as commanders who could be sent to China to train troops and advise. Had we struck hard and fast and eliminated the Communist threat quickly, the Land Reform campaigning would have been seen as a desperate grasping of straws for support. Nothing more. What the ROC also needed was weapons! After the defeat of the Japanese army in Manchuria, Stalin gave all the surrendered Japanese weapons to the PRC which were far superior to the outdated or defunct weapons the ROC used. Had we used more of our Air Force or allied air forces such as Australia or Britain to support the ROC in getting supplied superior weapons as well as being used for air superiority, there could have been a world of difference in the effectiveness of their army against the communists. I maintain that if we had struck IMMEDIATELY in 1946, we could have easily overran the PRC before they had gotten a large amount of support from the lower classes. We also would have seen little to no interference from Stalin because he was still trying to figure out his foreign policy towards the west which would have delayed his action and he was still focused on rebuilding his industry that had been rampaged upon by the Germans, as evidenced by his complete dismantling of Manchurian industry and moving it back to Russia. He quite simply was not prepared to fight another war.
AngryHermit

Con

AngryHermit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Aadron

Pro

It seems that my opponent has forfeited the other round.

Source for most of the information that I gathered is from Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as when some of the more popular reforms happened (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The only thing to say is that I merely restate my argument, had we intervened in China, we most likely would have won if we did a shock and awe campaign. America would have avoided the wars of Korea and Vietnam as we would have had a major ally where as the communists would have lost one. A new argument could be that America would have been in a much stronger economic position considering the import tariffs the Chinese currently place on almost all imported goods except for the resources they need. The U.S.S.R. was not in a position to fight a major war with the west as well as the previously unbefore mentioned strategic use of Nuclear Weapons that the west could have used.

The Soviet Union had not invented and tested Nuclear Weapons until 1949 with the explosion of a similar weapon to the U.S. "Fat Man" plutonium bomb(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Not even considering the industrial, political, and strategic position of the U.S.S.R., this would easily have been enough to keep Stalin from literally intervening on the part of China.

In summary, the Chinese communists could have been overrun, the U.S.S.R. stopped from intervening by a number of variables, and the U.S. helped in the future, economically by the opening of a new market as well as strategically by a new ally in Asia. Thank you and vote Pro.
AngryHermit

Con

AngryHermit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.