Author Topic: JFK blames Roosevelt for the loss of China (Read 1078 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** March 23, 2013, 02:09:46 PM »

People forget that JFK actually criticized the Democrats' foreign policy as it related to Asia which lead to the triumph of Communism there. JFK was a "liberal" although he was not a liberal counter-culture hippie nor was he a part of FDR's interventionist cabinet being a supporter of the America First Committee. Here JFK discusses the disaster in Asia in 1949 and blames FDR for it.

"Whatever share of the responsibility was Roosevelt's and whatever share was Marshall's the vital interest of the United States in the independent integrity of China was sacrificed, and the foundation was laid for the present tragic situation in the Far East."(discussing China falling to Mao)

What JFK is alluding to is FDR giving Stalin Manchuria which we fought a war with Japan over which lead to China falling to Soviet Communism as the Soviets armed Mao and his Communists.

Renzo · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2013, 03:10:47 PM »

Oh yeah, the congressional record is full of reports of u.s. support to general chiag kai shek being sabotaged by, what appeared to be, our own state department, during the late 1940s and lots of support for mao pouring across the border from communist russia.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2013, 03:14:23 PM »

A good book to read on this topic is Catholic historian Anthony Kubek's

How the Far East was Lost

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2013, 05:48:20 PM »

Quote from: Renzo

Oh yeah, the congressional record is full of reports of u.s. support to general chiag kai shek being sabotaged by, what appeared to be, our own state department, during the late 1940s and lots of support for mao pouring across the border from communist russia.

Don't forget that General Chiang also was hysterical about America not taking a part of the war on Japan and lifting the embargo with a plan to negotiate with Japan pre-Pearl Harbor. The truth was whether ruled by Japenese imperialists, Chiang's Nationalists or Mao's Communists, what happened in China was not a part of America's vital interests.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2013, 06:00:40 PM »

Both FDR and Truman had Soviet and Communist spies in their Administration which was honeycombed into the government and influenced how they did their wartime decisions. It is well known that it was actually America which was the largest threat to British imperial interests by the time of World War II, since FDR used World War II to expand America's own imperial power. By the time of the end of the Cold War, the loss of Russian imperial power meant America was the lone imperial power with no enemy to rival it, something which was taken advantage of by our neoconservatives and the first George Bush.

Renzo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2013, 11:18:14 PM »

That's interesting. Anthony Kubek in, "How The Far East Was Lost: American Foreign Policy and The Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949" appears to think (from the reviews i've read), that the united states created a vacuum of power in the orient, by totally crushing japan, instead of leaving japan intact and powerful enough to provide a balance of power between imperial japan, nationalist forces in china and internationalist/communist forces in china and russia.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there's a wikipedia article on "the china hands" that seems to attack so called "revisionist" history of that region and era. It seems like there's sort of a false historical tale of that era, that probably is a "father" to the tale told about vietnam and the "undefeatable" communist peasantry :rolleyes: As well as the yarns about senator mccarthy and his supposed nuttyness and mean spiritedness.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2013, 11:34:47 PM »

Quote from: Renzo

That's interesting. Anthony Kubek in, "How The Far East Was Lost: American Foreign Policy and The Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949" appears to think (from the reviews i've read), that the united states created a vacuum of power in the orient, by totally crushing japan, instead of leaving japan intact and powerful enough to provide a balance of power between imperial japan, nationalist forces in china and internationalist/communist forces in china and russia.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there's a wikipedia article on "the china hands" that seems to attack so called "revisionist" history of that region and era. It seems like there's sort of a false historical tale of that era, that probably is a "father" to the tale told about vietnam and the "undefeatable" communist peasantry :rolleyes: As well as the yarns about senator mccarthy and his supposed nuttyness and mean spiritedness.

No one today gets money or tenure for challenging the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic historical narrative.

Academic history is a racket of mercenaries.

What is striking to me is that the left-wing propagandistic tone of establishment history has become more and more shrill since the post-war period.

Renzo · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2013, 11:52:14 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Renzo
That's interesting. Anthony Kubek in, "How The Far East Was Lost: American Foreign Policy and The Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949" appears to think (from the reviews i've read), that the united states created a vacuum of power in the orient, by totally crushing japan, instead of leaving japan intact and powerful enough to provide a balance of power between imperial japan, nationalist forces in china and internationalist/communist forces in china and russia.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there's a wikipedia article on "the china hands" that seems to attack so called "revisionist" history of that region and era. It seems like there's sort of a false historical tale of that era, that probably is a "father" to the tale told about vietnam and the "undefeatable" communist peasantry :rolleyes: As well as the yarns about senator mccarthy and his supposed nuttyness and mean spiritedness.

No one today gets money or tenure for challenging the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic historical narrative.

Academic history is a racket of mercenaries.

What is striking to me is that the left-wing propagandistic tone of establishment history has become more and more shrill since the post-war period.

Yeah, I think they feel threatened by the openness and availability of information, with the advent of the internet. And, in that regard, i don't think they're crazy.