PDA

View Full Version : OT Document Friday: "This Would be the Signal for General Nuclear War”


Natedogg
03-26-2010, 05:08 PM
Here's a weekly blog post I do for the National Security Archive. This one scared me a little bit. The actual document and the rest is here:

http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/document-friday-this-would-be-the-signal-for-general-nuclear-war/

According to today’s hot doc, the US Air Force was ready and willing to drop nuclear bombs on Communist China at the outset of the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis. This 13 August 1958 State Department memo describes blow-by-blow how a dispute over two islands in the Taiwan Strait could have evolved into “general nuclear war between the US and the USSR.”

This memo, sent to President Eisenhower’s Under Secretary of State, Christian Herter, depicts how nuclear war between the USA and USSR could have evolved from a dispute between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Taiwan held these two strategically important islands, but the PRC also claimed (and shelled) them. America’s “existing contingent war plans,” derived from its 1954 security agreement with Taiwan, “call[ed] for the defense of Quemoy and Matsu by nuclear strikes deep into Communist China, including military targets in the Shanghai-Hangchow-Nanking and Canton complexes where population density is extremely high.“

The rest is here:

http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/document-friday-this-would-be-the-signal-for-general-nuclear-war/

crush17
03-26-2010, 05:13 PM
yikes.

Killericon
03-26-2010, 05:20 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGVfzwvtlJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGVfzwvtlJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Archer81
03-26-2010, 06:50 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGVfzwvtlJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGVfzwvtlJM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I would say its a fair bet that every president since Truman has had to consider the nuclear option at some point for crisis' we are not fully aware of.


:Broncos:

broncosteven
03-26-2010, 07:36 PM
Wasn't there a threat of full scale nuclear war early in Regan's 1st term that was due to a computer malfunction or a fail safe failure?

I thought I remember reading something recently but my brain is not the most reliable source recently.

ZONA
03-26-2010, 08:07 PM
Maybe it's just me but I feel as if though the Super Power countries know, even more so now then before, that nuclear war doesn't just blow up your enemies, but it's certain to spell at least some kind of disaster for everybody, due to fallout.

Archer81
03-26-2010, 08:07 PM
Wasn't there a threat of full scale nuclear war early in Regan's 1st term that was due to a computer malfunction or a fail safe failure?

I thought I remember reading something recently but my brain is not the most reliable source recently.


I saw that movie, too. Mathew Broderick plays a war game with the computer that controls our nuclear arsenal. The world is saved by tic tac toe.


:Broncos:

orinjkrush
03-26-2010, 08:13 PM
we are and have always been very, very close to the precipice. it doesn't take much, in terms of miscalculations, to push us over.
how many minutes to midnight?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-26-2010, 08:18 PM
Sounds like our precious bodily fluids were at risk for contamination.

orinjkrush
03-26-2010, 08:21 PM
Dr Broncontein (Strangelove) I presume.

broncosteven
03-27-2010, 02:26 PM
I saw that movie, too. Mathew Broderick plays a war game with the computer that controls our nuclear arsenal. The world is saved by tic tac toe.


:Broncos:

I wasn't being funny, I remember there being a real incident with either a simulation and or a SAC bomber off his course which caused an incident but due to communications with Russia nothing esclated. It was after War Games I think some time around 82-84.

Maybe I am wrong...

Natedogg
03-27-2010, 02:44 PM
I wasn't being funny, I remember there being a real incident with either a simulation and or a SAC bomber off his course which caused an incident but due to communications with Russia nothing esclated. It was after War Games I think some time around 82-84.

Maybe I am wrong...

There were a few things. Able Archer 83 was a very realistic NATO nuclear release exercise that used new computers and new codes. The Soviets thought it could have masked a NATO preemptive strike. (I wrote my MA thesis on his.)

Also a Soviet satellite gave a false alarm that a missile had launched. Missie technicians disregarded the alert and didn't launch. This was 1983 before Able Archer.

During Yeltsin, the Russians again mistook a Norwegian weather balloon for an atomic strike.

Natedogg
03-27-2010, 02:50 PM
I would say its a fair bet that every president since Truman has had to consider the nuclear option at some point for crisis' we are not fully aware of.


:Broncos:

I think you're partially right... but I think we're aware of just about all the crises... Politicians love tell all memoirs.

Natedogg
03-27-2010, 02:52 PM
we are and have always been very, very close to the precipice. it doesn't take much, in terms of miscalculations, to push us over.
how many minutes to midnight?

6.

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/timeline

Quoydogs
03-27-2010, 03:18 PM
I saw that movie, too. Mathew Broderick plays a war game with the computer that controls our nuclear arsenal. The world is saved by tic tac toe.


:Broncos:

Spoiler alert! ;D

mhgaffney
03-27-2010, 04:27 PM
We are not out of the woods. Not by a long shot.

In case, you don't know, the US tilt toward India has destabilized the Indian subcontinent. We are creating a very dangerous situation. Why? Because the Indian-Pakistani conflict in Kashmir is deep. It continues and can flair up at any time.

Formerly, the US sought to remain neutral in the rivalry between India and Pakistan. No more. Under Bush, the US tilted toward India. And Obama has continued Bush's policy. Why? Because Washington views India as a potential counterweight to growing Chinese power.

Pakistan is the loser, here. The country is simply too small to effectively counter China. The problem with this shift in policy -- away from neutrality -- is that it makes nuclear-armed Pakistan increasingly insecure. Not good. If the region explodes in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, the greater purpose of countering China will look really really stupid --- and tragic. It's another example of US imperial hubris.

We should have maintained a policy of strict neutrality vis a vis India and Pakistan. We should also strongly oppose nukes in both states. Neither has signed the NPT. The fact that we do not makes a mockery of US opposition to Iran's nuclear program.

Is it too late to fix the Bush tilt toward India? So far, Obama shows no inclination to do so. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan -- which now involves Pakistan.

But the US attempt to control central Asia is doomed. Even if we win militarily -- we have already lost -- as in VietNam. We have been outmaneuvered in Asia by Russia and China.

Don't believe it? Check out this paper by William Engdahl.

http://www.rense.com/general90/ukra.htm

We should remove our troops out as soon as possible. The longer we stay -- the more dangerous the war becomes.

Requiem
03-27-2010, 04:35 PM
Hey Gaffney, I'm doing my undergrad thesis on a revision of the Indo-Pakistan conflict (primarily the 2001-2 standoff) to change the situation to where they did engage in nuclear warfare; and to discuss the local and regional implications of such. I will send you it when I am done if you are interested.

fdf
03-27-2010, 07:36 PM
Pakistan is the loser, here. The country is simply too small to effectively counter China. The problem with this shift in policy -- away from neutrality -- is that it makes nuclear-armed Pakistan increasingly insecure. Not good. If the region explodes in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, the greater purpose of countering China will look really really stupid --- and tragic. It's another example of US imperial hubris.


US doesn't have the resources anymore to police the Indian ocean. It is immensely strategic. Every country in that region besides India is run by barbarians who, if they end up controlling those waters, will damage us badly. I include China and Pakistan in that equation. Pakistan contributes nothing to stability or decency in that region except its imagined willingness to blow everything up if it doesn't get it's way. The notion that Pakistan could field a Navy and, if they did, that they would use it in a constructive way in the Indian Ocean is just silly.

India is a relatively civilized democracy with a strong infrastructure to support an ongoing wealth creating economy. It has finally sloughed off socialism and is starting to realize that someone responsible has to take care of the neighborhood. The US is sinking into the slough India is getting out of and will be increasingly unable to influence events in that part of the world despite the enormous importance of those waterways to the world economy and therefore, to the US.

An alliance with India in that part of the world is by far the best bet for a declining America. Not to do so would be to abandon influence in 1/3 of the world because of whether the thug who controls Pakistan today feels insecure and therefore holds our entire foreign power hostage.

Failing to do so would be akin to not having an alliance with Japan because the leaders in North Korea didn't like it and threatened to blow everyone up.

Except China and NK, I don't think anyone is happy that Pakistan has nukes. But they do and so far MAD is working between Pakistan and India. I don't expect that to change unless the Islamist grip on Pakistan gets much worse than it is. And in general, even Islamists don't like being nuked--at least the leaders don't. They are rarely in favor of suicide bombing in a personal sense.

If I were you, I would be much more concerned about Iran than about protecting the feelings of the thugs in Karachi. The whole Mahdi myth is strong in Iran has I think some of them believe in the armageddonish aspects of that myth. And that's the possible exception to the Islamist leaders don't like being nuked stuff. Pakistani leaders and the Islamist opposition there strike me as your standard third world thugs--ultimately much more interested in power, money, wine, women, and song than in being nuked for a noble cause. Iran is much more uncertain that way. So, should we tilt toward Iran because they are soon to be nuclear armed "millenialists"? Obama certainly has, at least as between Iranian citizens and its leadership. And as between Iran and Israel. That's a much more likely flash point than Pakistan and India.

I really believe most of the anti-India stuff on the part of the American left has little to do with Pakistan. It is just that, for sentimental reasons (mostly rooted in the 60's and the cute little Mao books the lefties carried around back then), they think China is the good guy (with the red hat :)) and it would be a good thing if China dominated at least that part of the world. India being the the only power in the region that could thwart that dominance, must, therefore, be kept down while China establishes regional hegemony. I believe that is far closer to the "root cause" of the left's fondness for Pakistan these-a-days. Plus, I think there's a strain of resentment on the left that the Indian people had the gall to toss-off Indira Ghandi and her successors' strain of socialism. Add 'em up and Pakistan's da man.

mhgaffney
03-28-2010, 12:14 AM
Hey Gaffney, I'm doing my undergrad thesis on a revision of the Indo-Pakistan conflict (primarily the 2001-2 standoff) to change the situation to where they did engage in nuclear warfare; and to discuss the local and regional implications of such. I will send you it when I am done if you are interested.

Sure Req --

Contact me and I will give you my email address.

I'd like to see your research.

mhgaffney
03-28-2010, 12:25 AM
US doesn't have the resources anymore to police the Indian ocean. It is immensely strategic. Every country in that region besides India is run by barbarians who, if they end up controlling those waters, will damage us badly. I include China and Pakistan in that equation. Pakistan contributes nothing to stability or decency in that region except its imagined willingness to blow everything up if it doesn't get it's way. The notion that Pakistan could field a Navy and, if they did, that they would use it in a constructive way in the Indian Ocean is just silly.

India is a relatively civilized democracy with a strong infrastructure to support an ongoing wealth creating economy. It has finally sloughed off socialism and is starting to realize that someone responsible has to take care of the neighborhood. The US is sinking into the slough India is getting out of and will be increasingly unable to influence events in that part of the world despite the enormous importance of those waterways to the world economy and therefore, to the US.

An alliance with India in that part of the world is by far the best bet for a declining America. Not to do so would be to abandon influence in 1/3 of the world because of whether the thug who controls Pakistan today feels insecure and therefore holds our entire foreign power hostage.

Failing to do so would be akin to not having an alliance with Japan because the leaders in North Korea didn't like it and threatened to blow everyone up.

Except China and NK, I don't think anyone is happy that Pakistan has nukes. But they do and so far MAD is working between Pakistan and India. I don't expect that to change unless the Islamist grip on Pakistan gets much worse than it is. And in general, even Islamists don't like being nuked--at least the leaders don't. They are rarely in favor of suicide bombing in a personal sense.

If I were you, I would be much more concerned about Iran than about protecting the feelings of the thugs in Karachi. The whole Mahdi myth is strong in Iran has I think some of them believe in the armageddonish aspects of that myth. And that's the possible exception to the Islamist leaders don't like being nuked stuff. Pakistani leaders and the Islamist opposition there strike me as your standard third world thugs--ultimately much more interested in power, money, wine, women, and song than in being nuked for a noble cause. Iran is much more uncertain that way. So, should we tilt toward Iran because they are soon to be nuclear armed "millenialists"? Obama certainly has, at least as between Iranian citizens and its leadership. And as between Iran and Israel. That's a much more likely flash point than Pakistan and India.

I really believe most of the anti-India stuff on the part of the American left has little to do with Pakistan. It is just that, for sentimental reasons (mostly rooted in the 60's and the cute little Mao books the lefties carried around back then), they think China is the good guy (with the red hat :)) and it would be a good thing if China dominated at least that part of the world. India being the the only power in the region that could thwart that dominance, must, therefore, be kept down while China establishes regional hegemony. I believe that is far closer to the "root cause" of the left's fondness for Pakistan these-a-days. Plus, I think there's a strain of resentment on the left that the Indian people had the gall to toss-off Indira Ghandi and her successors' strain of socialism. Add 'em up and Pakistan's da man.

Every country run by barbarians? What about Malaysia -- one of the most civilized nations on earth.

...willingness to blow everything up if it doesn't get its way? That's an accurate description of US foreign policy for the last umpteen years.

I have no problem with a US-India alliance -- so long as we remain neutral about Kashmir, and also so long as we refrain from sending nuclear aid to India -- which we are now doing. This makes Pakistan very very nervous - not a good thing.

Thugs in Karachi? Whom do you mean exactly?

Anti-India? Not me.

You are seriously underestimating the conflict in Kashmir. This is a potential game breaker. The conflict is deep and unresolved. It can flash up at any time. India and Pakistan have already gone to war over it numerous times. As Req mentioned, the two states came very very close to nuclear war some years ago.

I am concerned with the US role. We are making the situation much worse. We need to end the war in Afghanistan -- and pull our troops out. Bring them home and start leading by example instead of using force and threats.

Cito Pelon
03-28-2010, 02:31 AM
Here's a weekly blog post I do for the National Security Archive. This one scared me a little bit. The actual document and the rest is here:

http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/document-friday-this-would-be-the-signal-for-general-nuclear-war/

According to today’s hot doc, the US Air Force was ready and willing to drop nuclear bombs on Communist China at the outset of the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis. This 13 August 1958 State Department memo describes blow-by-blow how a dispute over two islands in the Taiwan Strait could have evolved into “general nuclear war between the US and the USSR.”

This memo, sent to President Eisenhower’s Under Secretary of State, Christian Herter, depicts how nuclear war between the USA and USSR could have evolved from a dispute between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Taiwan held these two strategically important islands, but the PRC also claimed (and shelled) them. America’s “existing contingent war plans,” derived from its 1954 security agreement with Taiwan, “call[ed] for the defense of Quemoy and Matsu by nuclear strikes deep into Communist China, including military targets in the Shanghai-Hangchow-Nanking and Canton complexes where population density is extremely high.“

The rest is here:

http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/document-friday-this-would-be-the-signal-for-general-nuclear-war/

Interesting stuff as always, Nate. You bring up good discussion material, I like it.

This incident was one of the increasing number of incidents where the USSR stuck their nose into the PRC's business that led to the USSR-PRC split, true?

Natedogg
03-28-2010, 08:42 AM
Interesting stuff as always, Nate. You bring up good discussion material, I like it.

This incident was one of the increasing number of incidents where the USSR stuck their nose into the PRC's business that led to the USSR-PRC split, true?

This was a bit before the split. But you're right, the USSR probably told China to back down and avoid nuclear war (we don't have all the Eastern Bloc docs yet)... which couldn't have sat well with Chairman Mao.

Sir_Robin
03-28-2010, 11:41 AM
The real question is: will I be able to find cool tesla power armor in the ruins of DC afterward?

broncosteven
03-28-2010, 12:02 PM
...
Also a Soviet satellite gave a false alarm that a missile had launched. Missie technicians disregarded the alert and didn't launch. This was 1983 before Able Archer.

...

This is what I was thinking about.

REP

baja
03-28-2010, 12:09 PM
The real question is: will I be able to find cool tesla power armor in the ruins of DC afterward?

lol

Archer81
03-28-2010, 03:29 PM
The real question is: will I be able to find cool tesla power armor in the ruins of DC afterward?


Yes. But Supermutants and Ghouls will be all over it.


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 02:06 AM
This was a bit before the split. But you're right, the USSR probably told China to back down and avoid nuclear war (we don't have all the Eastern Bloc docs yet)... which couldn't have sat well with Chairman Mao.

There was a lot of chafing btwn the PRC and the USSR in those years after WWII. For instance, the USSR kept control of Outer Mongolia after WWII as well as Manchuria, correct?

I believe the USSR threw Port Arthur to the PRC like the master throws the dog a bone. The USSR after WWII also made themselves that very important common border with North Korea, and still have it to this day.

Basically, it's always been a marriage of convenience between the PRC and Russia.

Baba Booey
03-29-2010, 02:25 AM
Any and all Fallout 3 references will receive reps.

Natedogg
03-29-2010, 03:29 PM
There was a lot of chafing btwn the PRC and the USSR in those years after WWII. For instance, the USSR kept control of Outer Mongolia after WWII as well as Manchuria, correct?

I believe the USSR threw Port Arthur to the PRC like the master throws the dog a bone. The USSR after WWII also made themselves that very important common border with North Korea, and still have it to this day.

Basically, it's always been a marriage of convenience between the PRC and Russia.

Stalin sided with the Nationalists over the Communists originally during the war, then switched when the Commies won.

orinjkrush
03-29-2010, 08:02 PM
at some point the complexity of the Chinese checkers game becomes overwhelming. at that point one needs to remind oneself of one's moral/ethical/national foundations. india is at heart a democracy. caste system (like our burgeoning one). pakistan is islamic. that system of ideas is more bankrupt than wall street. china is relentless. beware Confucius. but they have managed the transition to semi-capitalism. russia is not done yet. their ego has been bruised like the Germans after WWI. the European union is more self indulged than we are. and we have outsourced and cleverly default swapped ourselves into terminal morbidity. and the elites will offshore their wealth and leave the nation for third worldhood. but, hey. the sun will come out tomorrow....

Dedhed
03-29-2010, 08:24 PM
Bump to get some tools bumps off the front page

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Stalin sided with the Nationalists over the Communists originally during the war, then switched when the Commies won.

I'm on a little shaky ground on this, but I think Stalin stayed neutral and grabbed Chinese sphere of influence territory after the Japanese took Manchuria in 1938. The Chinese tried to hold some of their western territories, but they were tied up by the Japanese attack in the East on the coast.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stalin took a lot of territory from the Chinese that was their sphere of influence in Central Asia prior to the Japanese attack.

Stalin didn't "side" with the Nationalists, he didn't provide arms. He stayed neutral and grabbed all the territory he could. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little thin on this aspect of the history.

Archer81
03-29-2010, 09:04 PM
I'm on a little shaky ground on this, but I think Stalin stayed neutral and grabbed Chinese sphere of influence territory after the Japanese took Manchuria in 1938. The Chinese tried to hold some of their western territories, but they were tied up by the Japanese attack in the East on the coast.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stalin took a lot of territory from the Chinese that was their sphere of influence in Central Asia prior to the Japanese attack.

Stalin didn't "side" with the Nationalists, he didn't provide arms. He stayed neutral and grabbed all the territory he could. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little thin on this aspect of the history.


From what I remember, Soviet interest in China before WW2 was minimal. I dont actually recall any full scale Soviet actions in Chinese territory until the USSR invaded Manchuria before the US dropped the bombs on Japan.

:Broncos:

bombquixote
03-29-2010, 09:16 PM
sounds like our precious bodily fluids were at risk for contamination.

p.
O.
E.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 09:21 PM
at some point the complexity of the Chinese checkers game becomes overwhelming. at that point one needs to remind oneself of one's moral/ethical/national foundations. india is at heart a democracy. caste system (like our burgeoning one). pakistan is islamic. that system of ideas is more bankrupt than wall street. china is relentless. beware Confucius. but they have managed the transition to semi-capitalism. russia is not done yet. their ego has been bruised like the Germans after WWI. the European union is more self indulged than we are. and we have outsourced and cleverly default swapped ourselves into terminal morbidity. and the elites will offshore their wealth and leave the nation for third worldhood. but, hey. the sun will come out tomorrow....

Jeez, that was pretty good. Nice rant, and there was accuracy. Well, I'll tend my own garden and see how it turns out.

Natedogg
03-29-2010, 09:24 PM
I'm on a little shaky ground on this, but I think Stalin stayed neutral and grabbed Chinese sphere of influence territory after the Japanese took Manchuria in 1938. The Chinese tried to hold some of their western territories, but they were tied up by the Japanese attack in the East on the coast.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stalin took a lot of territory from the Chinese that was their sphere of influence in Central Asia prior to the Japanese attack.

Stalin didn't "side" with the Nationalists, he didn't provide arms. He stayed neutral and grabbed all the territory he could. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little thin on this aspect of the history.

From wikipedia (with a reference). Stalin sided with the KMT early, in the 20s. When the Communist Party of China got in a fight with the KMT, Stalin ordered Mao not to oppose Chang Kai Shek.

Edit: KMT means Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party)

In 1923, the KMT and its government accepted aid from the Soviet Union after being denied recognition by the western powers. Soviet advisers – the most prominent of whom was Mikhail Borodin, an agent of the Comintern – began to arrive in China in 1923 to aid in the reorganization and consolidation of the KMT along the lines of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, establishing a Leninist party structure that lasted into the 1990s. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was under Comintern instructions to cooperate with the KMT, and its members were encouraged to join while maintaining their separate party identities, forming the First United Front between the two parties.

Soviet advisers also helped the Nationalists set up a political institute to train propagandists in mass mobilization techniques, and in 1923 Chiang Kai-shek, one of Sun's lieutenants from the Tongmenghui days, was sent to Moscow for several months' military and political study. At the first party congress in 1924, which included non-KMT delegates such as members of the CCP, they adopted Sun's political theory, which included the Three Principles of the People - nationalism, democracy, and people's livelihood.

Following the death of Sun Yat-sen, General Chiang Kai-shek emerged as the KMT leader and launched the Northern Expedition to defeat the northern warlords and unite China under the party. With their power confirmed in the southeast, the Nationalist government appointed Chiang Kai-shek commander-in-chief of the National Revolutionary Army, and the Northern Expedition to suppress the warlords began. Chiang had to defeat three separate warlords and two independent armies. Chiang, with Soviet supplies, conquered the southern half of China in nine months.

A split, however, erupted between the Chinese Communist Party and the Nationalist Party; this split threatened the Northern Expedition. Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, however, healed the split by ordering the Chinese Communists to obey the Kuomintang leadership in everything. Once this split had been healed, Chiang Kai-shek resumed his Northern Expedition and, with the help of Communist strikes, managed to take Shanghai. There he began to eliminate the Communists in what is today known as the Shanghai massacre of 1927 and the Nationalist government, which had moved to Wuhan, dismissed him. Unfazed, Chiang set up his own alternative government in Nanjing. When the Wuhan government collapsed in February 1928, Chiang Kai-shek was the only Nationalist government still standing.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MODCHINA/NATIONAL.HTM

Chen Jian's book on Mao is also a good source on this.
http://www.amazon.com/Maos-China-Cold-War-History/dp/0807849324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269919429&sr=8-1

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 09:59 PM
From what I remember, Soviet interest in China before WW2 was minimal. I dont actually recall any full scale Soviet actions in Chinese territory until the USSR invaded Manchuria before the US dropped the bombs on Japan.

:Broncos:

Aha. That refreshes my memory some. Manchuria was once an exclusive Chinese sphere of influence until the Imperial Russians grabbed Manchuria by chunks as China weakened. Imperial Russia owned Manchuria and Port Arthur til the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, when the Japanese kicked the crap out of the Russian Navy, took Port Arthur in an epic battle.

Then, there was a period where Manchuria was battled over, then the Japanese took all of Manchuria in 1931.

After WWII as Sir said above the USSR reclaimed their Manchurian territories. After that, the USSR and PRC clashed quite a bit about who owned what.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the USSR and the PRC clashed quit a bit about Manchuria, even though Stalin gave Port Arthur to Mao as a bone.

watermock
03-29-2010, 10:05 PM
Aha. That refreshes my memory some. Manchuria was once an exclusive Chinese sphere of influence until the Imperial Russians grabbed Manchuria by chunks as China weakened. Imperial Russia owned Manchuria and Port Arthur til the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, when the Japanese kicked the crap out of the Russian Navy, took Port Arthur in an epic battle.

Then, there was a period where Manchuria was battled over, then the Japanese took all of Manchuria in 1931.

After WWII as Sir said above the USSR reclaimed their Manchurian territories. After that, the USSR and PRC clashed quite a bit about who owned what.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the USSR and the PRC clashed quit a bit about Manchuria, even though Stalin gave Port Arthur to Mao as a bone.


Amusing but correct.

The prize was always eastern Europe and the US failed for politicak and banking interesats.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 10:18 PM
From wikipedia (with a reference). Stalin sided with the KMT early, in the 20s. When the Communist Party of China got in a fight with the KMT, Stalin ordered Mao not to oppose Chang Kai Shek.

Edit: KMT means Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party)





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MODCHINA/NATIONAL.HTM

Chen Jian's book on Mao is also a good source on this.
http://www.amazon.com/Maos-China-Cold-War-History/dp/0807849324/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269919429&sr=8-1


1923 I guess is the salient year, that's the year Stalin transitioned into power over Lenin. I won't dispute you on this nate, since I'm on shaky ground. I'm interested in the details since I'm shaky on them. There's certainly been a lot of dynamics between Russia and China over the centuries, and it's still only a marriage of convenience I'm thinking.

Archer81
03-29-2010, 10:19 PM
Aha. That refreshes my memory some. Manchuria was once an exclusive Chinese sphere of influence until the Imperial Russians grabbed Manchuria by chunks as China weakened. Imperial Russia owned Manchuria and Port Arthur til the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, when the Japanese kicked the crap out of the Russian Navy, took Port Arthur in an epic battle.

Then, there was a period where Manchuria was battled over, then the Japanese took all of Manchuria in 1931.

After WWII as Sir said above the USSR reclaimed their Manchurian territories. After that, the USSR and PRC clashed quite a bit about who owned what.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the USSR and the PRC clashed quit a bit about Manchuria, even though Stalin gave Port Arthur to Mao as a bone.


The Russian ambition has historically been for warm water ports. When they became the USSR, it became more important because the one Soviet base during WW2 in the pacific was Vladivostok. Manchuria was conquered by the Japanese and renamed it Manchukuo, with a puppet ruler set up by the Japanese. After the defeat of Germany in May, the Soviets lived up to part of the Yalta agreement and declared war on Japan in July, 1945, and attacked the Japanese in Manchuria. Manchuria is a Chinese province, and was given back after WW2. Mongolia is an independent nation today because of Soviet interference.

Stalin and Mao were not fond of one another. Stalin considered Mao too backward. Issues over Mongolia, North Korea and Vietnam, plus China developing their own nuclear arsenal served to drivge a wedge over two countries that should have been tighter due to similar government and societies. Now the Russians have to worry about 100 million plus Chinese in Manchuria and 8 million Russians in Siberia.

:Broncos:

Archer81
03-29-2010, 10:32 PM
Any and all Fallout 3 references will receive reps.


I cant wait for Fallout: New Vegas.

The creepiest part of Fallout 3 for me was when you meet the cannibals...totally crazy. Dont eat the strange meat!


:Broncos:

mhgaffney
03-29-2010, 10:35 PM
China and Russia have forged a new relationship based on oil/gas, which Russia has in great abundance and which China needs for its surging economy.

Russia has just completed a new pipeline across the vast expanse of Asia to supply China with cheap oil. This defeats the US strategy of containment - forcing the Chinese to pay top dollar for energy. Formerly this US plan worked -- China was forced to import almost all of its oil by supertanker and pay through the nose.

No more. Russia and China have outmaneuvered the US in Asia -- the grand chessboard. The game is about over.

Don't believe it? Check out this excellent paper by William Engdahl.

http://www.rense.com/general90/ukra.htm