What if the US pursued an "Asia First" Strategy

The problem is that the Europeans had everything they needed for economic recovery except for some finances to jump start things. They had the workforce, institutional knowledge, and competent managers. The just needed help to buy the initial goods they needed to get people back to work. The US only needed to provide the funding and push for some cooperation.

The Nationalists in China though had major issues that contributed to their defeat. US funding would have gone into a black hole. US funding would not have been an impact UNLESS the Nationalists change some things.

1) Chiang needed to centralize the payroll of the army. Instead, he still paid money to the warlords who would then "pay" their troops. Of course, these troops rarely got their pay. The warlords would skim off a lot. Chiang always wanted to do this since the 1920s, but kept putting it off because he felt he needed the warlords. This was a huge issue. He didn't do it until the Nationalists had been all but defeated and reduced to Taiwan. The minute it happened, corruption in the army ended. Chiang should have done this after Japan surrendered.

2) Chiang needed currency reform as inflation, particular in 1947-1949, was running rampant and destroying confidence in the economy. Chiang knew of the problem, but he kept thinking it could be addressed after he defeated the Communists. Instead, once again he didn't do anything until after being left with only Taiwan.

3) Chiang needed to do some kind of land reform to win over the peasants. Once again, he wanted to do it for a long time, but kept putting it off until victory was achieved. Victory never happened. But he did it in Taiwan.

Despite Chiang's reputation as a dictator, he always hesitated to take the actions he knew were needed because he felt he was dependent on the support of the warlords. Although personally not corrupt, he never stopped his in-laws from pillaging the government.

And of course, the Communists got a lot of support from the Soviet Union. Chiang did need additional support from the US to counteract that, but without making those internal reforms, the Nationalists were still going to lose.

If Chiang had made those reforms early enough, say 1945-1946, then it's possible the US would have thought Chiang was a good enough bet to keep supporting him. He would have had a good chance to win the civil war.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So the Nationalists (Guomindang or KMT? they went by the former in my textbook) were corrupt, and probably an embarrassment to the West. But they were preferable to the Communists as far as Washington was concerned, with good reason. Without a communist takeover of China, the Korean and Vietnam Wars would probably have ended quite differently. Those were the bloodiest and most traumatic confrontations of the Cold War from the United States' point of view.

If the US diverted the money intended for the Marshal plan, and some of military aid that would have gone to Western Europe, was there anyway that Mao's Red Army could have been defeated or contained? Would it have been worth it at that cost? IMO it looks as if it would be worth it for the following reasons:
1) The Soviets could be deterred from overrunning Western Europe by the threat of Nukes
2) No democracy, however left wing ever voluntarily joined either the USSR or the Warsaw Pact
3) European gratitude for the Marshal Plan's aid was quite ephemeral, and within a generation the US was almost as vilified as the Soviets. By that standard the money the US sent to South Korea and Taiwan was far better spent.
4) Since the risk of conventional war in Europe was low for reason #1, it would not have been costly in terms of American lives to focus more heavily on Asia, since we know now that conventional war in Asia was quite likely due to the limitations of deterrence.

So, from our current vantage point, does an "Asia First" strategy really look so bad?

I will repeat that there wasn't enough money (or U.S. blood for that matter) to prop up the the KMT. It might not have been Mao, but somebody would have led the CCP to eventual victory. You wouldn't have a Vietnam War because the U.S. would have still been fighting in China in 1965 trying to keep a regime so corrupt that it made the Diem administration in Vietnam look pristine from failing.

As to your points:

1. Bull cookies. The money that was invested in developing a true nuclear deterrent isn't available if it is being poured down the KMT rathole. BTW: If the U.S. is devoted to a Asia First strategy, why would it be willing to commit mutual suicide with the USSR over Europe?

2. Why do you think that was the case? Maybe because freely elected left wing =/= Communist, no matter what some in the media believe? The U.S., thanks to its European commitment helped to prevent a true Communist takeover (generally through the application of $$$$) in any of the "Western" countries.

3. The Marshall Plan wasn't about buying good feelings. It was economic. Europe was a MUCH larger potential market (still is, BTW) thanks to its far more developed internal economic structure. The structure needed to be repaid, not built from scratch as would have been the case in most of Asia.

4. Huh? Exactly how many troops were killed in COMBAT across all of Western Europe after January of 1946? Hint: It's less than the U.S. suffered at the Battle of Osan in 1950 Korea. The U.S. lost 33,000 men in Korea and 54,000 in Vietnam, in both cases the U.S. had utter dominance of the air and the ability to reinforce at will. What happens when the fighting in in China proper and a couple hundred miles inland, out of range of USN air power, aircraft flying in from Japan, Okinawa (in the case of Korea), Thailand & Guam (in the case of Vietnam)?

The term you are searching for is bloodbath.

China was not "lost". It could not be "saved". The KMT was, in many ways, just as bad for the masses of the Chinese population, as the CCP. An American intervention into China would have been Vietnam writ VERY large. The 'Nam was bad enough as was.

Does it really look that bad? Hmmm...
Compared to our current world, even with its flaws we have:

* No redeveloped European markets in the 1950s & 60s buying tons of U.S. products with the enormous impact that would have on the American economy to this day
* Almost certainly no global free trade
* At least 200,000, probably many more, dead Americans across the Asian Mainland
* Reasonable chance that the USSR is still in business in 2010 with 30,000 thermonuclear warheads aimed at the U.S.
* A better than 50/50 chance that despite the U.S.' best effort China is still known as the PRC and ruled by the CCP, except now it is a hugely hostile CCP, actively linked to the USSR and dominating the Asian mainland
* A chance (not likelihood, but a 20-25% chance) that the entire Eurasian landmass is controlled by directly from a Communist Moscow.


Yep, look pretty bad to me.
 
So the Nationalists (Guomindang or KMT? they went by the former in my textbook)

BTW, it's not just the same group, but the same name. Depending on whether you use Pinyin or Wade-Gales, it's translated as Goumindang, or Koumintang.

And yeah, the US could have diverted the entire economy and federal reserve to supporting the Nationalists, and the basic issues of unpopularity and corruption would mean it wouldn't help much.
 
Marshall Plan is never implemented; millions of Germans starve to death.

Perhaps an even higher effort is put into Korea and Vietnam. The results would not be pretty.
Also, the 50s and 60s economies don't look quite so good, though still pretty nice, without European consumer markets to export too.
 
Top