Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62

Thread: China v USSR 1989

  1. #31
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    It's not a dictator losing a gigantic chunk of territory. It's the dictator acknowledging that he gave up the fight for that territory. Stalin did not give up the Soviet territories under Nazi occupation though the military effect of the Partisans can be described as miniscue.

    A dictator needs 2 of 3 three things to stay in power: support of the people, money, and the army. Within context, if the army was still willing to fight to reclaim lost territories and the dictator is unwilling, then the army would either accident the dictator or more likely shoot him as a traitor.
    Does this explain Chiang's plan to retake China between 1949 and 1975?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Does this explain Chiang's plan to retake China between 1949 and 1975?
    CKS was delusional. The US was not going to let him. However, during the GPCR, there was a strong chance that the PRC could erupt into full blown Civil War and an organized KMT army could take advantage of such a disarray.

  3. #33
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    CKS was delusional. The US was not going to let him. However, during the GPCR, there was a strong chance that the PRC could erupt into full blown Civil War and an organized KMT army could take advantage of such a disarray.
    Oh no, I don't mean if he had a decent chance of retaking China. I'm wondering if he had to at least pretend to have a plan to retake China to keep his army happy and his people motivated.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Oh no, I don't mean if he had a decent chance of retaking China. I'm wondering if he had to at least pretend to have a plan to retake China to keep his army happy and his people motivated.
    No, he didn't have to pretend because the decision to invade the ML would have been made in Washington and not Taipei. Every single one of his Generals knew it and so did CKS.

    Besides, no one thought CKS a military genius, not even his generals.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,401
    One interpretation of CKS's intent was to justify the military's size and power. The internal security apparatus of CKS were military intelligence units.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    CKS was delusional. The US was not going to let him. However, during the GPCR, there was a strong chance that the PRC could erupt into full blown Civil War and an organized KMT army could take advantage of such a disarray.
    My reading of the GPCR era PLA leadership (MR and up) is that they would have quickly set aside domestic differences in the event of any coherent ROC/KMT force posing an actual threat to PRC national integrity.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    My reading of the GPCR era PLA leadership (MR and up) is that they would have quickly set aside domestic differences in the event of any coherent ROC/KMT force posing an actual threat to PRC national integrity.
    By the time anyone outside of the PRC knew what a mess the GPCR had made of China, the Sino-Soviet Split had errupted into a full border war. The PRC became a defacto US ally. CKS's wet dreams of reconquering China was sidelined in the more pragmatic WWIII prep work.

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Come to think of this, this would have been a PLA nightmare. They were preparing for a war against the USSR. A sudden offensive by the KMT would have left them both physically and pyschologically oriented the wrong way. And they could not withdraw enough armies from the Sino-Soviet border in case the Soviet Army does strike, in essence a two front war.

  9. #39
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,850
    but as you said, if CKS comes over the fence it's because the US let him.

    the USSR would probably look upon this...unfavorably. Taipei would probably go up in a mushroom cloud.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Eric, recall the timeline. Brezhnev asked Nixon for a joint strike.

  11. #41
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,850
    yes, but a joint US-USSR strike on PRC nuclear facilities is different than re-introduction of Nationalist armies into the ML.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Sorry, Eric, for the extreme delayed reply. No, I did not run off with She Who Shall Not Be Named. She was in Australia tormenting BF.

    In context, I don't think Brezhnev would have much of a choice. The US was not about to hand China over to the USSR. Taking Lop Nor effectively would destroy the CCP, reducing the rest of China into a 2nd rate power. Don't think the Soviet Army would have any intentions of marching to Guanzhou but Southern China would have little inclination to obey power brokers in the north who lost their power.

    It would have been quib pro quo. The Soviets in the north. The KMT in the south.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,032
    The two holy causes of the 20th century, according to all sides of the post-Qing political leadership, were to kick out the foreigners and unify the country. The first was accomplished on December 20th, 1999, when Macau was recovered from Portugal. The second (Taiwan) is still pending.

    One small part of the means of ensuring that no warlords would reemerge was to rotate the Field Armies around the country, and later, rotate their commanders and political commissars out of their power bases.* From early 1967 through 1969, more PLA corps were relocated than at any time since the Korean War.

    If the USSR decapitated the CCP/PLA leadership in the north, which is a huge and not necessarily valid assumption, the notion that whatever units were in the South would act differently from those in, say, the North-east, is hard to support.

    ADD footnote:

    * An excellent analysis is in China Quarterly No. 51 (Jul-Sep, 1972, pp 444-474): Military Forces in the Cultural Revolution, by Harvey Nelsen. The appendix details unit movements.
    Last edited by DOR; 06 Jan 19, at 11:41.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    One small part of the means of ensuring that no warlords would reemerge was to rotate the Field Armies around the country, and later, rotate their commanders and political commissars out of their power bases.* From early 1967 through 1969, more PLA corps were relocated than at any time since the Korean War.
    1) They were building up to face a Soviet onslaught. In 1964, the Soviets had 225,000 men, 200 planes, and zero nukes on the Sino-Soviet border. In 1968, they had 375,000, 1200 planes, and 120 nuke tipped missiles. The PLA responded with 1.5 million men.

    2) At least 4 of those Field Armies would have been destroyed at Lop Nor including the best Chinese Armoured Corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    If the USSR decapitated the CCP/PLA leadership in the north, which is a huge and not necessarily valid assumption,
    A very real and valid assumption since Soviet plans include destroying the Nuclear Release Authrority, aka the CMC, aka Peking/Beijing. And we're not talking flights of MiG-23s dropping 1000lb bombs. We're talking 3 warheads of 3-5 megatons each.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    the notion that whatever units were in the South would act differently from those in, say, the North-east, is hard to support.
    Of course they will. You don't have to look any further than the 1979 Sino-VN War. The GPCR made a mess of the PLA and was nothing more than a WWI army. Their prepared offense was a joke, going up against an army who made them look like kids building sand castles in the same year when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

    Add to that, they would not have been physically and psychologically prepared to face a KMT attack while trying to figure out what to do against the Soviet Army kicking their ass. And they would not have the CMC to do their thinking for them.

    Stop thinking political, the military dimensions of this thing would jerk your assumptions into the crazy house.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 06 Jan 19, at 16:33.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    1) They were building up to face a Soviet onslaught. In 1964, the Soviets had 225,000 men, 200 planes, and zero nukes on the Sino-Soviet border. In 1968, they had 375,000, 1200 planes, and 120 nuke tipped missiles. The PLA responded with 1.5 million men.

    2) At least 4 of those Field Armies would have been destroyed at Lop Nor including the best Chinese Armoured Corps.

    A very real and valid assumption since Soviet plans include destroying the Nuclear Release Authrority, aka the CMC, aka Peking/Beijing. And we're not talking flights of MiG-23s dropping 1000lb bombs. We're talking 3 warheads of 3-5 megatons each.

    Of course they will. You don't have to look any further than the 1979 Sino-VN War. The GPCR made a mess of the PLA and was nothing more than a WWI army. Their prepared offense was a joke, going up against an army who made them look like kids building sand castles in the same year when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

    Add to that, they would not have been physically and psychologically prepared to face a KMT attack while trying to figure out what to do against the Soviet Army kicking their ass. And they would not have the CMC to do their thinking for them.

    Stop thinking political, the military dimensions of this thing would jerk your assumptions into the crazy house.

    First, my use of "Field Army" is very specific to the PLA's five FAs (as commanded by Ho Long, Liu Bocheng, Chen Yi, Lin Biao and Nie Rongzhen), and I have no doubt that nuking Lap Nor would destroy several corps or what were later Group Armies.

    Second, maybe I mistook the north-south issue to mean that Chiang Kai-shek's woeful excuse for an army was the threat to southern China. Throw in the 7th Fleet and the 101st Airborne, and the equation changes very fast.

    Third, I stand by my statement about the PLA being all about national unity.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tiananmen mothers call for probe of 1989 crackdown
    By Shuimo in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 Mar 09,, 15:10
  2. Cold War turns hot in 1989?
    By gunnut in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 18 Sep 07,, 21:46
  3. China, USSR, N Korea planned Japan invasion in Korean War
    By Francois in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Feb 07,, 02:56
  4. The Siege of Firebase Gloria (1989) question
    By ChrisF202 in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01 Mar 06,, 20:38

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •