> Making it look like this is some sort of US initiated warfare is insanely simplistic, and mostly wrong.

It is a simplification, but it is mostly true. Washington has literally been trying to contain PRC's rise since it was born in 1949. Because duh, China has historically been the most prosperous civilization on the planet and they just got out from under the boot of Western/Japanese imperialism.

War in Korea (and almost over Taiwan). Deny access to 1st island chain.

Sino-Soviet split.

War in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. Scorched earth policy. Deny access to SEA.

Transition to hybrid war (propaganda-driven psychological warfare) as PRC opened up under Deng.

Tibet.

Tiananmen Sq.

(20 years of relative tolerance, Washington assuming PRC won't get uppity and will follow USSR's fate)

Obama's "China Pivot", anti-BRICS campaign.

South China Sea.

Hong Kong.

ETIM/Xinjiang.

Taiwan.

You can spin Beijing's responses to this containment strategy as "aggression", but frankly that doesn't make much sense unless you believe Washington is entitled to global hegemony.

The fact is that Beijing has been consistently outplaying Washington since Mao. And that makes Washington extremely nervous and irrational.

The Korean and Vietnam wars had nothing to do with China, but the USSR.

Other than that, China was the clear aggressor in most of the conflicts you mention.

China invaded Tibet with the excuse of “liberating” their people, which is essentially what the US has claimed to justify most of their foreign interventions.

The CCP violently squashed the Tiananmen protests.

China keeps claiming authority over large areas of the South China Sea, disregarding protests by surrounding countries like the Philippines.

The CCP backtracked on their promise of keeping Hong Kong’s system of government, putting more agreeable politicians in charge, and disregarding and/or squashing any citizen movements.

Taiwan is a de facto independent country whose mere existence is threatened by China.

I could go on and on, but pretending that China is not the aggressor here is almost laughable.

> The Korean and Vietnam wars had nothing to do with China, but the USSR.

Frankly, this makes me want to stop reading right here. This is an outrageously ignorant comment. PLA participated in both wars, which bordered China, and backed the Northern factions. USSR did neither.

But don't take my word for it. SecDef McNamara to LBJ:

"1. US strategy. The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China."

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v03...

You should not believe everything you read from Washington media or high school American history textbooks, as your comment implies you do. It will make you weak and exploitable.

Containing China by deploying troops is one thing. The US did deploy troops all over the world to contain advancement of countries under the USSR influence, or simply “communist” countries or governments, during that time.

Starting a full on proxy war in Vietnam during the Cold War era is a completely different issue. Same goes for Korea.

China wasn’t that big of a threat to the US. Pretending that it was, and that it was at the same level of the USSR, is ridiculous and close to historic revisionism at this point.

Why do you insist on dying on this hill?

The Sino-Soviet split took place in 1960. Vietnam War took off later. The latter had virtually nothing to do with the USSR and everything to do with violently containing PRC. Read the linked White House memo above.

> China wasn’t that big of a threat to the US

Believe it or not, US strategists in 1950 were capable of planning more than 0-4 years into the future.

> Vietnam War took off later.

The war started half a decade prior. The US already had 50,000 soldiers stationed in South Vietnam by the time the Sino-Soviet split reached its point of no return, plus several thousand advisors and other personnel.

> Believe it or not, US strategists in 1950 were capable of planning more than 0-4 years into the future.

I agree. I also think they were a bit more concerned about an arms race with the USSR, and the fact that the Soviets were involved in half a dozen direct geopolitical threats in the 50s and 60s.

Anyway, let’s say that you are right. Supporting and arming the North Vietnamese regime would make China as much as an aggressor as the US. Funnily enough, China also turned against Vietnam and both financed the Khmer Rouge and directly attacked the country after the war ended. But I guess those don’t count as “aggressions” either.

> The war started half a decade prior.

We are specifically discussing American combat involvement in Vietnam, which did not meaningfully begin (beyond 100-1000s of noncombat advisors) until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. With the explicit goal of containing China.

As I said, 50,000 soldiers were already there.

> …until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. With the explicit goal of containing China

You are making a single phase the whole reason why the US deployed millions of troops to Vietnam, which is patently untrue.

I see you would not acknowledge either that China became the aggressor a few years after the US withdrew, and eventually the Chinese got their asses kicked too.