Who Lost China? Blame the Five Johns!
In the wake of the People's Republic of China's founding in 1949, America erupted in a frenzy of finger-pointing. Diplomats and pundits scrambled to answer the burning question: Who lost China? The culprit? A supposed cabal of "China hands"—U.S. foreign service officers who dared suggest a flexible approach between Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and Mao Zedong's Communists, rather than blindly backing the failing Kuomintang.
Enter the original trio of Johns: John Carter Vincent, John Stewart Service, and John Paton Davies. These seasoned diplomats, fresh from postings in China, warned Washington that unconditional support for Chiang was a recipe for disaster. Their reward? Senator Joseph McCarthy branded them communist sympathizers and the architects of America's China policy flop. The press, ever eager for a catchy headline, dubbed it the "Three Johns Lost China" scandal.
But the alliteration didn't stop there. Harvard professor John King Fairbank piled on in 1946 with his Atlantic Monthly essay, "The United States in China: Opportunities and Dangers." He cheekily asked if propping up Chiang during the civil war was smart—and answered with a resounding "no." When McCarthy's witch hunt swept up Fairbank too, tabloids upgraded the tally: "Four Johns Lost China!"
Enter the punchline. When journalist Mark Gayn (often rendered as "马若德" in Chinese accounts) quizzed Fairbank on the "Four Johns" fiasco, the professor quipped: "I don't think it was four Johns—it was five!" Gayn bit: "Who's the fifth?" Fairbank grinned: "John Kai-shek," a playful jab at Chiang Kai-shek's name (蒋介石, or "Jiang Jieshi").
This silly saga captures the paranoia of McCarthyism, where nuance got you blacklisted. Yet Fairbank's wit reminds us: sometimes the real "loss" was in America's rigid stance. Light-hearted history at its finest—who knew blame could be so alliterative?
發表文章
