He also maintained associations with those parts of Chinese culture he knew he could not discard, such as a desire for stability and order.
The third significant drawback of the aforementioned theories is that it totally discards the role of the United States. US intervention in China in the early 1940s was part of the overall war effort in World War II, aimed at fighting fascism. The US, in fact, maintained ad hoc alliances with Communist forces in China and elsewhere. It was only in 1945 or 1946, depending on your take on events, that the United States began actively supporting the Nationalists against the Communists in China. Less than three years of solid support was probably not enough to stem the tide. However, long term support for the KMT on Taiwan probably helped hold the Communists at bay and allowed the ROC economy to grow. .
Alternatively, American support for the Nationalists, even if it was for a brief period of time, may have been enough to "taint- them as lackeys or pawns. This is often the case in other developing world struggles. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was aided by the fact that the Shah was seen as an American puppet. The same was true in Cuba, regarding Batista. Was that the case in China? Some scholars have suggested that prior to 1949, there were peace offerings made by the CCP, much of them along the same lines as those offered by Ho Chi Minh in the late 1940s. Did the US shun a chance for reconciliation and perhaps a moderate China?.
The last notion, that American support was the "kiss of death- does not stand up to thorough examination, especially in light of the fact that the Chinese people were very grateful for the American role in liberating them from the Japanese. Still, it is an idea that never even gets mentioned in those accounts that stress inherent failures in pre-Revolutionary China.
Alternative Explanations.
In his same work that placed so much weight on the grievances of the people, Esherick also raises an interesting additional factor.