China’s Fallen Generals Are Getting Unexpectedly Harsh Punishments

[u/Soggy_Association491]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/22/china-xi-jinping-purge-generals-punishment-death-sentence/

[u/Soggy_Association491]

Starer comment:

This is the first time senior officials, just one level below member of politburo is sentenced to suspended death sentences which life imprisonment with a permanent bar on parole and further commutation. While suspended death sentences are not unusual in major Chinese corruption cases, the permanent denial of parole and commutation is exceptionally severe and sets a new benchmark for punishment

Additionally Chinese state media also has shifted its language from describing offenses as corruption to portraying them as acts of political disloyalty against the Communist Party and implicitly against Xi himself.

Then there is the concern about the effectiveness of such a strong handed approach against combating corruption. If senior officials believe they face the maximum punishment regardless, they may have little incentive to limit their behavior.

However I would like to present another angle of this news. (I am bad at writing this kind of stuff so bare with me)

Historically the Central Military Commission consisted 7 members. Now there are only 2 remaining (including Xi) and the last member, Zhang Shengmin originated from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection which is a part of Xi faction. It can be surmised that Xi want to concentrate the control over the military to him by reducing the influence of senior generals.

Also when we examine the charges against Zhang Youxia or Wei Fenghe, most of them focus on "violations of discipline" or "undermined the CMC system". Their language in the PLA context imply that they are guilty of seeking to establish some level of independence for the PLA and push back the influence of the non-military member of the CMC over military strategy and decision-making.

This pattern feels eerily similar to Nacht der langen Messer or Night of long knives in 1934 where Hitler purged a long list of unfavorable elements in order to consolidate his authority and prepare to the rearmament of Germany. Then in 1938, he ousted senior generals like Ludwig Beck, Werner von Fritsch, Werner von Blomberg who disagreed with him on foreign policy (aka the war).

Do you think history will repeat itself now that Xi has total control including the ability to tell the PRC to invade Taiwan even if the generals said no?

[u/ViskerRatio → u/Soggy_Association491]

This pattern feels eerily similar to Nacht der langen Messer or Night of long knives in 1934 where Hitler purged a long list of unfavorable elements in order to consolidate his authority and prepare to the rearmament of Germany.

It's not remotely akin to the Night of the Long Knives.

The Nazi Party was not a functional governing coalition when it assumed power. It was a radical political party whose objectives were opposed by most of Germany. Most particularly their objectives were opposed by two critical factions - business and the military. Hitler simply couldn't be successful without those groups being at least nominally on his side.

Thus, the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler wasn't ridding himself of enemies. He was purging some of his most loyal supporters who had nonetheless become an impediment to consolidating power because they prevented him from reaching an agreement with the broader forces in German society.

[u/ExpressLab6564 → u/Soggy_Association491]

The time for him to invade is the next 3 years. He will not make the mistake putin made and wait for the next democratic president 

[u/cathbadh → u/ExpressLab6564]

I don't think party matters here as much as capabilities and ideology. Biden was a Democrat and responded with weak half measures and constant constraints on Ukraine. There's no reason to believe he would have rushed to an all out war with China.

On the other side Trump is a wild card who preaches a turn away from neoconservative foreign policy while attacking and threatening nations frequently. There's no reason to automatically believe he wouldn't defend Taiwan.

The economic factor matters a great deal. The world's economy needs Taiwanese chips. The US especially. The risk of their destruction would be devastating, and the risk of their intact capture would be even worse. Even the most isolationist President can't just accept economic disaster or outright surrender tech or AI supremacy to China.

Looking to the future, I keep hearing that Vance is owned by the tech elite and Rubio does have a long history or neoconservative foreign policy beliefs. Why wouldn't either of them step up? What's more is it totally out of the realm of possibilities that the Dems would elect a populist who ran on saving jobs by fighting AI or who just sees American interventionism as colonialism and bad? What makes the thought of a Dem in the White House somehow the greatest fear Xi could have; one so bad that he'd give up his greatest ideological goal?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/cathbadh]

Trump is anti-China, but him being a wildcard means his allies can't trust him as much. Although Biden should've been more lenient, his support for Ukraine was far more consistent than Trump looking for reasons to delay aid.

[u/cathbadh → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Maybe more consistent, but far from reliable. Every ounce of aid came with handcuffs that did nothing but draw the fight out and lead to a reasonable belief that the Western goal was to bleed Russia's war making capability by prolonging the war rather than helping Ukraine win

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/cathbadh]

He sent about $180 billion worth of aid.

Which would you prefer: Receiving a gigantic amount of help that came with some handcuffs, or a relatively tiny amount of aid that's delayed because the president wants something in return?

Criticizing the handcuffs is fine, but Biden was far more reliable than Trump.

[u/cathbadh → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I didn't realize those are the only choices. What about aid with significantly less restrictions on its use? Why can't I say that is the better option?

You seem to think I'm saying Trump was more reliable, and if I forgot to add the absurd "I'm not saying anything good about Trump" caveat that is sadly necessary to get reasonable replies, I apologize. Im not going to sit here and praise Biden just because he didn't do as bad as Trump.

So to make it clear, neither did an especially good job in my opinion. Ukrainians died needlessly because of how both Presidents approached things.

[u/ExpressLab6564 → u/cathbadh]

It's not Biden didn't do as bad a Trump, it's trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.

[u/cathbadh → u/ExpressLab6564]

trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.

Nothing? Literally nothing at all? OK, I'll tap out here if we're not going to be at least a LITTLE realistic.

[u/BendicantMias → u/Soggy_Association491]

Making Nazi comparisons of everything is tiresome tbh. It's far too much of a go-to in the west due to its Nazi obsession, unlike the rest of the world. There is more to history, including that of authoritarianism and especially in a completely foreign culture, than just 'Hitler did this, if you squint a little'.

As for preparing for an invasion, why? China could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely. It's not Ukraine or Iran - it's actually an island. Why do it the hard way? If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for - right in China's backyard, against the PRC Navy (already larger, albeit shorter ranged but who cares when the battle is close to China), Air Force, Rocket Force, Drones and even parts of its army air force. They've also already fortified that area with AA/AD weapon systems all over the place. China is already the world's largest shipbuilder, and drone producer. The US is neither, and far from home. It would be a disaster. So why should they invade?

It is already the policy of the PRC to retake Taiwan, that didn't start with Xi. They largely left it alone for generations as they focused on their own internal development, but the recent uptick in interest to taking it is likely a reaction to the US than cos Xi especially needs to do it politically. Reaction to what from the US? This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy

For both the U.S. and the PRC, the island chain strategy emphasizes the geographical and strategic importance of Taiwan.

Lastly, what does China spend on its military? Its defense spending amounts to 1.7% of its GDP. That's HALF the US figure, and even less than Europe spends. That hardly looks like a massive defense buildup. They could double that and still be only on par with the US, and still under NATO's new defense spending target. They could quadruple that and still only be matching that of Russia, never mind Israel and especially not Ukraine's ridiculous spending (only possible due to massive quantities of foreign money).

So this hardly looks like the prelude to an invasion of Taiwan. More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion and are only waiting for the best time to deal with it i.e. with minimal foreign intervention. They'd prefer that Taiwan gets disheartened enough by American reticence to help it that it decides to compromise and come to negotiations. And that will wait until the next US president, as right now Taiwan is, like everyone else, hoping Trump will burn himself and his movement out, resulting in a complete volte face in the US govt. after he's gone. China would like to know how much of Trumps' foreign policy will quietly persist after Trump. Then they can decide whether force is needed or simple pressure on Taiwan will do