Truth behind Taiwan's legal status

Something I forgot to add.

The proof of the complete lack of imagination in Russia's high command (and by extension, the Soviet) is Afghanistan and Chechnya.

The latter proves the lessons were not learnt in the former.

There is a book, whose title is something like "Warriors in White" (I think), I can't find it at teh moment. It details UN peacekeeping operations, their history, problems and possible future ways to avoid these problems. One thing it talks about is "Chapter 6 1/2 deployments", a kind of "peace enforcement" mission, which Dag Hammerschjold was attempting in the Congo before he died.

In the forward the author details the first Russian invasion of Chechnya and why it failed. It was published before the second incursion.

The book was written by a group effort of a great many Generals and in the case of Basil, Captains, after the second world war. Liddel gave the idea, and the group agreed.

Ok, you WAAAAAAY wrong inregards to Zhukov. Zhukov was the Miniser of Defence for the Soviet Union all the way into the 50's then he was transfered to a backwater post by Kruschev for being to persistent in trying to get Tuchkasensky rehabilitated.

en.wikipedia.org...

By 1923 Zhukov was commander of a regiment, and in 1930 of a brigade. He was a keen proponent of the new theory of armoured warfare and was noted for his detailed planning, tough discipline and strictness. He survived Joseph Stalin's Great Purge of the Red Army command in 1937-39... For this operation Zhukov was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Outside of the Soviet Union, however, this battle remained little-known as by this time World War II had begun. Zhukov's pioneering use of mobile armour went unheeded by the West, and in consequence the German Blitzkrieg against France in 1940 came as a great surprise....

A war hero and a leader hugely popular with the military, Zhukov constituted a most serious potential threat to Stalin's dictatorship. As a result, in 1947 he was demoted to command the Odessa military district, far away from Moscow and lacking strategic significance and attendant massive troops deployment. After Stalin's death, however, Zhukov was returned to favour and became Deputy Defense Minister (1953), then Defense Minister (1955).

After Khrushchev was deposed in October 1964 the new leadership of Leonid Brezhnev and Aleksei Kosygin restored Zhukov to favour, though not to power. Brezhnev was said to be angered when, at a gathering to mark the twentieth of anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov was accorded greater acclaim than himself. Brezhnev, a relatively junior political officer in the war, was always concerned to boost his own importance in the victory.

Zhukov remained a popular figure in the Soviet Union until his death in 1974. He was buried with full military honors.

As for the actualy purges, the purges had the actual effect of promoting a good deal of capable officers up the ranks, the problems was that the German invasion happened at a time when the organizational dislocation of the Army was still in effect, but within 2 years the Red Army was able to outfight the Germans.



You'll also see that of all the Red Army commanders at the time his overal command actually suffered the LOWEST overal casualty rate in the war on the eastern front.

Next, Chechnya? What the hell does Post 1955 wars and conflicts have to do with the strength and the ability of the Red Army between 1945 and 1950? The Red Army was far suporior numerically, its Officer Corps survived its trial of fire so was experianced, well lead, and even had good training by this time.

Western Europe was devasted by WWII and sorely lacked the ability to hold a Soviet invasion, America was far to far away to have possibly helped except for when it becomes too late.

Don't try to attack the credibility of the authors, and shows a lack of maturity, these men okay, had General Staff training something of which you probly did not recieve and any of which you were not alive at the time and couldn't possibly be in any position to fully and accurately analyize the operations they took part in.

Armoured warfare was theorized in Britian thanks partially to Liddel Hart and Dugaulle, both the Wests main tank enthusiests. And from there was developed practically by the Russians in the East and perfected in actual wartime conditions by the Germans. (Don't get me wrong I know that the Germans had the Luftwaffe and the early Panzer divisions were developed and formed in Russia)

Okay, that one I don't get.

Nat China, is short for Nationalist China, or GMD controlled China. At the time they were supported by both the Soviet Union and the West and was relatively neutral for as long as it was conveniant for USSR national security. When the US began pumping in tanks and supplies this further push the GMD away from the USSR and dispite a period of ambigiousness in 1945 eventually threw their support to the CPC but only recognizing them only when it was obvious they had won. This would've happened alot faster if the US had landed say the Marine Corps in Shanghai.

As for the Sherman, you mentioned it as beign armed at one point with a 17 pounder, also the Sherman was tje backbone of the Allied war effrot in France and was the mainstay of the armoured forces in Europe, the comparrisons is quite justified.

APC's were something generally developed by the West to protect infantry, the USSR tactics didn't reflect this and thus the needs for APC's were low, putting inf in trucks following tanks were more then enough and the German APCs that they fought ended up scrap as so many engagements were in urban areas.

That the Allies had radios in ALL their units isn't particularily important, the Soviets had enough to make do and in war that is all that matters.

As for my claim in regards to allied airfields... it sobvious, the Russians as beng pat of the war effort know where the airfields are, or if not officially could unofficially access it, the Soviet MI is more then capable enough of finding these out and form there could target each one for bombing. As for what bombers each side had both sides have bombers, both sides could use them, its hard to get a better then this statement obsultely.

As for capabilities the Russian Soviet Army in 1945-50 was more then well organized enough, experianced enough and well equipped enhough to take on the Allies, numbers just happens to be a corner stone in Soviet thought since the reign of Tsar Peter the Great. The T-34 and the IS-2 and the IS-3 were just as good as or better then then their allied counter parts and could win just as well or as easily in 1v1 engagements.

Some only 40 ARL-44's were build and the first one only became public in 1951....

The Soviets didn't need any bombers because they were fighting tactically, not strategically and they were perfectly content to let Bomber Command die at night for them.

so....? They were fighting the war tactically because that was the most effective way of fighting it, the war was in such a way that neither side had enough airpower for complete domination and relied upon tactical domination to win the war tactically. But as 1945 drew closer the Soviets had more and more planes and the Germans had less and less and by the Battle of Berlin the Russians had complete air suporiority everywhere.

Doesn't matter where they got their experience, the fact is they were better.

How can you say that? Neither side could claim complete victory in the air, and the Western claims of kills keeps getting reevaluated lower...

Doesn't change the fact that the Russians got shot down too. Russian and Chinese kill claims would mean that every Sabre sent to Korea was shot down.

This is circular logic, both sides had planes that were shot down, and that is irrelevent it is the nature of the propoganda machine ON BOTH sides to exaggerate the news on the front (the good news) for the purposes of moral at home.

They won for same reason they beat Napolean. Old man winter was their friend and they knew it and Hitler was a strategic moron. No sane leader would focus on Stalingrad just because of its name. No sane leader would attack Russia as winter approached and with inferior numbers and no intelligence.

If The Soviets didn't need APCs why did they develop a series of them in such rapid succession after WW2?

Why did one year does the government agree to do something yet the next year break their agreement? The military view pertaining at the time prior to the time after is different. The Russians won the war without them because they didn't have them and focused on tanks and trucks and Mosins and tokerovs and Yaks and Migs and bullets and etc. APC's seem generally as a triviallity and favoured smaller deploment of armoured troops. After the war with peace prevailing its easy to assume that they were build for either A) for the sake of building them or B) because it was decided that having a higher proportion of mechanized motor rifle divisions to tank divisions was in their best interests.

5. STAVKA and the Soviets were the most hidebound group of tacticians on earth. They were far more interested in remaining alive in the face of Stalin's paranoia and insanity than thinking of imaginative ways to victory. Stalin got rid of Zhukov, the victor of the Eastern Front. Apart from him anyone with a trace of brilliance was liquidated in the purges of the '30s, what was left were the donkeys and time-servers. Zhukov was lucky he was in Mongolia while all that happened. And then he was purged when he was no longer needed.

One could equally say the same thing of almost ANY General Staff in any country, almost all militaries were plagued by bereaucratism, careerism, "cover-one's-assism", etc. The only difference is that the Russian General staff was purged and actually did allow in hindsight for many more capable and politically correct officers ot be promoted. Only an exceeding fear defeat and of course the organizational dislocations as a result of the Purges left the Red Army vulnerable to German attack. If the Red Army was so rotten as to be kicked down in the first blow it would've fallen in the first 6 months. However they held at Moscow, they held at Leningrad, they held at Stalingrad and finally they held at Kursk. After that the tide of war could only go westwards. By Kursk the Red Army was in every position able to outfight the German army at every turn, the Germany was considered even at its end as the best trained and best organized fighting force on the planet.

Many things STAVKA did were imaginative, such as utilizing all the fith column elements behind German lines as a effective fighting geurilla force to help wear down the Germans, putting female pilots in the air to fight the Luftwaffa and commisioning women into the Red Army, I remember the case of one female sniper just as famous as Vassili Zaitsev.

As for an Anglo-American expeditionary force landing in Russia do you think in any reaosnably degree that they could have done better in Russia then the Germans? They would've been swallowed up and spitted out. Also even if the USSR didn't have enough of a fleet to take on the Allies then they had more then enough planes to hinder any successful landings.

The US economy was thriving. It could produce thousands of ships, tanks, guns, truck, jeeps, planes, hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition and still pay for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. It's industry hadn't been bombed and it's oil industry was the largest on earth.

AND it could supply the Soviets under Lend-Lease.

They're plenty of historians who think that Lend-Lease ot the Soviets was negligable at best. If WWIII happened in 1945 the reconstruction of Europe could never have happened and would've allowed Red Uprisings in Western Europe to happen far more easily. The SU was also producing many thousands of jeeps and trucks and they're war industry by 1948 were producing more then enough for themselves.

And you forget that the West had generals like Patton who could have quite possibly attacked a city for its name just as easily.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by The Middle Kingdom]

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Ok, you WAAAAAAY wrong inregards to Zhukov. Zhukov was the Miniser of Defence for the Soviet Union all the way into the 50's then he was transfered to a backwater post by Kruschev for being to persistent in trying to get Tuchkasensky rehabilitated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A war hero and a leader hugely popular with the military, Zhukov constituted a most serious potential threat to Stalin's dictatorship. As a result, in 1947 he was demoted to command the Odessa military district, far away from Moscow and lacking strategic significance and attendant massive troops deployment. After Stalin's death, however, Zhukov was returned to favour and became Deputy Defense Minister (1953), then Defense Minister (1955).

Where was I wrong?

Next, Chechnya? What the hell does Post 1955 wars and conflicts have to do with the strength and the ability of the Red Army between 1945 and 1950?

It has to do with a pattern of utter lack of imagination in STAVKA.

Western Europe was devasted by WWII and sorely lacked the ability to hold a Soviet invasion, America was far to far away to have possibly helped except for when it becomes too late.

How many US troops were there in Europe? How much equipment? How large was the USAF/SAC deployment to Europe? I wouldn't say Germany, France (later Belgium) and the UK are far too far away to help.

Don't try to attack the credibility of the authors, and shows a lack of maturity, these men okay, had General Staff training something of which you probly did not recieve and any of which you were not alive at the time and couldn't possibly be in any position to fully and accurately analyize the operations they took part in.

Oh, right. So Field Marshall Douglas Haig cannot be criticised for his blind use of full-frontal assaults across no-man's land after an artillery barrage in WW2? Even in 1918? It shows I know something when I can see passed the shiny medals a man is wearing and look at his record of acheivement. The inability to do so shows a lack of maturity.

Historical records make it incredibly easy to fully analyse said operations if you have the time.

Armoured warfare was theorized in Britian thanks partially to Liddel Hart and Dugaulle,

De Gaulle was French. (small point, I know.)

Okay, that one I don't get.

Nat China, is short for Nationalist China,

Yes, I got that. I didn't get the reference to the USSR adn its support of the KMT. I still don't get it. The USSR support of Nationalist China was as expedient as Churchill's support of Stalin, it had no basis in long-term strategy or diplomacy. To quote Churchill on the floor of commons when he announced he would supply material to the USSR "If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least give teh Devil a friendly reference."

As for the Sherman, you mentioned it as beign armed at one point with a 17 pounder,

Yes, as in the gun on the Centurion. The same gun that was the largest and most effective tank gun the allies used. The gun that could kill Tigers. 75 and 76mm Shermans could not. But Sherman Vs re-gunned by the Brits with the 17-pounder and called Firefly could. The Brits then put the 17-pounder straight into the Centurion.

APC's were something generally developed by the West to protect infantry, the USSR tactics didn't reflect this and thus the needs for APC's were low, putting inf in trucks following tanks were more then enough and the German APCs that they fought ended up scrap as so many engagements were in urban areas.

The need for APCs was never low. They just didn't build them. Infantry never followed tanks into battle in trucks, they rode the tank hulls.

As for my claim in regards to allied airfields... it sobvious

No, not really, the RAF and USAF never supplied the USSR with comprehensive maps of all their airfields. It doesn't matter if the Russians knew where they were, they didn't have the ability to destroy them, not in teh way you claim.

Some only 40 ARL-44's were build and the first one only became public in 1951....

Better check those numbers again. The total was small, but not that small.

The Soviets didn't need any bombers because they were fighting tactically, not strategically and they were perfectly content to let Bomber Command die at night for them.

so....? They were fighting the war tactically because that was the most effective way of fighting it,

They were fighting that way becasue they didn't have the bomber force to fight the other way.

the war was in such a way that neither side had enough airpower for complete domination

Wrong, on the first day of Barbarossa the Luftwaffe acheived complete domination. Both in numbers, tactics and material. The Russians didn't have a fighter that could go toe-to-toe with the 109 the way Spitfire could.

Russian industry would reverse this and Russian production would reverse the deficit in numbers and replaced those planes lost ont he ground. In time.

But as 1945 drew closer the Soviets had more and more planes and the Germans had less and less and by the Battle of Berlin the Russians had complete air suporiority everywhere.

The allies acheived complete air superiority. Flying from Italy the Mustangs dominated the entirety fo Germany. Russian fighters couldn't come close to that and it was western allied strategic bombing that destroyed the Luftwaffe over Germany, not Russian offensive fighter sweeps.

Doesn't matter where they got their experience, the fact is they were better.

How can you say that?

Easily. You said they were good because they were WW2 fighter aces. Where you get your experience is immaterial.

Neither side could claim complete victory in the air, and the Western claims of kills keeps getting reevaluated lower...

The UN could claim compete victory in the air because all the fighting was done ofver NK, not SK. and While western estimates have been re-evaluated lower, they now accurately reflect the truth. Their loss numbers are still far outnumbered by Chinese/Korean kill claims.

Doesn't change the fact that the Russians got shot down too. Russian and Chinese kill claims would mean that every Sabre sent to Korea was shot down.

This is circular logic, both sides had planes that were shot down, and that is irrelevent it is the nature of the propoganda machine ON BOTH sides to exaggerate the news on the front (the good news) for the purposes of moral at home.

No. You're creating circular logic. First you say that the Russian pilots were good. Then you say the US pilots were lucky because they were already aces. Then you say the Yanks exaggerated their kills. But when I point out that it happened on both sides you claim foul. The fact is that the communist forces lost more aircraft than the allies. Including a MiG 15 being shot down by an RAN Sea Fury (prop vs superior jet). The only inferior jets in SK were the USN Panthers and RAAF Meteors.

They won for same reason they beat Napolean. Old man winter was their friend and they knew it and Hitler was a strategic moron. No sane leader would focus on Stalingrad just because of its name. No sane leader would attack Russia as winter approached and with inferior numbers and no intelligence.

If The Soviets didn't need APCs why did they develop a series of them in such rapid succession after WW2?

Why did one year does the government agree to do something yet the next year break their agreement?

That's called strategic diplomacy. No-one in the west beleived the non-agression pact, why did Stalin?

The military view pertaining at the time prior to the time after is different.

What?

The Russians won the war without them because they didn't have them and focused on tanks and trucks

Yes. And promptly went looking to get them. But they were behind the eight-ball and had to do some fast catching up.

One could equally say the same thing of almost ANY General Staff in any country, almost all militaries were plagued by bereaucratism, careerism, "cover-one's-assism", etc. The only difference is that the Russian General staff was purged and actually did allow in hindsight for many more capable and politically correct officers ot be promoted.

Yes, politically correct officers who blindly followed Stalin's orders, held all their troops up on the borders and were promptly enveloped by German pincer movements.

Only an exceeding fear defeat and of course the organizational dislocations as a result of the Purges left the Red Army vulnerable to German attack.

Huh? An exceeding fear of defeat left them vulnerable to defeat?

If the Red Army was so rotten as to be kicked down in the first blow it would've fallen in the first 6 months.

It did. Check the numbers of troops lost during the advance to Moscow, Leningrad and the Crimea.

However they held at Moscow, they held at Leningrad

Hello "Old man winter". Check when they held at these places and what the weather was like.

they held at Stalingrad

What year was that? What year was Operation Barbarossa?

and finally they held at Kursk.

Yes, they did. Partially because their tactics were superior and they didn't waste their tanks, using SPGs properly instead, partially because the T-34/85 was still so good and partially because all the Tigers broke down.

the Germany was considered even at its end as the best trained and best organized fighting force on the planet.

You're kidding, right? Do you know what the Volksturm was?

Many things STAVKA did were imaginative, such as utilizing all the fith column elements behind German lines

Churchill called for the idea in 1940. He'd seen it in South Africa during the Boer War.

As for an Anglo-American expeditionary force landing in Russia do you think in any reaosnably degree that they could have done better in Russia then the Germans?

When did the Germans land an expeditionary force? Only the Allies could mount combined ops.

They would've been swallowed up and spitted out.

So you contend.

Also even if the USSR didn't have enough of a fleet to take on the Allies then they had more then enough planes to hinder any successful landings.

I wasn't actually talking about landings, I was talking about NGS, on-shore bombardments and the kind of damage that could be inflicted to Russian cities such as Murmansk.

They're plenty of historians who think that Lend-Lease ot the Soviets was negligable at best.

It doesn't matter if it's negligible, look at the numbers of equipment loaded onto boats to be sailed to Archangel. That is on top of what US industry is supplying to US and UK war efforts. I'm talking about industrial capacity.

If WWIII happened in 1945 the reconstruction of Europe could never have happened

Of course not. Again I'm talking about US economic capacity.

and would've allowed Red Uprisings in Western Europe to happen far more easily.

It could possibly have happened in France. And even that's only a possibility.

The SU was also producing many thousands of jeeps and trucks and they're war industry by 1948 were producing more then enough for themselves.

First you talk about 1945, then 1948, make up your mind. The Soviet Union has never out-produced the US prior to the 50s. And then its products were always inferior.

And you forget that the West had generals like Patton who could have quite possibly attacked a city for its name just as easily.

When did George S Patton die?

And Old Blood and Guts may have been slightly insubordinate, but he always followed orders. If ordered not to attack a city because it was tactically and strategically useless, as Stalingrad was, he wouldn't. Patton lived only to grapple with the enemy, not get into urban demolition.

You said he was purged, there is a remarkable difference between being demoted and being purged. Purged == dead.

It has to do with a pattern of utter lack of imagination in STAVKA.

That a High Command can become stagnant has nothing to do with if it is stagnant at a given time. I'm quite certain that the Allied High Commands were equally stagnant as well at time esp in 1940.

How many US troops were there in Europe? How much equipment? How large was the USAF/SAC deployment to Europe? I wouldn't say Germany, France (later Belgium) and the UK are far too far away to help.

They may not have been far away but they were exhausted after years of constant warfare as I said. The US forces were also equally exhausted and were also equally complacent with their new victory confident that the war was over and that it was time to go home. Had the Russians made a surprise attack they would've been overwhelmed. Hell, the Russians very nearly wouldn't even have had to have done anything because Patton was on the very edge of doing it for them wand Patton very badly wanted to start WWIII and make it look like the Russians started it.

Oh, right. So Field Marshall Douglas Haig cannot be criticised for his blind use of full-frontal assaults across no-man's land after an artillery barrage in WW2? Even in 1918? It shows I know something when I can see passed the shiny medals a man is wearing and look at his record of acheivement. The inability to do so shows a lack of maturity.

Historical records make it incredibly easy to fully analyse said operations if you have the time.

Your not quite getting what I said, The field Marschalls in the book each had some pretty impressive field records, some were field commands and some were paper pushers, but Student won the battle for Crete, he performed remarkably in the Low Countries and doubtless would've taken Malta as well had the Operation gone forward.

Yes, I got that. I didn't get the reference to the USSR adn its support of the KMT. I still don't get it. The USSR support of Nationalist China was as expedient as Churchill's support of Stalin, it had no basis in long-term strategy or diplomacy. To quote Churchill on the floor of commons when he announced he would supply material to the USSR "If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least give teh Devil a friendly reference."

In actuallity Stalin continuosly supported the Nationalists instead of the Communists on numerous occasions even refusing to give 5000 rifles to the CPC in the 20's for fear it would upset the GMD. This support was only given up when the Communists under Mao pretty much won the Civil War. Stalin favored a Nationalist revolution in China because it would help keep the Imperialist powers aka Japan, Britain, France out of Siberia and out of their interests in the Far East.

Yes, as in the gun on the Centurion. The same gun that was the largest and most effective tank gun the allies used. The gun that could kill Tigers. 75 and 76mm Shermans could not. But Sherman Vs re-gunned by the Brits with the 17-pounder and called Firefly could. The Brits then put the 17-pounder straight into the Centurion.

Even with the 17 pounder the Russians tanks in 1945 could still take them on. The Russians would field some of the best tanks in the world for quite a while.

The need for APCs was never low. They just didn't build them. Infantry never followed tanks into battle in trucks, they rode the tank hulls.

And on trucks, the Russian drive through Poland and into Germany in 1944 was accomplished largely through Motorized drives once the German lines were pierced. Slowing down only once they're own lines became over extended and German "hard" positions finally kicked in and finally served as a break on the offencive. But, nevertheless the offencive finally broke the back of the Wehrmact, the Allies never could believe that the Russians could drive so far across German territory or so fast.

Better check those numbers again. The total was small, but not that small.

Ok sorry my mistake they had a grand total of.... 60 ARL-44's... mailer.fsu.edu...

Wrong, on the first day of Barbarossa the Luftwaffe acheived complete domination. Both in numbers, tactics and material. The Russians didn't have a fighter that could go toe-to-toe with the 109 the way Spitfire could.

Russian industry would reverse this and Russian production would reverse the deficit in numbers and replaced those planes lost ont he ground. In time.

Wrong again, eventually the Yak while not a pretty plane was good enough to shoot down German planes and being easy to maintain could perform well under combat circumstances. Also, even if they could gain air supremacy in the opening of the Operarion eventually with the icnreasing size of the front line, attrition, lengthening supply lines, breakdowns, etc etc, and finally the Russian Winter Counter Offencive the Luftwaffe's ability to supply outlying positions and to maintain air supremacy was becoming increasingly diffcult leading to situations where plances could only be resevred for "when they're needed" instead of active participation.

The allies acheived complete air superiority. Flying from Italy the Mustangs dominated the entirety fo Germany. Russian fighters couldn't come close to that and it was western allied strategic bombing that destroyed the Luftwaffe over Germany, not Russian offensive fighter sweeps.

Actually the Luftwaffe's ability to defend the skies was defeated by Allied fighter sweaps attacking the German fighters as they were forming up to attack the bombers.

Also as the date came closer to 1945 the Russians were gaining that kind of air suporiority, in the Battle of Berlin all German movement in that area was effectively nill due to Russian air bombings of German positions.

Easily. You said they were good because they were WW2 fighter aces. Where you get your experience is immaterial.

The Russians were also WWII aces, its asine to say which side was better just because they're both aces.

No. You're creating circular logic. First you say that the Russian pilots were good. Then you say the US pilots were lucky because they were already aces. Then you say the Yanks exaggerated their kills. But when I point out that it happened on both sides you claim foul. The fact is that the communist forces lost more aircraft than the allies. Including a MiG 15 being shot down by an RAN Sea Fury (prop vs superior jet). The only inferior jets in SK were the USN Panthers and RAAF Meteors.

This is a stupid arguement, both sides had good planes, both sides had good pilots, both sides got a certain number of kills, end of story.

That's called strategic diplomacy. No-one in the west beleived the non-agression pact, why did Stalin?

Because Stalin listened only to Stalin. As far he was concerned the West was fighting amongst themselves and Capitalism was on the verge of collapse.

What?

I'm just saying that the policy of government or a military changes over time.

Yes, politically correct officers who blindly followed Stalin's orders, held all their troops up on the borders and were promptly enveloped by German pincer movements.

Pockets that actually served to slow down the German advance, pockets that int eh end leaked hundreds of thousands of soldiers who'ld either rejoin their units or form 5th column units.

Argh, there's too much to post I'll post more later, don't reply until I'm finished.

OK.






damn one line response...


Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the date on which Chiang Kai-shek died in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.


[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
You said he was purged, there is a remarkable difference between being demoted and being purged. Purged == dead.

No, not always.

Purged means being removed. The usual connotation in the west, when applied to communist organisations, carries with it the implication of death, but that is not a strict definition and should never be seen as such.

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, politically correct officers who blindly followed Stalin's orders, held all their troops up on the borders and were promptly enveloped by German pincer movements.

Pockets that actually served to slow down the German advance, pockets that int eh end leaked hundreds of thousands of soldiers who'ld either rejoin their units or form 5th column units.

Ah, no. Pockets of hundreds of thousands of troops who surrendered. When the Germans couldn't house them they put them in guarded valleys and pretty much forgot about them, leading to a lot of "deaths in custody" from exposure and starvation. Something the history books pretty much ignore when they list the number of POWs the Germans took early.

Originally posted by ludahai
Taiwan is NOT a part of China

A. History

The notion that Taiwan is a part of China is taken as a matter of faith among China’s government and most of its citizens. It is also similarly taken as a matter of faith among the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which formerly ruled the islad and still retains a strong presence in local Taiwanese politics. However, rarely is an actual examination taken of the legitimacy and legal veracity of these claims.

Yes !!!
Thanks for this thread, it's a very good job.
I wish that all the taiwanese could know THEIR history, ( and not china's one) and think about who they are.
How many really know what is 228, what the KMT did to teachers, lawyers and intellectuals, that member of the government went in jail because they tried to protect democracy...
I wish there are more people like you, telling the truth and active, to give a real future to Formosa : Republic of Taiwan

I am not green, I'm deep green

have a look:
adventure..._kayak.tripod.com/kmt.jpeg
adventure..._kayak.tripod.com/yahoo.jpg
adventure..._kayak.tripod.com/google.jpg

Originally posted by chinawhite
ludahai,

I only have one question. Who are the taiwanese?

You answer that and i will get back to the legal question

[edit on 30-12-2005 by chinawhite]

from: www.taiwandc.org...

Conference on "Searching for Taiwan's identity"
A third event commemorating the centennial of the Shimonoseki Treaty was a three-day international conference, organized by Freedom Times, a daily newspaper in Taiwan and the Academia Sinica. It was held in Taipei beginning on 16 April 1995.

Scholars from Taiwan, Japan and the United States, who met to discuss the treaty's impact on Taiwan's history, pointed out the treaty that ushered in the Japanese colonial period marked the starting point of modern Taiwanese history that saw the emergence of a new Taiwan identity totally separate from China. They also pointed out that during the more than hundred years of separate development, the people of Taiwan have created their own political, cultural and national identity and value systems and no longer identify with a feudalistic, backward and repressive China.

Prof. Chiu Chuei-liang of Queensland University in Australia pointed out that Taiwanese people's most remarkable achievement in the past 100 years is the advancement of human rights, freedom and democracy that will culminates in the direct presidential elections taking place next year. Prof. Chiu also emphasized the contrast between Taiwan and China: in less than 50 years since the February 28 incident of 1947, the people of Taiwan have built a free and democratic country, while China under successive communist leaders remains a repressive, corrupt and backward country.

The scholars also concluded that the legal status of Taiwan is still undetermined, because the Peace Treaty of San Francisco in 1952 stipulated that Japan formally ceded sovereignty over Taiwan, but that the future of the island would be determined "in accord with the charter and principles of the United Nations" -- i.e. self-determination. It is therefore up to the people in Taiwan to determine their own future.

The conference also had an important message for the Kuomintang authorities: Dr. Chang Fu-mei, a DPP-member of the National Assembly, stated: "For people living on Taiwan who are constantly told by the authorities that their roots are in China, it is important to know that it was China that 100 years ago gave up Taiwan -- forever."

These articles say Taiwan is property of the United States





So have a Big Mac and welcome to the McWorld.

Lot of Taiwanese if they got the choice between china and USA would like to be the 51st state.

How much is a lot?. Do you have any proof to back this up?

Originally posted by hsia
Lot of Taiwanese if they got the choice between china and USA would like to be the 51st state.

I would think Taiwan wants to be an independent nation in charge of their own destiny, not a US terroritory or part of China.

True freedom is having the power to act on your own behalf, not Uncle Sam's or Uncle Mao's.

Best take a hard look at the US it may end up worse than China in the coming years.

From Parade Magazine's Annual List of Worst 10 Dictators:

Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year rank: 4
Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in eeducation-through-labor?camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.
Keep in mind, Hu Jintao didn't drop from 4th place because he was doing great, there are world dictators who have actually gone on a killing sprees so Hu has not improved. The Chinese Communist Party has managed to kill over 60 million Chinese in the last 50 years. Are you sure you want this sort of party ruling over Taiwan as well? Sounds dubious. Then we have Defense Minister Chi Haotian, who is a nut and deems war with America as inevitable. Hu Jintao an Chi Haotian have called for the 'reunification of all Chinese peoples' much the way Hitler wanted to reunite the Aryan race to its "former glory". As days go by, more and more people compare Chinese Nationalism with a sort of Asian Nazism.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by hsia
Lot of Taiwanese if they got the choice between china and USA would like to be the 51st state.

I would think Taiwan wants to be an independent nation in charge of their own destiny, not a US terroritory or part of China.

True freedom is having the power to act on your own behalf, not Uncle Sam's or Uncle Mao's.

Best take a hard look at the US it may end up worse than China in the coming years.

The point is not that they'd like to be americans, but that nobody wants to let them be free. As a matter of fact English language has a very important place in Taiwan's life. And USA's culture has a very important influence in kids education.
Most of youngsters speak a good english. In the same time their chinese is getting worse every year.( ask Ma Ing Jio)
But if they had to make a choice, they wouldn't open their arms to the commies...

[edit on 27-5-2006 by hsia]

Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the date on which Chiang Kai-shek died in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.


[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]

April 5 1975

Majic's Political Easter Eggs

Originally posted by JohnDoe43
April 5 1975

Correct! But the Kuomintang did not die with him, and continues to this day in Taiwan.

500 PTS Points!

A court case in Washington D.C. is now arguing that Taiwan is an overseas territory of the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government, and native Taiwanese people should be holding some form of US overseas passport -- probably the "US national non-citizen passport."

A Press Conference was held in the National Press Club, Washington D.C. on Feb. 5, 2009, to discuss the progress of the case.

Further details are available on the internet at -- www.taiwanbasic.com...