posted
I think its perfectly comparable in terms of the respective political stances and also perfectly acceptable to criticize Western response to the matter. Just because the exact historical circumstances aren't 100% the same doesn't mean the politics are different.
IP: Logged |
You have in one case, two nations which each claim the entirety of the other's territory. In the other case, you have one country dealing with a rouge territory, a second country which had peace keepers in that territory, and the territory in question seeking independence from both nations.
Exactly where is the obvious commonalities?
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tibet's a better comparison. Both Georgia and Tibet were independent nations that were conquered by bigger empires, and both are regions that were influenced by an influx of citizens from those empires. In Tibet's case, their territory was split into the Xizang Autonomous Region and the Qinghai Province, the latter of which is now greater than half Han Chinese rather than Tibetan. If Tibet were ever to gain its independence, it would likely lose Qinghai (about 37% of Tibet) for the same reasons that Georgia is losing its own provinces. Those regions in Georgia aren't all Russian. They just have a Russian majority.
You can argue whether or not it's right for Georgia to let go of those regions, but it would be hard to argue that Russia isn't responsible for it happening to begin with, and wouldn't seem audacious for interfering in a conflict they practically made in a foreign territory, especially militarily.
Besides, if Russia's so "righteous" that it's going to help out it's ethnic Russian counterparts in another country, it might as well go ahead and let go of Chechnya for the same reasons. Of course, it won't.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously this war is not a cut and dried issue. The BBC describes South Ossetia as having "de facto independence" since the end of a 1992 war that no doubt erupted with the creation of the Georgian State. Certain factions of South Ossetia at least obviously have never accepted Georgian rule.
Wikipedia informs me that no state has recognized South Ossetia as an independent state, including Russia, leaving it as part of Georgia in the eyes of the world.
Georgia is obviously fighting to take South Ossetia back and Russia fighting to claim it. I think it highly likely that Russia is being more aggressive than it needs to be. Having Russian peacekeepers in the region (rather than troops from a more neutral country) seems, in retrospect, a bad idea. The Georgian attack (which seems as much an attack on Russian presence than on the breakaway rebels), because of the Russian presence, was easily interpreted by Russia as an attack on Russia itself.
Russia's movement of troops is definitely an invasion, despite 70% of the population having Russian citizenship*. This doesn't make Georgia the defender, except in a legal sense. If much of South Ossetia has truly been de facto-ly independent for 16 years, the move seems like it is a de facto (if not a de jure) invasion of the area also.
What the South Ossetians want, beyond separating from Georgia, seems unclear.
*This link here to demonstrate where I got the number. Please note that it could be entirely fabricated by anyone, especially considering the poor English.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a different Historical analogy... think Texas.
A historic state of Mexico attracts a large number of foreign settlers. These people dislike the nationalistic tenor of the rulers and declare independence.
Mexico gathers a large army and seeks to crush the break-away territory.
The differences are, 1) Texas independence had support from most of the original Mexican settlers. Its unknown how the Georgian population feels about being part of Georgia, or part of Russia. 2) The US did not send in troops to fight the Mexican army (until after Texas won its independence, then decided to join the US). It did send some volunteer fortune hunters, such as an ex-US congressman named...Crockett. But that was unofficial.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its unknown how the Georgian population feels about being part of Georgia, or part of Russia
Two unofficial referendums have been held, one recently and one in 1992. Both received landslide approval for independance, however, they are likely to be somewhat inflated and unreliable. However, I think it likely that more than 50% of South Ossetians do not want to be part of a country they have de facto been independant of since 1992.
Russia clearly wants the territory. It has given South Ossetians Russian citizenship, which is obviously a good way of claiming the people in the territory theirs. Whether South Ossetians actually want to be part of Russia is more questionable.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Georgia has withdrawn, or is attempting to withdraw, from S. Ossetia. RussiaToday is calling the deaths of civilians in the region "genocide" and is continuing to press into Georgia.
quote:if it declared independence it would be immediately invaded, the PRC actually would never allow Taiwan to be independent just because a region "declares" independence does not by any means force the contesting nation to somehow accept it.
No it wouldn't. Threats do not equal guarantee. Invasion of Taiwan, especially in response to a declaration of independence of all things, means war with the United States which is well positioned to seriously harm any invasion by sea or air (the only two options).
quote:The PRC doesn't "have to" do anything it has over 600 Ballistic missiles pointed across the straights for that purpose, your being overly naive and ignorant of international law.
Well, it's nice to see you finally owning up to what the real justifications for the PRC's behavior towards Taiwan are: might makes right.
quote:I think its perfectly comparable in terms of the respective political stances and also perfectly acceptable to criticize Western response to the matter. Just because the exact historical circumstances aren't 100% the same doesn't mean the politics are different.
The situations are only very, very broadly and loosely similar, Blayne. I'd go into detail, but others have already done so. Just go to cnn and read a bunch of stories about it, would you?
------------
I have to admit Georgian claims of Russian provocation here carry a lot of weight with me, and not just because I'm not a fan of Russia. The Russian military response seems very well coordinated, and it was triggered literally hours after things really got started.
Who does Russia think they're fooling, besides their own choir? The sad truth is that it will probably work, because few people give a damn about Georgia or even know it exists.
That's interesting. Maybe someone else formerly subject to Soviet Russian tyranny will tell `em to go eff themselves. It would be nicely, but I'm dubious whether it will really happen: Russian's response to that sort of declaration is well known.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No it wouldn't. Threats do not equal guarantee. Invasion of Taiwan, especially in response to a declaration of independence of all things, means war with the United States which is well positioned to seriously harm any invasion by sea or air (the only two options).
Ah-hah! You have forgotten about the 1st Marine Mole Division of the People's Army, also known as the People's Army Underground Navy. They are digging, digging, digging... It's only a matter of time before they burst upon the shocked Taiwanese and declare the Socialist Ten Degree Turn! (That's one-thirty-sixth of a Socialist Revolution, or about what China has now.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
IP: Logged |
quote:Ah-hah! You have forgotten about the 1st Marine Mole Division of the People's Army, also known as the People's Army Underground Navy. They are digging, digging, digging... It's only a matter of time before they burst upon the shocked Taiwanese and declare the Socialist Ten Degree Turn! (That's one-thirty-sixth of a Socialist Revolution, or about what China has now.)
A socialist revolution results in the same position as existed before it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
For the near-term future, Blayne, the USN has and will continue to have thorough dominance over the 'PL'AN in that theater. Even given how awesometastic you think the PR is, you should realize that.
That's assuming such an invasion was a surprise, which of course it never ever would be. Taiwan wouldn't be so foolish as to declare independence without letting us know, giving us time to prepare.
So, alas! The PRC will not be able to exert its tyrannical will through force on Taiwan for awhile yet given an unlikely hypothetical situation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, socialist math is confusing!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The United State's ability to project force in the Taiwan straights is becoming increasingly diminished every passing day as a result of the PLAN's ability to project its own increases.
For the near-term future, Blayne, the USN has and will continue to have thorough dominance over the 'PL'AN in that theater. Even given how awesometastic you think the PR is, you should realize that.
That's assuming such an invasion was a surprise, which of course it never ever would be. Taiwan wouldn't be so foolish as to declare independence without letting us know, giving us time to prepare.
So, alas! The PRC will not be able to exert its tyrannical will through force on Taiwan for awhile yet given an unlikely hypothetical situation.
Every paper I read on the situation would make any American attempt expensive at the very least. And the simple fact that in the 8 years of Pro-Independence rule that they have never once attempted to declare independence AND that president Bush has urged publicly for Taiwan's government at the time to cool down its rhetoric only adds to this reassurance that your faith in American superiority on the matter is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is.
posted
*snort* Of course it would be expensive. Hideously expensive. But we're really good at spending money when we can't afford to, or didn't you know?
quote:And the simple fact that in the 8 years of Pro-Independence rule that they have never once attempted to declare independence AND that president Bush has urged publicly for Taiwan's government at the time to cool down its rhetoric only adds to this reassurance that your faith in American superiority on the matter is not nearly as clear cut as you think it is.
Let me see if I understand your reasoning here. You're saying that because Taiwan hasn't declared independence, and because Dubya has urged them not to as well, means that we think we couldn't win such a conflict?
I think I should have put the word reasoning in scare quotes. Just because we urge peace does not mean we doubt we can win a war, Blayne.
As for research, before you say that to me, why don't you define some more words for me, eh? Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am saying that makes Washington and Taipei aware there is every possibility that they COULD lose.
IP: Logged |
quote:I am saying that makes Washington and Taipei aware there is every possibility that they COULD lose.
Or it means that Washington and Taipei want to avoid a costly and irrevocable war with the PRC. Your reasoning, such as it is, is seriously flawed and has much more to do with your love of the PRC than it does with knowledge of military and technological realities.
Given preparations, which we would have in such a situation, it is far more likely that we would win such an engagement than that we would lose. What on Earth do you think has restrained the PRC for so long?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Maybe the vice versa? That they could lose or it could be very expensive if they win? And to some extent the political advantage of it being a peaceful unification?
IP: Logged |
posted
Fear of loss and expense didn't stop the PRC in North Korea, even though they came off much worse than we did when all was said and done. Patience and the very real possibility of peaceful unification didn't stop them from getting Tibet.
As much as you wish otherwise, the PRC just ain't there yet when it comes to parity or near parity with the USN in a battle we see coming. Like you say, that day is coming, but it's still a long ways off. Fortunately for Taiwan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What on Earth do you think has restrained the PRC for so long?
Despite the 'go troops' cheering, the economics of the situation Taiwan-China situation are quite a bit more important in maintaining the peace across the straits then any threat of US force. Making money in co-operation with Taiwan and the US is much more important than invading a Taiwan that has yet to declare independence, "just in case" they declare independence down the road.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Fear of loss and expense didn't stop the PRC in North Korea, even though they came off much worse than we did when all was said and done.
Actually, the Korean war is viewed quite favourably in China. After all, the CCP managed to fight the US to a standstill and retain North Korea despite fighting against the most modern military in the world. When locals compared it to China's performance in events like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and war against Japan, they were quite grateful and thus the US did a great job in inadvertently and greatly aiding CCP control of China.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite the 'go troops' cheering, the economics of the situation Taiwan-China situation are quite a bit more important in maintaining the peace across the straits then any threat of US force. Making money in co-operation with Taiwan and the US is much more important than invading a Taiwan that has yet to declare independence, "just in case" they declare independence down the road.
Let me put it a different way. If Taiwan weren't seperated from the PRC by water, do you think they would continue not to simply take it for business reasons?
quote:Actually, the Korean war is viewed quite favourably in China. After all, the CCP managed to fight the US to a standstill and retain North Korea despite fighting against the most modern military in the world. When locals compared it to China's performance in events like the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, and war against Japan, they were quite grateful and thus the US did a great job in inadvertently and greatly aiding CCP control of China.
Oh, I know how it's viewed. And I even know they won a strategic victory. But it was more a 'ramparts of their own dead' kind of strategic victory than it was 'clever maneuver and audacity' kind of victory.
They threw bodies at us. Don't get me wrong, they achieved what they desired, but it was hideously expensive-at least in my evaluation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
While I am dubious in taking the word of a Bush Administration official completely on faith, in this instance the rhetoric of Russian Ambassador Vitaliy Churkin supports, at least thematically, the accusation.
quote:But Churkin said some leaders "become an obstacle" to their own people, and "some situations take courageous decisions with regard to the political future."
"Sometimes there are democratically elected or semi-democratically elected leaders who do things which create grave problems for their countries," Churkin told reporters after the meeting. "So sometimes, those leaders should contemplate how useful they have become to their people."
Also particularly damning is that I don't see an objection anywhere in the article to anything except the term 'regime change', not the actual concept that phrase defines.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Chinese casualties in the Korean war were acceptable by any standard, a military operation is only a "failure" at beyond 25% out of a force of maybe 400-500,000 casualties are only roughly 120,000.
The "they threw bodies at us" is grossly ignorant of what the actual Chinese tactics were during the war, believe me there were actually no "mass waves" attacks.
You know nothing about the Korean war, or how it was fought or heck even the why.
1. The Chinese managed to through the overstreched US armies under MacArthur into the longest retreat in US history, this isn't accomplished with just "throwing bodies".
2. The Chinese in fighting Chiang Kai Shek had developed very clever tactics for dealing with more modern better equiped forces. Utilizing 'Japanese' infiltration in depth tactics.
3. While some reports of Chinese increase in troop concentrations were reported and henceforth ignored by the US the actual Chinese attack with some 500,000 troops over the border had caught the American forces by complete surprise accomplished by no less then the single greatest feat in discipline, good planning and tactical use of the terrain and "smoke" to mask their movements.
There is no question of it being a strategic victory, although the only thing preventing total victory is being the lack of pushing Americans into the sea of japan.
Please "Expensive" when ones total military forces number 6 million (at the time) and supported at least in part by the Soviet Union, nuclear war would have been expensive, the sacrifice of over 100,000 soldiers not very in context of the monumental political victory.
IP: Logged |
quote:Chinese casualties in the Korean war were acceptable by any standard, a military operation is only a "failure" at beyond 25% out of a force of maybe 400-500,000 casualties are only roughly 120,000.
*snort* Acceptable by any standard if you believe Chinese estimates of their own losses. Something almost no one but you would do, I might add. The 120K number you cite is the Chinese estimate. The UN estimate puts the number nearer 400K if I remember correctly. Even if we split the difference, that still meets the 25% mark you set.
quote:The "they threw bodies at us" is grossly ignorant of what the actual Chinese tactics were during the war, believe me there were actually no "mass waves" attacks.
Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of very clever warfare on the part of the PLVA(or was it called PLAV? I forget), but since I regard as a lot more credible UN estimates than Chinese claims of their casualties, I stand by my throwing bodies at us claim in general.
quote:You know nothing about the Korean war, or how it was fought or heck even the why.
You've been around Hatrack for quite awhile, Blayne. I wonder, though: will you ever learn not to make such obviously untrue and stupid statements? Look, I don't claim to be anything other than a layman on the topic of the Korean War. Not even a very well-informed layman at that. I'm just a lazy history nerd who likes reading and learning about this sort of thing. But I certainly don't know 'nothing' about the Korean war.
quote:3. While some reports of Chinese increase in troop concentrations were reported and henceforth ignored by the US the actual Chinese attack with some 500,000 troops over the border had caught the American forces by complete surprise accomplished by no less then the single greatest feat in discipline, good planning and tactical use of the terrain and "smoke" to mask their movements.
I certainly do give credit where credit is due. However, had Truman and MacArthur not made gross errors in judgement, these victories would never have been possible. As it stands only those errors, coupled with some really good warfighting by the Chinese, permitted the strategic victory that I haven't denied.
quote:Please "Expensive" when ones total military forces number 6 million (at the time) and supported at least in part by the Soviet Union, nuclear war would have been expensive, the sacrifice of over 100,000 soldiers not very in context of the monumental political victory.
It's interesting to hear you cite the partial support by the USSR in the Korean War given your claim that I know nothing of that same war, Blayne. Tell me, what did that support consist of and in what numbers?
As for your rhetoric on the so-called political victory, I reject it as odiously disrespectful of the value of human life, and in historic hindsight pretty foolish given the status of North Korea today.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The USSR supplied various munitions, planes, training, (heck the entire North Korean army was of Russian origin), diplomatic support etc.
I think Truman acted as capable as he could regarding the information and intelligence supplied, MacArthur is the foolish one.
The status of the Korean war today is not important to the victory of yesterday.
And its PVA (People's Volunteer Army).
Casualties doesn't amount to "throwing bodies" at you. The Chinese mostly used "infiltration" tactics not Massed Waves.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
To Clarify the relative status of the worth of human life is irrelevent to determining the scale of the Chinese/Korean/Soviet bloc victory.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it was the People's Liberation Volunteer Army, Blayne. If we're going to get technical, now that I've looked it up.
quote:I think Truman acted as capable as he could regarding the information and intelligence supplied, MacArthur is the foolish one.
Truman regarded Chinese rumblings and even direct statements of promised intervention as empty threats and attempted blackmail of the UN. Seems to have been a pretty stupid call to me, man.
quote:The USSR supplied various munitions, planes, training, (heck the entire North Korean army was of Russian origin), diplomatic support etc.
I thought we were talking of Soviet support of China's involvement, which was minimal. In fact if I remember right, the Chinese were pretty pissed about it.
quote:Casualties doesn't amount to "throwing bodies" at you. The Chinese mostly used "infiltration" tactics not Massed Waves.
As I said before, I didn't mean the 'throwing bodies' remark to imply human wave attacks. I was referring to the casualty count, which I'll say again even if you split the difference between UN and Chinese claims still exceeds the one-quarter marker you set.
And looking at it now, the Chinese strength was 780,000 and by their own claims lost 114,000. That's just counting KIA, not simply casualties.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To Clarify the relative status of the worth of human life is irrelevent to determining the scale of the Chinese/Korean/Soviet bloc victory.
Since victory cannot be determined without also knowing the extent of loss, I'm not sure how you can make such a silly claim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beat ya to it, JTK:) They're insulting by the phrasing more than the accusation, which they don't actually deny that I've seen anywhere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I am curious, though, as to what their ultimate goal is toward Georgia (outside of S. Ossetia, I mean). I doubt the Georgians are going to "surrender" -- I think they're still in shock, to be honest -- but if the Russians want to impose a friendly regime in Tbilisi, who is going to stop them? I'm not sure they'll be able to hold out on their own, and their membership in NATO was always dependent on them not drawing the ire of the Kremlin.
--j_k
[ August 10, 2008, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sends a clear message to other former Soviet satellite states, for one thing: don't mess with the (former) motherland, don't court NATO, and remember who your boss is.
There's also the stuff about the pipeline travelling through the region. MOre control in such an area is always desireable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sends a clear message to other former Soviet satellite states, for one thing: don't mess with the (former) motherland, don't court NATO, and remember who your boss is.
See, I think this might have the opposite effect. IIRC, Ukraine has wanted to enter NATO for some time, and they now have a reason to expedite the process. They say they may not allow Russian ships return to ports on the Black Sea.
--
It has been interesting to see RussiaToday's take on events. I was right in guessing that they would allege genocide at some point, to extend the parallel with Kosovo. The Russian government officially protested the NATO assault then, so at some point I expect they will shift their justification from "intervention" to "national security."
posted
They've been alleging genocide (or plans of it) since the start.
Unfortunately I don't think anything will come of Ukraine's tough talk.
The members of NATO who might have a will to help are stretched thin. The other members (i.e. much of Western Europe) lack the will.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah that sounds about right to me. No one is going to step in to help. Anyone who might have considered it doesn't have the resources at the moment.
This is one of those things that the West will wring their hands over and cry foul, but in the end they'll let Russia do pretty much whatever they want. I'd even be surprised if they could pull together to come up with some sort of sanctions against Russia.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Let me put it a different way. If Taiwan weren't seperated from the PRC by water, do you think they would continue not to simply take it for business reasons?
Hard to say since it never would have come to this. They would simply have rolled in at the end of the civil war if there was a land bridge.
However, if *somehow* Taiwan had managed to survive till now as a separate country, yes, I believe that they would still wait for a declaration of independence or a deliberate provocation to actually do anything. After all, the Chinese government left Hong Kong separate for long after the British military posed a credible barrier to Chinese troops (or Macau for that matter).
quote:Don't get me wrong, they achieved what they desired, but it was hideously expensive-at least in my evaluation.
*Shrug* Thats much more of a metric that the American public uses to determine victory than the Chinese public did (or does) in those days. What is important to understand the situation from the mainland Chinese perspective is not American metrics, but their metrics.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... I reject it as odiously disrespectful of the value of human life, and in historic hindsight pretty foolish given the status of North Korea today.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
I can't think of any likely situations that could have resulted and would be preferable to the Chinese government or the Chinese people that could have resulted from no Chinese intervention in the Korean war.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?
I may respectfully point out that casualties on the Chinese side are not all that different in horror when you compare it to, say, trench fighting at the end of World War I which was not too long ago at the time. While the Western world has since moved onto a much greater sensitivity for the lives of those in the military, let us not forget that this is a relatively recent attitude.
The main thing that in incongruous is that Blayne exists now and in the developed West. As Dawkins put it quite vividly, many a WWI general would call Donald Rumsfield a bleeding heart liberal.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:*Shrug* Thats much more of a metric that the American public uses to determine victory than the Chinese public did (or does) in those days.
Given the likely response any sort of public outcry regarding those casualties would have generated, I think it's difficult to gauge what the Chinese public would have thought about roughly 50% casualties.
quote:I may respectfully point out that casualties on the Chinese side are not all that different in horror when you compare it to, say, trench fighting at the end of World War I which was not too long ago at the time.
And I think the tactics and tolerance of expected casualties was pretty horrifying in WWI, too. Lengthy artillery bombardment, maybe some smoke screen and machine gun fire, followed by a massive infantry charge straight into fortified positions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Apparently the agreement calls for (possibly among other things), "unconditional cease-fire, a non-use of force agreement, a withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory, including the South Ossetia region, and provisions for international peacekeeping and mediation."
Russia is denying claims that its military has attacked or is in Georgia outside the South Ossetia region, while Georgia claims they are. Russia is also claiming that the last of the Georgian troops are being driven out of the South Ossetia region. Russia also denies claims that it's attacked civilian targets in the region, a claim Georgia has made.
One Russian Colonel-General Nogovitsyn has claimed that he can "prove to the media" Russian claims of Georgian-executed genocide attempts. We'll see about that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given the likely response any sort of public outcry regarding those casualties would have generated, I think it's difficult to gauge what the Chinese public would have thought about roughly 50% casualties.
I'm not sure what you mean by "likely" response. The response is a matter of the historical record, we know what the response was. After all, many of the popular uprisings against both the Qing Dynasty and the warlords in the Warlord era were caused by the inability of both of them to defend both Chinese people and Chinese land. So this result, the first Chinese victory against Western forces was hailed as very significant and received quite well. If you can point to any historical records pointing to backlashes such as those invoked when the Qing lost wars against foreigners or when the KMT conceded land to the Japanese, I'd be happy to review them.
quote: And I think the tactics and tolerance of expected casualties was pretty horrifying in WWI, too. ...
Ok. Although I'm not sure what your point is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "likely" response.
What I mean is that had there been a public outcry in anger at the government in response to those casualties, the response would not have been attentive listening and sincere discussion.
Neither Korea nor the Korean people were Chinese, so I'm not sure what the relevance of the history you're citing is.
quote:Ok. Although I'm not sure what your point is.
My point was to say that I found both Chinese casualties in Korea and everyone's casualties in WWI horrifying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What I mean is that had there been a public outcry in anger at the government in response to those casualties, the response would not have been attentive listening and sincere discussion.
Sure, although I'm not sure how thats relevant. I'm not sure there has ever been anything like "attentive listening and sincere discussion" by a government about wartime casualties in China, ever.
Neither was there "attentive and sincere discussion" about the aftermath of the unequal treaties, the Great leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution yet the public outcries in response to those are well documented.
quote: Neither Korea nor the Korean people were Chinese, so I'm not sure what the relevance of the history you're citing is.
???
This whole line of discussion resulted from your remark that the PRC came off worse than the US from the Korean War when this is most decidedly not the case. I've never addressed how the Koreans view it.
quote:My point was to say that I found both Chinese casualties in Korea and everyone's casualties in WWI horrifying.
Right, but I don't see how that connects with the point I was making.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither was there "attentive and sincere discussion" about the aftermath of the unequal treaties, the Great leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution yet the public outcries in response to those are well documented.
Ah, that's true. Good point.
quote:
This whole line of discussion resulted from your remark that the PRC came off worse than the US from the Korean War when this is most decidedly not the case.
It most certainly is the case, depending on the metric you're using. Just because they achieved their strategic objectives does not mean they came off better. The nearly one in two Chinese soldiers who didn't make it back past the Korean border alive might agree with me.
quote:Right, but I don't see how that connects with the point I was making.
For myself, the point was that offering examples of WWI isn't particularly persuasive to me; 'we did just as bad ninety years ago' isn't a good argument, even though it offers perspective-which I was already aware of.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It most certainly is the case, depending on the metric you're using. Just because they achieved their strategic objectives does not mean they came off better.
So if the Chinese thought like modern Americans then they would think that they came off worse? Sure, thats entirely possible.
My aforementioned point is that the Chinese at the time do not think that way. They met the objectives and targets that they set out for themselves. Thats whats relevant when assessing whether they came off better and when extrapolating to their responses in the modern day. Why would they care if they met targets that someone else set for them today?
quote: The nearly one in two Chinese soldiers who didn't make it back past the Korean border alive might agree with me.
See, you keep on saying that, I'm not sure what point you're making. They're dead, how could they possibly agree with anything, period? The most we can do is speculate on how they felt in the few seconds before death.
In any case, I'm not convinced that they'd be thinking anything particularly different from how Canadian soldiers felt that were dying at Vimy Ridge or the Somme in WWI. Yet very few assert that those soldiers must have *automatically* changed their minds in thse last few seconds and their sacrifices are still celebrated in the modern day. I don't see why this would be different.
quote:For myself, the point was that offering examples of WWI isn't particularly persuasive to me; 'we did just as bad ninety years ago' isn't a good argument, even though it offers perspective-which I was already aware of.
Do you think I'm arguing that you should not be horrified or that the Chinese people (or many Western people for that matter) at the time would not be particularly horrified?
I'm arguing the latter. I think you're under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing the former.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, I have to admit that I find your reverence for the Chinese military to be revolting. Do you realize how monstrous it makes you seem?
I no more study and research the PLA then anyone else there.
I don't see how its "monstrous" to have a healthy thirst for knowledge about another countries military capabilities, or on the other hand see how its monstrous to step it and clap "HOY!" when people are getting facts wrong.
There are tonnes of people who have a fascination with German armor formation of WWII are they Nazi's automatically? Or are they Nazi's just by saying "well the SS Das Reich could have possibly kicked the ass of the Big Red One had they fought evenly".
Nor would I think it monstrous to point out that the Normandy landings did not decide the Second World War.
quote:I no more study and research the PLA then anyone else there.
It's not the study and research that creeps me out, Blayne. It's the reverence. If China were ever to declare war on Canada, I have serious difficulty believing that you would side with your own country.
quote: There are tonnes of people who have a fascination with German armor formation of WWII are they Nazi's automatically? Or are they Nazi's just by saying "well the SS Das Reich could have possibly kicked the ass of the Big Red One had they fought evenly".
But implying that the Germans were justified in killing the Jews and/or massacring millions during WWII would be pretty monstrous. You, by justifying Mao's purges and the Chinese invasion of Korea, have done the equivalent fairly often.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Chinese never invaded Korea.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
