Author: appleeater

China's top political advisor elected as head of national council [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-2 16:44:11 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2018-11-1 17:16
That was not my point. My point was that PRC leaders could have made their soldiers and civilians  ...

My reply is in the filter.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-2 22:34:30 |Display all floors
huaqiao Post time: 2018-11-2 15:04
I don't know of any shipbuilding and aerospace industries that could be build and established in ...
any shipbuilding and aerospace industries that could be build and established in just a few years [...] , China was financially and economically depleted [...] WW2 alliance with China was with both CPC and KMT. After WW2, US viewed Russia as the next "enemy" [...] Japan was established as one of the bases for US [..]  How do you think US could work with CPC even if US has given up supporting KMT


All that sums up.

As you said, China was financially and economically depleted. Meanwhile USA had just risen from the WW2 as the new superpower of the world, taking place that had previously belonged to British, French and other old empires.

What you had there, was China as an impoverished and underfinanced country, but sharing long land border with USA's new number 1 enemy. Furthermore, the population and society was so exotic that USA could not have just invaded and taken over the government (like Japan had just recently tried).

USA would have given the financing, ships, planes, and training to PRC to counter Soviet Union, and for doing that, they would not have terribly minded if PRC had taken Taiwan in the process.

As far as containing Soviet Union goes, PRC would have been much better place for US bases than any other country in Asia or really anywhere else either. Not only toward China's northeast but the whole western side as well, bordering the whole range of Central Asian countries that were under Soviet rule, or about to fall there like Afghanistan.

China's growth would not only have started much much sooner, but also more evenly across the country.

Essentially that is my point. If PRC had chosen differently, China's growth would have been kickstarted almost half a century earlier by US financing, and whole lot of of regional, social, and military difficulties both in China and globally could have been avoided.

Of course you can now ask, why would USA have cooperated with a communist country like that.

Answer is simple. Neither USA nor the world had yet experienced the extents that red terror would later go in Soviet Union or elsewhere, and the window to make communism a globally acceptable model was open at that time, and it was open for China. But it was not taken, and that window later closed permanently.

USA ended up financing growth in Japan and South Korea instead, and labeling communism overall the new evil empire, when it could have been just Soviet Union.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-2 22:43:23 |Display all floors
huaqiao Post time: 2018-11-2 15:20
I don't know of any shipbuilding and aerospace industries that could be build and established in ...
In the Korean war, US provided about 90% of the military in South Korea while the UN provided the rest of the 10%. This "pattern in all US expeditions" that you mention here only happens later after the Vietnam war,


No, I disagree. Already in Korea and in WW2 Europe (and Asia), USA did send lot of troops but it never intended to take over the countries and start goverming them as US colonies. This is very different from occupation of China by Japanese empire for example. It is that difference, which I referred to as USA's pattern of foreign military operations.

It is not about covert vs. open military operations, or size of operations, but the goals that they want to achieve. USA does not do conquests like Japan did, or for example Mongol warlords or Alexander the Great long time earlier.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-3 11:30:13 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2018-11-2 14:30
Your statements (both of the role of People's Congress and of "One Country, Two Systems") are natu ...
Your statements (both of the role of People's Congress and of "One Country, Two Systems") are natural for someone who supports the party's leadership.
\

Yeah, virually all of the Chinese people support the party's leadship that has been leading the country forward.

So how can you claim that it would be perfect solution forTaiwan, when it would leave majority of Taiwanese out? Do you really want so big proportion of the people under governance of Beijing to be anti-Beiijing?


Who told you One Country Two system would leave the majority of the Taiwanese out? No doubt, the western media with ulterior motives. In Hong Kong, only those backed by the surreptious US and UK NGO are staging circuses against the Hong Kong basic law and China's sovereignty over it, while the vast majority of the citizens pledge allegience to China, and are proud of being Chinese.



Believe it or not, it's true.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-3 11:42:44 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2018-10-31 18:19
To me it doesn't matter who it was dominated by. It was the only international entity worthy of  ...
To me it doesn't matter who it was dominated by. It was the only international entity worthy of declaring anything, and in this case it declared north's act an illegal invasion of the south, and reacted accordingly.


In the 1950s, the UN was largely a puppet of the US, and far less representaive of the world's population then it is today. What judgement it passed then was not even worth mentioning.

Then you should be interested to find out, that in WW2 Finland was allied with Nazi Germany, because it was seen as necessary choice to stop Soviet invasion. Lesser of two evils, and the right choice, as history since then has proved.


I know Finland's sordid history, and I had refrained from bringing it up until you volunteered the information. It gives insight into your mindset when you said you felt good about siding with the Nazis during the WWII. But it's advisable that you don't trash Russia as you did, as given your country's shifty ethos, you may again get down on all fours to beg the Russians to be part of the Russia Federation when the geopolitical tide turns.

my country (or what would later be established as such) was just a pawn in a game of then-powers in northern Europe.


It was just a pawn then, it still is today. Sorry to break the news to you.
Believe it or not, it's true.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-3 12:52:14 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2018-11-1 17:16
That was not my point. My point was that PRC leaders could have made their soldiers and civilians  ...
Staying out of Korea would have given them that time, because USA would have continued the WW2 alliance with China as alliance against Soviet Union, and probably even equipped PRC with those ships and planes to do that.


This is a wild presumption, and without a smidgen of concret proof to support it. China decided to venture into the pennisula because the US had already started to bomb targets in the border area in China. And being part of the US alliance would put China in immediate conflicts with the powful Soviet that shared thousands of mile of border with China. Given China's relatively weak position in terms of military and economy at the time, the Soviet Union had every reason to launch preemptive strikes, and bring China to its knees. And US was not able to provide the amount of aid that China baddly needed for beefing up its troops and rebuilding the economy as the Soviet did in the 1950s.

I don't think that USA would have invaded China from the north-east, even if they had taken Korea but China had refused to offer support against Soviets. There is a pattern in all US expeditions that continues to this day - not to invade and occupy with your own troops, but have locals fight on their behalf and offer varying amount of support (sometimes troops, sometimes just money and weapons).


There is nothing that corroborates what you think. At the time, KMT, which was still a US ally, was working intensively on plans to counter-attack against the mainland, which would be impossible to be done without the US knowing about it. You see the point? If not, think harder.

Yeah, the US has routinely employed the hit-and-run approach when it interfers with other country's affairs, wherever its troops set their foot, the countries would be plunged into choas and unrests, bar none. Look at Afghanistan, Irap, Lybia ... who says the US won't invade, and instigate troubles? They sure will.

Believe it or not, it's true.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2018-11-3 14:19:45 |Display all floors
Jaaja Post time: 2018-11-2 14:30
Your statements (both of the role of People's Congress and of "One Country, Two Systems") are natu ...
For those who do not support, there is no place in the People's Congress, nor in government of any of the SARs. And certainly not in the real government organs, which are the State Council, PLA, and the party itself.


This is a situation not unique to China. In other countries, even "democratic" ones, it is the same situation.

So how can you claim that it would be perfect solution forTaiwan, when it would leave majority of Taiwanese out? Do you really want so big proportion of the people under governance of Beijing to be anti-Beiijing?


China is going through reformation one after another. One day, there will be a middle ground where people of Taiwan and mainland China can come to agree on. Taiwan's political system is not exactly without flaws either. So Taiwan also has to reform and meet mainland China halfway. There is no perfect political system, but good governance is possible regardless of the political system. History has shown that to be so.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.