30 replies to this topic

[ahxiang]

When the Qing dynasty ended, the empire age ended, the people could not happy yet, because there were many intruders, British, USA, Germany, Japan etc.

When WWII ended, the people could not happy yet, because the ROC is corrupt, incapability etc, the people can not see their future.

When PRC built in 1949, the people see the future, they love their country, devote themselves into the national construct.

They all think the day of Oct 1, 1949 is the victory day. It's just so simple.

You sound like someone who forgot how the Manchus put the pigtails on the head of your great grandfather.

What's your basis for the claim that the ROC was corrupt, and the people could not see their future?

I like to suggest that you read "The Enlightenment (Apocalypse) from the War" 《战争启示录》 by Liu Xi, a woman writer who was the 6th generation granddaughter of Manchu era scholar Ji Yun to find out how a teenager girl could have infiltrated into puppet government apparatus in 1930-40s to serve the communist revolution and cause.

http://www.google.co...G=Google Search

Then read what Japanese had disclosed as to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to find out how China sank into the abyss and the pool of blood before writing off the sacrifice by dozens of millions of Chinese who died for the independence of China.

http://ja.wikipedia....i/盧æ%...º‹ä»¶

Edited by ahxiang, 03 August 2009 - 10:48 PM.

[Moping4U]

from http://www.zonaeurop.../20050413_1.htm

The Falsification of History in China

In two past posts, The Roots of Anti-Japanese Feelings in China and Japanese History Textbooks (2005 edition), the subject was about how Japanese history textbooks portray the Sino-Japanese relationship over time. The Japanese are allegedly attempting to falsify their own history! Generally, when the subject of the falsification of history comes up, one must inevitably name the Chinese Communist government amongst the world leaders. This post will contain an honest look by an eminent Chinese writer on the subject.

Still, I wish to state that I see this not as an exculpating factor for whatever is going on with the Japanese history textbooks. I don't accept an argument such as, "Since the Chinese are much worse at falsifying history, the Japanese are entitled to do it too." That is really setting the bar very low. Next, you will also accept, "Since Genghis Khan's Mongols (who are one of the five major ethnic groups of China) killed one million people at Baghdad, the Japanese are entitled to do whatever they did during the Nanjing 'incident'." And this is a long and slippery slope to slide down. In the end, this cannot resolve the dilemma with respect to Chinese citizens as stated in the previous post:

Should the Chinese react vociferously about the downgrade of the Nanjing massacre to the Nanjing incident, and the total disappearing of Unit 731 and "comfort women"? Or should they just "get over it" and have the Japanese tell them to be thankful for the war that was waged to "liberate the Asian countries from the western imperialists"?

Or to put it in another way,

You are trying to persuade the Chinese to get over it, and they seem to be trying to listen. But there is someone in the background shouting that this was a "war of liberation." Should you try to ignore him amidst the cacophony? Or should you tell him to shut the f**k up?

Anyway, I'm not going to take up any more of your precious time. In the following, I have translated a section of a new article by Liu Xiabo (刘晓波), the president of the Chinese independent PEN. The title of the article is The Chinese Communists and the Japanese Rightists: Neither Will Apologize, originally posted at Chinamz.org. Liu noted that this essay was written in Beijing. Even as he wrote this essay, there were probably police guards posted outside his residence, and this article will not win any friends for him in the government. This is a fairly long article, and I have skipped much of the psycho-analysis of the national characters of Japan and China. This excerpt is a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg of major problems inside China's own official history, and it is not as if people don't know about this for the longest time already.

Once upon a time, when the new resident of Zhongnanhai, Mao Zedong, went to meet Josef Stalin for the first time, he was complaining. But Stalin assuaged him with a single sentence. The tyrant of Soviet Russia comforted the Chinese Communist tyrant thus: "The victor will not be criticized."

When it comes to viewpoints about warfare and nationalism, the Chinese people are not better than the Japanese. "The winner becomes the emperor while the loser is just a bandit" is an age-old concept of warfare in China. The arrogance of the Han tribe about owning everything under heaven continues to live on today as nationalism. More particularly, the way in which the Chinese Communists have fabricated history and used lies to rule since seizing power is much worse than how the Japanese rightists are revising their history of invasion; the way in which the Chinese Communists have beautified their totalitarian rule is much worse than how the Japanese rightists have beautified their militarism. The way by which the Chinese Communists have ruled with lies has created a basis by which Japan can revise its history in order to fool the new generation of Japanese.

Since assuming power in 1949, the Chinese Communists have continued to distort the history of the Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese were defeated by the Americans and not by the Chinese. About the united resistance war by the KMT and the Communists, the Chinese Communists have been spreading huge lies. At that time, the Japanese knew that their principal enemy was Chiang Kai-shek and not Mao Zedong, that the principal enemy force is the KMT army and not the Communist army. When the Japanese was forced to surrender under the attack of the allies, they surrendered to the KMT government and not the Chinese Communists. If the pressure from the Japanese did not force Chiang Kai-shek to focus totally on them, the Chinese Communists could not have seized power in China. But, after the Chinese Communists seized power, the Eight Years of Resistance became a history with the Chinese Communists as the principal actors, it was an anti-invasion war led by the Chinese Communists and the victory in the war was due to the brilliant leadership of the Chinese Communists.

Actually, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937, the KMT held an emergency meeting at Lushan. On July 17, Chiang Kai-shek delivered his "scorch earth resistance war" speech while Wang Jinwei delivered his "ashes of time resistance war" speech, thus signaling that China has entered a full-fledged resistance war effort. After the KMT's Lushan meeting, the Chinese Communists held its meeting of an expanded Politburo on August 22, known as the Luo Chuan Congress. At this meeting about how to deal with the full resistance effort against the Japanese, the agenda were driven by Zhang Wentian and Mao Zedong and the leaders of the Chinese Communists decided on a "non-resistance against Japan" policy.

Zhang Wentian was the General Secretary at the time and he delivered the key address. He dealt with how Chiang Kai-shek was hostile to the Chinese Communists, how he betrayed them and attacked the Red Army. He also proposed the strategy on how the Chinese Communists will fight the Japanese: during the First World War, Lenin signed an agreement with German and achieved the double effect of causing both the invader and invaded to suffer horrible losses. At the moment, the Chinese Communists were facing the Japanese invaders as well as the hostile Nanjing government and this is similar to what Soviet Russia was facing back then. Therefore, the Chinese Communists should imitate Lenin; they should sit back and watch Chiang Kai Shek fight the Japanese militarists, and the final victory will belong to the people.

Mao Zedong spoke in support of Zhang Wentian. He emphasized that they must be "remain calm and not go to the frontline and act as anti-Japanese heroes." Mao proposed a concrete strategy -- to follow guerrilla tactics by avoiding direct confrontation with the Japanese and going behind their lines to fight guerrilla warfare. Such tactics are beneficial for increasing the strength of the Eighth Route Army and establishing bases inside enemy territory. If the Nanjing government orders the Eighth Route Army to proceed to the frontline, it is impossible to totally ignore them but it is necessary to insist on independent self-determination. Between the Nanjing government and the Chinese Communist central body, the Eighth Route Army must totally obey the directives from the Communist Party Military Committee. All orders from the Nanjing government must be reported to Yenan for instructions. All orders that are good for the Eighth Route Army will be obeyed, while the unfavorable orders will be stalled using any excuses.

On the battlefield against the Japanese, the KMT army fought against the Japanese intruders. The KMT and Japanese armies fought more than 20 major battles, plus more than 50,000 smaller battles. The KMT suffered more than 5 million casualties, while inflicting about 2 million casualties on the Japanese. The KMT army paid a heavy price, and it earned China the right to be one of the four great powers with permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council. After the victory, millions went into the streets to welcome back Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

Yet, all this vanished in the history made up by the Chinese Communists. We are left with the Chinese Communist army's triumphs at the Battle of Pingyingguan, the Battle of 100 Divisions and the guerrilla warfare. It was as if the modernized and well-trained Japanese army was chased away by a guerrilla war conducted by digging tunnels, laying landmines, destroying railroads, cutting electricity cables, setting up ambushes, ... The commander of the Battle of Pingyingguan, Lin Piao, was harangued by Mao Zedong for "not understanding politics"; Zhou Enlai who advised and planned the battle for Lin was forced to give self-criticisms when he returned to Yenan. The commander at the Battle of 100 Divisions, Peng Dehuai, was criticized when he got back to Yenan; in Peng's own words, "I was cursed for forty days" in Yenan. (在延安“被骂了四十天的娘”)

This caused me to recall the education about the war of resistance that people of our generation received. Our understanding of the war of resistance can be pathetically reduced to having seen the low-quality propaganda movies such as <<The Guerrillas of the Plain>>, <<The Guerrillas of the Railroad>>, <<The Soldier Zhang Ga>>, <<Battle of Landmines>>, <<Battle of the Tunnels>> and so on. All the KMT military persons who appear in these movies were negative characters, being Chinese traitors, deserters or puppet soldiers.

In reality, the Chinese Communists' view of warfare is the same as that of the Japanese rightists. It is based upon the pragmatic principle that "the winner becomes the emperor while the loser is just a bandit" for looking at warfare and history. The way that the Chinese Communists falsify history gave an excuse for the Japanese to revise its own history. The Japanese rightists' best excuse for instilling the twisted history and militarism to its next generation is that the Chinese Communist government uses lies to protect its rule. Since the Chinese Communists are falsifying history, then those Japanese born after the Second World War should not believe what the people of China are saying about their history. They will tell the younger Japanese: The Chinese government will falsify or invent its own internal history, then why won't they falsify or invent the Sino-Chinese history? Therefore, it is not that we Japanese are falsifying or twisting history now, because the Sino-Japanese war history was originally falsified and twisted by the Chinese government. So while the Chinese government is demanding that we revise our Japanese textbook, why doesn't China revise its own textbooks and return the truth to history!?

Looking at the "Full-time Normal High School Textbook (Compulsory)" titled <<Contemporary Chinese History>> Volume 2 (as evaluated by the National Secondary/Elementary School Texts Evaluation Committee in 2002 and published by the People's Educational Publishing House in 2003) about the narrative of the War of Resistance Against Japan, it seems to be missing a lot of the major historical facts about how the KMT led the resistance project, whereas the pitiful 'contribution' by the Chinese Communists was highlighted. For example, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident on July 7, 1937, the two heads of the KMT made famous declarations on resisting Japan at Lushan. Chiang Kai-shek's speech was known as "scorch earth resistance war" while Wang Jinwei's speech was known as "ashes of time resistance war". In the contemporary history textbooks used in Chinese secondary schools, these two famous speeches were not mentioned at all. Instead, the resistance speeches of the Chinese Communists were spotlighted and provided in detail.

Why are the many Chinese historians who are angrily challenging and criticizing the new Japanese history school books not also angrily challenging and openly criticizing the historical lies made up by the Chinese Communists? Worse yet, most of those Chinese historians who are criticizing the Japanese lies had been participants in the vast project of the ideological departments in China to create these historical lies.

Under these circumstances, you would have to suppose that the Chinese Communists will only lie to fool its own people, while they will respect the historical facts when they speak to the outside world about the Sino-Japanese War. But based upon its consistent record of lying, it is impossible to get anyone to believe that. How can anyone believe that a political regime which lies to its own nationals every day as well as its official historians will be honest with the outside world?

[ahxiang]

from http://www.zonaeurop.../20050413_1.htm

The Falsification of History in China

In two past posts, The Roots of Anti-Japanese Feelings in China and Japanese History Textbooks (2005 edition), the subject was about how Japanese history textbooks portray the Sino-Japanese relationship over time. The Japanese are allegedly attempting to falsify their own history! Generally, when the subject of the falsification of history comes up, one must inevitably name the Chinese Communist government amongst the world leaders. This post will contain an honest look by an eminent Chinese writer on the subject.

Still, I wish to state that I see this not as an exculpating factor for whatever is going on with the Japanese history textbooks. I don't accept an argument such as, "Since the Chinese are much worse at falsifying history, the Japanese are entitled to do it too." That is really setting the bar very low. Next, you will also accept, "Since Genghis Khan's Mongols (who are one of the five major ethnic groups of China) killed one million people at Baghdad, the Japanese are entitled to do whatever they did during the Nanjing 'incident'." And this is a long and slippery slope to slide down. In the end, this cannot resolve the dilemma with respect to Chinese citizens as stated in the previous post:

Should the Chinese react vociferously about the downgrade of the Nanjing massacre to the Nanjing incident, and the total disappearing of Unit 731 and "comfort women"? Or should they just "get over it" and have the Japanese tell them to be thankful for the war that was waged to "liberate the Asian countries from the western imperialists"?

Or to put it in another way,

You are trying to persuade the Chinese to get over it, and they seem to be trying to listen. But there is someone in the background shouting that this was a "war of liberation." Should you try to ignore him amidst the cacophony? Or should you tell him to shut the f**k up?

Anyway, I'm not going to take up any more of your precious time. In the following, I have translated a section of a new article by Liu Xiabo (刘晓波), the president of the Chinese independent PEN. The title of the article is The Chinese Communists and the Japanese Rightists: Neither Will Apologize, originally posted at Chinamz.org. Liu noted that this essay was written in Beijing. Even as he wrote this essay, there were probably police guards posted outside his residence, and this article will not win any friends for him in the government. This is a fairly long article, and I have skipped much of the psycho-analysis of the national characters of Japan and China. This excerpt is a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg of major problems inside China's own official history, and it is not as if people don't know about this for the longest time already.

Once upon a time, when the new resident of Zhongnanhai, Mao Zedong, went to meet Josef Stalin for the first time, he was complaining. But Stalin assuaged him with a single sentence. The tyrant of Soviet Russia comforted the Chinese Communist tyrant thus: "The victor will not be criticized."

When it comes to viewpoints about warfare and nationalism, the Chinese people are not better than the Japanese. "The winner becomes the emperor while the loser is just a bandit" is an age-old concept of warfare in China. The arrogance of the Han tribe about owning everything under heaven continues to live on today as nationalism. More particularly, the way in which the Chinese Communists have fabricated history and used lies to rule since seizing power is much worse than how the Japanese rightists are revising their history of invasion; the way in which the Chinese Communists have beautified their totalitarian rule is much worse than how the Japanese rightists have beautified their militarism. The way by which the Chinese Communists have ruled with lies has created a basis by which Japan can revise its history in order to fool the new generation of Japanese.

Since assuming power in 1949, the Chinese Communists have continued to distort the history of the Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese were defeated by the Americans and not by the Chinese. About the united resistance war by the KMT and the Communists, the Chinese Communists have been spreading huge lies. At that time, the Japanese knew that their principal enemy was Chiang Kai-shek and not Mao Zedong, that the principal enemy force is the KMT army and not the Communist army. When the Japanese was forced to surrender under the attack of the allies, they surrendered to the KMT government and not the Chinese Communists. If the pressure from the Japanese did not force Chiang Kai-shek to focus totally on them, the Chinese Communists could not have seized power in China. But, after the Chinese Communists seized power, the Eight Years of Resistance became a history with the Chinese Communists as the principal actors, it was an anti-invasion war led by the Chinese Communists and the victory in the war was due to the brilliant leadership of the Chinese Communists.

Actually, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937, the KMT held an emergency meeting at Lushan. On July 17, Chiang Kai-shek delivered his "scorch earth resistance war" speech while Wang Jinwei delivered his "ashes of time resistance war" speech, thus signaling that China has entered a full-fledged resistance war effort. After the KMT's Lushan meeting, the Chinese Communists held its meeting of an expanded Politburo on August 22, known as the Luo Chuan Congress. At this meeting about how to deal with the full resistance effort against the Japanese, the agenda were driven by Zhang Wentian and Mao Zedong and the leaders of the Chinese Communists decided on a "non-resistance against Japan" policy.

Zhang Wentian was the General Secretary at the time and he delivered the key address. He dealt with how Chiang Kai-shek was hostile to the Chinese Communists, how he betrayed them and attacked the Red Army. He also proposed the strategy on how the Chinese Communists will fight the Japanese: during the First World War, Lenin signed an agreement with German and achieved the double effect of causing both the invader and invaded to suffer horrible losses. At the moment, the Chinese Communists were facing the Japanese invaders as well as the hostile Nanjing government and this is similar to what Soviet Russia was facing back then. Therefore, the Chinese Communists should imitate Lenin; they should sit back and watch Chiang Kai Shek fight the Japanese militarists, and the final victory will belong to the people.

Mao Zedong spoke in support of Zhang Wentian. He emphasized that they must be "remain calm and not go to the frontline and act as anti-Japanese heroes." Mao proposed a concrete strategy -- to follow guerrilla tactics by avoiding direct confrontation with the Japanese and going behind their lines to fight guerrilla warfare. Such tactics are beneficial for increasing the strength of the Eighth Route Army and establishing bases inside enemy territory. If the Nanjing government orders the Eighth Route Army to proceed to the frontline, it is impossible to totally ignore them but it is necessary to insist on independent self-determination. Between the Nanjing government and the Chinese Communist central body, the Eighth Route Army must totally obey the directives from the Communist Party Military Committee. All orders from the Nanjing government must be reported to Yenan for instructions. All orders that are good for the Eighth Route Army will be obeyed, while the unfavorable orders will be stalled using any excuses.

On the battlefield against the Japanese, the KMT army fought against the Japanese intruders. The KMT and Japanese armies fought more than 20 major battles, plus more than 50,000 smaller battles. The KMT suffered more than 5 million casualties, while inflicting about 2 million casualties on the Japanese. The KMT army paid a heavy price, and it earned China the right to be one of the four great powers with permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council. After the victory, millions went into the streets to welcome back Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

Yet, all this vanished in the history made up by the Chinese Communists. We are left with the Chinese Communist army's triumphs at the Battle of Pingyingguan, the Battle of 100 Divisions and the guerrilla warfare. It was as if the modernized and well-trained Japanese army was chased away by a guerrilla war conducted by digging tunnels, laying landmines, destroying railroads, cutting electricity cables, setting up ambushes, ... The commander of the Battle of Pingyingguan, Lin Piao, was harangued by Mao Zedong for "not understanding politics"; Zhou Enlai who advised and planned the battle for Lin was forced to give self-criticisms when he returned to Yenan. The commander at the Battle of 100 Divisions, Peng Dehuai, was criticized when he got back to Yenan; in Peng's own words, "I was cursed for forty days" in Yenan. (在延安“被骂了四十天的娘”)

This caused me to recall the education about the war of resistance that people of our generation received. Our understanding of the war of resistance can be pathetically reduced to having seen the low-quality propaganda movies such as <<The Guerrillas of the Plain>>, <<The Guerrillas of the Railroad>>, <<The Soldier Zhang Ga>>, <<Battle of Landmines>>, <<Battle of the Tunnels>> and so on. All the KMT military persons who appear in these movies were negative characters, being Chinese traitors, deserters or puppet soldiers.

In reality, the Chinese Communists' view of warfare is the same as that of the Japanese rightists. It is based upon the pragmatic principle that "the winner becomes the emperor while the loser is just a bandit" for looking at warfare and history. The way that the Chinese Communists falsify history gave an excuse for the Japanese to revise its own history. The Japanese rightists' best excuse for instilling the twisted history and militarism to its next generation is that the Chinese Communist government uses lies to protect its rule. Since the Chinese Communists are falsifying history, then those Japanese born after the Second World War should not believe what the people of China are saying about their history. They will tell the younger Japanese: The Chinese government will falsify or invent its own internal history, then why won't they falsify or invent the Sino-Chinese history? Therefore, it is not that we Japanese are falsifying or twisting history now, because the Sino-Japanese war history was originally falsified and twisted by the Chinese government. So while the Chinese government is demanding that we revise our Japanese textbook, why doesn't China revise its own textbooks and return the truth to history!?

Looking at the "Full-time Normal High School Textbook (Compulsory)" titled <<Contemporary Chinese History>> Volume 2 (as evaluated by the National Secondary/Elementary School Texts Evaluation Committee in 2002 and published by the People's Educational Publishing House in 2003) about the narrative of the War of Resistance Against Japan, it seems to be missing a lot of the major historical facts about how the KMT led the resistance project, whereas the pitiful 'contribution' by the Chinese Communists was highlighted. For example, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident on July 7, 1937, the two heads of the KMT made famous declarations on resisting Japan at Lushan. Chiang Kai-shek's speech was known as "scorch earth resistance war" while Wang Jinwei's speech was known as "ashes of time resistance war". In the contemporary history textbooks used in Chinese secondary schools, these two famous speeches were not mentioned at all. Instead, the resistance speeches of the Chinese Communists were spotlighted and provided in detail.

Why are the many Chinese historians who are angrily challenging and criticizing the new Japanese history school books not also angrily challenging and openly criticizing the historical lies made up by the Chinese Communists? Worse yet, most of those Chinese historians who are criticizing the Japanese lies had been participants in the vast project of the ideological departments in China to create these historical lies.

Under these circumstances, you would have to suppose that the Chinese Communists will only lie to fool its own people, while they will respect the historical facts when they speak to the outside world about the Sino-Japanese War. But based upon its consistent record of lying, it is impossible to get anyone to believe that. How can anyone believe that a political regime which lies to its own nationals every day as well as its official historians will be honest with the outside world?

I have full respect for Liu Xiaobo. This guy has guts, insight and instinct.

Unfortunately, in China, you won't find more than three to five such persons.

Now, people, it is real easy to straighten out China's history. I spent the past 4-5 years exclusively on China's history from 1920s to 1950. I found out it was not difficult to set the records straight. Your tool is in fact GOOGLE, better than visiting libraries 1000 times. What was once discrete figures, seemingly unrelated, could appear in the same GOOGLE search. With your knowledge on time, places, persona and events, you could easily find out how the Comintern and GRU agents hopped from Peking to Moscow or to Paris, London and SF, New York, and back and forth.

Example of the "propaganda" war: Peter Rand's China Hands. You had Rand whoring with Chinese women, with of course female Chinese Communists, at one time taking Gong Peng's baby to Shanghai from Chungking, returning to US for a home visit, meeting female Comintern agent Yang Gang of Da Kung Po newspaper in Washington DC/NY, then going back to China, responsible for escorting Communists back to Yenan at the break of KMT-CCP peace talks, and etc etc. This is just an example how an seemingly innocent American journalist was with the cause of the Chinese Communists to preach the corruption of the KMT and the democratic nature of the CCP. On the one hand, you have those guys claiming that Dai Li's agents monitored and harassed the communists, leftists and whatever democratic party elements, to the extent that there was no privacy; and on the other hand, you had Milton Miles claiming to have filed with the US Navy hundreds and thousands of pages of documents on the sexual antics of the American reporters and diplomats with their Chinese concubines, mistresses and et al, including of course Chinese communist women. This is how the Chinese Communists conducted the "propaganda" war.

Example on the espionage war. I already talked about the Doubun spies and how those Japanese constituted the core of the Sorge spy ring in Japan and China [as well as Manchukuo]. I also talked about agents from the Qinghua University class 1925 and how they devised the United States China policies together with CPUSA and agents from the Institute of Pacific Relations. I talked about the Mukden YMCA and the Chinese GRU agents who were responsible for killing Japanese, blowing up railway tracks and weapon depots, and cutting phone lines for provoking the 1937 Sino-Japanese War. Now, I am to add a bit on some new findings. I mentioned the Tongzhou Massacre, which Japanese revisionists often cited for justifying the Nanking Massacre. What happened here was that Li Dazhao's hometown was Leting, east of Peiping. In this countryside, Li Dazhao's desciples had been lying low for over 10 years. In 1936, Li Dazhao's desciple(s) infiltrated into the security forces under Yin Rugeng's puppet Eastern Hebei Anti-Communist Government. You had the hint of this manouvre in "The Enlightenment (Apocalypse) from the War" 《战争启示录》 by Liu Xi. It is just unbelievable that Liu Xi, who wrote her book from 1950s to 1994, could have so much insider information on the inner workings of Chinese Communists. You either have to believe that Liu Xi made up all of it, or believe that Liu XI was telling the truth. Another example as to how to read history. Let's take an example of Inner Mongolian puppet Dewang and his memoirs 《德王回忆录》. I mentioned somewhere that Li Dazhao was responsible for recruiting 1000 Chinese GRU agents. The communists under puppet Prince Dewang had is origin in the seeds sowed by Li Dazhao. You could see how an Inner Mongol, Ulanfu, played the role of approving some Whampoa cadet communist' serving Dewang in first launching the "autonomous movement" and then collaborating with Japanese, and ultimately the communists launched a mutiny against the master Prince Dewang for wrestling over the troops so as to join the Shenxi Red Army. I hope you guys see a pattern here.

In any case, what Liu Xiaobo did not understand is that China's cause, hampered by so many adversaries, could not have been saved. There might had existed some hope that somehow China's fate of falling into the abyss could be averted at one time or other. For example, should ROC approve the 50-50 joint ventures with Stalin in January 1946, then Russians could have temporarily halted encroaching on China. Unfortunately, you have the enemies of China doing the most dreadful thing, such as the murder of engineer Zhang Xingfu, for stirring up a nationwide anti-Soviet campaign, to make sure China's fate was to be sealed.

China's history is not all lost. As long as we keep up the work to straighten out the history, someday, down the road, you will have some righteous person who will right the wrongs - as long as the wrongs are correctly identified.

Edited by ahxiang, 03 August 2009 - 10:47 PM.

[animerlot]

I thought CCP are too ashamed to admit their minor contributions to WWII but always forget about the Soviet-CCP linkup play in China back then.

The CCP skeletons from the closets are really too embarrassing and disgraceful.

Ridiculous, "contributions"????? "ashamed"???
Chinese just want to kick these Japanese B****** out of China, so many people were dead for this, WWII was not a football game, there is no champion here, contributions? It's dead or live, kill or been killed.

[animerlot]

You sound like someone who forgot how the Manchus put the pigtails on the head of your great grandfather.

What's your basis for the claim that the ROC was corrupt, and the people could not see their future?

I like to suggest that you read "The Enlightenment (Apocalypse) from the War" 《战争启示录》 by Liu Xi, a woman writer who was the 6th generation granddaughter of Manchu era scholar Ji Yun to find out how a teenager girl could have infiltrated into puppet government apparatus in 1930-40s to serve the communist revolution and cause.

http://www.google.co...G=Google Search

Then read what Japanese had disclosed as to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident to find out how China sank into the abyss and the pool of blood before writing off the sacrifice by dozens of millions of Chinese who died for the independence of China.

http://ja.wikipedia....i/盧æ%...º‹ä»¶

donkeys' lips don't match horses' jaws

[DefenderofTruth]

Such massive anti-communist bias in this thread. Fact remains, only one force was absolutely dedicated to fighting the Japanese and that was the Communist Party of China (CPC, not CCP, learn to use English acronyms properly). Jiang was happy to collaborate with the Japanese and continue to allow the three mountains to crush the Chinese people. The Chinese people saw this and that is why the communists gained so much support and Jiang's regime became weaker and weaker.

Victory Day is celebrated on the date that the war was finally over and the Chines people finally achieved true liberation: October 1st 1949.

Unfortunately the people in China's province of Taiwan have yet top be liberated.

[baybal]

Such massive anti-communist bias in this thread. Fact remains, only one force was absolutely dedicated to fighting the Japanese and that was the Communist Party of China (CPC, not CCP, learn to use English acronyms properly). Jiang was happy to collaborate with the Japanese and continue to allow the three mountains to crush the Chinese people. The Chinese people saw this and that is why the communists gained so much support and Jiang's regime became weaker and weaker.

Victory Day is celebrated on the date that the war was finally over and the Chines people finally achieved true liberation: October 1st 1949.

Unfortunately the people in China's province of Taiwan have yet top be liberated.

Mao was always said that CCP is thankful and is in debt to Japan for weakening KMT. He even refuted $76m offered as reparations, saying that for Japan's contribution in fighting with "couterrevolutionaries" it's PRC who should be paying money.

[mariusj]

Mao was always said that CCP is thankful and is in debt to Japan for weakening KMT. He even refuted $76m offered as reparations, saying that for Japan's contribution in fighting with "couterrevolutionaries" it's PRC who should be paying money.

I want a source.

[baybal]

In 1972, when PRC and Japan established former diplomatic relationship, Mao Zedong met the then Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei, and said: Don't have to say sorry, you had contributed towards China, why? Because had Imperial Japan did not start the war of invasion, how could we communist became mighty powerful? How could we stage the coup d'état ? How could we defeat Chiang Kai Sak? How are we going to pay back you guys? No, we do not want your war reparations! (Translated from Tanaka Kakuei Biography, original in Japanese.)

Edited by baybal, 03 April 2011 - 02:20 AM.

[mrclub]

Wikipedia sources can be edited easily. No point.

[baybal]

Wikipedia sources can be edited easily. No point.

That's not a wikipedia at all.

[ahxiang]

Mao was always said that CCP is thankful and is in debt to Japan for weakening KMT. He even refuted $76m offered as reparations, saying that for Japan's contribution in fighting with "couterrevolutionaries" it's PRC who should be paying money.

For Mao and the Communists, they really thought that Japan's invasion was the reason they survived over the 1936 Xi'an Coup and that they had expanded their heacounts during the war to succeed in the civil war.

That's a simple statement.

I discussed in numerous threads that China's fate, which was controlled by a spiderweb, could have spinned into different results.

It was true that Xi'an Coup disrupted Chiang's plan to solve the Red Army problem once and for all, and it was also true that the Communist army expanded to 300k+ in 1945 from 30k in 1937.

However, the Communists possessed only 150,000+ guns in 1945, at the time Japan surrendered. They could not have overthrown the Republic of China government, especially so for the fact that the ROC troops were battle-hardened forces, and the Communist army rarely fought a battle against the Japanese during the war. See Hu Yaobang's recollection that over 12,000 army under him could not defeat a few thousand troops under Fu Zuoyi?

What doomed China was the Yalta Betrayal, which was not merely a Roosevelt mistake, but the result of the collusion between the Communists and the Imperialists, i.e., Stalin and Churchill. While Churchill's motivation was to make sure China would not emerge strong to challenge the British colony of H.K., Stalin's design was to control China's northern belt, i.e., Chinese Turkestan, Inner and Outer Mongolia and Manchuria. In other threads, I repeatedly delved into George Marshall's scheme to see how the Soviet spies in Roosevelt and Truman's administrations sabotaged the Republic of China.

The Soviet scheme against the Republic of China began in early 1920s, i.e., at the time the U.S. and European countries convened the Washington Conference to appease the Soviet Union, i.e., forcing Japan into withdrawing from the Soviet Far East, cutting off aid to the Russian White Army, and etc, while imposing a 10-year arms embargo against China on the pretense that no power should inflate China's civil wars by selling the WWI-era surplus weapons. All the while, the Soviet spies began the instigation against China, recruiting majority of the American Communist Party leaders while those Americans stayed in China and Peking, not to mention Li Dazhao personally recruiting thousands of Chinese spies who later entered the service of the Soviet G.R.U.

I said many times that you would find a Chinese Communist behind each and every civil war in China. I want to reinforce this point by talking about Sheng Shicai, whom I believe to be the only Chinese who ever triumphed over Stalin and the Chinese Communists, with example such as the killing of Mao Tse-tung's brother. At about 1930, batches of Chinese Communists, with majority of them enrolled in the so-called dual memberships or the Soviet Union CP, infiltrated into the Chinese Turkestan and Manchuria. This is one year ahead of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Sheng Shicai's arrival in Chinese Turkestan. The only reason Sheng Shicai had taken control of the Chinese Turkestan was that the Comintern agents, who penetrated into governor Jin Shuren's apparatus from 1930 to 1933, had staged the coup to overthrow Jin Shuren. The same Comintern agents, months later, attempted to stage a coup against Sheng Shicai. Shen was just so smart to declare loyalty for the Soviets that Stalin ultimately threw his weight behind Sheng. One more thing to note was that the reason Sheng was given by governor Jin Shuren the control of the provincial army against the rebels was that Ma Zhongying's army, infiltrated with the Chinese Communist and Soviet spies, was attacking the Chinese Turkestan. A batch of communists joined Ma Zhongying's army so sake of invading Chinese Turkestan to use it as a stepping stone to communizing China. It is only in this angle will you be able to see how the Soviet scheme against the Republic of China had played out, and why China fell into the Communist hand later.

Edited by ahxiang, 03 April 2011 - 11:22 PM.

[Optimus]

What doomed China was the Yalta Betrayal, which was not merely a Roosevelt mistake, but the result of the collusion between the Communists and the Imperialists, i.e., Stalin and Churchill. While Churchill's motivation was to make sure China would not emerge strong to challenge the British colony of H.K., Stalin's design was to control China's northern belt, i.e., Chinese Turkestan, Inner and Outer Mongolia and Manchuria. In other threads, I repeatedly delved into George Marshall's scheme to see how the Soviet spies in Roosevelt and Truman's administrations sabotaged the Republic of China.

Anthony Kubek had the conclusion that Churchill was not involved in the Yalta tragedy but after learning the agreement, simply stood idle and watch Roosevelt commit that horrific mistake ( like you say his inaction purpose was to subvert China power )

George Marshall penned Roosevelt Yalta agreement?

[mohistManiac]

There ought to be a historical link to why there isn't a Chinese victory day. Chinese culture was never inherently celebrative of some massive efforts/triumph against some dominating force or just to celebrate the fame and glory of some momentous occasion. I mean there should be a national holiday for Yu the Great because he battled floods? but there isn't one. What about when the first Zheng He voyage made the trip back shouldn't that be a moment worth celebrating? after all there is a Columbus day. At most the achievements are codified in some 24 histories to be read and possibly discussed but not really celebrated with a festival which marks the anniversary of the occasion.

[ahxiang]

Anthony Kubek had the conclusion that Churchill was not involved in the Yalta tragedy but after learning the agreement, simply stood idle and watch Roosevelt commit that horrific mistake ( like you say his inaction purpose was to subvert China power )

George Marshall penned Roosevelt Yalta agreement?

I know people have doubts about George Marshall being ever a Soviet spy. This guy was sneaky, refused to write a memoirs, and we could not tell his mind. But we could tell whether he was ever a Soviet spy by observing his words and actions. He called people who were anti-Communist by the term "reactionary," and he did everything for the benefits of the Soviet Union.

Felix Wittmer pointed out that Marshall was selected by the Soviet spies to be the deputy chief staff, bypassing McArthur aned a dozen generals whose ranks were higher than Marshall by at least 1-2 levels, against the internal army records which remarked on Marshall's pro-communist and pro-Soviet tendency. Wittmer called Hopkins-First Lady-George C. Marshall by the term 'triumvirate' - - which shows you how deeply knit Marshall was with the Soviet spymaster Hopkins, also what I called the "Grand Eounuch" to Roosevelt.

Marshall's actions:

1) the first Quebec Conference

At any rate, at the first Quebec Conference in
August, 1943, when elusive Uncle Joe once more was
"too busy" to join his allies, i.e., unwilling to make any
commitments concerning the fate of intended European
satellites, the stewards of future America freedom
decided to base our policy on a document called"
Russia's Position," "a very high-level United States
military strategic estimate."

Russia's postwar position in Europe [The document stated] will
be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in
Europe to oppose her tremendous military force. It is true that


Great Britain is building up a position in the Mediterranean vis-a-vis
Russia that she may find useful in balancing power in Europe.
However, even here she may not be able to oppose Russia unless
she is otherwise supported.
The conclusions from the foregoing are obvious. Since Russia
is the decisive factor in the war, she must be given every assistance
and every effort must be made to obtain her friendship. Likewise,
since without question she will dominate Europe on the defeat of
the Axis, it is even more essential to develop and maintain the most
friendly relations with Russia.
Finally, the most important factor the United States has to
consider in relation to Russia is the prosecution of the war in
the Pacific. With Russia as an ally in the war against Japan, the war
can be terminated in less time and at less expense in life and re-
sources than if the reverse were the case. Should the war in the
Pacific have to be carried on with an unfriendly or a negative
attitude on the part of Russia, the difficulties will be immeasurably
increased and operations become abortive.*39*

Wether or not the enigmatically taciturn George
Catlett Marshall was the author of the document, he
certainly sanctioned it, and his patron-collaborator,
Harry Hopkins -- Stalin's "buddy" -- was the man who
took it along to Quebec.

There, at Quebec, George Catlett Marshall, as he did
throughout 1943 and afterwards, opposed not only


Balkan diversions but even a Mediterranean campaign. *40*
Whatever might interfere with Stalin's coming seizure
of eastern Europe, George Catlett Marshall--and Hopkins, of
course--automatically opposed. Whatever operation
directed our forces westward, i.e., away from land masses
the Kremlin hoped to bolshevize, Marsdhall and Hopkins
championed.

2) Marshall influencing on the Tehran/Yalta decisions

Naturally, the American delegates at Teheran, in un-
qualified accord with the Marshall-Hopkins document
of the first Quebec Conference ("Russia's Position")
did everything possible to please the boss of the world
revolution.

Dean Acheson, in the summer of 1951, decided that
Russia's participation in the war against Japan was
sought at Yalta because "it was the then military opin-
ion, concurred in by everyone, that The~ reduction of
Japan would have to be brought about by a large-scale
landing on the islands."*85* As anyone might know, that
happened to be specifically General Marshall's opinion,
which was not "concurred in" by General Henry H.
(Hap) Arnold, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Wil-
liam D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, and Ad-
miral Chester W. Nimitz. Dean Acheson likewise
claimed that "at the time these agreements were entered
into at Yalta, we did not know whether we had
atomic bomb or not."*86* Yet, Major General Leslie R.
Groves, the man who knew, shortly before the Yalta
Conference made a special effort to inform the Presi-
den~t that the atomic bomb was a 99 per cent certainty
and would be ready in August, 1945. Had Roosevelt
still been in his pre-Teheran condition of health, he
might, in 1945, have familiarized himself with the back-
ground facts of which Secretary of State Dean Goodwer-
ham Acheson appeared to be ignorant in 1951.

Dean Acheson, in the summer of 1951, decided that
Russia's participation in the war against Japan was
sought at Yalta because "it was the then military opin-
ion, concurred in by everyone, that The~ reduction of
Japan would have to be brought about by a large-scale
landing on the islands."*85* As anyone might know, that
happened to be specifically General Marshall's opinion,
which was not "concurred in" by General Henry H.
(Hap) Arnold, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Wil-
liam D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, and Ad-
miral Chester W. Nimitz. Dean Acheson likewise
claimed that "at the time these agreements were entered
into at Yalta, we did not know whether we had
atomic bomb or not."*86* Yet, Major General Leslie R.
Groves, the man who knew, shortly before the Yalta
Conference made a special effort to inform the Presi-
den~t that the atomic bomb was a 99 per cent certainty
and would be ready in August, 1945. Had Roosevelt
still been in his pre-Teheran condition of health, he
might, in 1945, have familiarized himself with the back-
ground facts of which Secretary of State Dean Goodwer-
ham Acheson appeared to be ignorant in 1951.




The Soviet gangs at the White House numbered by dozens. The most influential were Acheson-
Hiss-Marshall-Jessup.

The person who helped Roosevelt execute the agreement were: Hopkins, Acheson and Hiss.

"The Romans have given in so much at this con-
ference," the President's number one diplomacy fancier
noted, "that I don't think we should let them down."*91*
In comparison with the human tragedy of handing
prisoners of war and political refugees to Communist
torturers and executioners, Roosevelt's concession of
three United Nation votes for the U.S.S.R.-- which,
significantly, he kept a secret -- though irritating and
hardly excusable, was a pleasant gesture. Only Stalin's
interpreter and Alger Hiss are said to have witnessed
this particular submission of Roosevelt to the dictator's
desires.*92* Years later, in testimony, traitor Hiss claimed
that "it is an accurate and not immodest statement to
say that I helped formulate the Yalta agreement to
some extent."*93*



Churchill' role:

Churchill colluded with Stalin since Tehran, much earlier than Yalta. He already had the deal with Stalin to strangle China, and that's why he hastily signed the Yalta agreement, acknowledging to his aide that the fate of the British Empire, i.e., to prevent the return of HK to China and the domino effect of the disintegration of the British empire, lied in the Yalta Agreement.

Check out
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895b.asp

A few days later, at Teheran, Stalin said that once the war was over in Europe, the Soviet Union would be prepared, after a short time, to enter the war in the Pacific against Japan. But Stalin wanted to know what could be done for him in the Far East. When Churchill asked what he had in mind, Stalin explained that, while he did not want to go into details at this time, the Soviet Union had no completely ice-free port in the Far East. FDR suggested that the port of Dairen, on the southern coast of Manchuria, could be made into a free port. When Stalin responded that the Chinese might not agree, Roosevelt said he was sure they would as long as it was under "international guarantee." Stalin replied that he thought it sounded like a good idea.