Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well. Very rarely have they turned violent. Also, the students had been protesting peacefully for a while. Where were the indications that it would turn violent?

None of the protests we have today are a real threat to the govt. If they were then the govt would be using violence like they did in 1932.

[GePap]

The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it. The leadership may have had some minor fear about general chaos, if only becuase they arrogantly assume only they can keep order in China.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well. Very rarely have they turned violent.

Populist movements in China have the tendency to turn merry when the workers, peasants, and proletariat in general get involved. There are simply a lot of them, much more than the nonexistent middle class back in '89. This makes the situation very volatile in China, even today. This, incidentally, is also very different from the US, which seems to be the case you're using.

If you want examples - well, just turn to a history of China in the 20th century, and every other event is an example.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it. The leadership may have had some minor fear about general chaos, if only becuase they arrogantly assume only they can keep order in China.

That "arrogant assumption" is unfortunately true. There simply is no other viable force in China that can realistically hold the economy and society together, with 900 million peasants, all of them trying to get into cities, state-run enterprises collapsing, ideological void, ultranationalism, possession of nukes, and other inconveniences.

[GePap]

Several things: it is, and has been, the party that has stoked rampant nationalism, now that they can't really use communism as an ideological crutch for their authoritarianism. If state run enterprises are collapsing slowly it is becuase the party continues to extend to them loans to keep afloat the politically connected managers. Nukes are not an issue, and if the peasants are in terrible conditions it is ebacue the Chinese central leadership has allowe services in the porvincs to collapse and allows local cronnies to act like Feudal lords, ennacting all sorts of tolls and taxes and breaking their backs, plus there is thier horrible mismanagement of land and a host of other issues. I find ti convinient to say you have to stay in power becuase there are all the seproblems, given you created the problems or aggrevated them.

[JCG]

Fair game I guess.

Still, the thing is, ranskaldan, that none of us can be 100% (or even 50%, heck) sure that the result would truly be greater death and suffering.

I'd suppose suffering could be greater, due to economic collapse and an increase in poverty...but death? At least not in violent death, I'd think (and hope). But I don't know. We're all speculating.

That's also why I didn't support the Iraq war, curiously. The world wasn't sure that Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, and seeing the issue is still largely up in the air...we can't say for sure that the USA prevented his ever using them, for example.

I wouldn't deny that toppling Saddam was good, no, it was a great thing, but IMHO (and that of most people in the world), this wasn't the way (or the moment, at the very least).

If the USA had wanted to topple Saddam, not basing their argument on WMDs but just on his inhumane treatment of his people, AND be patient enough to go through the UN before an invasion, then they'd have my full support.

[/end loosely related (but related still) Iraq threadjack]

So AFAIK, we can't be sure that Tiananmen HAD to end with the murder of 7000 people, as we cannot be certain of the consequences of not doing so (probably only the Chinese government/people themselves come close).

And well, I personally don't like leaving the door open for other, less "well-intentioned" governments to use the same justifications for just about any kind of self-serving massacres and purges....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
On this day fourteen years ago, thousands of innocent protestors were murdered in cold blood on Tiananmen Square. These protestors, mostly young college students, wanted nothing more than to push for democratic reform and an end to corruption in the authoritarian Chinese government. On June 4, 1989 many of these brave protestors paid the ultimate price in their pursuit of these noble goals, dying at the hands of the People's "Liberation" Army sent to end their peaceful demonstration. It is estimated that over 7000 protestors were killed and thousands more wounded, although the cover-up by the Chinese government means that we will probably never know for sure.

If this sort of conspiracy theorist approach is used in any other serious context, such as NASA faking moon landings and detention camps in the US, you'd be laughed out of the room. However, since this is about the evil CCP slaughtering thousands of "democratic reformers," bald assertions work fine for a change.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

So, how come there are no images of tanks running over these protestors or PLA soldiers shooting them in cold blood? Even the famed CNN footage showed the tank column tried not to crush the guy standing in the way.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
Several things: it is, and has been, the party that has stoked rampant nationalism, now that they can't really use communism as an ideological crutch for their authoritarianism.

I wonder what it would be like in a civil war like environment. Would ideological fervor actually be LESS of a problem than today, with local barons and demagogues running around looking for cronies?

If state run enterprises are collapsing slowly it is becuase the party continues to extend to them loans to keep afloat the politically connected managers.

So we really should just let a few million unemployed workers loose on the streets of Chinese cities. Great.

Nukes are not an issue,

Ever wonder what a Chinese Civil War 1990 would have looked like?

and if the peasants are in terrible conditions it is ebacue the Chinese central leadership has allowe services in the porvincs to collapse and allows local cronnies to act like Feudal lords, ennacting all sorts of tolls and taxes and breaking their backs, plus there is thier horrible mismanagement of land and a host of other issues.

So, without the central government, the social services would continue to exist, the local cronies would act like Magnanimous Philantrophians instead of feudal lords, and land would be managed really wonderfully?

I find ti convinient to say you have to stay in power becuase there are all the seproblems, given you created the problems or aggrevated them.

The problems were there to start with. A situation without the central government would have caused every single one of these problems to become much much worse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
Unfortunately the power of the mob rarely stays peaceful.

That's BS. We have had protests with millions as well.

Millions. When?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by JCG
Fair game I guess.

Still, the thing is, ranskaldan, that none of us can be 100% (or even 50%, heck) sure that the result would truly be greater death and suffering.

I'd suppose suffering could be greater, due to economic collapse and an increase in poverty...but death? At least not in violent death, I'd think (and hope). But I don't know. We're all speculating.

Starvation leads to death. Rioting leads to death. Anarchy leads to death. Civil war leads to death. Economic and social collapse leads to death. Millions of deaths.

There are just too many examples in China's history.

[GePap]

If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one. But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day. And as for "look at all the examples", well, that was before Mao and the revolution and indutrialization and a host of other things. And besides, if you want to play the "lessons" from history crap, doesn;t chinese history show us this "imperial" government must eventually collapse into chaos and warlordism anyway?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
The protest were not violent, until the Party leadership begun to move against it.

Where else in the modern history of the world has there been a huge group was allowed to continue to occupy an important area and caused such an enormous disruption? I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient, the crowd should have been dispersed much, much, earlier, like everywhere else in the world.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one. But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day.

So what exactly happened that day?

[GePap]

The Chinese government used excessive force to break up what had been until then a mainly peacefull pro-democracy rally.

(I am being diplomatic in my language)

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by GePap
If you are so fearfull of local warlords, switch to a federal system of governance, away from a fully centralized one.

??
If I'm afraid of local warlords, I should then -- farm out more power to local strongmen?

But the boogeyman of warlordism is not an excuse for what happened that day.

And why is it invalid?

And as for "look at all the examples", well, that was before Mao and the revolution and indutrialization and a host of other things.

China still has 900 million peasants. Mao hardly made a dent on that number (as a matter of fact he encouraged reproduction, which probably made it worse). 900 million is 70-80% of the population - hardly a stabilizing factor in a power vacuum.

And besides, if you want to play the "lessons" from history crap, doesn;t chinese history show us this "imperial" government must eventually collapse into chaos and warlordism anyway?

Yes, and the dynasties of the past always collapsed due to an inability to control the mob. So you've just destroyed your own point.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
The Chinese government used excessive force to break up what had been until then a mainly peacefull pro-democracy rally.

(I am being diplomatic in my language)

Since the rally had been going on for months on end, do you think it was time to break it up?

Given that Tiananmen Sqaure is like Washington Square, and I have never seen that many people were allowed to occupy and important area for that long in another country, my view is this should had been broken up long ago.

What do you think?

[Spiffor]

Maybe it could have been broken up with batons, tear gas and water cannons, rather than tanks ?

[GePap]

Yes, and the dynasties of the past always collapsed due to an inability to control the mob. So you've just destroyed your own point.

Actually:

You claim this act was necessary to prevent social collapse becuase you claim history shows China will suffer social collapse without strong central control, yet if we follow you "history's lesson" argument, yu have no hope, since "hisotry shows all central govenrment in china falls apart". So a million tianemens won;t stop the fall fo this imperial dynasty, if you "history lessons' argument is valid. I don;t think it is.

s for Federalism: power would be given to the elected leaders of those 900 million peasants, and perhaps their newly elected leaders would help turn these 900 million peasants into something else, like 300 million farmers and industrial workers and service sector workers. That is the crux of federalism. It works for 290 million people in in the same size place as China. And for some reason, i think the Chinese people are smart enough to make Federalism work, if you think centralized government may fail.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe it could have been broken up with batons, tear gas and water cannons, rather than tanks ?

And they would have been back the next day....?

[GePap]

Not if riot police stayed on scene and barricaded the place.

[ranskaldan]

Not if riot police stayed on scene and barricaded the place.

And they would simply go elsewhere.

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

Yes, and the dynasties of the past always collapsed due to an inability to control the mob. So you've just destroyed your own point.

Actually:

You claim this act was necessary to prevent social collapse becuase you claim history shows China will suffer social collapse without strong central control, yet if we follow you "history's lesson" argument, yu have no hope, since "hisotry shows all central govenrment in china falls apart". So a million tianemens won;t stop the fall fo this imperial dynasty, if you "history lessons' argument is valid. I don;t think it is.

History also shows us that the 3-5 Golden Ages during Chinese history were accomplished under a combination of firm central control and relatively enlightened rule. As of now this is China's only hope of making it as a wealthier, more liberalized society.

for Federalism: power would be given to the elected leaders of those 900 million peasants, and perhaps their newly elected leaders would help turn these 900 million peasants into something else, like 300 million farmers and industrial workers and service sector workers. That is the crux of federalism. It works for 290 million people in in the same size place as China. And for some reason, i think the Chinese people are smart enough to make Federalism work, if you think centralized government may fail.

Such idealism.

This isn't a matter of "being smart". This is an objective situation that would apply to all power vacuums in all vastly agrarian state with a pissed off and ignorant population. These "elected leaders" wouldn't be the ones able to turn those 900 million peasants into something else - other than pitchfork-wielding fanatics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe it could have been broken up with batons, tear gas and water cannons, rather than tanks ?

I see that your main complaint is the number of protestors killed was allegedly large. However, nobody could come up with any accurate estimation at all, but the Western figure (which seems to be accepted unquestionably by even skeptical people for some reason) is somehow held to be sacred. This is particularly curious as the West has no access to any firsthand information at all, so they have to rely on various "democratic organisations" in the PRC. Surely you can see that some wildly exaggerated numbers serve their own ends well.

[Spiffor]

Well, extra methods are : arrest all the charismatic leaders, surround the place with tanks, but don't use them to kill, take strict dispositions for the protestor's message not to be spread in rest of China, present these people like dangerous anarchists to the population so that they don't get support, have them threatened to being fired of their university or job, and do it for real if they don't listen.

Maybe even forbid anybody to enter Tiananmen when the protestors are in, and siege the place, so that they progressively get demotivated because of hunger (and leave through some security checkpoint).

With some subtlety, it is possible to avoid making a massacre.

[Spiffor]

UR :

Actually, MY main complaint sure is the use of murderous violence to end the protest. While I'm not fond of using non-lethal violence during protests, I understand that the Chinese context is very different from my French context, where 'violent' protests are those where some display windows are broken.

So, from MY point of view, the use of reasonable force to break the protest isn't morally shocking. The use of lethal force, in high amounts however is (I don't know about the actual number of death even though I trust the 7000 figure, but I sure think the tanks were there, to kill).

For some reason, I don't like seeing people killed en masse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, extra methods are : arrest all the charismatic leaders, surround the place with tanks, but don't use them to kill, take strict dispositions for the protestor's message not to be spread in rest of China, present these people like dangerous anarchists to the population so that they don't get support, have them threatened to being fired of their university or job, and do it for real if they don't listen.

Maybe even forbid anybody to enter Tiananmen when the protestors are in, and siege the place, so that they progressively get demotivated because of hunger (and leave through some security checkpoint).

With some subtlety, it is possible to avoid making a massacre.

I agree with you that these methods would have been effective if they were adopted at the beginning. However, the actual situation was rather complicated.

You see, even the CCP isn't a monolith and there were (still are) factions inside the party. At that point, Deng was in power and he supported the reformers to run the show. However, there were still hardliners in the party waiting to chellenge him.

The reformers had arrived an agreement with the students, that they were to leave the square by May 18 (IIRC). You see that, by talking with the protestors, some of the methods you mentioned wouldn't have worked later.

Yet, the students, for one reason or another, refused to hold up their end of the deal. This made for some pretty bad situation in the party, because the hardliners could use the situation as leverage against Deng, and time was running out for him. So much so that ruled out pretty much the rest of the methods you suggested.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually, MY main complaint sure is the use of murderous violence to end the protest.

The difference between various sorts of violences are the number of people getting killed, correct?

Originally posted by Spiffor
So, from MY point of view, the use of reasonable force to break the protest isn't morally shocking. The use of lethal force, in high amounts however is (I don't know about the actual number of death even though I trust the 7000 figure, but I sure think the tanks were there, to kill).

As I said before, if killing was the intention, you'd see that one guy in front of the tank column got run over. As a matter of fact, the protestors were given an ultimatum to leave the square by 8pm. AFAIK, they did. Thus this alone makes me doubt the accuracy of the death toll at being 7000.

[mindseye]

Whew, a lot to respond to!

Ranskaldan wrote:

If the demonstrators had gotten what they wanted, China would have been grandly screwed.

That is nothing but sheer, unsupportable conjecture. The protestors weren't asking for a revolution (common CCP apologist's claim)! They wanted to open up a dialog to discuss reforms like less corruption (a banner later picked up by no less than Zhu RongJi), less nepotism, free elections (now there are some), a freer press (embryonic movements in this direction now happening), and freedom of assembly. A dialog! There is simply no connection between "less nepotism" and "unfathomable chaos." Zhu RongJi did not trigger a civil war when he launched his campaign against corruption.

UR wrote:

So, how come there are no images of tanks running over these protestors or PLA soldiers shooting them in cold blood?

Because most of those killings happened away from the square. They took place on the streets leading towards it. Plenty of Chinese eyewitnesses have recorded seeing tanks and APCs run over people. Most of the deaths were from gunfire, however.

Rans:

So we really should just let a few million unemployed workers loose on the streets of Chinese cities. Great.

You really think there are no other options? I think that's called "false dilemma".

UR:

I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient.

Using tanks and carbines to slaughter civilians was overly lenient? I simply don’t know how to respond to that.

Spiffor:

Maybe it could have been broken up with batons, tear gas and water cannons, rather than tanks ?

Or even better, arrangements could have been made to give the students a venue to air their grievances with the CCP in some sort of organized forum. That's all they were asking, was an opoprtunity to open a dialog. Even a sham forum scheduled for a later date would've at least defused the situation. There were many ways tha Party could've handled the situation, but unfortunately Li Peng's argument for using military force carried the day.

Rans:

History also shows us that the 3-5 Golden Ages during Chinese history were accomplished under a combination of firm central control and relatively enlightened rule. As of now this is China's only hope of making it as a wealthier, more liberalized society.

Well, there are other models, you know (glances in the general direction of Taiwan and Hong Kong).

UR:

I see that your main complaint is the number of protestors killed was allegedly large. However, nobody could come up with any accurate estimation at all, but the Western figure (which seems to be accepted unquestionably by even skeptical people for some reason) is somehow held to be sacred. This is particularly curious as the West has no access to any firsthand information at all,

That is quite wrong. First off, there were many westerners present to witness what happened in the square itself. Second, may westerners have interviewed Chinese eyewitnesses. You are correct in that no one knows how many were later imprisoned or executed. The authorities have never felt the need to release any of that information. Also, many people died at home from gunshot wounds. They correctly realized that going to a hospital was far too dangerous - the police did in fact later round up everyone at hospitals who had gunshot wounds. This claim was made by the doctors and nurses staffing the hospitals. Their own informal tally of the dead far exceeded the government's bogus figures.

UR:

Yet, the students, for one reason or another, refused to hold up their end of the deal.

I believe that was because there were factions within the student movement itself (it was not nearly as organized as some suggest).

In fact, near the end of the demonstrations, there were a lot more people than just students involved. Workers were showing up, marching under banners of their factories. Even party members (including policemen!) were getting involved. Teachers from the school which educated CCP elite's children were marching. What a lot of westerners don’t realize is that this was not just a bunch of college students protesting in the square. At the time, many people felt that the entire city of Beijing was slipping towards a state of civil disorder - this is what scared the bejesus out of the CCP. Recall, that this was at a time when the economic reforms had begun, but a very large share of the benefits were clearly flowing into the hands of the Party rulers and their family members (still a major problem). There was a lot of resentment among the people over this.

When the city was surrounded by the army, the people began to take action. The main streets leading to the square were blocked with barricades made from buses and overturned trucks. When the tanks started rolling, civilians armed with sticks and rocks manned the barricades and tried to halt the armor. It worked the first time against young, green recruits (many of whom ended up joining the protestors). The second time, when hardened, veteran troops were called in, machine guns and carbines were used against the crowds. This is where most of the casualties occurred, not in the square itself.

The day after the massacre, witnesses remarked how those streets looked like a battleground. Burning trucks and APCs, bullet-pocked buildings, ... blood ...

Some day the courageous Chinese who died fighting their own military will be honored the same way the protestors of the May Fourth movement now are. Until then, the memory of what happened that day must be carefully preserved.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye
UR wrote:

Quote:

So, how come there are no images of tanks running over these protestors or PLA soldiers shooting them in cold blood?

Because most of those killings happened away from the square. They took place on the streets leading towards it. Plenty of Chinese eyewitnesses have recorded seeing tanks and APCs run over people. Most of the deaths were from gunfire, however.

That seems to suggest that when these killings happened they happened outside of media coverage. This is far too convenient to be believed.

Originally posted by mindseye
UR:

Quote:

I'd say the CCP handling was overly lenient.

Using tanks and carbines to slaughter civilians was overly lenient? I simply don’t know how to respond to that.

So when did you start taking quotes out of context?

Originally posted by mindseye
UR:

Quote:

I see that your main complaint is the number of protestors killed was allegedly large. However, nobody could come up with any accurate estimation at all, but the Western figure (which seems to be accepted unquestionably by even skeptical people for some reason) is somehow held to be sacred. This is particularly curious as the West has no access to any firsthand information at all,

That is quite wrong. First off, there were many westerners present to witness what happened in the square itself. Second, may westerners have interviewed Chinese eyewitnesses.

Okay, assume that there are indeed lots of Westerners there and lots of Chinese eyewitnesses. What did they say? How could that be verified?

Originally posted by mindseye
You are correct in that no one knows how many were later imprisoned or executed. The authorities have never felt the need to release any of that information. Also, many people died at home from gunshot wounds. They correctly realized that going to a hospital was far too dangerous - the police did in fact later round up everyone at hospitals who had gunshot wounds. This claim was made by the doctors and nurses staffing the hospitals. Their own informal tally of the dead far exceeded the government's bogus figures.

There are a lot of things being alleged at, but there is no solid evidence to back anything up. This is almost surreal, it's like speaking about Roswell, UFO's, and men in black.

Originally posted by mindseye
UR:

Quote:

Yet, the students, for one reason or another, refused to hold up their end of the deal.

I believe that was because there were factions within the student movement itself (it was not nearly as organized as some suggest).

This was one of the major causes if not the major cause. Had the students left as they promised, the crackdown would not have happened.

Originally posted by mindseye
At the time, many people felt that the entire city of Beijing was slipping towards a state of civil disorder - this is what scared the bejesus out of the CCP.

And a lot of other people, who had just experinced the Cultural Revolution.

Originally posted by mindseye
When the city was surrounded by the army, the people began to take action. The main streets leading to the square were blocked with barricades made from buses and overturned trucks. When the tanks started rolling, civilians armed with sticks and rocks manned the barricades and tried to halt the armor.

Would you not classify that as anarchist behaviour?

Originally posted by mindseye
It worked the first time against young, green recruits (many of whom ended up joining the protestors). The second time, when hardened, veteran troops were called in, machine guns and carbines were used against the crowds. This is where most of the casualties occurred, not in the square itself.

I do not recall two waves of soldiers coming into the city. AFAIK, the troops matched into the city came from the Western provinces.

Originally posted by mindseye
The day after the massacre, witnesses remarked how those streets looked like a battleground. Burning trucks and APCs, bullet-pocked buildings, ... blood ...

And remarkably, absolutely no images.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, extra methods are : arrest all the charismatic leaders, surround the place with tanks, but don't use them to kill, take strict dispositions for the protestor's message not to be spread in rest of China, present these people like dangerous anarchists to the population so that they don't get support, have them threatened to being fired of their university or job, and do it for real if they don't listen.

Maybe even forbid anybody to enter Tiananmen when the protestors are in, and siege the place, so that they progressively get demotivated because of hunger (and leave through some security checkpoint).

With some subtlety, it is possible to avoid making a massacre.

Communists like to use tanks as a demonstration of their power. It was a big mistake. Instead what happened is the people percieved that the tanks were insignificant because they didn't believe that they would be used against them. I think that aggravated the situation.

[Az]

How about we remember that the crimes were ordered by leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, who still decree themselves to be the sole political authority in China.

I have no problem to denounce the crimes of the CCP, but writing them up as the crimes of communism, is like considering the crimes of the DPRK leadership the crimes of democracy. The former are not communist, just as the latter are not democrats.