Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.