About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,
Yes, I think Chiang's atrocities were committed mostly by the necessity of maintaining his power, not by any ideology. Compared to Mao he was a much lesser evil. The history of Taiwan after 1949 speaks for itself.

Hong


Post 61

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My only point to that response is that the U.S. didn't nuke Japan to impress Stalin so much as to show the world what the U.S was capable of with its new arsenal of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima was more a showcase for the nuclear bomb than a ending of the war in Japan. True it saved many American lives to bom b Japan rather than a land invasion, but I believe the Japanese would have surrendered after just one nuclear bomb. There was no need for two nuclear bombs. After seeing the devastation such a thing as the atom bomb could cause, I think any nation would have surrendered.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quinn Formel wrote: "My only point to that response is that the U.S. didn't nuke Japan to impress Stalin so much as to show the world what the U.S was capable of with its new arsenal of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima was more a showcase for the nuclear bomb than a ending of the war in Japan. True it saved many American lives to bom b Japan rather than a land invasion..."

You are correct, and that is the reason why it is important to do the hard work of parceling out the truths that are so easily glossed over. 

"... the U.S. didn't nuke Japan..."  needs to be more closely stated.  Are we speaking of President Truman or Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who resigned, actually, in September of 1945, or Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, who quit the cabinet in June 1945. The government was not one one mind on this.  Some military leaders felt that it was totally unnecessary.  That is why we have to pin down exactly who wanted to "impress Stalin" and who want to "show the world."  When we say "United States" we are probably not including my grandparents who simply were not consulted.

"... rather than a land invasion..."  The choice is often argued, but I judge it to be a false dichotomy.  Japan was an island nation without a navy, and without an air force.  An invasion was not necessary.  Any number of psychology warfare strategies could have been played out.  Perhaps the war would never have ended -- Castro still rules Cuba -- but the threat to the USA would have been canceled with few to no US military casualities.


Post 63

Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong Zhang wrote: "The history of Taiwan after 1949 speaks for itself."

Yes, it does. 

 "Looking back on Taiwan's development over the past five decades, we are confronted with a history full of misery and suffering. ...  restrictions were placed on the formation of new political parties to prevent multiparty politicking that could divide a nation's strength. ... forbade mass demonstrations and protests. These restrictions allowed the government to more easily maintain an ordered society and stable political environment. Indeed, to this day there are still a number of people who miss the days under the Emergency Decree."
 The above is from a Taiwan government website explaining Taiwan's relationship with Australia:
http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/ROC/report02.html
It is a whitewash, but it is honest enough, in admitting that Taiwan was a one-party dictatorship until the "Chungli" incident of 1977 -- Chiang Kai Shek having died two years earlier.  Ten years later, 1987, martial law was technically lifted, though advocating independence for Taiwan was still illegal.  Over time, yes, Taiwan has "liberalized."  So has China.  The massacre at Tiananmen Square marked the limits of what the gerontocracy was capable of.  Since then -- and even then -- attitudes in "China" (however you define that) are not necessarily what appears on the surface in Beijing. 

I condemn the leaders in Beijing for the massacre.  I only suggest that a similar event could have happened in Taipei under the right circumstances.  Taiwan is farther along the "evolutionary path" toward a politically open society.  Nonetheless, like Israel and Palestine or Russia and the Ukraine, China and Taiwan are related by a complicated history. 

Taiwan has been prosperous the same way that Spain under Franco was -- or Brazil, or Argentina, or El Salvadore were -- they allowed American firms to have access to their labor pools while at the same time slaughtering any inhabitant who questioned their right to rule.  Remember what happened to the one daughter's savings in Eat Drink Man Woman: she was cheated in a politically-connected ploy over toxic land.  That is business in Taiwan.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.