https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-chin...
This was all the way back in 2017, my bad.
I think in hindsight, this was a big mistake on UK's part. Not that they shouldn't have recognised PRC eventually, but they should have held off doing so and extracted greater concessions in exchange. They gave away one of their biggest pieces of leverage at the very start of the game.
LOL, just squirted the tea through my nose. That would have been an epic troll move. Unfortunately (for HK) the british empire had long lost its spine by that time and could only bully tiny nations, not powerful ones.
Historically, the People's republic of China had to lobby the UN quite hard to take over the treaties and privileges (UN security council membership) which the Republic had assumed.
There's a lot of talk about standing up to China, but in concrete terms, what does that mean? It's hard to see how any "kinetic" action doesn't go nuclear. I think we should just stop poking the hornet's nest; the Chinese would be quite happy leaving the 1992 Consensus alone.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vpqb/trump-wasnt-going-to-...
No and that's the main issue. China has a long term strategy going all the way to 2049, the centenary of the revolution and Xi has repeatedly hinted that getting Taiwan back is part of it.
Modern China has an aggressively expansionist political strategy. Leaving China alone now would be making the same mistake which the world did with Nazi Germany in the 30s. Direct war is made complex by China's nuclear arsenal yet might be unavoidable in the long run but as of now all the diplomatic tools available should be used to contain them.
Sadly for the Chinese propaganda, the rest of the world still has access to free information.
Edit: It's true. Go read a book or something: https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial...
> This would be the trend of the entire war. As two scholars note, “From 1937 to 1945, there were 23 battles where both sides employed at least a regiment each. The CCP was not a main force in any of these. The only time it participated, it sent a mere 1,000 to 1,500 men, and then only as a security detachment on one of the flanks.There were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one. Of the approximately 40,000 skirmishes, just 200 were fought by the CCP, or 0.5 percent.”
> The reality of the war in China was far different. The Chinese army had not fought a serious battle with the Japanese since 1938. In the western sense it was really not an army at all, but a coalition of warlord bands scattered over twelve “war areas” which roughly corresponded to groupings of the old provinces of Imperial China. Each local warlord functioned as war area commander; in this capacity he exercised both civil and military control. Many of the warlord armies were ill-equipped and poorly trained. They seldom fought the Japanese, serving mainly to buttress the power of the war area commander instead. The core of divisions directly under the control of the generalissimo were better trained and equipped. But even they were undermanned and lacked artillery; in most cases they were commanded by officers chosen more for their loyalty to the generalissimo than for their military prowess.6
> “ ‘The general idea in the United States that China has fought Japan to a standstill and has had many glorious victories is a delusion,’ ” wrote a member of the American military mission to China. “ ‘Japan has generally been able to push forward any place she wanted to. She has stopped mainly because of the fact that a certain number of troops can safely hold only a certain number of miles of front. . . . The will to fight an aggressive action does not yet exist in the Chinese Army.’ ”7
> Corrupt, demoralized, inefficient, and oppressive, Chiang’s Kuomintang government was uninterested in “aggressive action.” It was interested in surviving the war against Japan with its armies intact, ready to deal with the generalissimo’s rivals among the warlords and his far more dangerous enemies, the Chinese Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung. A handful of Americans on the scene, like Ambassador Clarence Gauss, a dour New Englander with few illusions, attempted to enlighten Washington about the actual state of things, but had no discernable impact.8
And here's some discussion of Mao found in chapter 17:
> Yet the Communists profited from their mistakes. Under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung (who blamed the setbacks on his rivals, whom he then purged), the Communists concentrated on guerrilla warfare by small, widely dispersed units; their strategy emphasized the importance of building a solid base of support among the peasants by living among them and sharing their burdens and hardships.38 As Japanese units were gradually withdrawn from northern China to meet the Allied attacks in the Pacific, the Communists stepped up their guerrilla attacks. The Ichigo offensive brought them still more opportunities. By the fall of 1944 the Communists controlled large portions of four provinces. Their base areas were established in territory supposedly held by the Japanese but where the latter were too weak or too thinly spread to exercise any real control.
> At the start of the Ichigo attacks, Vice President Henry Wallace, on a special visit to Chungking, had urged that the Communists and Nationalists attempt to settle their differences in the face of the common danger and that an American military mission be allowed to visit the Communist base areas in the north.39 Chiang reluctantly agreed. The so-called “Dixie Mission,” composed of a small group of American soldiers and foreign service officers under Colonel David Barrett, arrived at Yenan in July 1944.
> The men of the Dixie Mission were favorably impressed by the Communist display of energy and aggressiveness. Communist leaders like Chu Teh, Chou En-lai, and Mao Tse-tung—with their informality, homely manner and apparent frankness—struck the Americans as a favorable contrast to the traditionalism and ritual formality of Koumintang leaders in Chungking.40 Discussions were held; plans were made by Wedemeyer’s headquarters and the OSS for military cooperation between the Americans and Communists, and for the Communist forces to receive lend-lease military supplies and American military instructors. (The OSS had, in fact, already begun some elementary small-arms and demolition training for Communist soldiers.41) All these projects came to nought, however, because of the strong opposition of General Hurley who, shortly after Stilwell’s recall, had replaced Clarence Gauss as U.S. ambassador to China. Hurley was in the midst of tortuous and ultimately futile negotiations to persuade the Chinese Communists to enter a coalition government under Chiang’s leadership; he wanted to use access to military assistance as a bargaining tool.42
I'd say that the comparison of the number of traditional battles fought that you're offering as evidence does not make sense given the nature of the two forces.
The fact of the matter is that the KMT by far did most of the fighting against Japan. This was directly admitted by Lü Zhengcao himself. It is also the mainstream view held by war historians. See [0] for a quick summary. You are the one putting forth a revisionist thesis.
The CCP's priorities were clarified in the orders Mao issued to the Eighth Route Army:
The Sino-Japanese war affords our party an excellent opportunity for expansion. Our fixed policy should be 70 percent expansion, 20 percent dealing with the Kuomintang, and 10 percent resisting Japan.
There are three stages in carrying out this fixed policy: the first is a compromising stage, in which sell-sacrifice should be made to show our outward obedience to the Central Government and adherence to the Three Principles of the People [nationality, democracy, and livelihood, as outlined by Dr. Sun Yat-sen], but in reality this will serve as camouflage for the existence and development of our party.
The second is a contending stage, in which two or three years should be spent in laying the foundation of our party’s political and military powers, and developing these until we can match and break the Kuomintang, and eliminate the influence of the litter north of the Yellow River. While waiting for an unusual turn of events, we should give the Japanese invader certain concessions.
The third is an offensive stage, in which our forces should penetrate deeply into Central China, sever the communications of the Central Government troops in various sectors, isolate and disperse them until we are ready for the counteroffensive and wrest the leadership from the hands of the Kuomintang.
From [1]:
By the CCP’s own accounts during the war, it barely played a role. Specifically, in January 1940 Zhou Enlai sent a secret report to Joseph Stalin which said that over a million Chinese had died fighting the Japanese through the summer of 1939. He further admitted that only 3 percent of those were CCP forces. In the same letter, Zhou pledged to continue to support Chiang and recognize “the key position of the Kuomintang in leading the organs of power and the army throughout the country.” In fact, in direct contradiction to Xi’s claims on Wednesday, Zhou acknowledged that Chiang and the KMT “united all the forces of the nation” in resisting Japan’s aggression.
From [5]:
Of course, wariness of fighting Japan was not the only reason Mao preferred guerrilla tactics to mobile warfare. Political calculations were at work as well. By focusing on the construction of base areas behind Japanese lines, Mao knew the CCP could build up its strength and improve its position vis-a‘-vis the KMT. Years later, one of Mao’s secretaries would recall a revealing remark Mao made to Lin Biao after the revolution: “Some comrades believed the less land Japan occupied, the better, only later was there unified recognition: allowing Japan to occupy more territory is the only way to love your country. Otherwise, it would have become a country that loved Chiang Kai-shek.” This comment, made to close associates in confidence, suggests that Mao saw Japan’s invasion as an opportunity to boost the CCP’s position in its continuing struggle with the KMT.
For example, after the Hundred Regiments Offensive [4], Mao purged Peng Dehuai for "wasting resources" fighting the Japanese rather than the KMT.
Even the CCP itself has been (slowly) starting to publicly acknowledge the historical truth [2][3].
[0] https://www.quora.com/Who-deserve-greater-credit-for-driving...?
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial...
[2] https://www.scmp.com/article/979073/historians-mainland-give...
[3] https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1591802...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Regiments_Offensive
Communist guerilla armies tend not to deploy regiments regularly. Mao discusses this in "On Guerilla Warfare". The NLF in Vietnam, the 26th of July movement in Cuba etc. we're not big on regiments.
Vietnamization and US withdrawal from Vietnam happened without much regiment deployment (other than the Tet offensive and a handful of other occasions). The guerilla tactics were fairly effective though.
"Guerrilla armies should fight like large, well funded armies" is a very old complaint that has been made. I'm sure the British and loyalists used it against George Washington.
> The only time it participated, it sent a mere 1,000 to 1,500 men, and then only as a security detachment on one of the flanks.There were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one. Of the approximately 40,000 skirmishes, just 200 were fought by the CCP, or 0.5 percent.”
and
> Specifically, in January 1940 Zhou Enlai sent a secret report to Joseph Stalin which said that over a million Chinese had died fighting the Japanese through the summer of 1939. He further admitted that only 3 percent of those were CCP forces.
Also, guerilla tactics are effective when the enemy is not willing to exterminate the enemy population. The Japanese absolutely were.
> I'm sure the British and loyalists used it against George Washington.
This is kinda overwrought. The US continental army did refrain from some continental-style line-up-and-shoot "tactics", but outside the south they engaged mostly in pitched battles. They didn't win by sniping redcoats here and there.
This is implausible, considering the Eighth Route Army (counted as the 18th Group Army by the Nationalists), which participated in e.g. the Battle of Taiyuan, started out with more than 30,000 soldiers and grew to several hundreds of thousands over the course of the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Route_Army
The only way you could come to the conclusion that the Communists only fought once is if you tried to assign all soldiers to either Nationalists or Communists, and discounted all Communist forces fighting as part of the United Front, which officially placed them under Nationalist command.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
I'm generally very careful with downvotes on this platform, as I think they should only be used when something is plain wrong or detrimental to the discussion. For me, your comment falls into the second category though; it doesn't add anything to the discussion, but seeks to rile up people to start downvoting or brigading others.
And since one is a democratic government and the other is a totalitarian state actively comiting genocide, then I know whom I would want as my government.
Basically, whichever power is able to hold it at the time is essentially the "rightful owner".
I can't seem to get past this nihilism as the correct answer.
Polling in China has some obvious limitations but would suggest high levels of satisfaction. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
What exactly is the aim of your litany of past comments in support of the CCP?
Am I to believe you just genuinely think democracy and individual liberties are not the preferred method of governance by most people around the world, and that you think the world is better off without them being campaigned for?
Under which form of government do you currently find yourself?
I think it's probably true that many or most people like democracy and individual liberties, but I think it's equally true that these are not the sole criteria by which they decide which government they support. If they were, and that meant that China were ripe for regime change, Singapore would only be a little behind. I think the world is better off without them being "campaigned for" if "campaigning for" is instituting a big global chess game where we try to destabilize certain governments (and an honest accounting of those rarely ends up favoring one side as purely as we'd like to flatter ourselves).
You seem to frame this as me arguing in favor of the US, which makes it very easy for you to then rightly question the true objectives of the US and even the validity of its supposed moral authority.
I am simply discussing the validity of a government which has no individual liberty nor democratically elected leaders. This is unequivocally a tool for oppression and evil in the modern world. If you made friends who lived under communist regimes, and turned your abstract reasoning into concrete feelings, your feelings on this subject might change.
You know, another thing I'll say about this is, your problem obviously isn't actually my tone. If I were combative and forceful in everything I said, you'd find a way to take issue with that too (probably more convincingly). Because your actual problem is you dislike the content of what I'm saying. Fine. Argue against it, or ignore it, but let's not waste our time pretending there is any manner I could possibly present the same view that you wouldn't find fault with.
The role you're playing and your perspective is nothing new in the last century of fascist dictators depriving people of rights under the banner of communism.
And again, you're framing it as an American vs China thing (nukes?). You're a useful tool of the CCP, even adopting their talking points and framing it in the ways they do when they indoctrinate their own citizenry.
Your final argument sounds like a doctor complaining that the patients family won't like hearing the news that insurance won't cover cancer treatments no matter what tone they use. The content you are delivering is in support of cruelty and evil in the world, I'm protesting that you try packaging it in courtesy to disguise that fact.
If they dare to hand it over to ROC, they might as well kept it themselves.
The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them.
Somehow? That's how.
> Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island
Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. The British defeated China in a series of wars, mostly for the right to sell opium in China, and took them as spoils.
When China became strong enough to defeat the British, they wanted them back, and there's nothing the British could do except handing them back.
Funny how that worked out, wasn't it?
My advice? Read up a little on history.
>Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory.
What, You mean the Qing Dynasty?
My advice? Read up a little on history. Oh wait..
So I suspect you do know the relevant internation laws as well. But allow me to quote myself:
> The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them.
You are free to live in your make-believe world in which Kowloon and HK island were never part of China. The rest of us? We live in the real world.
Qing Dynasty?
And forget about the history part, It is rather obvious you dont know the difference between China the country or land ruling under CCP or China itself as an entire entity.
Or did you make up your mind about China during the height of the Cold War era and you're never going to change it no matter what?
To be more precise, last year or so Chinese government has issued a statement (on record, googleable) that HK handover agreement is not valid/recognized by them. So far there had been no consequences.