Can China Invade Taiwan?

Originally posted by chinawhite
as you can see. china was about to launch their attacks in 1945. but the war ended. which was unexpected for everyone including the US.

if the war went into 1946.the japanese wouldn't have been on the mainland anymore.

In 9 days the soviets defeated 1million japanese soldiers.

Exactly, the US did most of the work.

And this is the reason why the communist didn't attack japan.
...
THats how you would fight againest the japanese. you didn't have rifles you didn't have artillery. all you had was homemade equipment until you captured a gun. thats the life of a guerilla

Right...China was not ready to fight the war.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by twchang]

Originally posted by chinawhite

theres no real difference between a Cat 1 and Cat 3.
www.katc.com...

Hmm...that source indicates quite a difference between Cat 1 and Cat 3.

-- CATEGORY ONE : winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr).
-- CATEGORY TWO : winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr)
-- CATEGORY THREE : winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr).

The scale doesn't seem to give concrete indicator for precipitation, probably because it depends on terrain. But usually large amount of precipitation will be blocked by mountains.

Also, Katrina is Cat 4 when it reaches the land, unlike Talim, which is Cat 3 when it hits Taiwan and Cat 1 when it hits China.

"The storm weakened slightly just before landfall on August 29 as a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 140 mph"

From Wiki. en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 10-9-2005 by twchang]

Originally posted by twchang

Originally posted by chinawhite
and what is accurate? western anti-communist histrorians?

They developed a new tactic for communist guriellas.

"kill all burn all loot all"

the japanse were so frustrated by the communist attacks they just killed everyone they found.

if people run then why would they use this tactic

Again, CCP history is not accurate, that is the truth.

That's the problem with all history, it has been jaded by the winners.

Every Nation has also done that, sorry to inform you.

hummm... chinawhite you seems to be growing to become more extream now, couple months ago you were not bad, now your like a puppet of the CCP.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Its the term "chinese". it refers to the ethnic groups inside chinas borders.

That is what the phrase 中國人 means in contemporary China. It refers to being a citizen of the country called China. However, there isn't a single ethnic group involved, as you say. Have you ever asked those other ethnic groups if they consider themselves to be 華人, being of the Chinese "nation" rather than "state". Of course, those living in China (including those living in areas occupied by the Chinese army) are citizens of the Chinese state, but it doesn't mean that they identify themselves as Chinese.

The fact is, during the Yuan Dynasty, the Chinese people looked on the Mongols as outsiders. There was a four tier social system in China during Mongol occupation in which Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese occupied the third and fourth rungs respectively. The Chinese of that era certainly did not regard the Mongols as Chinese, but as foreign barbarians that had conquered China.

The same is true of the Manchus. Even as late as the early 20th century, Chinese revolutionaries referred to the Manchus as foreigners and vowed to oust them.

It is not accurate to put the social engineering that the ChiComs have enforced on China today and imposed that on the past in China. It certainly isn't applicable.

You also seem to imply that there is a single Han ethnic group. That also is not plausible. The different regions of China possess different languages, customs, food, and histories. In reality. the Han are made up of as many as a dozen separate and distinct ethnic groups, each with their own history and language. Despite the efforts of the PRC government to enforce Mandarin on everyone, the spoken languages persist despite the success Qin Shihuang had in squashing out their respective written scripts.

chinese dont even call themselves chinese but middle kingdom. china is a term made by westerners.

I know that, though the name China is thought to derive from "Qin".

And mongolian is a ethnic group within the PRC just like HAN chinese

However, do the Mongols consider themselves to be Chinese? Today, perhaps some do, but I am not talking of today, I am making reference to the era of the Yuan Dynasty.




[edit on 2005/9/10 by ludahai]

Originally posted by Odium


That's the problem with all history, it has been jaded by the winners.

Every Nation has also done that, sorry to inform you.

The difference is that in China, all discourse and dissemination and publication of knowledge on history is controlled by the government. You can't even publish a book inside China without government approval. Scholars who challenge the Party line on history risk losing their jobs and even sent to prison.

In most Western countries, if you can get a publishing house to publish your book, no matter how it questions the conventional wisdom on history, you can get it published. You typically don't lose your job for challenging the CV on historical topics in Western countries (though Europe is beginning to experience some thought control on some issues.)

If you can't see the difference between the two, that I would say that you are hopelessly blind to reality.

Originally posted by ulshadow
hummm... chinawhite you seems to be growing to become more extream now, couple months ago you were not bad, now your like a puppet of the CCP.

actually its just the people im discussing with that gets me like this.

3 anti-chinese againest me. and giving false information quoting from teipai times spreading propaganda.

Originally posted by twchang


Hmm...that source indicates quite a difference between Cat 1 and Cat 3.

its the destrustion caused.

CAT-1

-- No real damage to buildings or structures.
-- Shrubs, loose signs and unanchored mobile homes may sustain
some damage. Coastal flooding is possible.

CAT-3

-- Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some damage to small residences.
-- Some large trees blown down. Some mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed.
-- Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures.
-- Terrain lower than 5 ft above sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more.
-- Example: Hurricane Fran hit North Carolina in 1996.

you can see there is no real difference

Originally posted by twchang
Exactly, the US did most of the work.

now comapre the causlties of both sides. and how much troops each side was againest

Right...China was not ready to fight the war.

exactly

Originally posted by ludahai
That is what the phrase 中國人 means in contemporary China. It refers to being a citizen of the country called China. However, there isn't a single ethnic group involved, as you say. Have you ever asked those other ethnic groups if they consider themselves to be 華人, being of the Chinese "nation" rather than "state". Of course, those living in China (including those living in areas occupied by the Chinese army) are citizens of the Chinese state, but it doesn't mean that they identify themselves as Chinese.

yes chinese and mongolians during the past throught of themselves as different people.

they both considered themselves barbarians. but during the 700years of intergration of the two cultutres and the fact that mongolians have intergrated into HAN chinese culture.

Of course other ethnic groups dont consider themselves HAN chinese but they are chinese. HAN chiense has a lot of different branches that now consider themselves different cultures like the Hakka. Miao Hui.

The fact is, during the Yuan Dynasty, the Chinese people looked on the Mongols as outsiders. There was a four tier social system in China during Mongol occupation in which Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese occupied the third and fourth rungs respectively. The Chinese of that era certainly did not regard the Mongols as Chinese, but as foreign barbarians that had conquered China.

yes that is all true. but you cant point to old history to show your point

The same is true of the Manchus. Even as late as the early 20th century, Chinese revolutionaries referred to the Manchus as foreigners and vowed to oust them.

The manchus have no pyhical difference from HAN chinese.

It is not accurate to put the social engineering that the ChiComs have enforced on China today and imposed that on the past in China. It certainly isn't applicable.

chinese people have been migrating to chinas outer areas during the HAN dynasty.

you cant try say that chinese that are in xingjiang or some areas of tibet only settled there during communist rule

You also seem to imply that there is a single Han ethnic group. That also is not plausible. The different regions of China possess different languages, customs, food, and histories. In reality. the Han are made up of as many as a dozen separate and distinct ethnic groups, each with their own history and language. Despite the efforts of the PRC government to enforce Mandarin on everyone, the spoken languages persist despite the success Qin Shihuang had in squashing out their respective written scripts.

Han chinese is a single ethnic groups with sub-groups.

It is true that different areas of china has different local languages. i speak two local languages and mardarin. these languages are spoken by 1-2million each and is like local variations from mandarin

I know that, though the name China is thought to derive from "Qin".

wasn't it Qing

Originally posted by ludahai

Originally posted by Odium


That's the problem with all history, it has been jaded by the winners.

Every Nation has also done that, sorry to inform you.

The difference is that in China, all discourse and dissemination and publication of knowledge on history is controlled by the government. You can't even publish a book inside China without government approval. Scholars who challenge the Party line on history risk losing their jobs and even sent to prison.

In most Western countries, if you can get a publishing house to publish your book, no matter how it questions the conventional wisdom on history, you can get it published. You typically don't lose your job for challenging the CV on historical topics in Western countries (though Europe is beginning to experience some thought control on some issues.)

If you can't see the difference between the two, that I would say that you are hopelessly blind to reality.

Actually several Nation's who suffered under Nazi Germany banned anything that goes against "What they say happend." which changes from Country to county.

No major publishing house would take on the book "Black Massacre" because of what it showed happening during WW2 and it was a fact based book [using Government documents.]

The Government have the ability to ban what they count as "extreme" they have just yet to do it [often].

The only difference is, The Chinese Government clearly paint their own history, the Western Government's hide it better.

Originally posted by chinawhite
its the destrustion caused.

CAT-1

-- No real damage to buildings or structures.
-- Shrubs, loose signs and unanchored mobile homes may sustain
some damage. Coastal flooding is possible.

CAT-3

-- Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some damage to small residences.
-- Some large trees blown down. Some mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed.
-- Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures.
-- Terrain lower than 5 ft above sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more.
-- Example: Hurricane Fran hit North Carolina in 1996.

you can see there is no real difference

WHat are you smoking Chinawhite? I have been through all categories of storms (including a category 5) and I can tell you that there is SIGNIFICANT difference in the strength, destructive power, and precipitation between category three and one storms.

Originally posted by chinawhite

yes chinese and mongolians during the past throught of themselves as different people.

Don't forget, you were using the past exploits of the Mongols IN THE PAST to justify current Chinese boundaries.

they both considered themselves barbarians. but during the 700years of intergration of the two cultutres and the fact that mongolians have intergrated into HAN chinese culture.

I think you mean that each regarded the other as barbarians. They haven't had 700 years of integrated culture. The Chinese were third and fourth class citizens during the Yuan Dynasty. There was little mixing between the two groups. The Ming didn't control Mongolia, and during most of the Qing, there was once again a strong separation between the groups. It has only been in the past 100 years, with increased inmigration of Chinese into Southern Mongolia have there been cultural mixing.

Having said that, there is a considerable difference in the culture between the two peoples and the physical differences are visibly obvious.

Of course other ethnic groups dont consider themselves HAN chinese but they are chinese. HAN chiense has a lot of different branches that now consider themselves different cultures like the Hakka. Miao Hui.

You might want to ask THEM if they consider themselves to be Chinese!

yes that is all true. but you cant point to old history to show your point

COnsidering that you are using their historical exploits to bolster your territorial claims, it is most certainly relavant.

The manchus have no pyhical difference from HAN chinese.

Have you ever been to northern Heilongjiang, where there are still significant populations of Manchus who have not intermarried with ethnic Chinese? They are generally fairer skinned and taller than those further to the south.

chinese people have been migrating to chinas outer areas during the HAN dynasty.

But only in recent decades have the numbers been enough to alter the ethnic makeup of entire regions.

you cant try say that chinese that are in xingjiang or some areas of tibet only settled there during communist rule

The numbers were very small just four decades ago.

Han chinese is a single ethnic groups with sub-groups.

You don't seem to understand what the meaning of ethnic group is.

It is true that different areas of china has different local languages. i speak two local languages and mardarin. these languages are spoken by 1-2million each and is like local variations from mandarin

I am not sure what you mean by that last sentence. I don't think you are saying that the local languages are variations of Mandarin, because outside the north, they are not. They are separate and distinct languages, one of the markers of separate ethnic identity.

wasn't it Qing

No, China derived originally from "Qin" often spelt "Chin" though European languages got it from the Persians, who got it from China.

WHOA! This thread is already at pg 143?? Why is this subject so hot, why don't as many people talk about Iraq or Palestine or Chechnya or something

Think this'll be the first topic to reach 200? Or maybe even 1000, who knows

Originally posted by chinawhite

Right...China was not ready to fight the war.

exactly

That is what I am saying. KMT and CPP were not ready, and have to resort to the worst strategic options. (They basically have to abandon their cities etc)

I think that is why Taiwanese after WW2 considered US more of the liberator. Because it was the US that brings the closure to the battle.

In any case, many Taiwanese welcomed KMT's occupation forces at first(you can find old photos etc on that). There were celebrations etc. But all this leads up to 228 incident... I am sure no Taiwanese consider China the liberators after the incident.

"This thread is already at pg 143?"

I think we're just getting started. Allot of ground to cover yet.

Originally posted by bodebliss
"This thread is already at pg 143?"

I think we're just getting started. Allot of ground to cover yet.

My sentiments exactly. I posted TWICE a question about the cultural/social impact of such a confrontation with China, but everyone refused to move on and cover new ground on the matter.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by bodebliss
"This thread is already at pg 143?"

I think we're just getting started. Allot of ground to cover yet.

My sentiments exactly. I posted TWICE a question about the cultural/social impact of such a confrontation with China, but everyone refused to move on and cover new ground on the matter.

Put it up again and I'll give it ago.

I think I might just make some "Copy/Paste" documents, where I store all the answers to the other questions.

It's 143pages of the same thing to be honest...

Originally posted by ludahai
WHat are you smoking Chinawhite? I have been through all categories of storms (including a category 5) and I can tell you that there is SIGNIFICANT difference in the strength, destructive power, and precipitation between category three and one storms.

look at the destruction caused.

Originally posted by ludahai
Don't forget, you were using the past exploits of the Mongols IN THE PAST to justify current Chinese boundaries.

if china was using past exploits than we would be claiming the middle east and all the way to poland

I think you mean that each regarded the other as barbarians.

yes

They haven't had 700 years of integrated culture. The Chinese were third and fourth class citizens during the Yuan Dynasty. There was little mixing between the two groups. The Ming didn't control Mongolia,

not living together but sharing the same cultures. most mongols that came to china actually took up chinese dress and names.

the Ming dynasty controlled inner mongolia

and during most of the Qing, there was once again a strong separation between the groups. It has only been in the past 100 years, with increased inmigration of Chinese into Southern Mongolia have there been cultural mixing.

you mean the banner groups?

china since the Han dynasty has controlled "southern/inner" mongolia

Having said that, there is a considerable difference in the culture between the two peoples and the physical differences are visibly obvious.

yes difference between Han and mongolian. not chinese

You might want to ask THEM if they consider themselves to be Chinese!

why dont you ask them.

COnsidering that you are using their historical exploits to bolster your territorial claims, it is most certainly relavant.

old expliots. we never gave them up

Have you ever been to northern Heilongjiang, where there are still significant populations of Manchus who have not intermarried with ethnic Chinese? They are generally fairer skinned and taller than those further to the south.

compared to who? southern chinese

But only in recent decades have the numbers been enough to alter the ethnic makeup of entire regions.

no, the communist forced the people to get along. there were significant numbers of chinese in xingjiang and tibet but they stayed in their own areas and didn't interact with the locals

The numbers were very small just four decades ago.

the popultion of xingjiang was small four decades ago

You don't seem to understand what the meaning of ethnic group is.

i mean these people are from the Han chiense but broken off to form their own group.

I am not sure what you mean by that last sentence. I don't think you are saying that the local languages are variations of Mandarin, because outside the north, they are not. They are separate and distinct languages, one of the markers of separate ethnic identity.

i dont know every language spoken in those areas but i know form my experience that each area speaks mandarin and a local language.

because from the area i come from in the south we were originally from the north .