Erm no, Americans were only able to achieve independence because France intervened. They would have been completely crushed otherwise, and this is not even an hyperbole.
I know that the Americans have a creation myth where they see the British as unspeakably evil and Americans as an oppressed people, but the reality is that the situation was very messy and there were differing views on all sides.
The fact is that American independence actually had some sympathy among the British establishment. This made the Treaty of Paris possible, which made American Independence legal and recognised internationally. There is no longer a disagreement about the status of the United States because of this.
There is no such support for Taiwanese independence in China and I cannot see them ever recognising a Taiwanese State, no matter how badly they lose a war. Without Chinese recognition i cant see Taiwan ever getting much recognition internationally.
How can there ever be since China is a totallitarian state with complete control of information and repression of dissidents? They have setup the game to have a consensus that everyone else is Evil and they are the only ones in the right.
There's no doubt the French were instrumental in, par exemple, Yorktown. But my admittedly not well-informed view is that "crushed" is a significant overstatement.
Going by your logic the US involvement in WWII wasn't significant because it didn't started with the war. History manuals are saying otherwise though.
Without those guns and support, the revolution would have been dead before it even started.
because you don't set up a massive expedition like that from one day to another, especially in the 1700s. I know we are all used to Amazon-speed these days but just even knowing WHAT was happening on another continent took months at the time.
Xinjiang is ethnically and culturally (Muslim) different than the rest of China. It would be more like Hong Kong.
The comment you're responding to is more about PRC actions in those regions. The PRC will commit genocide in Taiwan if they need to do it to stamp out any lingering sentiment of independence, like they are doing in Xinjiang.
I think it was more because Japan attacked the US. Germany and Japan were allies and Hitler was developing intercontinetal rockets. If I read it right the US was very "America First" before Pearl Harbour. How ironic that the U.S got back to America First again...
I agree that the attack, and the sinking of America's warships touched a nerve with the public. Americans loved their warships and were very proud of them, and an attack on them simply incensed people.
I'm reading the chapter about 6 December 1941. I think I know what comes next.
BTW, Hitler was not thinking about developing intercontinental rockets until late in the war, so no Americans would have worried about it at that point. At 1941, I don't think the V-2 was even on the drawing board. But you're right about "America First", particularly the Republicans. FDR was itching to get into the European war, as I read it, although his opinion of the British Empire was rather low.
As long as Taiwan doesn't declare its independence, China won't be in a hurry to integrate Taiwan. Why would it attack Taiwan and destroy its own assets? That would be like the US attacking Hawaii and bombing Honolulu.
On the other hand, if Hawaii declared its independence, the US would not hesitate to attack it and bring it 'back to the fold', as happened with the Confederacy only a hundred and sixty years ago. As the US goes, so then China.
Taiwan is the remnants of the losing party of the Chinese civil war, that ran away to the island of Taiwan/Formosa, and assimilated the locals. It's like if the Confederacy run away to Hawaii and genocided the locals. They're not a separate country legally, and don't even claim to be.
I would ask the author: “has China been engaging in…say economic warfare…which might make the USA think handing them Taiwan is not a good idea?”
The argument “but you have been inconsistent” is a non argument. The argument “but we deserve to have Taiwan” being portrayed here is a non argument.
The entire argument by the author is very suspicious and I suspect he is probably well compensated for producing these deceptive pieces.
Why do you suppose China hasn’t already prevailed?
Taiwan is a hard target. China’s ships crossing the strait will be highly vulnerable, as will aircraft.
What Taiwan needs in order to maintain the current status quo is an improved asymmetric threat leveraging anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles. Ideally such missile systems will be numerous, highly mobile and concealable.
If China knows it can’t land a viable invasion force, hostilities will never begin. That’s aside from the likely involvement of the US and regional allies like South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Australia.
> As Vietnam did, China cares deeply about national unity and immunity from foreign intervention. We fought bravely in Vietnam but lost because Hanoi, despite its military inferiority, cared far more about the outcome than we did. Hanoi was prepared to sacrifice everything to reunite its country. We were not willing to do as much to keep it divided.
> What sacrifices in lives and treasure are Americans prepared to make to assure unilateral self-determination for Taiwan?
The article makes it sound like Taiwan is unreasonable for "unilaterally" not wanting be invaded by a country with overwhelming military superiority and a totalitarian regime. Maybe Taiwan should defer to China's opinion on whether China should invade Taiwan?
I mean, if your opinion is "China can and will invade any smaller neighbors it deems to occupy, there's nothing the US can do to stop them, and we shouldn't waste our lives trying", fine, go ahead and say so.
But stop using language like "divising" and "reuniting" to pretend this is anything other than a totalitarian regime planning its next military conquest to appease the masses.
The article really focuses on the US foreign policy, not Taiwan's. It's just questioning the US's NeoLiberal Foreign Policy strategy & the cost of interventions; like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria...
There could be a civil war in China once the CCP falls.
Why? The article references "Outer Mongolia" too, nobody seems to be clamoring for reunification. State sovereignty splits over geographic areas and populations all the time. Why is reunification a necessity?
> U.S. support for Taiwan’s continuing separation from the rest of China is a perpetuation of foreign imperialist efforts to carve their country into spheres of influence, disrespect the right of Chinese to determine their own destiny...
Oh I see now.
Define "Chinese"?" Do Malay and Singaporean Chinese count? Isn't the author refusing to cede the fact that Taiwanese and mainland Han are diverging cultures an act of denying them self determination? Why must the two groups remain together in perpetuity?
> Beijing has repeatedly emphasized its strong preference for accomplishing national reunification peacefully rather than with a use of force. It has offered to accept what amounts to a symbolic rather than substantive form of reunification to Taiwan. But to “win without fighting,” Beijing must show that, even if the U.S. backs Taiwan, its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would surely win if the two sides were to return to combat, and that Taipei therefore has no realistic alternative to the negotiation of some form of reconciliation with Chinese across the Strait.
Voluntarily come under our sovereignty or else. See, we are peaceful!
> The PLA’s current shows of force are aimed at bringing Taipei back to the negotiating table, which the island abandoned when it elected leaders committed themselves to seek an identity separate from China. So far, Beijing’s shows of force have not changed Taipei’s refusal to talk about “peaceful reunification.” No talks mean no path to peace.
Again, they've democratically opted for self determination and sovereignty over themselves. Why can't the PRC do the same? Where's the imperialism here?
And that comes to the real truth of this matter. The PRC is imperialist. The majority of what we consider to be "China" is under occupation, and has been even under ROC and the Emperor before that. Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, do I need to keep going? These are not regions within China, these are nations under Han imperialist rule, and they have been to different degrees for centuries. Arguing that these nations don't deserve self determination, and then invoking anti-imperialism, the complete lack of self awareness in this article is quite telling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRs5501GExc&list=PLBrPYoChOf...
