Talk:Loss of China

June-September 2012

This is not how an unbiased article looks like. No unbiased article will quote Noam Chomsky on politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.113.201.93 (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is a stub and should naturally be expanded. But the quote from Noam Chomsky is clearly attributable so that I don't see any problems. You don't have to agree with what Noam Chomsky wrote. However, it is factually confirmed that he wrote this. --Edcolins (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is one of bias, not facts. Chomsky is a reflexive critic of U.S. foreign policy and the stub may as well have been written by him, since most of the content consists of Chomsky's own words. There is no balance whatsoever. Furthermore, the loss of China is a subject worthy of a Wikipedia article not because Mao won - otherwise the article should just be merged with that on the Chinese Civil War - but because of the domestic consequences of that victory in the United States - hence the links I added at the end. The quote from Chomsky doesn't reveal that at all. It makes the article not just biased but barking up the wrong tree. This is an exemplary case of how shortening a stub would improve its quality. Obviously the article should be expanded, but until that happens it is better off without the Chomsky quote than with it. It adds nothing, simply misleads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.227.59 (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I have used two further sources to modestly start elaborating on the domestic U.S. implications of the "loss of China". --Edcolins (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added further references and I have removed the POV tag for now. --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote should go. It isn't so much about the "Loss of China" specifically, but a Chomskian thesis on American imperialism. Chomsky is playing cheap word games here (which is his stock and trade). Thus, the quote reads "[i]n 1949, China declared independence." Really? Which China is he talking about? And independence from who? If he is talking about Mao's China (rather that Chang's China) then when was it that Mao's China was dependent upon the "West" in the first place? There are no answers to these questions because Chomsky's premise is bogus, neither China declared independence in 1949. Chomsky gives us another nugget, "[i]t is only possible to lose something that one owns." Really? Is that so? This statement is so palpably false, it hurts. Chomsky knows it is false, but we've seen this pattern before. Obviously one can "lose" something that one does not own, like another's property in one's custody, like a valued teammate, or a good friend. In the case the "Loss of China," it was the loss of friendship, access and/or influence that the West had formerly enjoyed in most of China before the Second World War. The Loss of China is thus the turning (by means of Maoist arms, rather than declaring "independence") of most of China away from the Western Sphere of Influence to the Soviet Sphere of Influence, from Western alliance and community, to a Soviet alliance and community. None of these things are validly "ownership," as Chomsky would have us accept. If "independence" were the right word, it would not come to Maoist China until it's emergence from the soviet shadow in the 1950's. But certainly the Soviets never "owned" China either. The Chomsky quote is garbage and, in context, unacceptably POV. It should be moved to a page about Analytic Philosophers run amok. Criticality (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Your analysis of the Chomsky's quote appears to be original research (Wikipedia:No original research) and cannot therefore justify the removal of the quote. That would certainly amount to censor the opinion of one scholar, who is providing a particular angle of interpretation on the subject at stake. --Edcolins (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky's a linguist, that's the extent of his scholarship. His historical and political analysis never rises above fire and brimstone sermons to be preached to the converted. How many scholars in these fields have ever used Chomsky as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.227.59 (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Many... A Google Scholar search for ""Noam Chomsky" politics" should help you to find this out. --Edcolins (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

By including a single perspective without anything to balance it, the article fails WP:NPOV's requirement that all significant views be represented. Since many people used this phrase and meant it, it's obviously not true that all significant views agree with Chomsky. I'd find sources if I could, so that they could be added, but I don't know where to start. Perhaps you could look for sources that see "loss" here as in the sense of losing a war, in which it is quite possible to lose something that one does not "own". Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. If other significant views have been expressed on the terminology "Loss of China" and on the meaning of "loss" in that term, these views of course have to be added to the article. I obviously agree. However, I wonder whether any other scholar actually analyzed this term in this context and it seems you haven't provided any source to back your assumption. Is your assumption based on anything concrete? --Edcolins (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for now, since this does not seem to be an active NPOV dispute. Please feel free to reinsert it if you feel that my reply was not enough. --Edcolins (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

September 2015

Chomsky's quote is garbage, it contains no factual information, and is intended to mislead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.33.7 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems you don't agree with Chomsky's opinion. This is not a reason, however, to remove the quote (WP:UNCENSORED). --Edcolins (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

2017

How about fundamentally wrong information? Is it enough to remove that quote? China didn't declare independence in 1949, what happened was the founding of the People's Republic of China, not a declaration of independence, which never showed up in the original text. Anyone who has read the original Chinese text would know how wrong that quote is. 131.170.239.14 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than the misinformation, the quote is also intentionally misleading. Saying "lose sth" doesn't necessarily mean you own that thing, for example, a party can lose another party as an ally, like France and UK lost Russia as an ally in WW1 after the October Revolution, but before that neither France nor UK OWNED Russia. It's just a play of words. 131.170.239.14 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with Chomsky's opinion is not a reason for deleting the quote (WP:UNCENSORED). I have reinserted it. The quote only reflects, in my understanding, the perception of the events in the U.S. at that time. The article is exactly about that, i.e. about the perceptions of the events in the U.S. --Edcolins (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not if the quote states something fundamentally wrong. China DIDN'T declare independence in 1949, do you agree with this fact? If so, I wonder if presenting such a wrong statement in a prominent position is in consistence with presenting truths and facts. It seems to be more consistent with the perceived bias many found in Wikipedia. 128.250.0.211 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the words "In 1949, China declared independence (...)" shouldn't be taken literally, so that the statement is not fundamentally wrong. When read in context (here), this makes a lot of sense. In my understanding, Chomsky's idea -of course, I am not asking you to agree with him- is that before 1949 the U.S. took for granted that they would control the Far East (incl. China), but the 1949 events, i.e. "the unexpected Communist Party takeover of mainland China from the American-backed Nationalists", came as a form of declaration of independence from the U.S. sphere of influence. See the paragraph preceding the statement:

"The plans that Kennan helped formulate and implement took for granted that the US would control the western hemisphere, the Far East, the former British empire (including the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East), and as much of Eurasia as possible, crucially its commercial and industrial centers. These were not unrealistic objectives, given the distribution of power. But decline set in at once."

--Edcolins (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If that sentence is interpreted particularly in this way, yes it makes some sense. However, given the total lack of quotation marks or anything else that can indicate a non-literal interpretation of that sentence, the sentence itself is inherently misleading all the same. Readers without much knowledge of Chinese history will probably be led to believe China was NOT independent prior to 1949, an opinion likely further reinforced by the rest of the quote which suggests USA owned China. What makes things worse, that flawed quote is given such prominence in comparison with other different opinions that it can not be seen as merely one of several co-existing opinions, but the MOST IMPORTANT one among them. This is not how an objective or NPOV article is supposed to do. 128.250.0.211 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I have restructured the article by adding section headings, and have also added a note to explain that Chomsky's sentence shouldn't be taken literally. Hopefully these changes are helpful. --Edcolins (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the work, now it's much more objective and readable. Cheers 128.250.0.194 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

On October 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China was formally established, with its national capital at Beijing. "The Chinese people have stood up!" declared Mao as he announced the creation of a "people's democratic dictatorship." The people were defined as a coalition of four social classes: the workers, the peasants, the petite bourgeoisie, and the national-capitalists. The four classes were to be led by the CCP, as the vanguard of the working class. At that time the CCP claimed a membership of 4.5 million, of which members of peasant origin accounted for nearly 90 percent. The party was under Mao's chairmanship, and the government was headed by Zhou Enlai ( 1898-1976) as premier of the State Administrative Council (the predecessor of the State Council).

The Soviet Union recognized the People's Republic on October 2, 1949. Earlier in the year, Mao had proclaimed his policy of "leaning to one side" as a commitment to the socialist bloc. In February 1950, after months of hard bargaining, China and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance, valid until 1980. The pact also was intended to counter Japan or any power's joining Japan for the purpose of aggression.

For the first time in decades a Chinese government was met with peace, instead of massive military opposition, within its territory. The new leadership was highly disciplined and, having a decade of wartime administrative experience to draw on, was able to embark on a program of national integration and reform. In the first year of Communist administration, moderate social and economic policies were implemented with skill and effectiveness. The leadership realized that the overwhelming and multitudinous task of economic reconstruction and achievement of political and social stability required the goodwill and cooperation of all classes of people. Results were impressive by any standard, and popular support was widespread.

By 1950 international recognition of the Communist government had increased considerably, but it was slowed by China's involvement in the Korean War. In October 1950, sensing a threat to the industrial heartland in northeast China from the advancing United Nations (UN) forces in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), units of the PLA--calling themselves the Chinese People's Volunteers--crossed the YaluJiang () River into North Korea in response to a North Korean request for aid. Almost simultaneously the PLA forces also marched into Xizang to reassert Chinese sovereignty over a region that had been in effect independent of Chinese rule since the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911. In 1951 the UN declared China to be an aggressor in Korea and sanctioned a global embargo on the shipment of arms and war materiel to China. This step foreclosed for the time being any possibility that the People's Republic might replace Nationalist China (on Taiwan) as a member of the UN and as a veto-holding member of the UN Security Council.

source: http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history/prc.html

Though only nominally democratic, the Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek continued to receive U.S. support both as its former war ally and as the sole option for preventing Communist control of China. U.S. forces flew tens of thousands of Nationalist Chinese troops into Japanese-controlled territory and allowed them to accept the Japanese surrender.

source: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/chinese-rev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8205:5D00:50CB:2231:5AB4:8159 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)