June 7, 1989
On the front page of the "Los Angeles Times" a photo from Beijing, the caption:
"Beijing strollers pass hulks of trucks that were reportedly abandoned and torched by rebel troops."
So, reading this, was I being told that the rebel troops were different from the troops that drove those trucks? Or that they HAD been driving them but rebelled and did not follow orders? Then, what happened to those rebel troops that torched those trucks?
From the same front page, various articles indicate that things really were wobbly at the top and -
one article by John M. Broder, Times Staff Writer, was headlined as follows:
MAY BE PREPARING TO FIGHT ITSELF
China Military Divided by Regional, Ethnic Rivalries
"The deep divisions that have torn the Chinese military in the wake of the student democracy movement stem from personal, regional and ethnic rivalries, some dating to the early days of the Chinese revolution, according to American analysts."
"according to American analysts" at the end of that paragraph; were these analysts that didn't know what in the hell they were talking about? I mean, it seems incredible now, looking back, how the picture was being painted that China really was on the verge of a civil war, an all-out breakdown that had been simmering for years.
Did this characterization of imminent civil war and directing blame for the "crackdown" by the 27th Army give a chance for the leadership to survive scrutiny in those first few days?
And China was a dangerous place to be with imminent civil war, you don't want to be in Beijing, especially or venturing out or asking any questions. Get out of Dodge. Don't look for human remains or ask WHY trucks were torched and by whom. Just leave.
On the front page of the "Los Angeles Times" a photo from Beijing, the caption:
"Beijing strollers pass hulks of trucks that were reportedly abandoned and torched by rebel troops."
So, reading this, was I being told that the rebel troops were different from the troops that drove those trucks? Or that they HAD been driving them but rebelled and did not follow orders? Then, what happened to those rebel troops that torched those trucks?
From the same front page, various articles indicate that things really were wobbly at the top and -
one article by John M. Broder, Times Staff Writer, was headlined as follows:
MAY BE PREPARING TO FIGHT ITSELF
China Military Divided by Regional, Ethnic Rivalries
"The deep divisions that have torn the Chinese military in the wake of the student democracy movement stem from personal, regional and ethnic rivalries, some dating to the early days of the Chinese revolution, according to American analysts."
"according to American analysts" at the end of that paragraph; were these analysts that didn't know what in the hell they were talking about? I mean, it seems incredible now, looking back, how the picture was being painted that China really was on the verge of a civil war, an all-out breakdown that had been simmering for years.
Did this characterization of imminent civil war and directing blame for the "crackdown" by the 27th Army give a chance for the leadership to survive scrutiny in those first few days?
And China was a dangerous place to be with imminent civil war, you don't want to be in Beijing, especially or venturing out or asking any questions. Get out of Dodge. Don't look for human remains or ask WHY trucks were torched and by whom. Just leave.
Comments
Post a Comment