Without the Korean War happening and with China ramping up their naval capabilities, would Taiwan have fallen into the Commie’s hands in the 50s without the US coming to CKS’s aid?
And why is there a Roosevelt Road right by that memorial again? Who can refresh my memory just quick.
Like I’ve already proved, the USMG would have been in charge of Taiwan without CKS. By being here and frustrating Truman, CKS actually put Taiwan into more danger had the Korean war not have erupted.
It’s always been the US that prevents Taiwan from a CCP invasion. It was the fact in 1945, it’s still the fact today.
1 Like
Truman’s decision to fire MacArthur for insubordination was the right one. MacArthur was a megalomaniac, and probably would have started a war with China and the Soviet Union.
Didn’t Roosevelt say speak softly and eliminate the Xindian Rail line while building a massive unfriendly road?
Or something like that.
Guy
Yeah, but the US clearly didn’t feel like protecting Taiwan in the first half of 1950 (all in the US library 
)
Please. That’s purely hypothetical. The material you quoted doesn’t prove anything.
This I agree with. But CKS and the KMT government played an important role in this process. And also the development of a vibrant democracy after the KMT lost control.
Actually North Korea played the important role.
One factor of many.
For those willing to actually read about the joint-US-Chinese occupation of Taiwan, the document Occupation of Formosa by the Combined Chinese - United States Staff is the final guideline for the occupation of Taiwan.
“Occupation of Formosa,” (MD: NARA), RG493, box17, Entry No.UD-UP590
Despite delegating civil and military governance of the enemy territory to the ROC, the occupation of Taiwan is a joint US-ROC effort, and the US is responsible to provide support through the Taiwan Liaison Office. As a result the US assisted the ROC to ferry troops over to Taiwan, since as stated in previous documents, the ROC didn’t have the navy to occupy Taiwan.
1 Like
One of the great con jobs of the KMT was to discursively depict the Japanese colonial period as the Japanese “occupation” even though the Treaty of Shimonoseki had effectively transferred sovereignty to Japan in perpetuity.
Based on the post-1945 dispensation, it was the KMT that were the actual occupiers, without ever being granted sovereignty in any formal treaty. (And please don’t bring up the Potsdam Declaration, which was a mere statement of intent—it’s the Treaty of San Franscisco, in which the ROC / KMT remain unnamed, that matters).
Guy
2 Likes
Exactly, but the KMT occupied Taiwan together with the US, the US just chose to not mention it anymore. Throughout the 50s to the 70s, the communist world often criticized the US for its armed occupation of Taiwan.
“Recognizing that the invasion and occupation of Taiwan by the armed forces of the Government of the United States of America constitute open and direct aggression against Chinese territory;
Tension in the Taiwan area was due to United States “armed occupation of Taiwan and interference in China’s internal affairs” and a Sino-American meeting of Foreign Ministers should be held to deal with this question; that a statement on the renunciation of force “must lead to the elimination of the force and threat of force employed by the United States in the Taiwan area, and cannot possibly be utilized to induce China to accept the status quo of United States occupation of Taiwan”;
So even Communist China knew Taiwan was jointly occupied by the US and the KMT.
At the same time, the US has never given Taiwan to the ROC as a territory. It’s always recognized as an occupied enemy territory, with governance trusted to the Allied forces.
“The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.
The present United States position with respect to Formosa is contained in the following statement from the announcement by the President on 27 June 1950:
Accordingly, I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary to this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
1 Like
You conveniently ignore the statements by US officials earlier in 1950, showing clearly their disinterest in defending Taiwan.
1 Like
They were disinterested in throwing in money and personnel to occupy Taiwan early 1945 when the US government decided to eventually let ROC takeover Taiwan. The argument in one of those documents is that why should we put in all the work if we are just giving it away anyways.
That all changed once American officials were fed up with CKS and KMT was clearly incapable of defending anything from the CCP. That’s when they were talking about taking over Taiwan if the KMT is incapable of defending it. It’s not the US officials didn’t want to defend Taiwan, it’s that they didn’t want to defend the KMT and CKS in particular.
That however once the Korean war broke out, the US didn’t have time to get rid of CKS.
Dulles and Eisenhower’s position:
I discussed the matter of a security treaty with Nationalist China to cover Formosa and the Pescadores coupled with UN action to deal with the offshore islands under National control such as Quemoy. The President agreed that we should follow this procedure. He said that as far as he was concerned, the United States would never tolerate Formosa and the Pescadores going into unfriendly hands. He also reaffirmed the point I had mentioned, namely, that Formosa and the Pescadores had a distinctive juridical status under the Japanese Peace Treaty. They were not technically under Chinese sovereignty since Japan had made no cession in favor of China.
…
Reverting to Formosa the Secretary stated that the U.S. has an inchoate but legitimate interest in Formosa, title to which was renounced by Japan but was not transferred to China. From an international standpoint it would seem therefore that we are in a better position to defend Formosa than would be the case if Formosa were a part of China.
There should be negotiated a mutual security treaty with the ChiNats covering Formosa and the Pescadores, but not the offshore islands. In this connection it may be noted that Japan never ceded sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to China. Japan renounced its own sovereignty but left the future title undefined. Thus the United States as principal victor of Japan has an unsatisfied interest in these former Japanese islands.
3 Likes
Looks like they’ll keep the building but will remove the statue.
1 Like
Chiang Wan-an is the son of former KMT vice chairman John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), who claims to be a son of Chiang Ching-kuo.
Serious question: Has this never been verified, no blood tests?
If his father and uncle are truely sons of Chiang Jr., these younger generation would have already provided DNA proof.
Feels like a bad choice of name, of all names you could choose from.
Simpler is better. Taiwan Hall
2 Likes
How about Nanmen Square? Right next to the soon-to-be renamed Nanmen MRT Station.
Guy