[Edited for brevity:]
Taiwan’s status is not clear to me. Here are two snippets that I hope will give some idea why:
Oh s**t there goes the KMT…
Hang on - shouldn’t China be restored to Taiwan?
And aren’t there, like, a kazillion nonsensical and utterly pointless threads on this very non-subject?
Taiwan’s status not clear? Wow… whodathunkit…
not enough…
one new thread on any document or speech that shows the real truth is needed.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]not enough…
one new thread on any document or speech that shows the real truth is needed.[/quote]
That’s right. Keep everything separate and disconnected. Way to get your point across, Einstein! 
A daft stupid pointless argument about a bunch of daft wee clowns living in a daft wee stupid pissant non-country needs to be kept as unified as possible. Even then, it’ll still be no more than a stupid wee back-and-forth about absolutely nothing at all.
[quote=“sandman”]And aren’t there, like, a kazillion nonsensical and utterly pointless threads on this very non-subject?[/quote] My apologies, sandman. It was late (or early) when I made the original post, but I’m pretty sure that I posted it in the “No UN Bid This Year” thread. I posted it because some posters in that thread seemed to express a great deal of confidence as to what Taiwan’s status was. I was attempting to put to rest the notion that the issue could be put to rest (except perhaps by accepting it as something that can’t be adequately resolved; I understand the futility of such an undertaking, but it was the wee hours of the morning).
I guess one of the mods moved the post as somehow off topic, and gave it its current title. But who knows? Maybe I was delirious because of the lateness of the hour, and started a new thread without knowing it.
Originally the post had quotes from newspaper sources and from one book, but when I saw the post standing alone, I deleted those quotes, because my view–which is somewhat similar to yours–is that as a thread-starter, my post is almost devoid of meaning.
Again, my apologies. I’m surprised that anyone responded to the original post, and I wouldn’t mind at all if the thread were moved to Temp.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]not enough…
one new thread on any document or speech that shows the real truth is needed.[/quote]
The real truth? As opposed to the fradulent?
I agree, Red China should absolve itself of itself and rename itself the Rep of China , using the Rep of China flag and constitution. It should give some seats to the KMT as well as the DPP
Well, I see the thread’s still here, so I might as well dump some more:
[quote]Prior to MacArthur’s cable the joint chiefs of staff had decided to abandon Formosa. But this cable bucked them up. As a result, they have now agreed unanimously, have recommended that Formosa be claimed as Japanese territory and that a detachment of United States Marines, now on Guam, be landed.[/quote] (Drew Pearson, “State Department Suddenly Tones Down Criticism of Chiang Kai-shek,” Washington Merry-Go-Round, St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, July 14, 1949) So according to Pearson, in 1949 the joint chiefs seemed to think they had the right to occupy Taiwan “as Japanese territory.”
[quote]How the Japanese Foreign Office is thinking of the peace treaty is revealed in a document . . . called “Preparatory Measures for the Peace Treaty Conference.”
Dealing with Formosa, the [Japanese] document assumes that the Allies will ask for its return to China.[/quote] (Jack Percival, “Why U.K.-U.S. Want Treaty with Japan,” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 24, 1949) You can’t return something you don’t have.
[quote][In October of 1950, John Foster Dulles said to Dean Acheson that] the Japan peace treaty . . . would “formally remove Formosa from Japanese sovereignty.” . . . [/quote] (Richard C. Bush, At Cross Purposes: U.S.-Taiwan Relations Since 1942) (Italics and bracketed material added by me.) You can’t remove what’s not there. So in 1950 Dulles is saying that sovereignty over Taiwan still belongs to Japan.
[quote]April 28 (A.A.P.)–Nationalist China today signed a separate peace treaty with Japan.
Under the Japanese-Chinese treaty, Japan renounces any right to Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. . . .[/quote] (“Peace with Japan–Formosa Signs Separate Pact,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 29, 1952) (Italics added by me.) To me, this looks like the international equivalent of a quitclaim deed. except that in a quitclaim, one party renounces all claims in favor of another party, but in this case Japan did not renounce its rights in favor of anyone.
Here’s one reason for Japan’s relinquishing Taiwan into thin air:
[quote]London proposed that in the peace treaty Japan relinquish its sovereignty over Taiwan and return it specifically to the government of the PRC. . . .
[Britain and the U.S. reached a compromise and] agreed that neither the Chinese nationalist government nor the mainland government would be invited to sign the San Francisco peace treaty in the fall.[/quote](Qingxin Ken Wang, Hegemonic Cooperation and Conflict: Postwar Japan’s Policy and the United States) (Bracketed material added by me.) Britain recognized the PRC and not the ROC. The U.S., vice versa. Britain wanted Taiwan to go to the PRC, and the U.S. wanted it to go to the ROC. So they compromised, and Japan granted it to no one.
Again:
[quote][T]he United States overrode Britain’s proposal to have Japan cede Taiwan in favor of “China.” Instead Japan simply renounced claim to the island without specifying the new possessor.[/quote] (John W. Garver, The Sino-American Alliance)
This next one is from 1944. It’s a little bit of a stretch, but I think this reveals another possible consideration that may have contributed to the U.S. not being too crazy about letting the ROC have legal sovereignty over Taiwan:
[quote]Chiang, at best, is a short term investment. It is not believed that he has the intelligence or the political strength to run post-war China. The leaders of post war China will be brought forward by evolution or revolution, and it now appears more likely the latter.[/quote] (Vice President Henry A. Wallace, in a report after his visit to China in the summer of 1944, quoted in the Associated Press, “Wallace Report Is Sought by Senators,” St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, January 19, 1950)
IF the allies had kept Taiwan as Japanese territory there will be no Republic of China in existance today as there wouldve been no where to flee for the KMT’s ROC when the CCP took over China.
Or the KMT couldve perhaps retreated to Hainan island instead.
[quote=“tommy525”]IF the allies had kept Taiwan as Japanese territory there will be no Republic of China in existance today as there wouldve been no where to flee for the KMT’s ROC when the CCP took over China.[/quote] Well, the Allies were tired of fighting, and France and Britain were having bad financial problems. I read that there were serious food shortages in Europe after the war.
As for the U.S., it quickly demobilized after the war. It demobilized so quickly and thoroughly that it was unprepared for the Korean War. I don’t think most Americans would have much liked the idea of taking on new burdens, especially military ones. I know they got good and sick of the Korean War after a while.
So at San Francisco, Britain and the U.S. tried to work out the best deal they could, considering that they had different views and goals (especially that Britain recognized the PRC and the U.S. recognized the ROC). And the best deal they could come up with was a non-deal deal.
My main point, though, which was about Taiwan’s status, was something like “What a mess!” Taiwan has been in this strange in-between state for, what, 64 years? It’s like, Taiwan is permanently temporary. When I think about that, and when I think about what has happened to Taiwan over the past hundred years or so, I think they’ve turned out quite well.
The longer I live here in Taiwan, the harder it is for me to be critical of the Taiwanese for being apprehensive and for just wanting to resolve the issue, even if it means ultimate unification.
I agree, Red China should absolve itself of itself and rename itself the Rep of China , using the Rep of China flag and constitution. It should give some seats to the KMT as well as the DPP[/quote]
This post shows why Forumosa needs to adopt my ROC smiley -
img29.imageshack.us/img29/4527/rocanimt3.gif
Let’s see what Tommy’s post would look like if he could use it
I agree, Red China should dissolve itself of itself and rename itself the Rep of China , using the Rep of China flag and constitution.
[/quote]