ВАЖНОЕ: что было на ТяньаньменьkabudMay 12 2012, 00:28:41 UTC
ЭТО ОЧЕНЬ ВАЖНО ИЗУЧИТЬ ЧТОБЫ ИЗБЕЖАТЬ КРОИВОПРОЛИТИЯ В МОСКВЕ. Ниже на английском анализ собтий. ПОка вступление:
тянаньмень действительно организовала КПК, но оказалось что туда пришли ЛЮДИ ТОЖЕ
Если внимательно анализировать события по публикациям например в прессе а потом еще поговорить с участниками..а мне повезло в 1990м поговорить именно с НАШИСТАМИ из так наз. молодежных активистов из Китая, маршрутированных в США(!) Также мне рассказал кое что человек который втретился с НАСТОЯЩИМ активистом Сопротивления из Китая, который в отличие от НАШИСТОВ вынужден был жить под охраной властей США, как на программе защиты свидетелей. Его в свое время в Китае подвергли издевательствам и был он..инвалидом.
А НАШИСТЫ типичная гебня: здоровенные наглые амбалы, крайне уверенные в себе и т.д. Учились в одном из ведущих американских уноверситетах известном тем, что КГБ и партия обычно туда направляла своих 'кадров', выдавая их тут в штатах за 'дисидентов'.
Лучше всего Тяньаньмень проанализировал Анатолий Голицин в книге: Обман перестройки. Книга состоит из меморандумов для ЦРУ, рассекреченых на каком то моменте.
Процитирую ввиду особой важности со страницы 107, в документе ПДФ 129й
The Chinese Communist Party itself started as a student movement.
It is logical, therefore, that the Party strategists should have chosen to follow this tradition and should have attempted to introduce 'democracy' in China through the active participation of their students.
The more important arguments which support this analysis are as follows:
(1) The initiators and the core of the student pro-democracy demonstration were the children of Communist Party officials - in fact the generation from which the future leaders of Communist China will be drawn.
(2) According to some reports, the movement was initiated in the Research Institute for Social Change.
(3) The students are said to have had supporters in the ruling Party elite, socalled 'reformers' like Zhao who was allegedly the catalyst of the movement.
(4) The demonstrators were not calling for a rejection of the socialist system or for the overthrow of the Government.
Banners were observed which read: 'We firmly support the correct leadership of the Communist Party'.
The demonstrators' demands were rather modest: an end to corrupt practices and 'a meaningful dialogue' with the country's leaders.
(5) During the first period of the demonstration there was toleration of, if not cooperation with, the demonstrators by the Party and its officials.
There was no army interference with, or repression of, the students.
(6) The Party's toleration of the demonstration was evident in the shape of its cooperative attitude towards Western television coverage of the events, which were shown in detail on Western TV networks.
(7) The orderliness of the demonstration and the singing of the Party song, the 'Internationale', contrasted sharply with the violent and hostile demonstrations of South Korean students which had been taking place in Seoul.
(8) The uninterrupted stream of rumours about an alleged struggle between 'liberal reformers' and 'hardliners' reflected a familiar disinformation technique designed to confuse the West about the true nature of the developments.
It is a fact that these rumours were fed to Western observers by Communist officials themselves.
It appears that both the 'liberals' and the 'hardliners' were using these rumours to manipulate the responses and attitudes of the West, especially the Americans and the Japanese, in the interests of their deception strategy.
Then, suddenly, Western television coverage was cut off and the student prodemocracy demonstration was suppressed.
Why did the Chinese leaders 'change' their line, why the retreat?
Probably, the most important reason was that the original Party-organised demonstration brought out on to the streets genuine spontaneous elements, and the situation threatened to run out of control as the 'Prague spring' of 1968 had done in Czechoslovakia.
тянаньмень действительно организовала КПК, но оказалось что туда пришли ЛЮДИ ТОЖЕ
Если внимательно анализировать события по публикациям например в прессе а потом еще поговорить с участниками..а мне повезло в 1990м поговорить именно с НАШИСТАМИ из так наз. молодежных активистов из Китая, маршрутированных в США(!) Также мне рассказал кое что человек который втретился с НАСТОЯЩИМ активистом Сопротивления из Китая, который в отличие от НАШИСТОВ вынужден был жить под охраной властей США, как на программе защиты свидетелей. Его в свое время в Китае подвергли издевательствам и был он..инвалидом.
А НАШИСТЫ типичная гебня: здоровенные наглые амбалы, крайне уверенные в себе и т.д. Учились в одном из ведущих американских уноверситетах известном тем, что КГБ и партия обычно туда направляла своих 'кадров', выдавая их тут в штатах за 'дисидентов'.
Лучше всего Тяньаньмень проанализировал Анатолий Голицин в книге: Обман перестройки. Книга состоит из меморандумов для ЦРУ, рассекреченых на каком то моменте.
http://archive.org/details/AnatoliyGolitsyn
Процитирую ввиду особой важности со страницы 107, в документе ПДФ 129й
The Chinese Communist Party itself started as a student movement.
It is logical, therefore, that the Party strategists should have chosen to follow
this tradition and should have attempted to introduce 'democracy' in China through the active participation of their students.
The more important arguments which support this analysis are as follows:
(1) The initiators and the core of the student pro-democracy demonstration were the children of Communist Party officials - in fact the generation from which the future leaders of Communist China will be drawn.
(2) According to some reports, the movement was initiated in the Research Institute for Social Change.
(3) The students are said to have had supporters in the ruling Party elite, socalled
'reformers' like Zhao who was allegedly the catalyst of the movement.
(4) The demonstrators were not calling for a rejection of the socialist system or for the overthrow of the Government.
Banners were observed which read: 'We firmly support the correct leadership of the Communist Party'.
The demonstrators' demands were rather modest: an end to corrupt practices and 'a meaningful dialogue' with the country's leaders.
(5) During the first period of the demonstration there was toleration of, if not
cooperation with, the demonstrators by the Party and its officials.
There was no army interference with, or repression of, the students.
(6) The Party's toleration of the demonstration was evident in the shape of its
cooperative attitude towards Western television coverage of the events, which were
shown in detail on Western TV networks.
(7) The orderliness of the demonstration and the singing of the Party song, the 'Internationale', contrasted sharply with the violent and hostile demonstrations of South Korean students which had been taking place in Seoul.
(8) The uninterrupted stream of rumours about an alleged struggle between 'liberal reformers' and 'hardliners' reflected a familiar disinformation technique designed to confuse the West about the true nature of the developments.
It is a fact that these rumours were fed to Western observers by Communist officials themselves.
It appears that both the 'liberals' and the 'hardliners' were using these rumours to manipulate the responses and attitudes of the West, especially the Americans and the Japanese, in the interests of their deception strategy.
Then, suddenly, Western television coverage was cut off and the student prodemocracy
demonstration was suppressed.
Why did the Chinese leaders 'change' their line, why the retreat?
Probably, the most important reason was that the original Party-organised demonstration brought out on to the streets genuine spontaneous elements, and the situation threatened to run out of control as the 'Prague spring' of 1968 had done in Czechoslovakia.
Reply
Leave a comment