That people were killed in Tiananmen Square itself, that the soldiers were the first ones to kill, and that the death toll was something like 10,000. It gets played up on Reddit because of red scare propaganda and plain old chauvinism.
I wasn’t going to say that at first [simply because it’s a bit obnoxious] but since other people are courting drama and I was collecting links from another conversation so it’s convenient to do, so I’ll repost them here:
There was a great deal of violence and many students (along with other protestors, as well as the militants and soldiers) died, so I’ll mark each link with an appropriate content warning, though that’s mostly because the last one is rough, while the ones before it are unlikely to cause people issues.
First, here are video interviews with some of the former student leaders, the first one with Chai Ling actually being before the incident took place. There is some gunfire and yelling that a western news program uses for “ambience”, but nothing is shown. Chai Ling describes a bloody scene, though that specific scene is patently fictional (this is established by the others who are interviewed).
Next is an article which discusses the subject, partly quoting student leaders above. It describes violence in broad strokes but doesn’t have any pictures. It also talks about statements made by a British reporter who was there.
{Caution} Lastly, here’s an article written arguing that the event is misrepresented in mass media. I link it mainly because it includes photographic evidence that is very difficult to argue with for reasons beyond it being difficult to look at. Graphic depiction of stripped corpses of soldiers that were strung up after death.
Obviously there’s more than this, but these were the links I collected recently. Chai Ling says things that are even more unhinged in footage I think they excluded from that excerpt of the interview.
{Caution} Lastly, here’s an article written arguing that the event is misrepresented in mass media. I link it mainly because it includes photographic evidence that is very difficult to argue with for reasons beyond it being difficult to look at. Graphic depiction of stripped corpses of soldiers that were strung up after death.
“Here are photos that show things other than soldiers shooting civilians proving that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians!” isn’t as convincing as you might think it is. And wow, that article doesn’t even pretend to not be straight up propaganda.
No one, myself included, said that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians. Soldiers did shoot civilians. The purpose of the photos is to establish that there was killing of soldiers prior to that point that was evidence of a (likely small) group of very aggressive militants among a faction of the protestors, ones who seemed to be intent on instigating violence. The event was much more complicated than soldiers firing into a crowd in cold blood, and as internal reporting that I linked above mentioned, many people repudiated the image painted in westerners’ minds of soldiers wantonly firing into a crowd of huddled protestors. Their aim plainly was not to kill the peaceful protestors but to capture or kill militants who demonstrated a willingness to kill in cold blood. The civilians who were killed were caught up in that crossfire.
The photos are helpful, but beyond that I think the strongest source are those reports from the US embassy and LA diplomat and the interviews with the student leaders themselves. I would encourage you to look at those.
Their aim plainly was not to kill the peaceful protestors but to capture or kill militants who demonstrated a willingness to kill in cold blood. The civilians who were killed were caught up in that crossfire.
Let’s assume you are right that soldiers never purposefully shot civilians as their main goal. Unless you are claiming that these “militants” were fighting with their own guns, I don’t see how firing blindly into groups of protestors with firearms is that much better?
But I don’t believe that violence against the protestors was never part of the plan. Just like in the US I would never put it past the government to use violence, “accidental” or otherwise, as part of a scenario to suppress a large-scale protest movement.
The militants among the protestors did have petrol bombs and they took guns from at least one flamed-out APC, and the soldiers didn’t know what else they had. Beyond that, the soldiers still weren’t firing blindly into groups of protestors, read the links I posted, even just the brief report from the Latin American diplomat.
That people were killed in Tiananmen Square itself, that the soldiers were the first ones to kill, and that the death toll was something like 10,000. It gets played up on Reddit because of red scare propaganda and plain old chauvinism.
I wasn’t going to say that at first [simply because it’s a bit obnoxious] but since other people are courting drama and I was collecting links from another conversation so it’s convenient to do, so I’ll repost them here:
There was a great deal of violence and many students (along with other protestors, as well as the militants and soldiers) died, so I’ll mark each link with an appropriate content warning, though that’s mostly because the last one is rough, while the ones before it are unlikely to cause people issues.
First, here are video interviews with some of the former student leaders, the first one with Chai Ling actually being before the incident took place. There is some gunfire and yelling that a western news program uses for “ambience”, but nothing is shown. Chai Ling describes a bloody scene, though that specific scene is patently fictional (this is established by the others who are interviewed).
Next is an article which discusses the subject, partly quoting student leaders above. It describes violence in broad strokes but doesn’t have any pictures. It also talks about statements made by a British reporter who was there.
Third, here is secondary reporting leaked on documents from the US Embassy in Beijing and the actual report from a Latin American diplomat that was leaked. The latter revealing contains in its summary: “ALTHOUGH THEIR ACCOUNT GENERALLY FOLLOWS THOSE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, THEIR UNIQUE EXPERIENCES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSIGHT AND CORROBORATION OF EVENTS IN THE SQUARE.” (source text is all caps). There is very little description of violence, just mention of gunfire being present, people being wounded, etc.
{Caution} Lastly, here’s an article written arguing that the event is misrepresented in mass media. I link it mainly because it includes photographic evidence that is very difficult to argue with for reasons beyond it being difficult to look at. Graphic depiction of stripped corpses of soldiers that were strung up after death.
Obviously there’s more than this, but these were the links I collected recently. Chai Ling says things that are even more unhinged in footage I think they excluded from that excerpt of the interview.
“Here are photos that show things other than soldiers shooting civilians proving that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians!” isn’t as convincing as you might think it is. And wow, that article doesn’t even pretend to not be straight up propaganda.
No one, myself included, said that soldiers didn’t shoot civilians. Soldiers did shoot civilians. The purpose of the photos is to establish that there was killing of soldiers prior to that point that was evidence of a (likely small) group of very aggressive militants among a faction of the protestors, ones who seemed to be intent on instigating violence. The event was much more complicated than soldiers firing into a crowd in cold blood, and as internal reporting that I linked above mentioned, many people repudiated the image painted in westerners’ minds of soldiers wantonly firing into a crowd of huddled protestors. Their aim plainly was not to kill the peaceful protestors but to capture or kill militants who demonstrated a willingness to kill in cold blood. The civilians who were killed were caught up in that crossfire.
The photos are helpful, but beyond that I think the strongest source are those reports from the US embassy and LA diplomat and the interviews with the student leaders themselves. I would encourage you to look at those.
Let’s assume you are right that soldiers never purposefully shot civilians as their main goal. Unless you are claiming that these “militants” were fighting with their own guns, I don’t see how firing blindly into groups of protestors with firearms is that much better?
But I don’t believe that violence against the protestors was never part of the plan. Just like in the US I would never put it past the government to use violence, “accidental” or otherwise, as part of a scenario to suppress a large-scale protest movement.
The militants among the protestors did have petrol bombs and they took guns from at least one flamed-out APC, and the soldiers didn’t know what else they had. Beyond that, the soldiers still weren’t firing blindly into groups of protestors, read the links I posted, even just the brief report from the Latin American diplomat.
GOOD POST