網路城邦
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇  字體:
"Die for a tie?"
2016/09/13 03:08:42瀏覽347|回應1|推薦6

I came to Taiwan from Hong Kong with my parents and started my first grade compulsory education in late July or early August 1953, almost the same time as the truce treaty of Korean War was signed among China, US, and North Korea.  We moved to Taiwan not becasue Taiwan had been "safer" due to US 7th carrier fleet already regularly cruised in Taiwan Strait; rather, because we had no other places to go to, and my father, as a former KMT officer, couldn't find a "decent" job to scratch a living in Hong Kong for his families .

Later on when I grew up, my father told me that before Korean War broke out in June, 1950, my grandfather, then an attorney-at-law among rare lawyers in Taiwan, refused to buy a new pair of feather shoes because he didn't want to jump into Pacific Ocean with new shoes on.  His brother, a high-rank KMT officer, was busy buying fishing boats under the name of "boosting fisheries"; actually the boats were the vessels for his further fleeing from Taiwan in case PLA landed on the island.  Therefore, for a long time I had been imbued with a notion that it was Korean War that kept Taiwan from being "liberated".  It is not totally true.

In fact, just two days after the War had begun, America anounced to "neutralize" Taiwan and dispatched its fleet into the strait.  On the other hand, not until mid October, 1950 when US and UN troops approaching Yalu River, did China's Mainland send her volunteer army into the War.  Hence it is obvious that what America did was a stark invasion on China's land: Taiwan( at least a rude intervention on China's internal affairs); whereas China was forced to defend before the enemies had been marching closely to her gate.  To put it in a nutshell, it was America's invasion on Taiwan, rather than China's participating in Korean War, that "saved" Taiwan.    

By the way, who died for a tie in the War, US and UN, North Korea, South Korea, or China?  Kindly refer to a perspicacious analysis by "寒竹:寫在朝鮮戰争停戰六十年之際" at http://www.guancha.cn/HanZhu/2016_07_28_161712.shtml

( 創作散文 )
回應 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇

引用
引用網址:https://classic-blog.udn.com/article/trackback.jsp?uid=kkuo0810&aid=74012768

 回應文章

reaizuguo*😻新四大發明
等級:8
留言加入好友
中美並非打成平手。
2016/09/13 08:35

50年志願軍從鴨綠江畔開打,一口氣潰敗美聯軍至漢城以南。
之後,因志願軍沒有海空的支援而受限於長距離的補給,雙方在38線附近拉鋸。
最後,53年停戰在38度線。
所以朝鮮戰爭的第三階段,中美對決,亦即抗美援朝,
志願軍從鴨綠江畔到38度線,打出了700公里的縱深,是明顯的贏家。
"Die for a Tie" has nothing to do with the apparent and clear winner, the Chinese Volunteer Army, .

另外,美軍在朝鮮半島羞辱性的落敗,也使得美國情報機構成為日後抹黑和妖魔化毛澤東的主導核心 (至少是主要因素之一)。

Retiredbum(kkuo0810) 於 2016-09-14 09:15 回覆:
China won the war, strategically as well as tactically!