- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
More than two-thirds of Taiwanese people would be willing to fight off a Chinese invasion of their island, a new survey found. Just over half of respondents believe that the United States would send its military to help.
Most Taiwanese people would be willing to defend their island against a Chinese attack, according to a poll published Wednesday. Most also believe that such an attack is highly unlikely in the next five years.
The poll, commissioned by the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, was released a day before Taiwan’s National Day.
Should Beijing attack, 67.8% of the 1,214 people surveyed said they would be “very willing or somewhat willing” to fight in defense of Taiwan; 23.6% said they would not be.
Almost 64% said China’s “territorial ambition” in Taiwan represents “a serious threat.” At the same time, 61% said it was not likely China would invade soon.
Some 52% of respondents said that they believed key ally the United States would come to their aid in the invent of a Chinese invasion. Yet, only 40% believed that the US would send its navy to “break” a potential blockade.
You must log in or # to comment.
I think generally most people are willing to defend their home against foreign invaders if it is at all realistic/possible. I have heard people say about refugees “Why dont they defend their homes, then they wouldnt have to flee”. But this obviously only makes sense if there is a chance of winning. When your enemies are overwhelmingly more powerful and you have no allies, then what is the point in dying for nothing.
With Taiwan they know that they have a decent military and worldwide support. So this makes sense to me.
And many flee civil wars which are more complicated than kicking out a foreign invaders.
Yeah good point. When things arent easily sorted into “good” and “bad” then getting people to put together an organized resistance is much much harder.
That’s when a dehumanized other comes in handy.
A Syrian friend in Turkey once explained to me that Turks (who love playing tough but haven’t fought a conventional war since WWI) tell Syrian refugees that they should have stayed and fought… and he’d tell them that no matter how brave you are - and Syrians are in my opinion uniquely brave - “you cannot defeat tanks and aircraft with Kashinkovs. Look at Ukraine, where they have a modern military that is weaker. Look how many left. But Syrians are supposed to fight Russian bombers and Assad’s tanks with their hands?”
Of Ukraine is anything to go off of, initial success in repelling the invasion will lead to a nationalistic wave of support, but as the war devolves into grinding attrition with China unable to get a foothold on Taiwan and the Taiwanese unable to do anything about Chinese firepower raining down on critical infrastructure, the population will want to find some sort of peace deal.
The only ‘peace deal’ would be surrender. They would be returning the attacks on mainland China. They could easily reach any coastal areas: Shanghai, Canton, Hong Kong etc.
Xiamen, a city with a population of more than 4 million people, is directly across the Strait from Taiwan.
The US will sink the entire island before China is allowed to occupy it.
I’m willing to defend my home if the people ruling it are worth defending.
You’d think so, but Europe has some pathetically low numbers for this question, with many countries below 50% and a few in the 30s.
Eh i wouldnt worry about it too much. That number would change very quickly if it came to an actual situation.
Because from 1990-2022, “fight for your country” meant help the US invade some country in the Middle East. No shit no one in Germany or France wants to do that.
Err… Taiwan is refugees, who fled China when Mao won the civil war
And how does that have anything to do with the current political siuation mr troll? People declaring independence is a thing that has been happening everywhere since forever. You think the US should be taken back by the British?
Mainland China has a long history of nearby small islands kicking their ass.
Today is our National Day, which is the day China(modern day Taiwan) defeated the last emperor (Qing dynasty).
Basically it’s our Independence Day.
Most of us are willing to give our lives for our Independence.
DW News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for DW News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Germany
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.dw.com/en/most-taiwanese-would-defend-island-against-china-poll-finds/a-70440750
https://www.dw.com/en/china/t-18480887
https://www.dw.com/en/biden-approves-567-million-in-defense-support-for-taiwan/a-70359348
https://www.dw.com/en/us-taiwan-aid-package-a-signal-to-china-ahead-of-election/a-70405179Typical US hegemony.
Yea sure fella, us hegemony is why China is acting like an imperial douchebag.
That’s definitely it…
Taiwan literally exists because the US intervened in the Chinese civil war to protect the retreating KMT.
That shouldn’t preclude the Taiwanese from the right to self-determination
Even so, it’s important to understand that the PRC views continued US support of Taiwan as part of a long standing policy to interfere with China’s right to self determination. Remember, the PRC came into existence after China was dominated by foreign powers for the better part of a century. If there is to be a peaceful resolution, as all parties proclaim to want, this perspective can’t be casually dismissed.
I’d argue that position would hold more water if politicians didn’t need to be approved before running for office in Hong Kong. I think that’s emblematic of how seriously the CCP takes self-determination.
Hong Kong is actually a perfect example for what I’m talking about. It was a concession China made to the British after losing the first Opium war. As such, it was always going to be a sore spot for the PRC. On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory. The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination. They believed the British were intentionally making it more difficult for the PRC to integrate Hong Kong into its existing political structures. After the handover, the PRC took extreme offense at pro democracy protestors using the old colonial flag for Hong Kong. That was because they perceived it as a call for further foreign interference in Chinese affairs.
On top of that, the British only introduced a pretty limited form of democracy to Hong Kong shortly before it was supposed to relinquish control over the territory
On top of that, the Chinese dictator crushed democracy with military and police force in violation of the unification agreement – proving 100% it absolutely can not be trusted.
The PRC saw this as an attempt by the British to continue interfering with the right for Chinese self determination.
The Chinese have no rights whatsoever in the PRC regime because the Chinese cannot chose their own leaders and determine their own country’s destiny. By “right for Chinese self determination” you actually mean the DICTATOR’s right (one single individual!!) to prevent one billion Chinese citizens from running their own country as they see fit.
I mean yeah the British sucked, but those democracy concessions were hard fought by the people of Hong Kong. I don’t want the big power politics of the crown versus the PRC to distract from the fact that it took people out on the streets to gain it from the British just for them to be snuffed out by Beijing
Even so, it’s important to understand
That’s not the slightest bit important. The Republic of China views the PRC as interfering with China’s self determination. The Republic of China gets to choose its own leaders but the PRC is a dictatorship not chosen by the people. That means that the ROC speaks for millions more Chinese than the PRC does.
If there is to be a peaceful resolution,
The only possible terms of reunification would be the end of the Communist dictatorship. In such an event Taipei would likely be the initial temporary capital of a unified China because that’s where the experience of democracy is.
You’re advocating for belligerence on behalf of a people who generally do not agree with that approach. Taiwanese people would much rather their leaders attempt to resolve tensions with the mainland through diplomatic means. Escalating the conflict to the point of war or pushing for regime change in the PRC is just delusional.
Seems like there’s truth to that:
Following the eruption of the Korean War, US President Harry S. Truman dispatched the United States Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent hostilities between the ROC and the PRC. The United States also passed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty and the Formosa Resolution of 1955, granting substantial foreign aid to the KMT regime between 1951 and 1965. The US foreign aid stabilized prices in Taiwan by 1952. The KMT government instituted many laws and land reforms that it had never effectively enacted on mainland China. Economic development was encouraged by American aid and programs such as the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, which turned the agricultural sector into the basis for later growth. Under the combined stimulus of the land reform and the agricultural development programs, agricultural production increased at an average annual rate of 4 percent from 1952 to 1959. The government also implemented a policy of import substitution industrialization, attempting to produce imported goods domestically. The policy promoted the development of textile, food, and other labor-intensive industries.
Explain
You are asking way too much from someone blowing smoke just for the sake of stirring controversy. My guess is the user is both parroting a talking point and doesn’t know what hegemony means.
Oh, I know. I’m just handing them a shovel to make it easier for them to dig their own hole.
