Talk:Eight Points of Attention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main paragraph of this article (after the bullet points) seems to be written from a very pro-Red Army point of view. Cynical 09:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was the popular sentiment of the time. It is often a historal conclusion is that the Eight Points of Attention garnered most of the peasant support, rather than sheer military might, - compare with Three Principles of the People. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the npov tag, because this is a myth and propaganda. The "eight points" existed mainly for propaganda purposes and appears in writings of liberal influence, to create the myth of the Chinese Communists as popular land reformers. Small land owners were beaten and had their land confiscated. So much of "Eight points," eh? The same phenomenon continued to occur on a national level in the 50s and 60s. You see the it right now as the government, without due process, confiscates peasant land for state projects. I recognize that there are some distinct policies such as "do not march over peasant land", but attributing the "eight points" as a "major reason" that the Communists defeated the Nationalists is rather juvenile and uninformed. The Nationalists did not lose in a "people's war" as claimed by both the PRC and liberal writings of the West. They were defeated by stupid economic and political policies and by three classic set-piece positional battles, not "guerrila warfare" as propaganda most likely claims. These things need to be addressed, particularly in the Chinese Civil War article, rather than propagating such misleading myths. BlueShirts 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article could state the extent to which the Red soldiers followed the orders. In some ways, these orders mirror the aim/concept of the US "Hearts and Minds". --80.41.61.198 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I add attribution of some sentences to Uhalley, Stephen (1985), where I'm confident are mentioned in the book. For the rest of the article, I believe it is true, and very much the conclusion of Uhalley, although I need to check for precision. Peasant support is an important factor in the outcome of the Civil War, and this article does not deny that there are other important factors as well. If there are other historians who claim that this is a myth and a non-factor in the war, please kindly provide sources. --Vsion 06:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)