The bloodbath happened on side streets, the square itself was cleared by intimidation alone.
The one important name to know regarding the background and politics of all this is Hu Yaobang. Party hard-liners were happy being a faction of the party and struggling things out with other factions, students had the gall to very openly support the reformist faction, though, and marching onto the square in the wake of Hu Yaobang’s death would’ve set precedent that you can just march onto the square and demand basic decency. Tankies can’t have that, they gotta tank, and thus the hardliners took over leadership and reverted course away from the reformists for a decade or two.
I mean yes but no the salient point for the Chinese would be that the army did in fact not roll over all the students on the square, they “merely” intimidated them out of there after massacring themselves through barricades Peking locals had erected to protect the students. I say massacring not so much because those people didn’t right-out attack the army, but because the fighting was completely one-sided we’re talking pretty much fists and stones against machine guns and tanks.
There were plenty of people within the CCP who wanted to see much more blood, that there was so relatively little blood is thanks to Peking locals (this time less militant ones) bringing rice and fried noodles to the army camping out in front of the city while explaining to them that (unlike what they had heard from the party) those weren’t counter-revolutionary bourgeois foreign agents on the square, but simply reformists.
That’s why that point is rather important, the Chinese people might not be saying it out loud but “there was a massacre on the square” implies that the people did nothing to influence the situation. They very much did and avoided a much worse calamity.
The bloodbath happened on side streets, the square itself was cleared by intimidation alone.
The one important name to know regarding the background and politics of all this is Hu Yaobang. Party hard-liners were happy being a faction of the party and struggling things out with other factions, students had the gall to very openly support the reformist faction, though, and marching onto the square in the wake of Hu Yaobang’s death would’ve set precedent that you can just march onto the square and demand basic decency. Tankies can’t have that, they gotta tank, and thus the hardliners took over leadership and reverted course away from the reformists for a decade or two.
It was decided that “The-Side-Streets-Around-Tiananmen-Square Massacre” was a little too wordy
I mean yes but no the salient point for the Chinese would be that the army did in fact not roll over all the students on the square, they “merely” intimidated them out of there after massacring themselves through barricades Peking locals had erected to protect the students. I say massacring not so much because those people didn’t right-out attack the army, but because the fighting was completely one-sided we’re talking pretty much fists and stones against machine guns and tanks.
There were plenty of people within the CCP who wanted to see much more blood, that there was so relatively little blood is thanks to Peking locals (this time less militant ones) bringing rice and fried noodles to the army camping out in front of the city while explaining to them that (unlike what they had heard from the party) those weren’t counter-revolutionary bourgeois foreign agents on the square, but simply reformists.
That’s why that point is rather important, the Chinese people might not be saying it out loud but “there was a massacre on the square” implies that the people did nothing to influence the situation. They very much did and avoided a much worse calamity.