3 ms·
to add, ROC never declared independence. > The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise r
by rangibaby 8y ago
to add, ROC never declared independence.
> The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise requires some seriously twisted historical revisionism.
De jure, yes. I'm sure Chiang wanted to re-conquer China from the PRC as well. I think if ROC is reestablished on the mainland at some point it will NOT be a direct successor state to ROC (Taiwan).
A real world example is Russia, it is a successor state to the USSR with little (no?) direct connection to the Russian Empire even though it restored the flags and symbols of that state.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago> to add, ROC never declared independence. Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here. > De jure, yes. _And_ de facto. The PRC has _never_ exercised control over Taiwan, Kinmen, etc. The PRC claims to the lands controlled by the ROC are as ridiculous as the ROC claims to lands controlled by the PRC _both_ de jure and de facto. By any reasonable measure, there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now.
- rangibaby 8y ago> The ROC has declared not just independence, but sovereignty over all of China. > Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here. (de jure) ROC is the same Republic of China that was established in 1912. PRC was declared in 1949. > there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now. Yes, but the PRC (and KMT until it became clear that retaking the mainland was impossible) is openly hostile to that viewpoint, which is what I originally posted.