Talk:Boxer Rebellion

Peaceful Chinese Intention?

Declaring war and surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war by every possible measure. How could it possibly be based upon a peaceful intention? --YKatakura (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Prince Ronglu and Prince Qing invited the foriegners to take shelter inside the zongli yamen but the foreigners were paranoid and refused, instead, they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded. Its natural that a government would be concerned about keeping the trigger happy marines under control before they shot even more people and cause more resentment, which would have led to more support for the Boxers.Дунгане (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is "natural" or not is your opinion. Can you actually provide any verifiable source stating that the Chinese government tried to actively fight against the boxers to stop their belligerency for the purpose of respecting the obvious diplomatic protocol i.e. non-violation of diplomatic missions? Can you prove, against nearly every serious historian, that the Imperial Chinese Army surrounded to protect the diplomatic quarter from the boxers? What some Princes did personally does not automatically warrant any official policy of the government. --YKatakura (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You saying "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes.... war... based on peaceful intention" is equally your own personal opinion, and per sources already in the article, we already know that forces (the Boxers and Kansu Braves) were already attacking the foreigners in the legations, they received no orders from the government to proceed in such an attack. These two sources say Prince Qing sent his bannermen to protect the foreigners and invited them to the zongli yamen, even sending his own bannermen to attack the boxers and kansu braves.[1][2]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your references not withstanding, YKatakura's statement that "surrounding a diplomatic quarter clearly constitutes as an act of war" is not a matter of opinion. It was already a longstanding diplomatic and political agreement, well before the events being discussed here. Such agreements were on paper as early as 1709. China, in the person of the Empress Dowager Cixi, had already agreed to the Vienna Convention previous to 1900, most likely on the very day of her ascension. I would suggest a refresher in international political history before further errors are presented in rebuttal to members in this discussion.--ADWNSW (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The diplomatic quarter was "surrounded" by imperial army forces to clear out Boxer insurgents hiding in the legations area, and "diplomatic protocol", had been violated numerous times by foreign powers before any such actions in the legations took place, including the murder of a Chinese civilian unconnected to the Boxers by German Baron von Ketteler, the illegal invasion of chinese territory without notification of the chinese government by foreign forces- the Seymour expedition was clearly without chinese authorization.

Thats not even mentioning the Battle of Dagu Forts (1900), which even the american commander refused to participate in becaues it was an illegal act of war against China without any such declaration.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point. Please stay within the immediate topic. Thank you.--ADWNSW (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the lede

Friends;

I've made some edits to the lede, mainly removing notes that were redundant (more than one cite for the same information); ancient (to journalistic accounts of the time): not reliable; or not preferable when clear and well written modern scholarship is easily available. My understanding of Wiki policy is that notes and links in the lede should be kept to a minimum in any case. I also moved some material to shorten and make the chronology more logical and lightly edited for consistency.

If anyone is interested, I'd be glad to spell out my reasoning for particular references. Thanks for your patience. ch (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

i have found reliable sources for chinese use of electric mines and works refering to torpedoes

Several American military reports here say that Chinese forces used "electric Mines" on the beihe (peiho) river during the Boxer Rebellion

I have also found some reliable references regarding chinese use of "electric torpedoes", but they all date to the period before the Boxer Rebellion. In 1876, Li had added an electric torpedo works to tientsin arsenal "Electric torpedoes have been laid in some places"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Abundance of Rain" is NOT a WP:Reliable source

Its a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.

the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.

Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"

Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable

Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.

"it was her own sin and generational judgements and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing and love of god"

Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.

I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.

Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!-[3]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed at the noticeboard- Abundance of Rain is unreliable

at the noticeboard its been confirm that "abundance of rain" is an unreliable sourceΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Atrocities section

This needs some expanding on what Chinese/Boxers did. There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral. John Smith's (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Real Life isn't neutral. The Allies were the ones who were out of their home countries, and invading another country which never attacked them in all their history. When we write an article on a terrorist attack or a bank robbery here on Wikipedia, we don't pretend that we have to give equal time to the perpetrator and find some dirt on the victims, we report the facts, which is neutral- the perpetrator committed the XXX atrocity and the victim is the victim. We don't invent atrocities by the victim to make it appear neutral.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Dillon stated that Chinese women committed suicide to avoid rape, and said that he witnessed corpses of raped and bayoneted women by alliance troops.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but we know that the Chinese carried out atrocities. Otherwise, what is the section "Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians" about? Was this imagined atrocities? Most of the atrocities section is commentary on the Alliance forces' actions. Are you trying to tell me that there is no commentary on what Chinese did or that no atrocities were committed? John Smith's (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

so you, Mr. Smith, is complaining about the article being "not neutral", yet there is already an entire section (to which I added information about Boxers roasting Christians alive by the way), that already states chinese atrocities, yet you complain chinese atrocities are not represented well enough. Whats your logic here? That there isn't "enough" atrocities?

Mr. Smith, the article's sections are in chronological order. Do you know what that means? That means, the sections are placed in the sequence that they happened, not "whereever I want to put it". the reason why only western atrocities are in the atrocities section is because it itself is under the Aftermath section, AFTER the western forces finally seized beijing and ended the war.

The reason "Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians" is NOT in the atrocities section, is because they happened earlier, BEFORE the siege even began, which is when most chinese atrocities occured.

Boxer_Rebellion#Aftermath

The fact is- western atrocities did occuer AFTER the war was finished, which is why its in the Aftermath section.

Therefore, the majority of Chinese atrocities ARE described in the article, in the right section-"Massacre of missionaries and Chinese Christians", placed before sections on the siege.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I was the one who added the fact that Boxers burned Chinese christians in that section, this was my citation- [4]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I think the organisation of the article is poor. I would have a single section (stand-alone section, not a sub-section) on all atrocities committed by all parties during the rebellion. Separate it from the "aftermath". If not, "atrocities" needs to be changed to "Alliance forces atrocities" or something similar to flag up that it is just talking about Alliance atrocities.

And please don't call me "Mr Smith". Call me John or use my full user name, thanks. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's better. However, I think that we need to discuss whether a joint section on atrocities is desirable. Furthermore, in talking about atrocities against Christians, are we forgetting ordinary Chinese who were killed by other Chinese, either because they were suspected of being foreign agents/were "too close" to foreigners, or simply to settle old scores? You see this is why I'm reluctant to leave the page layout as it is. John Smith's (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Western"

I don't think this term should be used, unless it's in a citation. It's lazy and vague. "Western" can cover a vast arrange of countries not involved in the conflict. I would use "Alliance" to refer to troops, "foreign" or state specific nationalities. John Smith's (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the tolstoy one stays since his citation specificlly mentioned westerners.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"he praised the Chinese for their heroic patience. When he learned about the "orgy of murder, raping, and looting" committed by the Western powers in quelling the Boxer rebellion, he raged against the brutality of the Christians"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I said "I don't think this term should be used, unless it's in a citation". John Smith's (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting attitudes within the Imperial Court section

I cannot see how the citation at the end of the first paragraph supports all of that text. Page 88 of the book does not seem to refer to anything discussed in that paragraph. John Smith's (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Scroll down to page 89 and 90 to see the rest of the text.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not have a single citation per paragraph. You need to interspace them a bit more and refer to all the relevant pages. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source which said alliance forces raped but chinese did not

"Lost souls"

An eight-nation allied relief force, including a British contingent, made its way from the coast, with much bickering between the rival commanders. When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape).ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A fact is a fact. When someone commits a crime, and its notable, we write it out clearly. We don't try to make up crimes that the victim committed in order to make the article "neutral".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• You should note the following reference, p. 148, which states that Chinese Christians were killed, mutilated, and raped by the Boxers. http://books.google.com/books?id=o80WueMVIeQC&pg=PA148&dq=rape+boxer+rebellion&hl=en&ei=cqC1TZnJCdDUgAeTpL3GCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rape%20boxer%20rebellion&f=false

To me your insistence that Chinese did not rape women is unprovable. Nobody witnessed the death of most of those killed by the Boxers. We don't know whether or not the Boxers raped women, including Western women. We don't know of any women who survived to allege that the Boxers or Chinese soldiers raped them. That may be because they were all killed. To insist that the Boxers did not rape women is to insist on the unknowable.

There were plenty of atrocities on both sides. The Boxers beheaded children. I don't know of any source that says the Western or Japanese soldiers did. Therefore, should we put a line in the article saying that the Boxers beheaded children, but there were no reports of Western soldiers beheading children?

Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. That's not NPOV. Smallchief (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

According to you then, everything is unprovable

First of all, the majority of reference I used were from books written by proffessors with PHD in the area (i checked the authors of the books for credentials), like Diana Preston who has degress in history, and she the author of one source i quoted for the western committed rapes. this book "abundance of Rain" does not appear to have been written by someone with a PHD or degree, but by a christian evangelical bent on portraying christianity as the one true religion and everything else as lies

Robert R. Mathisen, the author of " Critical issues in American religious history", which i gave as one of the cites that Chinese did not rape, has full academic credentials-

(M.A. Ball State University) is Professor of History and Political Science at Corban College, Oregon

Luella Miner remarked that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape

And as for westerners killing children-

"An American correspondent was appalled when he saw a Russian soldier crush the skull of a four-year-old Chinese boy for no reason, and Cossacks sometimes killed children just as casually."

"At least one Western observer reported witnessing Cossacks killing Chinese children for no apparent reason"

Now as for unprovable- as per policy, Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources, not the truth. If everyone knows the sky is blue, but all academics wrote the sky is red in their books and articles, then we have to write the sky is red in wikipedia, not our own observation.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Wikipedia:Verifiability

Unprovability extends to real life itself. How do you know we aren't locked up in some kind of Matrix like machine where all reality is a lie like the The Matrix (franchise)? I'm not bringing this up as a red herring or to hijack off topic, but in reality you can't prove anything is real or really happened, thats why lawyers use the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" that my client is innocent, not "my client is definetly innocent".

Therefore, according to sources I presented (with authors that have academic credentials in the form of degrees, the concenses is that western forces committed rapes and killing, and the boxers committed killings but the sources e xplicitly mention the absence of rape.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Wrong. You didn't present "sources." You presented a source. Your academic source quoted a missionary. Luella Miner, who said there was no rape by Boxers. Your academic source didn't opine whether Ms. Miner was accurate in her statement or not. You've based your whole theory on a one-sentence statement from a missionary who was in the Legations during the siege and had no idea what was going on outside the walls of Beijing. Flimsy. Misleading. Smallchief (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

you're the one whose wrong. I also provided a guardian article which explicitly says europeans raped and chinese did not

John gittings, the author of the article, has the proper credentials to be used as a cite-"John Gittings worked for many years as the Guardian's foreign leader-writer and China specialist. He has also written extensively on cold war politics and is a research associate at SOAS Centre for Chinese Studies."ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if there were no citations for saying no Chinese rape occured, the fact is, I looked, and could not find any instances of Chinese rape, but I found tons of reliable sources saying western forces committed rape, the article would therefore contain information about westerners committing rape and not say anything about Chinese and rape since there are no reliable sources which says such events occurred. Then I doubt John would leave it like that, he would most likely have come into the talk page regardless and challenged the neutrality of the article, saying "how come it says westerners raped but chinese didn't, it isn't neutral". Then I would have to show him the Gittings article anyway, regardless of whether it was in the wiki article or not.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolstoy

Why are you unhappy with my edit to make it clear that he wasn't a witness? The text as you reverted it to says "He accused them of engaging in slaughter when he heard repoorts about the lootings, rapes, and murders, in what he saw as Christian brutality."

If he was a witness, why did he criticise what happened when he heard reports about them? Clearly the meaning is that he heard reports of what happened and criticised them - ergo he was not a witness. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you have to delete massive parts of what he heard and just replace it with "he was a witness"? what he heard reports of, the exact things he accused the troops of doing should stay.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't replace it with "he was a witness". I made it more clear that he wasn't a witness but referred to the fact he was highly critical of what he heard happened. If he was not a witness then his comments should not be given undue weight.

Whilst I am not suggesting everything regarding Tolstoy be removed, if he was not there and he is not bringing anything new regarding facts to the table, what is the point of referring to him? He is in purely because he is a notable historical figure passing comment. I think that is a reason for having him in, but not a good reason for saying much more than the fact he was critical of what happened (with clarification that he was not a witness). If the article already reports rape, murder and looting committed by Alliance troops, there is no need to repeat that when discussing Tolstoy's reaction. John Smith's (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reduce the Tolstoy reference per my last edit on that, unless I hear a good reason to play down the fact he wasn't a witness. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

This is much too long - I would cut this down by at least a paragraph. A large amount of the text should be moved into the main body of the article or deleted if it repeats what is said later in too much detail. Things like the Twain quote and references to Guizi are prime candidates to be moved. John Smith's (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still too long. I think it's trying to cram information in there that we don't need. Let CWH have a stab at it. John Smith's (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead section now reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant. Arilang ^talk 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken/wrong citations

I've opened a general thread for this. (193.77.143.154, your observation on duplicated text was invaluable.)

Here's my latest one - A large number of Alliance victories was not due to their own military prowess, rather, it was due to rivalries between the Boxers and the Chinese Imperial army, and conflicting orders given to Chinese Generals by the court. The citation points to page 529 of the Elliot book, but I do not see where the text I have quoted above is supported. John Smith's (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC);

Good work. Keep on trying. A lot of us have tried to improve this article and slowly, slowly it's getting better -- although I would still rate some parts of it as unreliable, polemical, and biased. Smallchief (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

multiple times, several anti China Users loved to bring up the false claim that Chinese used "swords and sprears" against european machine guns and refused to modernize. repetiions about the artillery and other modern weapons Chinese forces acquired were made to disprove the point. Several users falsely claim that Japan modernized while china didn't, on several talk pages, sometimes even trying to use it to shove their anti China POV into articles.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And no, User:CWH is the only person I would say who has made any good effort to improve the article, not "alot of people".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel I must remove the following text.

The ease with which the Alliance was able to pass into Chinese territory uninhibited was not due to their own prowress

I cannot any such reference in the citation. It seems like original research to me. John Smith's (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

source- General Nie let the allies slip pass due to the conflicting orders page 18 of this-

• http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/China%20ReliefSm.pdf

The Empress Dowager’s government learned of Seymour’s departure and reacted with anger that the foreigners would dare send such a large troop contingent without permission. That same day, Prince Tuan replaced Prince Ching as president of the Tsungli Yamen. All along the line from Tientsin to Peking, Imperial troops were alerted, and the unruly Boxers went in search of vulnerable targets.

On the first day of the relief attempt, the armed trains traveled about twenty-five miles to Yangtsun, where General Nieh’s 4,000-strong detachment of Imperial troops was camped. Unsure how to reconcile conflicting orders coming from Peking, Nieh allowed Seymour’s trains to pass. The expedition went a few more miles and found the tracks heavily damaged. They spent the rest of the day repairing the line and moved out again the next morning. By sunset on 11 June, they had advanced all the way to Langfang, just forty miles from Peking, where they found Boxer militia destroying the rail lines. The Boxers attacked but were easily scattered, and Seymour’s laborers commenced to repair the damage done the next day, 12 June. Simultaneously, the admiral dispatched a reconnaissance party to assess the situation ahead. Ten miles farther on, near Anping, they found strong Boxer resistance and more destruction.

Its very clear that Ronglu's orders led to General Nie letting the foreigners slip right into Chinese territory without being stopped by the imperial army.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned by this. You keep demonstrating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's original research policy. The above source does not say or support the allegation that "The ease with which the Alliance was able to pass into Chinese territory uninhibited was not due to their own prowress". We might be able to agree that the sources highlight that there was confusion between different Chinese forces. But this does not mean that the only reason the Alliance had an easy time of it was the confusion. You are drawing your own conclusions from the text, which you should not be doing. John Smith's (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say? John Smith's (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Credentials for mister Leonhard

The website is an edu website. It would not lie on Leonhard's credentials, unlike Chang and Halliday.

Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D.

also from the same link on page 5- "LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."

And there is no "we" in this. you were the one who inserted the work of an uncredentialed author into the article, not IΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jung Chang has no relevance to this article, and I have no idea why you brought her up. As for Mr Leonhard, none of those credentials refer to China in the early 20th century or China at all. I don't see any serious historical works there either. John Smith's (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Leonhard was an American military officer and has a PHd, in addition to writing numerous books on the military. He specifically wrote about the International alliance participation in the Boxer Rebellion, since American military units were part of the Eight-Nation Alliance expeditional force under Edward Hobart Seymour. He is not writing about Chinese court politics, nor delving into Chinese traditions. His article "The China relief expedition- Joint Colaition Warfare in China Summer 1900", is about the international military alliance force which included american troops. He is a former military officer and worked in the National Security Analysis Department, so he is well qualified to write articles on military actions america took part with.

Under Admiral Seymour, Americans made up part of the Alliance force. I'd say that an American military officer is well qualified to write about military actions in which american troops took part in.

And only an educational instution in America can own a .edu site. Its impossible to fake.- "Starting on October 29, 2001, only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

as I noted, he already wrote books on warfare, the Boxer rebellion qualifies very much as warfare.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronglu deliberately gave conflicting orders to General Nie to make the imperial army fight the boxers and sabotage his performace against western forces

ReadΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dingane, There's no "sabotage" involved here. There is indecision and a change of policy on the part of the Chinese governement. Duan wanted to support the Boxers and attack the foreigners; Rong Lu thought that was a bad idea. The Empress Dowager, like every good politician, wavered between the two and delayed taking a decision as long as possible. A look at the timeline illustrates the situation.

June 10 -- General Nie allows Seymour and his army to travel on the railroad enroute to Peking. He had no orders from the government to stop Seymour. Instead he had orders to suppress the Boxers, which he was doing.

June 16 -- The Dowager Empress has a cabinet meeting. Rong Lu and Duan state their positions. The Dowager comes down on the side of Duan --support the Boxers, destroy the foreigners.

June 17 -- The foreigners attack the Dagu forts. This unprovoked attack strengthens the Duan, anti-foreign faction. Orders go out to Nie, presumably from Rong Lu, who in obedience to the decision of his sovereign, orders Nie to wage war on the foreigners and to support the Boxers.

June 18 -- Nie attacks Seymour in obedience to the orders he received from Rong Lu.

There's no sabotage involved here. Nie followed orders. Until June 16 or 17 those orders were to suppress the Boxers. He did so, as any good and obedient general would. On June 16 or 17 he got an order to attack the foreigners and support the Boxers. He attacked, again following orders.

Rong Lu argued that a war against the foreigners was stupid (and it certainly can be argued that he was right) but when the Dowager decided to fight the foreigners he saluted smartly and said "Yes, maam" and issued order to Nie to fight. Rong Lu probably knew the Dowager better than any other person, as they were childhood friends, and thus I think we can say with some confidence that he was carrying out his sovereign's wishes. That's not sabotage -- that's carrying out what you perceive to be your government's policy. That's what subordinates to a sovereign are supposed to do -- or fall on their sword.