Tlang-gap Gate Incident: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox civil conflict | {{Infobox civil conflict | ||
| title = | | title = Tlang-gap Gate Incident | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| partof = | | partof = | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| caption = The site of the Nationalists' camp | | caption = The site of the Nationalists' camp | ||
| date = Jun. 15, 1932 | | date = Jun. 15, 1932 | ||
| place = | | place = [[Justice of Appeals (district)|Justice of Appeals]], [[Kien-k'ang]] | ||
| coordinates = | | coordinates = | ||
| causes = unclear | | causes = unclear | ||
| goals = | | goals = overthrow [[Parliament of Themiclesia|Parliament]] | ||
| | |||
| methods = rioting | | methods = rioting | ||
| status = | | status = | ||
| Line 30: | Line 17: | ||
| side3 = | | side3 = | ||
| leadfigures1 = Radicals and No Chi-won | | leadfigures1 = Radicals and No Chi-won | ||
| leadfigures2 = Prime Minister | | leadfigures2 = Prime Minister [[Lord of Sloi|Baron of Slwar]] | ||
| leadfigures3 = | | leadfigures3 = | ||
| howmany1 = ~2, | | howmany1 = ~2,000 protesters | ||
| howmany2 = | | howmany2 = ~1,000 palace guardsmen<br>~60 Kien-k'ang Police | ||
| howmany3 = | | howmany3 = | ||
| casualties1 = | | casualties1 = 402 dead<br>692 injured | ||
| casualties2 = | | casualties2 = 17 dead<br>112 injured | ||
| casualties3 = | | casualties3 = | ||
| fatalities = 519 | | fatalities = 519 | ||
| Line 47: | Line 34: | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
| sidebox = | | sidebox = | ||
}}The ''' | }}The '''Tlang-gap Gate Incident''' (閶闔門案, ''tlang-gap-gmen-anh'') is a violent political revolt that occurred in the Themiclesian capital city of [[Kien-k'ang]] on 15 June 1932. The internal objectives and foundational causes of the revolt are not well-documented. Several competing groups existed within the revolt, each with its own leader and demand, confluenced for reasons of convenience or collective security. Radicals took control of the peaceful demonstration when it reached the capital city, and upon breaching the [[Sqin'-lang Palace]] on a pretext of petitioning the Emperor and dissolving the government, it reacted with military suppression, resulting in 528 dead and injured. | ||
As the Nationalist Party has no successor in Themiclesia, and given the general lack of support for ethnic and militant nationalism, this event is less controversial than many comparable events in other countries. While the government interpretation of the event as an active rebellion is questionable at best, it is an open secret that the Nationalist Party received funding from [[Menghe|foreign sources]] that had political interests in the party's success, which lends credit to the notion that the criterion for rebellion was at least partially satisfied, even though there is little evidence that the vast majority of the group had plans to overthrow the government. | As the Nationalist Party has no successor in Themiclesia, and given the general lack of support for ethnic and militant nationalism, this event is less controversial than many comparable events in other countries. While the government interpretation of the event as an active rebellion is questionable at best, it is an open secret that the Nationalist Party received funding from [[Menghe|foreign sources]] that had political interests in the party's success, which lends credit to the notion that the criterion for rebellion was at least partially satisfied, even though there is little evidence that the vast majority of the group had plans to overthrow the government. | ||
| Line 53: | Line 40: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
===War with Dzhungestan=== | ===War with Dzhungestan=== | ||
Historically, nomadic groups traversed the desert and tundra of the Themiclesian east without supervision; the border was far too long and remote for guarding at any reasonable cost. As early as 1925, [[Dzhungestan|Dzhungestani]] cavalry [[Themiclesian invasion of Dzhungestan|invaded]] the Themiclesian southeast for the region's copper mines, which were peripheral to the Themiclesian economy as a whole. | Historically, nomadic groups traversed the desert and tundra of the Themiclesian east without supervision; the border was far too long and remote for guarding at any reasonable cost. As early as 1925, [[Dzhungestan|Dzhungestani]] cavalry [[Themiclesian invasion of Dzhungestan|invaded]] the Themiclesian southeast for the region's copper mines, which were of only a peripheral relevance to the Themiclesian economy as a whole. This incursion was repelled in 1926, but upon the forces' recall, the Dzhungestani resorted to raid-and-run tactics and harrassed the mining towns incessantly. The government reacted only with relief and reconstruction when the raids ended. | ||
In 1927, the Dzhungestani government launched an official invasion and captured the mines again, prompting the government to send a whole motorized division to force them out; Themiclesia decided that a peace treaty would be required to preclude recurrence. Unwilling to enter talks, the Khan employed dilatory tactics to test Themiclesian resolve for invasion, which happened with Hallian and Tyrannian diplomatic backing in May 1927. As Dzhungestan was sparsely populated, the division sprinted thorugh the desert and laid siege to its capital city, Dörözamyn. After only two months, the city fell, but not before the Khan and his administration had fled. Intensive search-and-rescue operations by the [[Signal and Flute Cavaliers]] (中都羈) followed, to no avail for the next two years; at this point, with no prospect of a treaty in sight, the cost of the occupation was mounting and became controversial in Themiclesia. | |||
On the Dzhungestani question, dormant nationalist groups seized the opportunity to re-assert itself on the political spectrum, arguing that Dzhungestan should be annexed permanently. They did not obtain the support of any major party in this wise, and the Progressives, then in government with the Liberals, produced a detailed paper on the projected costs of administering Dzhungestan according to Themiclesian norms, which according to that paper, for the next 50 years, would be at a net loss and thus a burden on the current Themiclesian populace. This caused the Nationalist Party to split in face of public ridicule. Membership shrank by 60%, leaving a small group of party-loyal who did not care about the fiscal argument. | |||
As the remaining party members openly refused to accept the validity of fiscal sustainability, the Nationalist Party faced further censure in public, who were dissuaded from supporting it by the implication that the annexation would grew their tax bill. Then, in the 1930 general election, the Progressives sent agents wearing the Nationalists' badge of a gold hat ribbon, to disseminate anti-Nationalist flyers. Some took the guise of a tax bill to households, reading "With Dzhungestan under the Army's administration, here are next year's tax returns", with astronomical figures quoted to defray the occupation budget. Another flyer was in the form of a conscription notice, saying "you son and your daughter to serve in the army, to search for the lying Khan." | |||
Regardless of the actions of the Nationalist Party, the Liberal and Progressives proceeded to lose their majority in the November 1930 general election, making way for a Conservative minority government under the [[Lord of Sloi|Baron of Slwai]] (who now formed his third administration). In government, the Conservatives announced a concrete plan to end the occupation of Dzhungestan without obtaining a treaty confirming peace. Liberals, who backed the invasion, argued to leave Dzhungestan now was to esteem all efforts thus far for nothing, and Themiclesia would be back in the same situation as in 1927, likely subject to future raids by the "lying Khan". But Slwai said costs had spiralled well out of control and viciously attacked the Liberals for "having no fiscal restraint of any sort, for a job of minor benefit" in the [[House of Lords (Themiclesia)|House of Lords]]. | |||
In this debate, the Nationalists took the position that Themiclesia must change its characterization of the war. Rather than assessing the war as a means to secure a treaty precluding future raids, they argued Themiclesia should understand it as a war of conquest, where the objective is to secure the country for its intrinsic value rather than its political agreement and the value of that agreement. The war understood this way, Themiclesia would have already achieved its objective of conquest and is now victorious. The lynchpin of this argument is that "to retreat from Dzhungestan now or in the future, for as long as it is controlled, would be a betrayal by short-sighted politicians whose pockets have been lined by nefarious actors, to trade a victory for the nation for filthy personal gain." | |||
The | But with this astounding view published for five consecutive days on ''The Times of Kien-k'ang'' in February 1931, the Nationalists observed barely any resonance in the press, as columnists dismissed this spin as dishonesty, calumny, and insolence by "that crank who has been multiple times discredited", if they cared to comment at all. Most responses focused on the scurrilous accusation that Conservative politicians had their pockets lined, but a few writers pointed out that to reframe the war as one of conquest was morally and politically unacceptable. They pointed out that the promise made by the Liberals to the public then in 1927 was to obtain a treaty precluding future raids, and it was on this basis voters granted them a majority in Parliament. To be unable to obtain this and then offer as success the country of Dzhungestan itself would, in reality, suggest the electorate has no principled view in foreign affairs. | ||
==Participants== | ==Participants== | ||
| Line 74: | Line 71: | ||
==Clash== | ==Clash== | ||
In the early morning of June | In the early morning of June 18, the new leaders (with No Chi-won's backing) announced that the Emperor had asked them to dissolve the current government and create a new one that would be more attentive to the (alleged) needs of the public. Allegedly, this was made on the notion that the Emperor was spiritually connected with the people, meaning to some he could communicate with certain individuals telepathically. By dawn that day they were quickly hustling down the Avenue, leading directly to the palace. Around 2,000 members decided to follow the fascists to respond to "the Emperor's call", while a minority stayed behind, skeptical of the fascists for either ideological reasons or for the dubiousness of the claim. | ||
Having reached the Tlang-gap-gmen Gate, the fascists began to stimulate the marchers with various slogans against the state and government, focusing on an alleged lack of popular support and legitimacy. Having chanted for around a half hour with no response from the palace, the Captain of the Gate (公車司馬, ''qwang-tkla-sreq-mraq''), an official responsible for the palace's perimeter walls, addressed the assembly from the gatehouse that the palace is off limits to demonstrations and advised them to deliver their grievances in writing instead. | |||
Unfazed, a fascist leader, to whom multiple individuals subsequently admitted, ignored the Captain of the Gate aside and demanded his followers break the door in the Gate. A few made it into the Gate until the doormen, reacting to the commotion, shut and barred the doors. The handful which managed to enter the Gate found themselves apprehended into a spare room in the gatehouse. About ten minutes later, the protestors on the outside obtained a truck | |||
the Left Guard, who have been ordered to suppress any disorder, opened fire south into the marchers. They stopped after a few volleys proved sufficient to push the demonstrators back. The Hian-lang Right Guard emerged from the West Side Gate (西掖門, ''sner-ljagh-men'') and opened fire on the marcher's rear, pushing them north instead, back towards the Left Guard unit. According to survivors' statements, the Left Guard misinterpreted gunfire from the Right Guard and subsequent stampede northwards as hostility from the demonstration, prompting them to fire again from the north. | |||
==Casualty== | ==Casualty== | ||
Latest revision as of 09:18, 22 June 2023
| Tlang-gap Gate Incident | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 The site of the Nationalists' camp | |||
| Date | Jun. 15, 1932 | ||
| Location | |||
| Caused by | unclear | ||
| Goals | overthrow Parliament | ||
| Methods | rioting | ||
| Resulted in | suppression by gunfire | ||
| Parties to the civil conflict | |||
| |||
| Lead figures | |||
| |||
| Number | |||
| |||
| Casualties | |||
| |||
The Tlang-gap Gate Incident (閶闔門案, tlang-gap-gmen-anh) is a violent political revolt that occurred in the Themiclesian capital city of Kien-k'ang on 15 June 1932. The internal objectives and foundational causes of the revolt are not well-documented. Several competing groups existed within the revolt, each with its own leader and demand, confluenced for reasons of convenience or collective security. Radicals took control of the peaceful demonstration when it reached the capital city, and upon breaching the Sqin'-lang Palace on a pretext of petitioning the Emperor and dissolving the government, it reacted with military suppression, resulting in 528 dead and injured.
As the Nationalist Party has no successor in Themiclesia, and given the general lack of support for ethnic and militant nationalism, this event is less controversial than many comparable events in other countries. While the government interpretation of the event as an active rebellion is questionable at best, it is an open secret that the Nationalist Party received funding from foreign sources that had political interests in the party's success, which lends credit to the notion that the criterion for rebellion was at least partially satisfied, even though there is little evidence that the vast majority of the group had plans to overthrow the government.
Background
War with Dzhungestan
Historically, nomadic groups traversed the desert and tundra of the Themiclesian east without supervision; the border was far too long and remote for guarding at any reasonable cost. As early as 1925, Dzhungestani cavalry invaded the Themiclesian southeast for the region's copper mines, which were of only a peripheral relevance to the Themiclesian economy as a whole. This incursion was repelled in 1926, but upon the forces' recall, the Dzhungestani resorted to raid-and-run tactics and harrassed the mining towns incessantly. The government reacted only with relief and reconstruction when the raids ended.
In 1927, the Dzhungestani government launched an official invasion and captured the mines again, prompting the government to send a whole motorized division to force them out; Themiclesia decided that a peace treaty would be required to preclude recurrence. Unwilling to enter talks, the Khan employed dilatory tactics to test Themiclesian resolve for invasion, which happened with Hallian and Tyrannian diplomatic backing in May 1927. As Dzhungestan was sparsely populated, the division sprinted thorugh the desert and laid siege to its capital city, Dörözamyn. After only two months, the city fell, but not before the Khan and his administration had fled. Intensive search-and-rescue operations by the Signal and Flute Cavaliers (中都羈) followed, to no avail for the next two years; at this point, with no prospect of a treaty in sight, the cost of the occupation was mounting and became controversial in Themiclesia.
On the Dzhungestani question, dormant nationalist groups seized the opportunity to re-assert itself on the political spectrum, arguing that Dzhungestan should be annexed permanently. They did not obtain the support of any major party in this wise, and the Progressives, then in government with the Liberals, produced a detailed paper on the projected costs of administering Dzhungestan according to Themiclesian norms, which according to that paper, for the next 50 years, would be at a net loss and thus a burden on the current Themiclesian populace. This caused the Nationalist Party to split in face of public ridicule. Membership shrank by 60%, leaving a small group of party-loyal who did not care about the fiscal argument.
As the remaining party members openly refused to accept the validity of fiscal sustainability, the Nationalist Party faced further censure in public, who were dissuaded from supporting it by the implication that the annexation would grew their tax bill. Then, in the 1930 general election, the Progressives sent agents wearing the Nationalists' badge of a gold hat ribbon, to disseminate anti-Nationalist flyers. Some took the guise of a tax bill to households, reading "With Dzhungestan under the Army's administration, here are next year's tax returns", with astronomical figures quoted to defray the occupation budget. Another flyer was in the form of a conscription notice, saying "you son and your daughter to serve in the army, to search for the lying Khan."
Regardless of the actions of the Nationalist Party, the Liberal and Progressives proceeded to lose their majority in the November 1930 general election, making way for a Conservative minority government under the Baron of Slwai (who now formed his third administration). In government, the Conservatives announced a concrete plan to end the occupation of Dzhungestan without obtaining a treaty confirming peace. Liberals, who backed the invasion, argued to leave Dzhungestan now was to esteem all efforts thus far for nothing, and Themiclesia would be back in the same situation as in 1927, likely subject to future raids by the "lying Khan". But Slwai said costs had spiralled well out of control and viciously attacked the Liberals for "having no fiscal restraint of any sort, for a job of minor benefit" in the House of Lords.
In this debate, the Nationalists took the position that Themiclesia must change its characterization of the war. Rather than assessing the war as a means to secure a treaty precluding future raids, they argued Themiclesia should understand it as a war of conquest, where the objective is to secure the country for its intrinsic value rather than its political agreement and the value of that agreement. The war understood this way, Themiclesia would have already achieved its objective of conquest and is now victorious. The lynchpin of this argument is that "to retreat from Dzhungestan now or in the future, for as long as it is controlled, would be a betrayal by short-sighted politicians whose pockets have been lined by nefarious actors, to trade a victory for the nation for filthy personal gain."
But with this astounding view published for five consecutive days on The Times of Kien-k'ang in February 1931, the Nationalists observed barely any resonance in the press, as columnists dismissed this spin as dishonesty, calumny, and insolence by "that crank who has been multiple times discredited", if they cared to comment at all. Most responses focused on the scurrilous accusation that Conservative politicians had their pockets lined, but a few writers pointed out that to reframe the war as one of conquest was morally and politically unacceptable. They pointed out that the promise made by the Liberals to the public then in 1927 was to obtain a treaty precluding future raids, and it was on this basis voters granted them a majority in Parliament. To be unable to obtain this and then offer as success the country of Dzhungestan itself would, in reality, suggest the electorate has no principled view in foreign affairs.
Participants
Aside from the cadre of the Nationalist Party, groups known to be in league with them are:—
- Fascist groups (not registered as a party)
- Republicans
- Radical Democrats
- Annexationists
- No Chi-Won, son-in-law of Menghean Emperor Kwon Chong-hoon
March
In April 1932, the Nationalist Party organized a 2,000-man march from the summer palace in Rak-lang to Kien-k'ang; the purpose whereof was to publicize its message in hope of finding more support amongst the rural residents along the route, which is the footpath next to the A1 highway. The march departed on time and made steady progress towards Glak-lang, and there were no reports of serious disturbances along their path. The Nationlist Party did not invite the other groups to join them or to leave, but they progressed in largely indistinguishable pools of people, pitching tents along the wilderness to rest at night and move during day. They also built latrines, some of which can still be seen today.
Upon arriving at Kien-k'ang on June 2nd, the march had neither acquired any significant number of new supporters nor lost participants; in liaison with the Sheriff of Kien-k'ang, a large section of public forest was assigned for their temporary use. The location was intentionally kept slightly remote, so that the marchers would need to spend time to walk to and from the city, thus reducing the amount of time they had to drum up public awareness in the city, which was to little effect.
Coup
Around June 15th, the organizers of the march, belonging to the Nationalist Party, were killed after an internal dispute on which no detailed account survives. The most likely cause, according to some political historians, is the lack of progress that all parties were making, which they blamed on each other's presence. Instead of dispersing, it evolved into an ugly brawl. The reconstituted leadership changed sharply, possibly with little knowledge amongst the followers, with the result that the fascist elements, egged on by No Chi-Won, had usurped the leadership of the group.
Clash
In the early morning of June 18, the new leaders (with No Chi-won's backing) announced that the Emperor had asked them to dissolve the current government and create a new one that would be more attentive to the (alleged) needs of the public. Allegedly, this was made on the notion that the Emperor was spiritually connected with the people, meaning to some he could communicate with certain individuals telepathically. By dawn that day they were quickly hustling down the Avenue, leading directly to the palace. Around 2,000 members decided to follow the fascists to respond to "the Emperor's call", while a minority stayed behind, skeptical of the fascists for either ideological reasons or for the dubiousness of the claim.
Having reached the Tlang-gap-gmen Gate, the fascists began to stimulate the marchers with various slogans against the state and government, focusing on an alleged lack of popular support and legitimacy. Having chanted for around a half hour with no response from the palace, the Captain of the Gate (公車司馬, qwang-tkla-sreq-mraq), an official responsible for the palace's perimeter walls, addressed the assembly from the gatehouse that the palace is off limits to demonstrations and advised them to deliver their grievances in writing instead.
Unfazed, a fascist leader, to whom multiple individuals subsequently admitted, ignored the Captain of the Gate aside and demanded his followers break the door in the Gate. A few made it into the Gate until the doormen, reacting to the commotion, shut and barred the doors. The handful which managed to enter the Gate found themselves apprehended into a spare room in the gatehouse. About ten minutes later, the protestors on the outside obtained a truck
the Left Guard, who have been ordered to suppress any disorder, opened fire south into the marchers. They stopped after a few volleys proved sufficient to push the demonstrators back. The Hian-lang Right Guard emerged from the West Side Gate (西掖門, sner-ljagh-men) and opened fire on the marcher's rear, pushing them north instead, back towards the Left Guard unit. According to survivors' statements, the Left Guard misinterpreted gunfire from the Right Guard and subsequent stampede northwards as hostility from the demonstration, prompting them to fire again from the north.
Casualty
- 582 dead
- 701 injured
Response
Government position
The government closed off the T'jang-gap-men Gate and its immediate vicinity to anyone except medical personnel. A distress signal was sent out to summon all physicians and paramedics at leisure to the site of the incident to carry off the wounded. After this, reporters were refused access to the area by the city magistrate (建康令, Kjalh-k′lang-mlingh). By noon, the news of a bloodbath spread througout the city, though the specifics remained obscure until some days later. A connection was soon made by newspapers with some members of the nation Nationalist Party that were still present beyond city limits. Two days later, the government published an article on the first edition of every major newspaper, recounting the event from its perspective. In the article, a large number of diagrams, narratives, and observations by members of the public were cited to demonstrate the propriety of its response. The article was prepared by the Cabinet Office, apparently with over 40 editors and legal experts scrutinizing its wording.
The article emphasized that the demonstration had breached statute and constituted an open rebellion against the government. The fact that the protestors charged the palace's gatehouse, evidenced with photographs, was repeated several times.
Other commentators
- The Progressive Party and the Conservative Party criticized the government for a "hasty and inconsiderate response" and called upon it to penalize officials responsible for the stated "culpable misunderstanding". The Nationalist Party decried the coup and distanced itself from the incident.
Foreign governments
- The Menghean Emperor, enraged by the death of his nephew and the suppression of his supporters, reversed his foreign policy on Themiclesian's war in Dzhungestan. Only later, when survivors were asked to give information regarding the group's formation, did the government become aware of No Chi-Won's death. However, after his relationship with the Menghean Emperor had been identified, the government was concerned with the possibility of the much more insiduous (but false) notion that Kwon had intended for his son-in-law to take power in Themiclesia.
- The Glasic government openly criticized for the violence of the government's responses but was secretly relieved to know that fascism and nationalism are firmly opposed by some governments.