Tlang-gap Gate Incident
| Nationalist Revolt of 1932 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 The site of the Nationalists' camp | |||
| Date | Jun. 15, 1932 | ||
| Location | Citadel, Kien-k'ang | ||
| Caused by | unclear | ||
| Goals | to overthrow the government (disputed) | ||
| Methods | rioting | ||
| Resulted in | suppression by gunfire | ||
| Parties to the civil conflict | |||
| |||
| Lead figures | |||
| |||
| Number | |||
| |||
| Casualties | |||
| |||
The Nationalist Revolt of 1932 (閶闔門逆案, t'jang-gap-men-ngrjak-'anh) is a violent political revolt that occurred in the Themiclesian capital city of Kien-k'ang, on June 15th, 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 imperial palace on a pretext of petitioning the Emperor and dissolving the government, it reacted with military suppression, resulting in 528 dead and 701 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 peripheral to the Themiclesian economy as a whole. It was soon 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 diminished in frequency. 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; the government decided that a peace treaty would be required to eliminate recurrence. Unwilling to enter talks, the Khan employed dilatory tactics to see if Themiclesian was committed to an invasion, which ultimately happened, with Hallian and Tyrannian diplomatic backing, in May 1927. As Dzhungestan was sparsely populated, the division quickly 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 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.
The dormant nationalists took this opportunity to re-assert itself on the political spectrum, arguing that Dzhungestan should be annexed. Most parties did not agree with this assessement, and the Progressives, then in government with the Liberals, proceeded to write a detailed study on the projected costs of administering Dzhungestan according to Themiclesian standards, which for the next 50 years would be at a loss and thus a burden on the Themiclesian populace. This caused the Nationalist Party to split, in face of public ridicule; membership shrunk 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 was discredited within the general public, who were dissuaded from supporting it by the implication that the annexation would grew their tax bill. In the 1930 general election, the Progressives sent agents wearing the Nationalists' badge of a golden ribbon on their top hats, presenting flyers disguised as a tax bill to households. The flyers read, "With Dzhungestan under the Army's boot-heels, here are the next year's tax bills", with figures like "twenty-billion" quoted as the increase in budget necessary to establish administration.
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 18th, the new leadership announced that the Emperor confidentially had granted them permission to dissolve the current government and create a new one that would be more attentive to the needs of the public. This claim is false, but lack of administrative knowldedge amongst the marchers prevented its exposure, and by dawn that day they were quickly marching down the Imperial Highway (the main street of the city, with a raised section reserved for the Emperor's carriage), leading directly to the palace. Around 1,000 members decided to follow the fascists to respond to "secret command of the Emperor", while the others stayed behind, skeptical of the fascists for either ideological reasons or for the very dubious claim.
The traffic police noticed that their members were walking on the raised section of the highway, and they proceeded to caution them against this infringment of the Emperor's prerogative. Having been brushed aside, one policeman inadvertantly overheard the cause of the marcher's movement. Terrified, he relayed this intelligence to his superiors, and soon it was brought to the Cabinet's attention. As the Imperial Highway was several miles long, the government ordered the Left Guard and Right Guard Regiments to close and barricade the gates of the palace, in which the government sat.
Having reached the T'jang-gap-men Gate, the fascists began to rally the marchers with various slogans critical and denunciatory of the government, focusing on an alleged lack of popular support and legitimacy. Having chanted for around a half hour with no response, the Director of Public Access (公車司馬令, kong-k'lja-slje-mra-mlingh), an official responsible for the perimeter of the palace, opened the gate and addressed the assembly that, "The Palace is off limits to demonstrations", advising them to deliver their grievances in writing instead. Unfazed, a fascist leader, whose identity is disputed, brushed aside the official and ordered his followers to storm the T'jang-gap-men Gate. Reaching the other side of the gatehouse, the Hian-lang 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.
At the same time, Prong Nem, an Tribune of the Hall (殿中侍御史, denh-trjung-lje-ngjah-srje’), witnessed the carnage as he entered through the South Side Gate. From his position, only the Right Guard was visible; yet when he came to the inside, he noticed that the Left Guard was firing in the opposite direction. Being a tribune empowered to censor improper acts within the palace, he ordered the Left Guard to allow the demonstrators to step forward and place them under arrest in the stables nearby. Only then did the regiment realize that the demonstrators were not responsible for the countervailing gunfire. The Right Guard followed suit and were directed to return to their garrisons without their weapons.
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.