Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Kartoffelmos]

16 minutes ago, 44smok said:

Diplomatic recognition status of ROC is meaningless in this discussion. 

 

Yet the entire discussion hinges on WG's screw-up on exactly that aspect... 

I think you should read up on the issue. A comparison can be made to the recent Spain-Catalonia "problem". If Catalonia claimed independence (without recognition from Spain or other nations) and WG released a ship from the nation Catalonia, you would get a similar uproar.

[1MajorKoenig]

I am not sure if WG is aware what an emotional topic a flag is...

[ForlornSailor]

1 hour ago, 44smok said:

This is funny. Taiwan is effectively a separate independent state and it's official name is Republic of China. So calling it either Taiwan or ROC is correct and subject to no controversy. It's a fact. If some commies have a problem with this fact then it's their problem.

 

Unless you are living in one of the contries marked on the following map - you are contradicting your own government. In that case, you might want to talk to your congressman, local politican or w/e is the resonsible person to talk to, if you want a change. Saying, its a fact, is else nothing more then your ignorance talking or a lie :)

 

[44smok]

15 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Yet the entire discussion hinges on WG's screw-up on exactly that aspect... 

I think you should read up on the issue. A comparison can be made to the recent Spain-Catalonia "problem". If Catalonia claimed independence (without recognition from Spain or other nations) and WG released a ship from the nation Catalonia, you would get a similar uproar.

If that ship would fly Catalonian flag IRL that's exactly what WG should do. 

 

At up - I don't give a buck about the government of my country and their official stance. It doesn't matter. If something functions as an independent state it is an independent state. That's the difference between Taiwan and Scotland for example.

 

I'm not interested in official status. I'm interested in the functional status.

[JaiFoh]

1 hour ago, AkosJaccik said:

 

  Hide contents

...so, time to implement a completely neutral, non-offensive, non-gendered flag for all!

...however, this might still be offensive to the nations of the war with great sacrifices without the proper national recognition, so maybe keeping the national distinction isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example...

  Reveal hidden contents

Germany

 

Pan-Asia

 

The Netherlands

 

Japan, and of course...

 

Russia.

 

Also, talking from the position of pride, the Austro-Hungarian flag:

 

 

 

 

 

 

...yes. It's mostly empty. Just like our naval records.

 

Edit: Probably should've read the forum rules beforehand, just to be sure, but neither did WG read our laws about the soviet flag, so I guess we're even. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

the Flag person's Attitude annoys me and i take offence at the implication that everyone is happy and smiling all the time.  

as an aside, i was waiting for something like this, once again West Wing to the Rescue. 

 

[ForlornSailor]

Quote

Diplomatic recognition status of ROC is meaningless in this discussion. They got they're own institutions, own flag and own navy. We shouldn't pretend it's otherwise.

Add to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_People's_Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

all have their own institutions and flag. Your stand on them? If you start to go Yay or Nay, you show, you have a personal bias in the discussion. Btw - the list goes on. You might want to educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_China

[Verdius]

1 hour ago, Tuccy said:

And as to "why change all flags", primarily because then the line would look kinda weird, with most ships with PA flag and two ships with national flags - so for now we will unify the Pan Asian tree under one flag and, as mentioned, we will soon add option to select appropriate flags client-side. As for the other other flags, let's take one thing at a time - though once we have such mechanics, it certainly might open some options.

 

So for now Korea gets shafted because it 'looks kind of weird'?

Why involve nations that have nothing to do with the China spat?

Seems like a really weak excuse for throwing out flags of other countries, especially considering this whole line is made solely to cater to people for these countries. It certainly wasn't because this line if reskins and copypaste is full of such significant and unique ships in the first place...

 

Now we get copy paste ships that can't even fly a national flag...

Who is this line even for now?

Not for history enthousiasts because these are just gimmicky reskins with absolutely no interesting careers.

Not for people from Asian countries because their flags get censored because the PRC is throwing a fit.

Gameplay? I doubt it. Most people already think the DW torp concept is dumb.

[Bellegar]

8 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Add to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_People's_Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

all have their own institutions and flag. Your stand on them? If you start to go Yay or Nay, you show, you have a personal bias in the discussion. Btw - the list goes on. You might want to educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_China

Hold on

 

I'm gonna assume you f*cked up your quote and you didn't mean to imply I have actually said that.

 

@44smok look at the links he posted. Those are NOT independant nations. What you think is irrelevant, functioning like an independant state does not make it one. If you think otherwise, you're an uneducated ignoramus and I'm very glad you're not involved in worldwide politics or diplomatic relations. I'm starting to think even Trump would be more competent than you, since he was smart enough not to say anything about both Chinas (yet......)

[ForlornSailor]

2 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

Hold on

 

I'm gonna assume you f*cked up your quote and you didn't mean to imply I have actually said that.

 

Bah, forum screwed me. Im sorry m8, Ill go and fix this.

[Bellegar]

3 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

Bah, forum screwed me. Im sorry m8, Ill go and fix this.

That's alright. Thanks

Stung a bit since I was quite vocally on your side ;)

[44smok]

LOL you guys should educate yourselves about notions such as statehood and nation and learn that political definitions of such notions are only a very narrow if not shallow perspectives of defining these notions. People a lot better educated than any of us came up and are still coming up with various definitions coming from various scientific paradigms. Which means that these notions have a dynamic status, their definitions are still in the making and are still subject to negotiation. Makes no sense to limit then to one perspective only - that of political sciences. Realising your own limitations in this matter will be your first step on the path towards enlightenment.

[LDPDC]

7 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

What you think is irrelevant, functioning like an independant state does not make it one. If you think otherwise, you're an uneducated ignoramus and I'm very glad you're not involved in worldwide politics or diplomatic relations. 

You seem to be interested in the subject and know a lot about it: care to explain to me why the statement by WG was not respecting the "One China Policy" (OCP)? I'm really getting confused with country/state/nation terms and their relation to the "OCP".

My (visibly false) interpretation is that "OCP" claims there is only one China, hence it is impossible to have diplomatic relationship with PRC & ROC at the same time, not that a state exists on Taïwan (With which the PRC has a state to state relationship if I understand correctly):

- Since ROC was never referenced on the EU website and only "Taïwan" is referenced as a "nation" is there really a breach to OCP and why?

- "OCP" applies to states and their relationship but WG is a private company & the EU website does not depend on the Chinese law: is there really a legal problem in Europe or in any European state/nation/country/whatever with saying that Taïwan is a "nation"? My understanding is there is none and WG is just backing under customer pressure, without any legal basis

- The ship depicted have existed prior to the "OCP", is it really impossible to describe Taïwan as a state in the past according to "OCP"?

 

Any informed answer really appreciated.

[Kartoffelmos]

48 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

- Since ROC was never referenced on the EU website and only "Taïwan" is referenced as a "nation" is there really a breach to OCP and why?

 

It was (you can see traces of it if you read the comments on the PA DD article). WG is currently trying to shift the blame to a nameless customer support employee instead of admitting that they made a mistake. A part of this process seems to be the replacement of all "Pan-Asian flags" with a single ensign in order to show their sincerity.

 

EDIT: Here's the buffered version of the article, courtesy of Google:

Spoiler

Quote

• Tier II: Longjiang (Taiwan)

In 1913, this destroyer was ordered from Germany in order to reinforce the Republic of China Navy with up-to-date ships. It was never built, but its design formed the basis for German V-25 destroyers.

The ship carries 105 mm L/45 Tbts LC/16 guns (3 х 1) and 500 mm torpedoes (2 х 2).

 

• Tier III: Phra Ruang (Thailand)

British destroyer of the R-class transferred to the Thai Navy in 1920. It could travel at a very high speed and carried very good armament. For most of its service life, the Phra Ruang was the most powerful torpedo ship in the Thai Navy.

It carries 102 mm/40 PIX guns (3 x 1) and 533 mm DR Mk II torpedoes (2 х 2). 

 

• Tier IV: Shenyang (Taiwan) 

Former Japanese destroyer of the Minekaze class that had some distinctions from the lead ship of the series. It was transferred to the Republic of China Navy in 1947, with all Japanese armament being demounted.

It carries 127 mm/51 Mark 7 guns (4 x 1) and 533 mm Triple torpedoes (2 x 3). 

 

• Tier V: Jianwei (Taiwan) 

Developed in Britain, the design of this destroyer flotilla leader was offered to the Government of the Republic of China in 1929 (Project T.306), but it never materialized. The ship carried five main guns and two triple torpedo tubes.

It carries 120 mm/45 BL Mk I guns (5 x 1) and 533 mm TR Mk IV torpedoes (2 x 3). 

 

• Tier VI: Fushun (China)

Soviet destroyer of the Gnevny class, that was transferred to the People's Republic of China Navy in 1954. It was fast and the main battery guns were powerful enough for a ship of its type.

It carries 130 mm/50 M1936 shì guns (4 x 1) and 533 mm 1-N torpedoes (2 x 3). 

 

• Tier VII: Gadjah Mada (Indonesia)

The N-class destroyer, built in Britain and then transferred to the Royal Netherlands Navy. In 1951, the ship was sold to Indonesia. This destroyer, armed with powerful main guns and torpedo tubes, had a very successful design for its time.

It carries 120 mm/45 CPXIX guns (3 x 2) and 533 mm QR Mk VI torpedoes (2 x 5). 

 

• Tier VIII: Hsienyang (Taiwan) 

A Gleaves-class destroyer built for the U.S. Navy. The ship was transferred to the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1955. The ship's armament consisted of dual-purpose guns and two quintuple torpedo tubes.

It carries 127 mm/38 Mk30 guns (4 x 1) and 533 mm Mk14 Quintuple torpedoes (1 x 5 / 1 x 5). 

 

• Tier IX: Chung Mu (South Korea)

A former U.S. Navy Fletcher-class destroyer that was transferred to the Republic of Korea Navy in 1963. The ship carried good armament and had enhanced AA capabilities.

It carries 127 mm/38 Mk30 guns (5 x 1) and 533 mm Mk14 torpedoes (1 x 5 / 1 x 5). 

 

• Tier X: Yueyang (Taiwan)

Former U.S. destroyer of the Allen M. Sumner class that was transferred to the Republic of China Navy in 1969. It was developed from the very successful Fletcher class. In contrast to its predecessor, it had a stronger main battery but ran at a lower speed.

It carries 127 mm/38 Mk38 guns (3 x 2) and 533 mm Mk15 torpedoes (2 x 5). 

 

As you can see, the article lists two "versions of China" and this does not sit well with neither mainland China or Taiwan.

 

48 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

is there really a legal problem in Europe or in any European state/nation/country/whatever with saying that Taïwan is a "nation"? My understanding is there is none and WG is just backing under customer pressure, without any legal basis

 

There isn't a law against it, but Chinese authorities might object to or limit WG's business if they feel that WG is not respecting their authority. Public relations also matter, of course. 

 

48 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

The ship depicted have existed prior to the "OCP", is it really impossible to describe Taïwan as a state in the past according to "OCP"?

 

You can reference to the geographical area or the "Chinese region Taiwan" (even simply Taiwan might do), but claiming that it is an independent nation is not very smart if you want to have good relations with the Chinese market. WoT for instance "bypassed" this by placing the Type 64 tank in the Chinese tech three but gave it the Kuomintang party flag/symbol:

 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I am not sure if WG is aware what an emotional topic a flag is...

They're aware as the IJN flag isn't the rising sun with beams coming off it and obviously the KM flag is doctored too.

 

Plus their own RU ships have the Imperial flag and USSR flag as accurately to that era of ship.

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, 44smok said:

At up - I don't give a buck about the government of my country and their official stance. It doesn't matter. If something functions as an independent state it is an independent state. That's the difference between Taiwan and Scotland for example.

 

I'm not interested in official status. I'm interested in the functional status.

 

First: Your oppinion does not matter in that subject. Neither does mine, but when i see 99% of the world on my side, i think this side is correct.

Second: They havent even declared themselves as Independent

Quote

The PRC has threatened the use of military force in response to any formal declaration of independence by Taiwan or if PRC leaders decide that peaceful unification is no longer possible

 

 

[ForlornSailor]

19 minutes ago, 44smok said:

LOL you guys should educate yourselves about notions such as statehood and nation and learn that political definitions of such notions are only a very narrow if not shallow perspectives of defining these notions. People a lot better educated than any of us came up and are still coming up with various definitions coming from various scientific paradigms. Which means that these notions have a dynamic status, their definitions are still in the making and are still subject to negotiation. Makes no sense to limit then to one perspective only - that of political sciences. Realising your own limitations in this matter will be your first step on the path towards enlightenment.

 

Eeh.. yea. If you chose to ignore the position of your contries government aswell as the UN - its pretty much your thing. But at the end of the day, you are barking on the wrong tree. Im not sure if you really understand this, but as a buisness, especially as an international one, you have to uphold and respect a lot of laws. WG could be in violation of laws in the contries they are operating - and I dont mean the Peoples Republic on China only. Do you think, a company can export good to a country, which is embargoed by a UN-resolution? And if they do so, what will be the consequences?

 

1 hour ago, 44smok said:

I don't give a buck about the government of my country and their official stance. It doesn't matter. If something functions as an independent state it is an independent state. That's the difference between Taiwan and Scotland for example.

 

You should have informed yourself a bit more. Taiwan doesnt see itself as an independ state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan#Question_of_sovereignty_over_Taiwan

So, what is your point exactly?

 

18 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

- "OCP" applies to states and their relationship but WG is a private company & the EU website does not depend on the Chinese law: is there really a legal problem in Europe or in any European state/nation/country/whatever with saying that Taïwan is a "nation"? My understanding is there is none and WG is just backing under customer pressure, without any legal basis

 

See my view on the things as partly described above. The PRC could also file protests with the country, where WG is registered, if they deem the subject this important / irritating. Or they could forbid WG from continueing buisness in the PRC. Maybe WG just doesnt want to risk any of this.

 

30 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

- The ship depicted have existed prior to the "OCP", is it really impossible to describe Taïwan as a state in the past according to "OCP"?

 

Complicated. Since Taiwan (as the island) wasnt ever declared to be a state in this borders, and sees itself as the successor of the Republic of China, which existed from 1912–1949 and included both mainland China and Taiwan, there is really not "prior" to be defined. Also, because since the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the then founded Peoples Republic of China claims sovereignty over both areas. Both sides pretty much claim, they rule both, both sides have a "One-China-policy" in place, but the ROC is hesitant to declare independe, cuz of 2 reasons. the PRC said, they would use any means necessary in such a case, and the ROC could only declare independence over the area, they de facto govers, which is only the island - which they obviously dont think is what belongs to them.

[LDPDC]

1 minute ago, ForlornSailor said:

Complicated. Since Taiwan (as the island) wasnt ever declared to be a state in this borders, and sees itself as the successor of the Republic of China, which existed from 1912–1949 and included both mainland China and Taiwan, there is really not "prior" to be defined. Also, because since the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the then founded Peoples Republic of China claims sovereignty over both areas. Both sides pretty much claim, they rule both, both sides have a "One-China-policy" in place, but the ROC is hesitant to declare independe, cuz of 2 reasons. the PRC said, they would use any means necessary in such a case, and the ROC could only declare independence over the area, they de facto govers, which is only the island - which they obviously dont think is what belongs to them.

ROC has been a full UN member between 45 & 71. Pretty much solves the issue from my point of view: no legal basis, only PR/customer pressure as you & @Kartoffelmos pointed. It's in fact the exact mirror of german ships having neither imperial nor nazi flag in all servers despite the fact that even in EU, they are not banned in most countries (Or should I say sovereign state ;)? ). It even seems that the claim by a support employee that Taïwan is a "nation" is correct since the term is not internationaly defined, "sovereign state" being the only used, so that even your cat can be a nation if you want ;). Thank you both for your answers.

[SparvieroVV]

4 hours ago, creamgravy said:

RIP best naval flag ever. 

 

 

Lit was the only way to keep it safe from the Trumps. 

[ForlornSailor]

8 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

ROC has been a full UN member between 45 & 71.

 

I didnt even knew that, interesting.

 

9 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

It's in fact the exact mirror of german ships having neither imperial nor nazi flag in all servers despite the fact that even in EU, they are not banned in most countries

 

The game would sure be banned in Germany if the flags from 1933-45 would be used. A lot of youtube-videos are not accessable with a german ISP, as would then be the website of WG/wows, im pretty sure. However, I doubt that Germany would go further then that with actions.

 

13 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

It even seems that the claim by a support employee that Taïwan is a "nation" is correct since the term is not internationaly defined

 

Yea.. its a greyzone I guess. Wikipedia tells me:

The word nation stems from the Latin natio, meaning "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock." Black's Law Dictionary defines a nation as:

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.^[1]

It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.^[3]

You could see PRC taking offense in the "historic continuity" and "distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics" - because you would throw mainland China in the same group then - and aswell the "autonomy" sentence - but as you say, those do not offically describe the word "nation". 

[OVanBruce]

2 hours ago, Bellegar said:

There is only one China. It's a geographical location that encompasses (amongst others) mainland China and the island known as Taiwan, which officially is a district of China (similar to Hong Kong and Macau). The governing body of China however, is up for debate. Two different 'entities' claim to be the rightful 'sovereign' of China: The People's Republic of China and The Republic of China. The "China" in both of these 'nations' is the exact same thing: the geographical location.

 

To be fair there is an emerging idea in taiwanese politics which are proposing the rennounce of claims in China and focusing on a fully endorsed Taiwanese identity outside of the Chinese one. So it's not so simple anymore in Taiwan.

[Kartoffelmos]

13 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

You could see PRC taking offense in the "historic continuity" and "distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics" - because you would throw mainland China in the same group then - and aswell the "autonomy" sentence - but as you say, those do not offically describe the word "nation". 

 

On the other hand, the edited article (see my last post) mentions the government of Taiwan (in addition to distinguishing between PRC and ROC) so there's also that:

Quote

Developed in Britain, the design of this destroyer flotilla leader was offered to the Government of the Republic of China in 1929 (Project T.306), but it never materialized.

 

5 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

To be fair there is an emerging idea in taiwanese politics which are proposing the rennounce of claims in China and focusing on a fully endorsed Taiwanese identity outside of the Chinese one. So it's not so simple anymore in Taiwan.

 

Well, it has never been a simple issue, but I wonder if this also falls under China's official stance of defending "their territory" with force if necessary. But I digress: we are getting very off-topic now .

[Bellegar]

1 hour ago, LDPDC said:

You seem to be interested in the subject and know a lot about it: care to explain to me why the statement by WG was not respecting the "One China Policy" (OCP)? I'm really getting confused with country/state/nation terms and their relation to the "OCP".

My (visibly false) interpretation is that "OCP" claims there is only one China, hence it is impossible to have diplomatic relationship with PRC & ROC at the same time, not that a state exists on Taïwan (With which the PRC has a state to state relationship if I understand correctly):

- Since ROC was never referenced on the EU website and only "Taïwan" is referenced as a "nation" is there really a breach to OCP and why?

- "OCP" applies to states and their relationship but WG is a private company & the EU website does not depend on the Chinese law: is there really a legal problem in Europe or in any European state/nation/country/whatever with saying that Taïwan is a "nation"? My understanding is there is none and WG is just backing under customer pressure, without any legal basis

- The ship depicted have existed prior to the "OCP", is it really impossible to describe Taïwan as a state in the past according to "OCP"?

 

Any informed answer really appreciated.

Well @Kartoffelmos beat me to it. But yes, in the original article WG named both Chinas China and then went on to name Taiwan an independant nation. (first 2 photos on this link https://m.weibo.cn/status/4174839554679231) 

While everybody is free to acknowledge either PRC or ROC, acknowledging both is against the OCP (gotta love all the abbreviations ), which isn't breaking a law by itself, but more of an international agreement. Going against it does not sit well with a lot of people.

 

After the Chinese civil war, there were two parties claiming control over some location both called China, and which used to be the territory on which the Chinese Empire was located. To make sure everybody was relating to the proper 'things' with the proper terms, practically everybody agreed to call that territory China (including the island known as Taiwan, which formally is a district of geographical China). Both the PRC and the ROC also agreed to this.

To further simplify things, everybody agreed to just talk to one Chinese republic. Whether that would be PRC or ROC was up for each individual nation to decide. Most of them went with the most powerful at the time: the PRC.

 

You are right that there is no actual law against calling Taiwan (or ROC) an independant state. However, if you do that while based in a country that recognises PRC as independant state, you are undermining your own government and you are going against a LOT of international diplomatic agreements. That's no crime, but it definately is frowned upon.

 

So the article by WG made two distinct mistakes. It recognised both PRC and ROC as independant nations at the same time, thus going against OCP. Second is that it clamed there is an independant state based in Taiwan, which, even according to ROC, is untrue. The nation in question would be ROC, but the island Taiwan is still a district of China (geographical). If one would recognise ROC as an independant state, then that state would embody the whole of China, including Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau for example.

The official capital of ROC is Nanjing, located on mainland China. Taipei, often regarded as capital Taiwan, is only a temporary capital of ROC as long as PRC 'occupies large territories of ROC'. The validity of this statement of course depends on which China you chose to recognise.

 

Lastly, at one point in time both republics agreed to stop banging each others head in. They both wanted control over all China (they both believe they are the rightful government and the other are rebels), but at the same time they both knew that was not going to happen without armed conflict. ROC knew very well it would lose a war with PRC, and PRC knew very well every international body would judge harshly on picking up arms against ROC. So yes, they regard each other as 'occupiers of my territory', but at the same time give each other enough breating room to function as two seperate nations. Which does not mean they are two seperate nations.

It also means that other nations are free to acknowledge either of them, but not both. It also means that switching sides will cause a diplomatic war with the former ally, which would be unwise especially if that means going to war with PRC. Even economic santions from PRC are bad since, as they say, everything nowadays is "made in China".

 

Fun fact (and the final point I will make now ), companies cannot do business with both republics. KLM for example (I'm Dutch, don't blame me for bringing a Duch example into this), can do business with PRC under it's own brand. If you fly to Shanghai, the plane will say KLM on the tail. However, the previous paragraph also means they, as a consequense of flying to PRC, cannot fly to ROC. This is a problem if you want to make money, because people will still want to fly to Taipei. So they created another company, a sister company if you like, KLM Asia which can then operate to ROC (and every other nation not being PRC). And this is a problem for all companies wanting to make money in that region.

They have been loostening up lately, but I know for a fact that in the past, you could not fly directly from PRC to ROC or vice versa. You would first go to Malaysia (or another nearby country, Japan was used a lot as well) and then fly on to the other republic with another airline.

I must admit I don't know how they handle security on the 'new' mainland/Taiwan flights, since it would technically be a domestic flight, but domestic within two different nations (PRC and ROC). It's still very messy, but they're getting somewhere

 

And yes, ROC's claim over 'all China' has been diminishing over time, just like PRC's claim to "use all means nessecary" if Taiwan (the regional government of Taiwan, not ROC this time, although they're the same to PRC ) declared independance.

 

 

Edit: and of course I have been ninja'd some more while writing this huge wall of text

[ForlornSailor]

Exellent post @Bellegar. I think it has pretty much all you need to know, presented from a neutral position.

 

12 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

They have been loostening up lately, but I know for a fact that in the past, you could not fly directly from PRC to ROC or vice versa

 

Back in 2010, for the first time, coast guards of both Chinas trained for the first time together, which was surprising. I also remember a few years eariler, the first Ship from the Peoples Republic of China calling a port in Taiwan. I guess some time in the future we will see Taiwan changing their name, stop claiming they own the mainland and declare themself indepedent as the island of Taiwan and the PRC wont have a problem with that either. Newer generations of chinese are gonna see things with different eyes and realize, the claims are unrealistic. Thats atleast my personal prediction only ;)

[Exocet6951]

Summed up: Chinese mainlanders are offended about a flag that will be censored in their own country, are bitching about it and sending letters to embassies over it (over a video game, lol), and still think they can be taken seriously, despite them being one of the biggest offenders when it comes down to territorial disputes.
 

Of course WG is bending down, because a happy Chinese server means more money.

 

Oh I long for the day China's bubble bursts and they aren't able to just throw around their consumer base's wealth to bully their way into getting what they want, including in ****ing video games.
 

[Bellegar]

14 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Exellent post @Bellegar. I think it has pretty much all you need to know, presented from a neutral position.

 

 

Back in 2010, for the first time, coast guards of both Chinas trained for the first time together, which was surprising. I also remember a few years eariler, the first Ship from the Peoples Republic of China calling a port in Taiwan. I guess some time in the future we will see Taiwan changing their name, stop claiming they own the mainland and declare themself indepedent as the island of Taiwan and the PRC wont have a problem with that either. Newer generations of chinese are gonna see things with different eyes and realize, the claims are unrealistic. Thats atleast my personal prediction only ;)

Thanks

 

And I certainly hope so. Especially for both Chinas, but also a bit for the rest of the world

 

1 minute ago, Exocet6951 said:

Summed up: Chinese mainlanders are offended about a flag that will be censored in their own country, are bitching about it and sending letters to embassies over it (over a video game, lol), and still think they can be taken seriously, despite them being one of the biggest offenders when it comes down to territorial disputes.
 

Of course WG is bending down, because a happy Chinese server means more money.

 

Oh I long for the day China's bubble bursts and they aren't able to just throw around their consumer base's wealth to bully their way into getting what they want, including in ****ing video games.
 

Try reading it all again, this isn't about any flag. This is about history, territorial claims and a bad statement form WG