Why is that? I don't follow the logic of your point.
Again, I don't see why this is proof of a lack of central coordination in the violence that took place before 1950. If Taruc wasn't already waging war, then why was he camped out on Arayat instead of campaigning in Manila?
Well, you're right, some of the political leadership of the PKP was still above-ground, but the military leadership of the Huks had reestablished HQ at Arayat, and squadrons were being reassembled all across Central Luzon.
Nope, not true. She was offed by a 200-strong detachment led by Alexander "Stalin" Viernes, an experienced commander who had served during world war II. Taruc may have disavowed the attack after the fact, but there's no doubt that it was carred out by "real" Huks.
I don't disagree; I'm just saying that the pattern of Huk violence across Central Luzon speaks to a degree of central planning and sanction that you're refusing to recognize.
The degree to which the government was able to "function" under Quirino is debateable. The Huk situation steadily got worse than it had been under Roxas or even Osema.
I don't deny that my knowledge of Philippine culture and history is shallow. Every metric we have though indicates that there was a sharp drop-off in corruption at almost every level of government after Magsaysay took office, just as there had been in the army after he was appointed defense minister. Stop it altogether, of course not. There's corruption in every country, and always will be. But Quirino could have done better, and deserves criticism for that.
Okay.
Yes he did, but corruption dropped off significantly under Magsaysay, and popular approval of every level of government rose significantly.
Wait, you're saying that the hired guards of the landowners and the PC fighting led to the war? Where do the Huks fit into that equation? I just don't think that's true.
At this point, I don't even know where you're getting the 1950 date. The name change to Hukbong Magapalaya ng Bayan was in November '48. That's the latest date I've seen cited for the "start" of the rebellion. There was a drop-off in attacks after the Quezon assassination, and around the time of the '49 general election, but to say that the rebellion didn't start until 1950 is not something that appears anywhere in the literature as far as I've seen.
You too.
Bookmarks