Communist Insurgency in the Philippines (catch all)

[charter6]

Right, but overall the PKP did not accomplish its goals in the '46 elections, and that was when party leaders began to look towards armed struggle as the answer.

I'm not arguing over your characterization of non-recognition of the Huks' contribution in World War II -- it was an injustice. I just don't think that injustice really played too great a role in causing the Huk Rebellion, regardless of the public statements made to that effect by the PKP. Central Luzon was a powder keg, and had been since the 1930's. The Roxas government did nothing to diffuse the tension there after the war, and paid the price.

[pinoyme]

Charter 6:

In 1946, the goal of the PKP was parliamentary struggle. This was to be done through Popular Front tactics. The Democratic Alliance was made up of left-inclined liberals, agrarian populist/socialists, intellectuals, and a faction of the hard line nationalist movement.

The PKP had no illusions about its overall strength. Its base was confined to Central Luzon, and parts of the Southern Tagalog region also in Luzon. It had small pockets of influence in Manila--among left-leaning intellectuals and a labor federation, the Congress of Labor Organizations. It had a toehold among port workers in the in the Western Visayas in the central islands of the Philippines.

The decision to overthrow the government through armed struggle was made in 1950. However, between 1946 and 1950, there were several skirmishes between the Huks and the Philippine Constabulary, town policemen, and armed civilian guards of landowners.

In 1946, the Huks registered with the government. In the 1960s, Maoist leader Jose Ma. Sison pointed this out as a glaring example of the inept leadership of the PKP by the Lavas.

I am anti-Communist. But historical facts are historical facts. After all, the Cold War is over.

Cheers.

[charter6]

We're not really disagreeing on too much here, except I take serious issue with the idea that between '46 and '50 there were only "several skirmishes". By '48, Quirino had committed the regular army to the Huk fight after the failure of the constabulary to control the situation -- the Huks it should be noted more than held their own. Aurora Quezon was killed in April '49. Most of the literature on the Huk Rebellion marks the events of 1950, particularly Magsaysay's appointment, as the turning point of the war, not the beginning of the war.

[pinoyme]

Hi:

From 1946 to 1950, the PKP was still trying to broker a modus vivendi with the national government.

It was only in 1950 when the PKP politburo decided to call for a revolution which would put them in Malacanang, the presidential palace within two years.

The skirmishes were localized incidents, but they were several. President Quirino called in the Philippine Army, because the incidents were already too many. Besides, the Philippine Constabulary had the bad habit of cozying up with local power brokers.

Let it be pointed out that the PC was basically a police force with M1 Garands and a few 30 caliber machine guns.

Meanwhile, it seems you are citing Philippine literature of the Cold War. This must be now be taken with some skepticism and a more sober examination of the facts.

Quirino had been demonized, but it turns out he was a very capable leader even if aristocratic.

Magsaysay will always be revered. However, historical evidence shows that had he not died in a plane crash in 1957, his shortcomings as an administrator while President would have finally been coming home to roost.

[charter6]

I just don't buy into the fact that the violence from '46 to '50 wasn't organized at a higher than local level. That just does not mesh with the facts. Stalin University was reopened in '46, Taruc re-formed the General Headquarters at Mount Arayat in the spring of '47. The assassination of Aurora Quezon wasn't a random act of localized violence -- it was a calculated escalation (one that it should be noted was disastrous for the Huk cause).

I disagree with your characterization of Quirino as capable. Quirino's failure to react in a timely fashion to the Huks, and his unwillingness to clear out dead-wood and corruption from his government were major catalysts of the rise of the Huks.

I agree with you on Magsaysay, his strength was never his administrative ability. His personal, charismatic leadership style though and his ability to connect with the peasants contributed tremendously to the fight against the Huks, and his leadership more than any other factor turned the tide of the rebellion.

[pinoyme]

Hi:

The fact that the Huks registered themselves at risk of being subject to being killed by guns for hire of the landlords shows there was no central decision to launch a revolt before 1950.

The PKP also openly supported the Nacionalista Party in the 1949 elections. Taruc, the Huk Supremo, had enough time to plead their case such as the Manila Rotary Club is further proof.

Also, none of the PKP members, the politburo out in Manila had still gone underground.

The murder -ambush of the late President Quezon's widow was done by new Huk recruits.

The Huk clashes were traditionall village vendettas. Both the civilian guards and the Huks claimed to be acting in self-defense.

AS FOR Quirino? There were other problems than the Huk rebellion. The Philippines was devasted by World War 2. In fact, only Warsaw could beat manila's destruction. Yet, Quirino was able to make the government function in spite this.

To say that Quirino could stop graft and corruption is to betray your shallow knowledge of Philippine culture and history. No offense meant when I say this.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is a capable President. But she is being sunk right now by her husband, who allegedly is engaged in influence peddling left and right.

Magsaysay BTW also had a number of crooks in his adnimistration. Sadly, a number of these were allegedly also military men he had brought into his watch.

Incidentally, the clashes between the civilian guards and the PC were what led to the rebellion.The landlords were demanding back rentals for the war years when they had fled their townhouses and sought refuge in Manila.

The decision to launch the rebellion took place in 1950 shortly after the Korean War's start. The PKP'S theoreticians mistakenly thought a new world war would start and so would a new economic depression.

Hence, their analysis of a revolutionary situation obtaining in the Philippines.

Cheers and Happy Weekend.

[charter6]

Hi:

The fact that the Huks registered themselves at risk of being subject to being killed by guns for hire of the landlords shows there was no central decision to launch a revolt before 1950.

Why is that? I don't follow the logic of your point.

The PKP also openly supported the Nacionalista Party in the 1949 elections. Taruc, the Huk Supremo, had enough time to plead their case such as the Manila Rotary Club is further proof.

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?

Also, none of the PKP members, the politburo out in Manila had still gone underground.

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.

The murder -ambush of the late President Quezon's widow was done by new Huk recruits.

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.

The Huk clashes were traditionall village vendettas. Both the civilian guards and the Huks claimed to be acting in self-defense.

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.

AS FOR Quirino? There were other problems than the Huk rebellion. The Philippines was devasted by World War 2. In fact, only Warsaw could beat manila's destruction. Yet, Quirino was able to make the government function in spite this.

To say that Quirino could stop graft and corruption is to betray your shallow knowledge of Philippine culture and history. No offense meant when I say this.

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.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is a capable President. But she is being sunk right now by her husband, who allegedly is engaged in influence peddling left and right.

Okay.

Magsaysay BTW also had a number of crooks in his adnimistration. Sadly, a number of these were allegedly also military men he had brought into his watch.

Yes he did, but corruption dropped off significantly under Magsaysay, and popular approval of every level of government rose significantly.

Incidentally, the clashes between the civilian guards and the PC were what led to the rebellion.The landlords were demanding back rentals for the war years when they had fled their townhouses and sought refuge in Manila.

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.

The decision to launch the rebellion took place in 1950 shortly after the Korean War's start. The PKP'S theoreticians mistakenly thought a new world war would start and so would a new economic depression.

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.

Cheers and Happy Weekend.

You too.