The history of the People's Liberation Army is full of glory and heroes, but among the founding generals, there are also very few who choose to betray. By the time the rank system was abolished, only five had chosen this dead end. Their stories are not widely told, but they carry a special historical significance.
First of all, it is necessary to clarify a misunderstanding: the founding generals did not refer only to a group of people who were awarded titles in 1955. Prior to the abolition of military ranks, individuals who were awarded military ranks at any time could be classified as Founding Generals. This includes those who received senior military ranks in the 60s.
At that time, the core strength of the PLA was concentrated in the rank of colonel, colonel, lieutenant colonel and major, with a total of 96,853 people. There are 1,360 general-level officers, which can be described as the mainstay of the PLA.
However, even though the vast majority of the founding generals were revolutionary fighters who had passed the rigorous test, there were still very few cases of defection. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has always been known for its openness and honesty, and today we will focus on this small number of defector colonels.
Among them, there was a marshal, three major generals, and a colonel.
* A highly regarded military leader whose defection has sparked much speculation. He was defended by claiming that he did not voluntarily defect. However, the report in the journal "Literary and Historical Reference" reveals a different truth. At that time, ** and Ye Qun took the initiative to board the Trident special plane, the facts were clear, and no one hijacked **'s family.
In addition to the ** couple, there were three major generals who chose to defect. They were General Margov, Major General Taiyev, and Kai Meson Nam Wangdui.
Although Margov and Tayev defected, the PLA did not stop them. There are complex reasons for this, involving their complex feelings about identity, and they identify more as Soviets than as members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.
After the defection of border people, the two applied to go to the Soviet Union and were approved. Because of his status as a senior military officer, ** made it clear that he would send them away. They were joined by more than 40 officers of the rank of colonel and lieutenant.
The situation in Kemesonam Wangdui is similar to that of Tayef and Margov. He was a deputy of the old ** and was later awarded the rank of major general. Four years later, however, he fled to India with his "old master" and died abroad in 1972.
The oblivion of the founding generals.
Although the history of the founding generals is full of glory and glory, the story of these five people who chose to defect is little known. Of the tens of thousands of founding generals, only five chose this lonely path.
These people's choices may be related to their personal beliefs and identities, but their choices of betrayal have become a flaw in the history of the People's Liberation Army, and they are also historical fragments that cannot be ignored.
Although the stories of these five people have been buried in the long river of history, it is worth thinking about: among the many heroic founding generals, why did they choose to defect?This is not only a matter of individual choice, but also a reflection on national and national loyalty.
The betrayal of the five founding generals, although insignificant, carries special historical significance. Among the many glorious generals, the choices of these five people have become a part of history, and also provide us with a perspective for reflection and thinking. The past of history cannot be changed, but it can be used as a lesson to warn us of our original aspirations and the responsibility of being loyal to the country and the nation.
This article profoundly describes the situation in which a very small number of the founding generals of the People's Liberation Army chose to defect. The author analyzes this special historical phenomenon in an objective manner, which is thought-provoking.
First of all, the article begins by clarifying that the founding generals do not refer only to a group of people who were awarded titles in 1955, but to include individuals who have received military ranks over a period of time. This clarity allows the reader to better understand the breadth and complexity of the Founding Fathers, making the discussion of the topic more comprehensive and deep.
Secondly, the article analyzes the cases of defector generals one by one, and tells the story of the defections of **, Margov, Taiyev and Kai Mesonam Wangdui. By describing the backgrounds and choices of these individuals, the article not only provides historical details, but also delves into the reasons for their betrayal, involving complex issues such as personal identity and national loyalty, and triggers readers' thinking about national identity and loyalty.
What is commendable is that at the end of the article, the choice of these five founding generals is comprehensively considered and summarized. The author points out that although these five people seem insignificant among the many founding generals, their choices carry special historical significance. This holistic approach to individual choices is commendable, and it reminds readers that even a small number of choices can have far-reaching historical implications, so we should always be vigilant and reflective.
However, there are also areas where the article could be further improved. Although the background and choices of the defector generals are analyzed in detail, the article does not analyze the deeper psychological, motive, and social background behind the actions of these five people. In addition, when mentioning the historical background, the political, social, and cultural environment of the time can be more fully introduced to help readers better understand the background and reasons for these people's choices.
In general, this review **comprehensively** the circumstances of individual defectors among the founding generals, and by analyzing the reasons behind individual choices, it triggers readers' thinking about national and national loyalty. The objectivity and comprehensiveness of the article on historical events are worthy of recognition, but there is also room for further in-depth development to better present the complexity and profundity behind history.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!