Media's US led depiction of the 1989 Tiananmen "democracy"* riots in China is as far you can get from the truth.

* Even if some of the violent rioters really believed that "democracy" would be better for China, history now tells them how wrong they were. Moreover, just consider dollar embezzler (1971-) US reaction if China had become even stronger technologically, economically, politically and morally (if the latter is even possible for a 1.4 billion country)? That wouldn't have extended US stolen hegemony, right. 

$-freeloader US extreme anti-China cognitive, financial, militaristic warfare is made possible with US 1971 stolen world dollar hegemony and is a crime against humanity and most people are too busy/ignorant to understand the danger of the cornered US - but instead fear China which offers best consumer goods, infrastructure etc, without imposing its system as US does! 

 Sadly, many haven't understood the enormity of US financial fraud 1971. And US economists - and some stupid US puppets called "allies" - just "explain" away how US as the only country in the world can prosper and militarize the rest of the world despite constant trade deficit. "We're just so good" is Bloomberg's and others answer!

When US 1971 stole* the world dollar it could manipulate it as it wanted and have the world pay for its trade deficit. However, China is now back and challenges it with superior tech which makes consumers happy. China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable China on its path out from Maoism.

 * 1944 Bretton Woods "agreement" pegged the world dollar to US dollar which was then pegged to gold under US Feds custodianship. 1971 US was bankrupt and arbitrarily violated the gold connection but kept the custody over the world dollar. Although it hit poor countries the most, China was especially vulnerable because it was in an intensive opening-up trade development following Deng Xiaoping's capitalist reform policy. 

Peter Klevius analysis of the US controlled media massacre of the truth about the Tiananmen square incident by neglecting cause and effect while producing anti-China* smear. 

* No, it's not just CCP! Undemocratic Christian theocracy US uses Sinophobia as synonymous with "democracy", well knowing that the absolute majority of Chinese people don't share the US view on "democracy", although young Chinese in the late 1980s realized the difference in living standard between US and China after Deng Xiaoping opened up the China that Mao had closed. So when US again manipulated the world dollar it hit hard (up to 19% 1989 inflation from 7% 1987) on China's economy. 

 Peter Klevius agrees with Klaus Schwab (WEF) who said "I respect China's tremendous achievements … over the last forty years. China could act as a role model for many countries, but in the end, each country should be left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt. We should be very careful in imposing systems but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries." Peter Klevius: Especially for US!

Wu'er Kaixi (aka Örkesh Dölet) Of Uyghur heritage from Xinjiang had a leading role during the 1989 protests.

Peter Klevius: What did he think about the old Uyghur jihad battle cry "kill the Han and the Hui"?

Summary of Peter Klevius Tiananmen analysis: There were two distinct and mutually exclusive groups of protesters who were not distinguishable by their appearance. 

The absolute majority were peaceful protesters. However, the rest were intent for violence, and their leaders even openly admitted that they wanted to provoke PLA to also use violence "so the world could see it". But even this wasn't enough. As crit­ics of Chai Ling’s role in the move­ment point to the infam­ous “last words” interview she gave to US journ­al­ist Philip Cun­ning­ham on May 28, just days before the riots. With the move­ment facing an uncer­tain future, a deeply pess­im­istic and fear­ful Chai gave video testi­mony to Cun­ning­ham in which she described her intention to leave the square, adding “I want to live”. But, other stu­dents would have to stay until the square was “washed with blood,” she said.

Much of the rioters brutality was the result of Beijing’s decision on June 2 to send in unarmed soldiers to clear the Square. The unarmed soldiers  were set upon immediately by rioters around the Square waiting for the chance to attack the soldiers. Beijing’s armed battalions were sent in later.

US Embassy daily reports of what was happening at the time.

The US Embassy report for June 4 notes:

    “the beating to death of a PLA soldier, who was in the first APC to enter Tiananmen Square, in full view of the other waiting PLA soldiers, appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.”

So it was the rs, not the government soldiers, that started the bloody confrontation.

State Department chroniclers continue their unbiased summary of events:

    “.. the initial moves against the students suggested to many that the Chinese leadership was still, as of the morning of June 3, committed to a relatively peaceful resolution to the crisis.”

From there we go to:

    “fascinating eyewitness accounts of the disorganized and confused retreat of PLA soldiers from the center of Beijing after their advance on Tiananmen Square was halted by crowds of demonstrators on the morning of June 3.’ ..the soldiers were ridiculed by Chinese citizens and scolded by elderly women who called them “bad boys” and “a disgrace to the PLA.”

On the day after, on June 4, however: “thousands of civilians (rioters - not peaceful protesters) stood their ground or swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails.”

Media reports confirmed this rioters violence.

According to the Wall Street Journal of June 4:

    “As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the square.”

Even ABC, later to one-sidedly dramatize cruelties by government forces, describes how in front of the Australian embassy a PLA solder was beaten to death, disembowelled and left with his penis stuck in his mouth.

But those who condemn government violence  at Tiananmen need to explain the seeming hatred of the government among protesters that triggered Tiananmen events .

Chai Ling, like many other Tianamen rioters became Christian and welcomed in US. Listen to her video to measure her bloodthirstiness - and cowardice.

The "tank man" hoax* 

* The photographer used Peter Klevius favorite film camera (before F4) Nikon Fe2. 10 years earlier Peter Klevius bought a Nikon Fe because of its fast (for fill in flash) titanium shutter, which also handled better in cold than Canon's slow and cold sensitive fabric shutter. Moreover, whereas Canon A1 was useless with low battery (which was also really expensive), Nikon Fe (and Fe2) could still do B and 1/90 mechanically. Double exposure and good depth and field control also helped. However, the best thing was the wonderful metering system with both manual and auto relative to each other on the side of the viewer.

Although the "tank man" photo is authentic, its usage is almost never. As Peter Klevius has always said: Cameras never lie - pictures do. And in this case it's the presentation against a background on an extremely distorted Western presentation of the "Tiananmen massacre", that completely eliminates the "hero" against the "evil CCP" mantra - at a time when CCP had abandoned everything Maoist. 

Peter Klevius was first reluctant to even mention the "tank man" in the post because he thought most people already understood the silliness in it. However, a brief check revealed that BBC and other fake media still uses it deeply tendentiously and polemically. According to Peter Klevius, the incident clearly shows that PLA had strong orders to be careful with non-violent people no matter what they did. Otherwise any army would hav just taken the guy for interrogation - as a ny police would have done in any other country. Moreover, his strange behavior can only be described as either mad or just joking in front of the crowd. There was nothing to "protest" against - or did he want them to park on a normally busy street, or even worse, return to Tiananmen square?! 

1) 5 June 1989 everyone in Beijing knew that PLA wouldn't hurt non-violent civilians. Yes, that happened accidently in the chaotic battle the day before with the rioters who deliberately started the violence (already 3 June) against unarmed PLA soldiers whom they burned alive and hanged etc. That the PLA may have used excessive force is in line with any army in a similar situation. Just listen to Chai Ling and understand how deliberate the provocations from the rioters side were. Btw, also check the Waco siege and similar incidents in US.

2) It didn't happen at Tiananmen square, and the tanks were not going against protesters but just the contrary, i.e. back home.

3) Little, or nothing is publicly known of the man's identity or that of the commander of the lead tank. 

4) An endless list of "theories" have been put forward. Shortly after the incident, London newspaper Sunday Express named him as "Wang Weilin" (王维林), a 19-year-old student who was later charged with "political hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's Liberation Army." This claim has been rejected by internal Chinese Communist Party documents, which reported that they could not find the man, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights. One party member was quoted as saying: "We can't find him. We got his name from journalists. We have checked through computers but can't find him among the dead or among those in prison."

There are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the "demonstration". In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn, former deputy special assistant to US President Richard Nixon, alleged that he was executed 14 days later; other sources alleged he was executed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that she believes from her interactions with the government press that they have "no idea who he was either" and that he is still alive somewhere on the mainland. Another theory is that he escaped to Taiwan and remains employed there as an archaeologist in the National Palace Museum. This was first reported by the Yonhap news agency in South Korea.

The Chinese government has made few statements about the incident or the people involved. The government denounced him as a "scoundrel" once on state television. In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang first stated (through an interpreter), "I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not", and then replied in English, "I think [that he was] never killed." The government also argued that the incident evidenced the "humanity" of the country's military.

In a 2000 interview with Mike Wallace, Jiang said, "He was never arrested." He then stated, "I don't know where he is now." He also emphasized that the tank stopped and did not run the young man over.

Cui Guozheng, was an unarmed cook in the 348th Regiment of the 116th Division. He was murdered by rioters because he did not stay close enough with the other troops.

.