Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents

This story is fake. I was there. Hard to believe this, I didn't see anyone dead in the Tiananmen Square. We were at Square. The soldiers surrended us. The soldiers shouted, "Get out of square". People were very emotional. Some wanted to stay and others wanted to leave. We heard that student leaders, Liu XiaoBo (who is awarded 2009 Nobel peace prize for this effort) was elected to negotiate with the troop commander. Later Hou Dejian, (who is the Taiwanese singer and one of the leaders), told the crowd that we can leave peacefully and there will be a safe corridor. Because there were a lot of people who didn't want to leave, Hou shouted, those want to leave say "go" and those want to stay say"stay". From my memory, the result was about even. Someone from speaker said that majority want to go. Let's get out peacefully. I remember very clearly, on the side of the corridor, there were several cameramen to record the proceeding of our leaving. There was a western looking face. if you want to know the truth, see the TV documentary Tiananmen square. that one is very objective. I lived in Beijing at the time. The reason I end up in the square was that initially, I was at FuxingMen area where troop shoot people happened so I moved along the ChangAn street and end up in the square. I passed by the square very day before the crackdown, I had tried to get into the square to talk to the student leaders. But I can't get to the center where the People's monument is stood because student union was established there and the tempory pass was needed to get there. During the night of June 3rd, everyone can get there and still hard to talk to the leaders. There are about hundreds of deaths. after 89, There is a group called "Mother of Tiananmen square". a group of women who lost their children during the night. They are very brave and under pressure from the government, tried to collect the names of those who died during the night and documented circumstances of death. They documented about several hundred of cases. After the incident, I come to USA. I found out why there are people want to exaggerate this thing. For the news people, the more sensational the better. that make their career. Most people don't know, there were about 40 thousands of chinese students in US university. at the time, most of these students were sent here by Government. It is called "Gong Pai", means their expenses were paid by the government. as part of the deal, these people have to be back to China when their schedule is up. At the time, China was very poor. these people don't want to go back. So there was an incentive there. and Later, Geroge H.W.Bush issued an Executive order which granted these students and scholars wholesale so far you proved that you were in USA before April 11, 1990. Those who come after that can apply for political asylum as well. at the time, U.S is in recession. Helped people to apply for the political asylum was a big business. I myself was asked if I want to apply. (I said no). There were Chinese student leaders end up in U.S too. They need money to survive. They want to get the funds from U.S government to continue the Democracy moment. so they have the incentive to hype this as well. Believe me, at the time, I want to believe this exaggerated version of the story. I want to tell people there were ten thousands of people died crushed by tanks. But that is not true. After I come to US, I was very disappointed by some of Chinese students behaviors in US. They organize the demonstration and have the picture taken in the US campus so that they can use it as proof to apply political asylum. The American journalists were in favor of student demonstrators, I can understand, but some were really embarrassed themselves professionally. fake news is not invented during 2016 election. Knowing both sides very well, I saw a lot of fake news, something out and out lies being reported about china during the 1990s. Still, there were a lot of honest American journests that earned my respect, in all emotional times, they just stick to the facts, no bull. Unfortunately, people like that never get promoted. it is true every where. Honesty never pay.

China wouldn't become as what it is today if they didn't do it. There could not be economic growth during political instability. Life of a billion+ people is now better and in hindsight i guess it was worth it.

> The figure was given in a secret diplomatic cable from then British ambassador to China, Alan Donald.

> Mr Donald's telegram is from 5 June, and he says his source was someone who "was passing on information given him by a close friend who is currently a member of the State Council".

Here we have a telegram by a guy (British Ambassador) who heard from a guy (unknown) who heard from a guy (unknown State Council) facts about the events of the day prior (massacre was on June 4th). Where did the unknown State Council official get his estimates from; were those official or just something he heard and repeated (and when did he get them)? Initial estimates of disasters are often quite wrong; here they were produced in game of telephone in a day or less; and they are not collaborated by any evidence we have now.

I rank the quality of new evidence as low. Rumors repeated in old official telegrams are still rumors. I expected BBC to have reported more critically. Alan Donald is still alive; BBC could have asked him if he received any updates to that first number that he trusted more.

I also have to fault BBC for it's phrasing around Donald's source. At first reading it sounded like Donald's source is an unnamed member of the State Council who is a close friend of the Ambassador. After reading BBC's sentence a carefully however; it sounds like the Donald's source is a person who is a friend of an unnamed member of the State Council. This ambiguous sentence is deceptive.

EDIT: I see vote count moving up and down on this comment making me think it is controversial. If you disagree with my doubts on the veracity of this story, write a comment. Maybe I missed something.

bullshit. or maybe the Chinese communist would have been overthrown, and they would have had a better government.

all the progress China's made today is because the communist government took their foot off of the necks of the common citizens, and let the citizens work tears and sweats.

Stop using what-ifs to justify monstrocities.

One can offer stability within a democratic framework.

To say that the wholesale slaughter of protesters was necessary to deliver market reform is simply absurd.