communism Main Entry: com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 A. a theory advocating elimination of private property B: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed Now where in that primary definition do you see any wiggle room for private enterprise, private wealth, rich people and poor people? China is an autocratic socialist system. Communism is the unattainable moral high ground used to manipulate the people, making submission appear noble. Any success China had on the ground during WW2 was from supplies imported by the American, British and Australian allies. China only brought swords to a gunfight though they could be effective in the time honored strategy of massive cannon fodder attacks where you just send in more troops than your enemy can possibly kill; Banzai! If the US hadn't dropped the Atomic bomb it is entirely possible the war would have ended with a negotiated treaty. The projected 1,000,000 US casualties in the invasion of the Japanese homeland may have been untenable to the allies, though I'm sure we would have been perfectly amenable to 1,000,000 Chinese casualties but oh yeah, they didn't have any boats or planes to get there. The Russians did wage war against the Japanese, because they wanted to reclaim Siberia and the disputed northern islands that they lost in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. Don't they teach you guys anything but homeboy bull***** over there?
Did US sold wartime materials to Japan pre "Pearl Harbor"? I know China got weapons from USSR too. We were allies, were we?
Even in terms of 'equality', China isn't on the U.S. level just yet. And I disagree that China isn't seeking "domination," those who can do. There has never been a 'benevolent' power. I think you missed the point entirely. I stated what I stated because "it is", not to make myself "feel better." That was nothing more than a brief statement about the geopolitical 'reality' that we all live in (yes, that includes other countries too). I was discussing power politics, not preaching about morality. And again, you can pitch all that "Chinese philosophy teaches us..." line all night long and it will mean very little in the grand scheme of things. China has already shown the willingness to flex its muscles when need be, and they have taken an increasingly proactive role in doing so the past few years. If you mean that the Chinese don't like to 'preach' to others then I would tell you that it's irrelevant, what they do is what matters. I think you're the one who seems to be falling for this romantic idea of a China that wants to "live and let live."
It's like a basketball game, the Spurs are better than the Rockets the last decade, and the Rockets will always try to be as good as the Spurs and eventually better than the Spurs. One thing for sure, the Spurs are getting older now. But the Rockets still can't dominate the western conference. Why? China is in a simliar situation now. Domination is not realistic for China.
Is that your "free media" talking or your ignorance talking? http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200508/15/eng20050815_202451.html "In fact, more than two-thirds of the Japanese Army's strength was focused on the China theatre. During the initial stage of the Pacific War, 35 divisions out of a total of 51, including the strong Japanese Kwantung Army stationed in Northeast China, were pinned down. Thus Japan was able to employ only 10 or 11 divisions in the Pacific theatre, with the other five divisions stationed on Japanese islands." "In the eight years of total war, Chinese forces conducted 22 large-scale campaigns, more than 200 major operations and 200,000 battles. Japan sustained losses and casualties totalling 1.5 million in China." As a matter of fact, the number of IJA troops in China during WWII never dropped below 1.8 million, far more than was in the Pacific. Early in the war, on the plains of Eastern China, the Chinese couldn't match Japanese firepower. However, once the war entered the central mountain ranges and took away some of the advantages enjoyed by the Japanese, the war became a standstill. The Japanese couldn't expand westwards and was rapidly losing a war of attrition. As a matter of fact, by mid 1943, a Japanese defeat was all but inevitable. The Flying Tigers are fondly remembered in China, but even at its height it, never exceeded 3 squadrons and 90 aircrafts. The amount airlifted by them and in fact over the entire Burma Road never amounted to more than a trickle. To claim that China would have been steamrolled by Japan without them represent revisionist history at best.
http://www3.bbsland.com/forums/general/messages/440127.html Rough translation: 1937 - 1945: KMT Casualty: 3 million (200 generals) IJA KIA (no casualty figure): 630,000 (130 generals)
The mentioning of morality is more in general schema of this thread itself, when people tell you because we have capitalism news source we won't get brain washed, only Chinese can be. Direct reply to you was that you said China aspires to dominate as US, I believe you are wrong, and Chinese history shows you so as well. If you are offended by Chinese philosophy, fine, let's forget about it. You said China have shown willingness to flex its muscles in recent years, what does that mean exactly? Has China bombed anyone or invaded anyone in recent years as you mentioned? If not, how could you claim that China ASPIRES to get where US is now? Just because China is improving its military? Can 1.3 billion people want to be ready to defend themselves?
May be not 'realistic' now, but 20-50 years into the future? My contention isn't that they are seeking 'domination' (or to use a more 'technical' term, hegemony) now, but that they eventually will wherever they can. It would almost be unprecedented for a nation not to do so. Oh, and avoid using basketball analogies, it's not nearly the same thing (for one, there is a "world government" in the NBA, run by Commissioner David Stern, who establishes the rules of the game and sternly -- no pun intended -- enforces them).
You are quite funny. Copying the definiton of communism to show you finally get the meaning of that word? Or did anyone ask for your help? China survived Mongol and Man, and China survived Opium war with US involvement as well. Chinese people survived for thousands of years, not on advanced weaponey, but on its culture. Without US support, war against Japan would be a lot longer, but China and Chinese people will still survive. US joined the war after Pearl Harbor, for its own benefit and safety. Yes, it definitely benefited China greatly. Meanwhile, with China keeping 2/3 Japanese army, US benefited a lot as well. Not sure what you are excited about, that Chinese don't credit WWII SOLELY to US?
What could US look like in 20-50 years? Are you worried about China's or India's rise? David Stern isn't that powerfull, you will always find someone to dominate him.
The U.S. was pursuing an intentionally provocative foreign policy against Japan long before Pearl Harbor, leading some to speculate that we wanted to draw them into war (mostly to get Germany to declare war on us and thus we can justify entering the war with the Allies, a notion that is somewhat supported by accounts of FDR and some of his top policymakers, not to mention his views on Japan/Germany and his affinity for the British). U.S./British sanctions against Japan were comprehensive in nature and very damaging to the Japanese (sanctions included oil and essential raw materials for an island-nation that lacked them), and many argued that the Japanese felt compelled to take action: http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0605Higgs.pdf So again, the point is that outright military aggression isn't the only form of 'warfare'. There is very good reason to believe that U.S./British sanctions had a 'crippling' effect on Japan long before we 'entered' the war following Pearl Harbor (again, many of our policies leading up to the declaration of war were indicative of the fact that the U.S. wasn't standing idle doing nothing while Europe/SE Asia was burning to the ground). All this undoubtedly had an impact on the efficacy of Japan's expansionism/ability to maintain its belligerent policies in Asia. The fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place is indicative of that.
Not particularly, no. I think China and India are more wary of each other than we are of them. If you mean whether or not our 'presence' in East/SE Asia is threatened, then I would say no. We have strong alliances in the region and I foresee our presence there lasting at least through this century if not beyond. We have strong alliances with Japan / South Korea / Taiwan / The Philippines / Australia, and building new alliances with countries like Indonesia, so we will always have a presence there, even if one or more of the above mentioned nations decide to end our 'arrangement'. Generally speaking, a hegemon always tries to maintain its position in the world. But for now, U.S./Chinese economies are so intertwined and interdependent that I doubt relations would deteriorate to the point of war/sanctions or some other overt confrontation. There is some 'juggling' going on, but for now we're playing chess.
I am fully aware of that piece of history. Chinese history books did teach that part, including the background and what led to Pearl Harbor. Lots of books regarding WWII were translated to Chinese, from different sources. Again, my point was made about actively involving killing Japanese soldiers, in reply to the insult that Chinese can only send more people than Japanese could kill, without US. I think the majority of Chinese do fully appreciate US in WWII, but to claim Chinese would have just rolled over and died during WWII without US is not honest to history. Let's not further derail this thread about news reporting and brainwashing.
It's a pity that "who did what" during WWII has to be argued over and, IMO, inaccurately. China suffered tremendously during WWII because of Japan. There's no doubt about how China and the Chinese people suffered and how hard they fought, but it was the US Navy and the US Marine Corps that won the Pacific War. It wasn't the Chinese Army, regardless of how many Imperial troops were tied down in China. Japan was (and is) an island nation. The war was won or lost at sea and in the air. Bitter land fighting while island hopping towards Japan by the US and its allies, in order to bring Japan within range of our air power (not China's, btw), cost thousands of casualties on both sides, but those casualties were a fraction of those suffered in the China theatre. However, the Japanese military effort in China, in my opinion, didn't have a significant effect on Imperial Japan's defeat in the end. There was a limit to how many troops Japan could deploy on the islands in the Pacific. Those bastions Japan heavily fortified were bypassed, so they could be cut off from supply, starved out, and eventually taken care of. What was important was the aquisition of strategic islands with airfields for use as platforms for American bombers to strike the Japanese homeland. We had no idea if the atomic bomb would work or not until the first one was tested, not long before they were used. American planning called for a massive invasion of Japan's home islands, with US casualites estimated to ultimately be between one and four million. The planned invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would have been a nightmare. "Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties." http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm There wasn't any doubt that we would have invaded Japan. The invasion was being planned and the forces required built up because almost no one knew about our atomic weapons program, and even those who knew harbored serious doubts as to whether the weapons would work. We went ahead thinking we would be going into a bloodbath while invading Japan, but we would have invaded Japan in order to win the war. American and British high technology prevented it and gave a much quicker end to the war, both for America and for China. Why do we need to argue over the sacrifices our ancestors made to destroy Imperial Japan and her ambitions? Both our nations, and many others, past a dear price for putting an end to Japan's attempt at empire. It was a price we were willing to pay... the United States, China, and the rest of the allies in the Pacific Theatre. Impeach Bush.
U.S. says missile parts mistakenly sent to Taiwan. Who wants more evidence? It's China who gave US the victory over Japan. It's also China who helped US won the Cold war.
their army is already perfect for defense with heavy emphasis on tanks and soldiers. It is being changed to offense with diesel/electric subs, fighter jets, and tactical missles. A carrier is also already in the works. A carrier would be a total ego, look at me move.
Chang Kai Shek didn't send Chinese troops to Japan after Japan's surrender. And that's a big mistake.
Those statements are just funny. Had China rolled over like DaDakota suggested, Japan would have had the combined economic and production power of Japan, Korea, China, French-Indochina, Philippines, Indonesia, etc. Had the Chinese not bog down the IJA in China and Burma, the war front would very have reached Australia and India. To put that in perspective, that would mean Japan would have effective control of all of Eastern/Southeastern Asia and Oceania, if not beyond. Not only would island hopping get much tougher with 1.8 million additional IJA troops, but the former Soviet Union would be fighting a war on two fronts and Zhukov would have been stuck in the Far Eastern theatre instead of pulling off victories in Stalingrad and Kursk. A planned invasion of Japan would have been far more costly. The end result would have been disastrous. So to claim that the Chinese theatre helped change the shape of the war had more than plenty of truth in it. And btw, the Americans weren't the only ones planning an invasion of Japan. Stalin did also and actually was far more ahead in preparations.
