Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is China the New Evil Empire?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    The Chinese were slaughtered by Japanese in the First Sino-Japanese war also. Again in WWI, when she was first neutral, and then an ally. China was promised the return of her territories held by Germany, but when time came, those territories were instead given to Japan. China walked away from Versailles and signed an independent treaty with Germany. WWII Japan was a monster created by the West just as Meiji Imperial Japan was, and continued be nurtured by the West during First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War, and First Great War. Geopolitics is a strange thing and once history has pasted, it cannot be changed.
    Salinator, I have to take issue with some of your points:

    First, considering the geographically limited operations of the First Sino-Japanese war, and the sizes of the forces engaged, with little or no support from other Chinese military garrisons to those in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan, I find the bolded statement to over-stated. The Chinese, on a nationwide level, were most definitely NOT slaughtered by the Japanese. Some Chinese, numbering perhaps into the low tens of thousands at most, were.

    Second: While the West certainly assisted in the rise of Meiji Imperial Japan, it was hardly their creation. Meiji Japan was a natural development of the Japanese state and had developed from within, not from without. The role of the West was tht of mere purveyors, not architects. Ditto for WWII Japan, though giving them Chinese territories certainly fed their appetite for territorial expansion. Even "nurturing" is too strong a term.
    dit: Lirelou

    Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by lirelou View Post
      Salinator, I have to take issue with some of your points:

      First, considering the geographically limited operations of the First Sino-Japanese war, and the sizes of the forces engaged, with little or no support from other Chinese military garrisons to those in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan, I find the bolded statement to over-stated. The Chinese, on a nationwide level, were most definitely NOT slaughtered by the Japanese. Some Chinese, numbering perhaps into the low tens of thousands at most, were.
      How can Japan slaughter the Chinese on a nationwide scale IF they were not there in scale? How is any amount of senseless or brutal slaughtering an overstatement?

      But slaughtered they did, but some slaughtering is okay as long as there wasn't too many? Port Arthur Massacre is perfectly acceptable? Not rescuing Chinese sailors from sunken ships is a benevolent act? Today those are war crimes.



      But just as the West romanticized the Japanese victory over the Russians in 1905, the Japanese victory over China in 1895 was also romanticized:




      Second: While the West certainly assisted in the rise of Meiji Imperial Japan, it was hardly their creation. Meiji Japan was a natural development of the Japanese state and had developed from within, not from without. The role of the West was tht of mere purveyors, not architects. Ditto for WWII Japan, though giving them Chinese territories certainly fed their appetite for territorial expansion. Even "nurturing" is too strong a term.
      I disagree. From the time the West tried to forcibly open Tokugawa Japan with gunships, they had cast the die.
      Prayers.


      BoRG


      http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

      Comment


      • #63
        Perhaps we read English differently. For me, the "Chinese were slaughtered by the Japanese" has two connotations. First, he war was a walk-over for the Japanese, which it wasn't. Second, that the butchery reached genocidal scale. Which it didn't. As for Port Arthur, as you well know, the number of deaths is still disputed.

        There is no reason to suppose that the Japanese acted any differently in the First Sino-Japanese War than they did in the Imjin Wars of 1592-97. Nor is there any reason to presume they treated the Chinese any different than they treated the Koreans or their own populations, a point made by Stephen Turnbull in his book on the Imjim Wars.

        Nor should we presume the Chinese would have treated the Japanese any differently, given their status as invaders. China's own internal wars also qualified as 'slaughters' under even your apparent definition. Though to be fair, both China and Korea appear to have treated their civilians with greater respect than the Japanese treated their own.

        As for the artwork, it could just as easily appeared in and Asian newspaper targeted to their own indigenous masses. The first Sino-Japanese War triggered a flood of military students and revolutionaries to Japan to study how the Japanese had attained such mastery in military affairs and national development that they could topple Asia's giant so quickly. The view was hardly unique to the West.

        Today's war crimes are exactly that: today's view of warfare, and more precisely, the western view of what war should be. As we see in almost every African war, and certainly in the actions of Al Quaida and the Taliban, it is not a universally held view.
        dit: Lirelou

        Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by lirelou View Post
          Perhaps we read English differently. For me, the "Chinese were slaughtered by the Japanese" has two connotations. First, he war was a walk-over for the Japanese, which it wasn't. Second, that the butchery reached genocidal scale. Which it didn't. As for Port Arthur, as you well know, the number of deaths is still disputed.
          Butchery is still a slaughter, unless you can explain to me that slaughterhouses do not employ butchers. Chopping off the heads of helpless people is still slaughtering no matter how you try to rationalize and play semantics with English.

          I never placed a number or proposed a scale. I merely pointed out to MSC MSGT USAR that the Japanese had slaughtered Chinese prior to WWII. Then by your wordings, you seem to imply that WWII was when the Japanese did real slaughtering. Would you consider Second Sino-Japanese War/WWII a "walk-over" for the Japanese even just in China when the Chinese killed more Japanese combatants and engaged in more major battles against the Japanese than any other power?

          There is no reason to suppose that the Japanese acted any differently in the First Sino-Japanese War than they did in the Imjin Wars of 1592-97. Nor is there any reason to presume they treated the Chinese any different than they treated the Koreans or their own populations, a point made by Stephen Turnbull in his book on the Imjim Wars.
          Then there would also be no reason to believe that the Japanese would have acted differently than they did historically in WWII when they were present in China in large forces.

          Nor should we presume the Chinese would have treated the Japanese any differently, given their status as invaders. China's own internal wars also qualified as 'slaughters' under even your apparent definition. Though to be fair, both China and Korea appear to have treated their civilians with greater respect than the Japanese treated their own.
          Not my argument. Most of the biggest slaughtering of Chinese throughout history were done by the Chinese. Some Chinese surnames were virtually destroyed by some Emperors just because they might have been related to some general that lost a battle. Remember, more Americans were killed by Americans in war also, does that lessen the anguish Americans had for Maine, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and Twin Towers?

          But in general, I do believe the Japanese military was more cruel and brutal for their time. Although with modern revision and Hollywood, we are to believe that the Samurai honored all the peasants and were there merely for their protection.

          As for the artwork, it could just as easily appeared in and Asian newspaper targeted to their own indigenous masses.
          The cartoon was from a British publication. The painting is Japanese with Hanji text.

          The first Sino-Japanese War triggered a flood of military students and revolutionaries to Japan to study how the Japanese had attained such mastery in military affairs and national development that they could topple Asia's giant so quickly. The view was hardly unique to the West.
          Yes yes yes. Japan was an overnight sensation and became a darling of the West. I guess those military students and revolutionary never factored in that China was carved up, colonized forcibly, had opium and tobacco shove down her face, had her silk and tea industry stolen, her porcelain stolen, her people shipped off for cheap labor, robbed of her national treasures and so forth. Somewhat of a hyperbole on my part, but it cannot be denied that we had a part in tearing down China and boosting up Japan.

          The Qing by that time no longer had a standing army, had not purchased arms and ammunition for some time, training had lagged, moral was at an all time low. The Empress Dowager had stolen military funds to remodel the Summer Palace even whilst war was looming over the horizon. By the time the Japanese annihilated what was once considered a powerful fleet, the ships were dilapidated and gun barrels were even filled with trash.

          Today's war crimes are exactly that: today's view of warfare, and more precisely, the western view of what war should be. As we see in almost every African war, and certainly in the actions of Al Quaida and the Taliban, it is not a universally held view.
          And I did say TODAY.

          Massacres are massacres. Just because it was a different time or a different place does not change it's impact to the people slaughtered nor to their descendants' memory of history.

          Do I care that Chinese were killed by the Japanese? NO............but I am sure that the Chinese do care and will always remember.
          Last edited by Salinator; 19 Apr 14, 05:53.
          Prayers.


          BoRG


          http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

          Comment


          • #65
            hi, sal,

            I have PMed you before thanking you for your informative posts, and i amposting this now in case other people still cannot appreciate your posts (and lirelou’s).

            Thanks for the good posts!

            Gil
            "We have no white flag."

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Salinator View Post
              China has been screwed, but in ways seen differently by myself. The UN Security Council seat belongs to The Republic of China that did nearly all the fighting against Japan, not to the Chicoms who spent didn't do a whole lot other than one failed offensive action, then a long march, but did a great PR job claiming they defended the people.

              Let me ask you this: Why did the international organizations down to even the Olympics committee fail to recognize The Republic of China. In 1982, when you immigrated from "Taiwan", it was still The Republic of China. Product labels back then said "Product of Republic of China", now it says "Made in Taiwan". All this happened while there were at one time two Vietnams and two Germanys, were and still two Koreas. You from Taiwan got screwed to the point where the world does not see you as Chinese, but Taiwanese, and your products are no longer products even though the origin of the your people were the the ones that taught the Japanese to write, civilized Okinawa, explored Daiyou Dao, Macao, Singapore, Sri Lanka, etc.

              To gravitate towards Mainland China is false pride that attracts many because they are at this time projecting to the outside world growing wealth and power. Keep in mind that the greatness of China from the time of the Qin and Han was built largely on the backs of the Fujian people....from all the Great Walls through deserts and over mountains to Forbidden City built without a single piece of of metal. Taiwan is in majority Fujian or Fukien(if you insist).
              Dear Sal:

              Thanks for your posting. I am glad that you see Chinese Nationalists their actual contributions, not many people do or care.

              Yes, in 1984 Olympics ROC had to go to Olympics as Chinese Taipei; same status that is given to Hong Kong. You can thank the US One China Policy. US caved into PRC view that Taiwan is a Renegade Province of China. However, if ROC is in PRC's shoe, they would do the same.

              If you do care for ROC, let me ask you this. If US is in assisting Japan relinquishing their defeat to the Chinese, what do you think about that. In 1952 Taipei Treaty crafted by US was signed by Japan and ROC for the official surrendering of Japanese to ROC. In the treaty, specificially Taiwan, Penghu, Spratly, and Paracel Islands are to be returned to ROC; and no reparation was demanded from ROC.

              However, in 1972; Japan has officially recognized PRC as the only China, and hence Taipei Treaty is nullified. Japan is no longer admitting their defeat to China since Taipei Treaty is nullified, and there is no treaty with PRC. There last document recognized with China is Shimonoseki Treaty,

              Article 1: China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.
              Articles 2 & 3: China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty of the Penghu group, Taiwan and the eastern portion of the bay of Liaodong Peninsula together with all fortifications, arsenals and public property.
              Article 4: China agrees to pay to Japan as a war indemnity the sum of 200,000,000 Kuping taels
              Article 5: China opens Shashih, Chungking, Soochow and Hangchow to Japan. Moreover, China is to grant Japan most-favored-nation treatment.

              Daoyutai Island is the first step for their claim against Taiwan. Daoyutai Islands clearly is closer to Taiwan than Japan, but US gurantees the US-Japan Security Treaty, what does that tell you?

              Taipei Treaty was signed in 1952 because of Chinese Civil War broke out after WWII. ROC wasn't able to attend San Francisco Treaty, the official surrendering of Japan. Truman's mastery of dealing with Stalin was given whatever he wanted for Soviet to fight the Japanese. That included forcing ROC to give up Mongolia and Manchuria per Yalta Conference, where ROC was not invited. How can US have not consulted China, but give up Chinese land to Soviets without Chinese consent?

              Taipei Treaty gave Spratly and Paracel Islands in South China Sea to ROC, but what does US do now? They are helping Vietnam and Philippines claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands (occupied by ROC today with PRC support). Only about 60 years ago, this was granted to ROC; but US is going back on it's word now? Or is US Policy same as Japanese Policy, since PRC is the only recognozed China; Taipei Treaty is nullified too?? Is ROC gettign screwed again??? Not just Japan but US too??? This is why I agreed with CKS view of American Diplomacy, No moral or center.

              I assure you that eventhough China and Taiwan are not necessarily trusted allies of each other, but in territorial disputes; they are in the same boat. Ask South Koreans how they feel? Why is Korean having disputes with Japan too?? Seoul is much friendlier with Beijing now than Tokyo.

              Some people, like Bill O'Reily compares Chinese Islands dispute is Chinese invading Japanese Islands like Russian aggresion in Ukraine. Historically and according to treaties; this is clearly not the case. I am frustrated and angered that few people know about Taipei Treaty, and ROC is betrayed again.
              Nice is heavy on my mind.
              I pray and wish the best for France.

              Comment


              • #67
                US caved into PRC view that Taiwan is a Renegade Province of China. However, if ROC is in PRC's shoe, they would do the same.
                MSGT: A bit of overstatement there. Rather the U.S. (finally) acknowledged that Taiwan no longer represented the Chinese nation. The PRC had the numbers, and since they weren't likely to fall anytime soon, had to be dealt with diplomatically.

                But, yes, if the ROC had held on to the mainland, the U.S. would have continued to recognize their government as the legitimate Chinese government, and perhaps later would have come up with a "PRC Institute" similar to the current Taiwan-US relationship to deal diplomatically with whatever PRC entity was left in control of whatever bit of Chinese territory. (The Northeast, perhaps?)
                dit: Lirelou

                Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Taipei Treaty was signed in 1952 because of Chinese Civil War broke out after WWII. ROC wasn't able to attend San Francisco Treaty, the official surrendering of Japan. Truman's mastery of dealing with Stalin was given whatever he wanted for Soviet to fight the Japanese. That included forcing ROC to give up Mongolia and Manchuria per Yalta Conference, where ROC was not invited. How can US have not consulted China, but give up Chinese land to Soviets without Chinese consent?
                  First, how did the renewal of the Chinese Civil War in 1945 prevent ROC representatives from 'being able' to attend the San Francisco peace conference? The fact is that neither the PRC nor the ROC were invited because of the civil war. The decision to invite neither was a compromise between the US and UK, to which the USSR objected. The US wished to invite the ROC while the UK wished to seat the PRC instead.

                  Second, I presume the "Chinese land" being "given" to the USSR refers to Mongolia alone, and not "Manchuria". Or are you also referring to the Amur River Basin portions settled by the previous Russian government, and not just Manchukuo?
                  dit: Lirelou

                  Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    How Chinese troll?

                    This is irrelevant but I find this article hilarious:
                    In China, pro-Bo Xilai party not seen a threat, but a demand for rights
                    (Reuters) - A political party formed by followers of ousted politician Bo Xilai does not appear to be a threat to China's Communist rulers in itself, but is another example of a growing number of citizens speaking up for their rights and the rule of law.
                    Several well-known supporters of Bo have distanced themselves from the China Zhi Xian Party - literally "the constitution is the supreme authority" party. Its formation last week challenges the long-ruling Communist Party's ban on other parties, but Zhi Xian is unlikely to bring people out on the streets or demand Bo's political rehabilitation.
                    Still, founder Wang Zheng has joined a growing number of Chinese who are willing to stand up publicly for their rights, including environmentalists and groups like the New Citizens' Movement, which advocates working within the system to press for change.
                    China's leaders, worried that any criticism of the government could get out of hand and lead to instability, have taken a hard line and jailed many of these activists, including prominent dissident Xu Zhiyong, founder of the New Citizens' Movement.
                    "There are more and more of us. We have to push the leadership and stand up for our rights," said Wu Lihong, an environmental activist from central China, who is currently under house arrest. "Only then can China progress."
                    So far the government does not appear to be taking any direct action against Wang, a Beijing academic, although her home is under surveillance by police and plainclothes security.
                    Wang told Reuters she is no anti-government revolutionary and is not challenging the Communist Party's right to govern, which she accepts is enshrined in the constitution.
                    Instead, the Zhi Xian Party simply wants the government to guarantee things like freedom of assembly and elections. "There are many important systems provided for in the constitution, like the National People's Congress and representatives of the people at various levels, but this is not happening according to the constitution. That's what I want to stress," she said.
                    Bo, the former Communist chief of Chongqing who won support with his crackdown on crime and pro-Mao Zedong rhetoric, was jailed for life in September after being found guilty of corruption and abuse of power. An appeals court upheld the sentence last month.
                    The establishment of the pro-Bo party on Nov 6 came just days before President Xi Jinping began a policy-setting meeting of the Communist Party's Central Committee. He has been reaching out to Bo's left-wing supporters in a bid to win them over and secure endorsement of his economic reform program at the closed-door meeting, scheduled to conclude on Tuesday.
                    The government has made clear that no kind of political reform is on the cards.

                    NEW PARTY "A FARCE"

                    While Bo's fall from grace continues to anger leftists, three of his prominent supporters said they had not joined the new party, and expressed little interest in it.
                    Song Yangbiao, a reporter who was detained in August after urging people to protest against Bo's trial, said he had heard of the new party's establishment, but knew no details.
                    "Nobody has said anything about it to me. I really don't know anything about its organization or who set it up. It's got nothing to do with me," he told Reuters. "I think most of us (Bo supporters) don't know about this."
                    Sima Nan, a well-known defender of Bo's policies who makes a living appearing on television entertainment shows, labeled the new party a "farce", adding that as a proud Communist Party member he would never join it, doubting Bo would either.
                    "Everything Bo Xilai did in Chongqing was for the Communist Party. He would never join another party," Sima told Reuters. "I think this new party is a practical joke. I know nothing of its aims or who is behind it."
                    Bo has been named chairman for life of the new party, but since he has been jailed it is not known if he will or is even able to accept the position.
                    One analyst said authorities could just ignore the new party.
                    "Certainly, there are still those in the Communist Party who support Bo, but very few would dare to stand up and say they support the Zhi Xian Party," said Chen Ziming, an independent political commentator in Beijing.
                    "The Communist Party is not too worried by these far leftists. If they were espousing liberal democracy, they would get locked up pretty quickly."
                    Nevertheless, the Communist Party has not allowed any opposition parties to be established since it came to power following the 1949 revolution. So history suggests it will not look kindly on this new party, especially when its titular head is a former member of the Communist Party's top ranks.
                    Bo was sacked as party chief of Chongqing after his wife was convicted in the murder of a British businessman, who had been a family friend. She has also been jailed for life.
                    Bo's brash self-promotion irked some leaders. But his populist ways and crackdown on crime were welcomed by many of Chongqing's 30 million residents, as well as others who hoped that Bo could take his leftist-shaded policies nationwide.
                    Han Deqiang, an academic in Beijing who has been one of the ardent defenders of Bo's policies in Chongqing, said he thought support for Bo in the Communist Party was still widespread, even if most people did not dare talk about it.
                    "Without a doubt, many Chinese still support Bo Xilai. I think that most party members believe that it is a case of corrupt officials screwing over a clean official. I think this a view widely held in private. However, there's nothing they can do about it," he told Reuters, adding he had not joined the new party.
                    "Of course, this is something that makes the Communist Party very nervous," Han said, referring to Bo's lingering influence.
                    Whether the new party will attract more members later was not immediately clear.
                    In a measure of the interest that could be generated, Wang told Reuters that after she was detained last year for writing two open letters in support of Bo, she was flooded with messages from his supporters.
                    "In the space of 20 days I got more than 2,000 text messages and calls," she said, but declined to comment on how many members the new party currently has.
                    China's Communist Party has some 85 million members.
                    The new party has caused heated discussion on RedChinaCN, one of the left-wing websites blocked by government censors, with not all comments supporting Wang or the new party.
                    "All she has done is written letters to Xi, but she's never actually criticized him. She's not a real revolutionary," wrote one commentator on the site, who like some in China are able to access it by skirting government restrictions.

                    (Additional reporting by Benjamin Kang Lim; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)
                    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9AA0Y220131111

                    "Party has created a party to support you, Comrade Bo. Now you are the chairman, for LIFE, in the Twilight Zone."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      To add to the debate even though I think the word evil empire is entirely unhelpful.

                      Australia, Philippines scrambling to boost air forces
                      http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Econ...ost-air-forces

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                        To add to the debate even though I think the word evil empire is entirely unhelpful.



                        http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Econ...ost-air-forces
                        Isn't Abbott going against what his Air Marshall opinion??? I mean boosting RAF is warranted, but he mentioned (in youtube) F-35 is useless against Suk-35. Suk 35 eventhough is not stealth, has superior counter measures, maneuverbility, and speed. When Suk 35 catches up to F35, they are poor dog fighters. F35 isn't completely stealth. Different radar waves have been noted may detech F35.
                        Nice is heavy on my mind.
                        I pray and wish the best for France.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          To understand the politics in this part of the world, I recommend this book:
                          Romance of the Three Kingdom
                          This historical novel, written some 300 years ago, is full of magic, pseudo military tactics, etc.... but its main theme is how to outwit your rivals, and your friends(potential enemies).
                          There are others, but I couldn't find any english translations for them: The Romance of the(States of) Eastern Zhou(東周列國志), Romance of the Han-Chu Contention (西汉志), the Water margin(other name Outlaws of the Marsh). Same theme though. "Your friends are your enemies".

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Bobavi View Post
                            To understand the politics in this part of the world, I recommend this book:
                            Romance of the Three Kingdom
                            This historical novel, written some 300 years ago, is full of magic, pseudo military tactics, etc.... but its main theme is how to outwit your rivals, and your friends(potential enemies).
                            There are others, but I couldn't find any english translations for them: The Romance of the(States of) Eastern Zhou(東周列國志), Romance of the Han-Chu Contention (西汉志), the Water margin(other name Outlaws of the Marsh). Same theme though. "Your friends are your enemies".
                            I disagree. It will teach you about as much of today's current day politics as reading Shogun.

                            Reading a three hundred year old novel with questionable accuracy about a time twp thousand years ago to understand modern day politics is just not a good idea. You want to rely your historical input on a novel? You want to learn Greek politics from reading 300?
                            Last edited by Salinator; 05 May 14, 04:06.
                            Prayers.


                            BoRG


                            http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X