China's Peaceful Rise

[JasonJ]

 

For preserving CCP rule yes. For China's economy, certainly not.

 

Edit: For amount of Russia attention, the Kiev is burning thread and the Putin thread shows plenty of attention. Wargaming has also boosted much attention towards Russia.

No, not talking about tanknet.

 

I am referring to the Asia Pacific theater as a whole.

 

 

Pardon me, I should have known better.

 

Well, if saying the Pacific region, how does Russia rank higher than China in threat level in regards to Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan? Or India for that matter? Threat is too strong of a word, but as I say later in this post, be constantly getting the short end of the stick.

 

Russia already holds Japanese-claimed northern territories, if there's a real threat to Japan mainland itself, it is not China. But Japan rightly concludes that China is the more easy threat to drum up for international, and most importantly, domestic consumption.

 

If Abe goes for re-militarization of Japan by playing the Russian threat up, he may have faced ridicule. Even though Russia is the real threat. Whereas in using China, he faced nearly no opposition worhty of speaking. It's like...history aside, aren't these Chinese the same guys grabbing at the SCS?

 

 

Russia took those islands immediately after WW2 During the late 1950s, if I recall correctly, Japan and the Soviet Union were making progress on settling the issue with a compromise deal which would return two of the relatively bigger islands to Japan. The US blocked Japan from finishing the deal probably for cold war related reasons. Afterwards, as far I as know, no progress has been made. Its the status que as of now. Nothing has changed. And Russia hasn't made any new territorial claims on further islands or tiny bits of Hokkaido.

 

Nevertheless, Russia gets some news coverage. In the last year, not by much but Japan has scrambled more fighter jets to meet Russian military aircraft than Chinese aircraft.

 

The Russian economy isn't very big. Neither is its market. It's sizable but it pales in comparison to China. Economical power is key to Japan. Countless companies around the world will and are competing in the Chinese market. Succeeding in China means a big competitive advantage on the business world stage.

 

China says the island belongs to them now. It is a national territorial status que that they want to change.

 

A point continually not recognized is potential. China's potential is great. Russia's influence is slowly shrinking if anything.

 

The "threat" isn't going to be land invasion.. of course not. But with greater Chinese economical and military power (most importantly naval power), Japan will be susceptible to more and more of getting the short end of the stick in international bargaining. Japan isn't the one building nuclear powered subs capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles or large size carriers. In order to meet equal parity, Japan will feel pressure to become a nuclear power and to have flat tops capable of launching F-35s or naval versions of F3s.

 

But Abe engineered the whole Diaoyu scale up of tension and played China like a fiddle. I praise his cunning. This is a man to watch out for.

 

 

In my somewhat unpleasantly made reply to Heirophant, I explained how I see the Senkaku issue with reasons made. For those reasons, I would think the issue was not engineered. I will spare myself taking the time to write it all out again.

 

Furthermore, China's non-hostile stance on Japan during the 1980s demonstrates how much Chinese internal media can swing the emotions of Chinese people. Historical hate reasoning is invalidated by Chinese internal propaganda as a sufficient excuse.

[Heirophant]

 

 

Culture of shame vs culture of guilt? Can you show me an example of East Asian/South East Asian country admitting the atrocities they committed? In a Western culture it's more common to admit guilt and apologize for ones mistakes, keeping them under wraps is more characteristic about East Asia.

 

Has the mainland apologized for invading Korea and Vietnam? Or even for Mao, who killed tens of millions of his OWN people?

 

You know, all this thing with 'losing face'...

 

 

China has owned up to being the aggressor in the 1979 Sino-Vietnam War. Vietnam in turn has apologized for the expulsion of the ethnic Chinese boat people. This is how the LAND border dispute between Vietnam and China was conclusively resolved.

 

Of course, they now have a SEA border dispute . . . . .

[firefly1]

 

............ but the Japanese are not the only ones concerned by massive Chinese military buildup .........

 

.

 

What "massive Chinese military build-up" ?

 

 

(Edited to correct quote mix-up)

 

.

Edited August 20, 2014 by firefly1

[ink]

Just thought I'd relate an anecdote from a Chinese friend of mine who lives near the Rape of Nanking Museum in Nanjing (sorry, no idea what the museum is officially called).

 

He told me that a regular sight at the museum was that a busload of Japanese tourists would turn up, go in and would then emerge crying en masse and apologising to any Chinese person they could find. He says on the street outside the museum he was once accosted by a Japanese women in tears, saying, "I'm so sorry, we didn't know, I'm so ashamed."

Bit off topic, perhaps, but I just thought I'd share.

[Mikel2]

I had a couple of Japanese roommates in college. One day I watched a documentary on WWII Japanese atrocities with one of them (really nice guy) and he had not heard about any of it in his life.

[JasonJ]

During much of the Post-War Cold War era, I was told by older Japanese not only the Nanking massacre but a lot of the entire Meiji era was not taught. Today, the majority of textbooks do teach it.

[chino]

The obvious conclusion would be for China, Russia and North Korea to come together in a new Cold War situation. As I have always maintained, Russia is the more dangerous of the non-western powers that few pay attention to while they're busy minding China. Russia is the dog that doesn't bark, whereas China's got a bark much worse than its bite.

 

http://www.dw.de/china-russia-launch-largest-ever-joint-military-exercise/a-16931106

 

Strike N Korea off the list. Apparently these two no likee each other no more.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-shifts-troops-towards-china-2014-8

[chino]

 

Even as a "pacifist"nation, Japan is already VERY VERY well armed, thanks to a generous USA

What generous USA? Japan not only pays for its own armed forces, & every piece of equipment it buys from the USA (but it makes most itself), but it helps pay for US forces stationed in Japan.

 

 

Generous, in terms of re-interpreting the original pacifist terms imposed on Japan. Unlike Germany post WW1, where Hitler had to secretly rebuild its military. The Japanese were able - and in fact aided and encouraged by the US post Korean War - to build not just a very powerful military, but also a very sophisticated and capable military industry.

 

Generous not just in terms of letting the Japanese build very sophisiticated equipment under the Article 9 terms, but also in selling to them the latest, and best of what the US military has to offer.

 

Again, when looked at objectively, why shouldn't Japan be allowed to be armed to the teeth?

 

My POV is always to look through the East Asian historical filter. Isn't there a saying about history and the danger of ignoring it?

 

If the leaders of this historically warlike nation refuses to acknowledge WW2 crimes, then it cannot be trusted. If this nation that cannot be trusted becomes progressively well-armed and militaristic - again - then the cause for concern is to be heightened.

[chino]

Culture of shame vs culture of guilt? Can you show me an example of East Asian/South East Asian country admitting the atrocities they committed? In a Western culture it's more common to admit guilt and apologize for ones mistakes, keeping them under wraps is more characteristic about East Asia.

 

Has the mainland apologized for invading Korea and Vietnam? Or even for Mao, who killed tens of millions of his OWN people?

In both the examples of Korea and Vietnam, there weren't en masee murder and atrocities committed upon large groups of people. Sorry to disappoint. And they did not invade to occupy territory. Both had limited objectives.

 

I keep hearing Mao being quoted as a murderer, so why Chinese dare ask for Japanese apology but not from their own government?

 

Please explain to me how Mao conducted this murder, versus how the Japs committed theirs. And perhaps you can understand why one is seared more deeply into the collective Chinese memory than the other?

 

Mao may not have apologised. But most importantly Mao IS DEAD. None of his successors are anywhere near as insane as he was towards his end, or for that matter, as mythically powerful, as to be able to formulate massively disastrous policies without being opposed/stopped.

 

But in the case of the Japanese, they are alive and kicking, and again armed to the teeth and now led by a right-wing militaristic government, again.

[chino]

And really, can you imagine Japanese forces landing in China and setting up some Manchukuo 2? Honestly, PRC is a nuclear power, has the biggest military on Earth, and is ten times more populous than Japan, which in addition is struggling with her rapidly aging population. You can say the same 'no bite' thing about them, they didn't move on Takeshima or Northern Territories occupied by Russia, the only thing they did in last 70 years was ... claiming ownership of the islands that were already theirs anyway.

 

About the Russian threat to the West, including Japan, it's a short term one, PRC is long term. Russian military capabilities will likely stay as they are or even decline, all that they do is nothing compared to massive Chinese military buildup. Don't only look at today, what happens 10/20/30 years down the road is important too.

 

Not for anyone of us to predict the future. So I cannot say that Japan will, or will not, get up to mischief when it shakes off the yoke of US control/domination. Things have a way of NOT developing along expected trajectories.

 

So without knowing the future, I look at the past. And like many Japanese people themselves, they know - perhaps instinctively or intuitively - that Japan going right wing is bad news. This is not logical and therefore not acceptable to someone going by facts alone, but there it is.

 

WRT Russia, I fail to see, why it is not obvious that Russia is the bigger threat. Or maybe perhaps "threat" is not the most accurate term. Perhaps I should say bigger "danger" or bigger "headahe". Russia is not disputing Japanese claim for a far away deserted offshore island. No. Russia already OCCUPY by force, and conducts military exercises, on islands right next to the Japanese home island of Hokkaido. If that doesn't constitute a bigger and more immediate threat or danger, then I fail to see any point in continuing to talk about this.

 

Japan's aim, has been, and will continue to be, the retaking of these northern islands.

 

To get a geographical scale of the threat that Diaoyu poses by comparison... Diaoyu is further south of the Jap home islands than the far flung Okinawa islands, and is actually just on top of Taiwan. Definitely nowhere near Japan proper. They can atomic bomb and sink the Diaoyu islands and Japanese will not even notice at first.

 

The danger of Diaoyu erupting into conflict may actually pass with no shots fired - don't be surprised or disappointed - but the fact that the Russians holding the northern islands will never go away. Therefore, while the chance for conflict with China may not actually happen, the chance for conflict with Russia is in fact far more certain.

 

But another point to prove once and for all that even Japan considers Russia the bigger threat is how differently it handles the two disputes with the two giants, differently. The Japanese know that there is a bigger chance they can provoke the Chinese whom are pushovers. And US is more supportive of a conflict with China. But they are more cautious with the Russians, for there is no doubt the Russians will be sure to shoot first, and ask questions later. And you can also count on the US to stay far away from a shooting war with Russia. Not only do they have a very strong navy and airforce compared to China, you simply don't mess with the Russians unless you're in for a real fight.

 

The fact that squabbles for little faraway deserted island has suceeded in projecting China as the region's biggest threat, is partly the clumsiness of China itself. When Russian wants an island or two, they'll just take it unannounced. But CHina has to do stupid things like draw 9-dot maps etc and basically pain a target on their forehead and say "shoot me". And partly the success of western propaganda *ahem* media. US Navy need something to keep the budget cutters away. Abe needs an excuse to re-militarise. China presents itself on a platter. Problems solved.

Edited August 22, 2014 by chino

[chino]

Pardon me, I should have known better.

 

Well, if saying the Pacific region, how does Russia rank higher than China in threat level in regards to Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan? Or India for that matter?

Apologies.

 

Again inaccurate use of the language on my part.

 

Because I come from Singapore, I tend to refer to the region of Singapore, Philippines, etc as SE Asia. The region of Vietnam as Indochina. And when I say Asia Pacific - I was being inaccurate as I was referring to Northern Asia of China, Japan, Korea and Russia... And Russia is so vast it is both Asian and European at the same time.

Edited August 22, 2014 by chino

[urbanoid]

 

Culture of shame vs culture of guilt? Can you show me an example of East Asian/South East Asian country admitting the atrocities they committed? In a Western culture it's more common to admit guilt and apologize for ones mistakes, keeping them under wraps is more characteristic about East Asia.

 

Has the mainland apologized for invading Korea and Vietnam? Or even for Mao, who killed tens of millions of his OWN people?

In both the examples of Korea and Vietnam, there weren't en masee murder and atrocities committed upon large groups of people. Sorry to disappoint. And they did not invade to occupy territory. Both had limited objectives.

 

I keep hearing Mao being quoted as a murderer, so why Chinese dare ask for Japanese apology but not from their own government?

 

Please explain to me how Mao conducted this murder, versus how the Japs committed theirs. And perhaps you can understand why one is seared more deeply into the collective Chinese memory than the other?

 

Mao may not have apologised. But most importantly Mao IS DEAD. None of his successors are anywhere near as insane as he was towards his end, or for that matter, as mythically powerful, as to be able to formulate massively disastrous policies without being opposed/stopped.

 

But in the case of the Japanese, they are alive and kicking, and again armed to the teeth and now led by a right-wing militaristic government, again.

 

1. Because it's a legitimate question.

2. I'm sure the victims cared how they were murdered. Oh wait, being murdered in the name of socialist progress is so much better than being murdered for being of different nationality. That's why Stalin was a good guy, as opposed to Herr Hitler.

3. Because Chinese government worked very hard on Chinese collective memory since early 90's? Before that the Japanese heard that their reckoning with the past was satisfactory.

4. I assure you that Tojo is as dead as Mao. Actually even 'more dead', I think you won't find Tojo monuments and portraits everywhere in Japan.

5. I assure you that there is no Tojo in the Japanese government and/or LDP, there was no Tojo-like figure since the end of WW2. And there's much bigger guarantee that some batshit crazy Japanese politician will be opposed/stopped, Japan is a democracy. Not 'people's democracy', but consolidated liberal (for East Asian standards) democracy.

6. Sure, armed to the teeth, after decades of spending no more than 1% of GDP for defense, battle-hardened by so many wars since 1945...oh wait... In the commie years state propaganda also tried to scare the Poles with 'German revisionists', who were 'lackeys of American imperialism', looking to retrieve lands they lost to Poland after WW2. I see many similarities here.

[urbanoid]

Generous, in terms of re-interpreting the original pacifist terms imposed on Japan. Unlike Germany post WW1, where Hitler had to secretly rebuild its military. The Japanese were able - and in fact aided and encouraged by the US post Korean War - to build not just a very powerful military, but also a very sophisticated and capable military industry.

 

Generous not just in terms of letting the Japanese build very sophisiticated equipment under the Article 9 terms, but also in selling to them the latest, and best of what the US military has to offer.

 

Again, when looked at objectively, why shouldn't Japan be allowed to be armed to the teeth?

 

My POV is always to look through the East Asian historical filter. Isn't there a saying about history and the danger of ignoring it?

 

If the leaders of this historically warlike nation refuses to acknowledge WW2 crimes, then it cannot be trusted. If this nation that cannot be trusted becomes progressively well-armed and militaristic - again - then the cause for concern is to be heightened.

 

 

Why do you compare post-WW2 Japan to post-WWI Germany? Comparing to post-WW2 Germany would make more sense, wouldn't it? Germany has been a NATO member since 1955, actively encouraged by the US to become as militarily powerful as possible against the Soviet threat. Of course Japan was encouraged to do the same, but did both much less than Germany and much less than the US expected from Tokyo. The Americans wanted them to get rid of/alter Article 9 pretty much since the new constitution came into force, but they failed - the Japanese people did not want it. And it looks that if anyone can persuade them, it's neither their own government nor the US, it's PRC and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

[chino]

Russia took those islands immediately after WW2 During the late 1950s, if I recall correctly, Japan and the Soviet Union were making progress on settling the issue with a compromise deal which would return two of the relatively bigger islands to Japan. The US blocked Japan from finishing the deal probably for cold war related reasons. Afterwards, as far I as know, no progress has been made. Its the status que as of now. Nothing has changed. And Russia hasn't made any new territorial claims on further islands or tiny bits of Hokkaido.

 

The Russian economy isn't very big. Neither is its market. It's sizable but it pales in comparison to China. Economical power is key to Japan. Countless companies around the world will and are competing in the Chinese market. Succeeding in China means a big competitive advantage on the business world stage.

 

China says the island belongs to them now. It is a national territorial status que that they want to change.

 

A point continually not recognized is potential. China's potential is great. Russia's influence is slowly shrinking if anything.

 

The "threat" isn't going to be land invasion.. of course not. But with greater Chinese economical and military power (most importantly naval power), Japan will be susceptible to more and more of getting the short end of the stick in international bargaining. Japan isn't the one building nuclear powered subs capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles or large size carriers. In order to meet equal parity, Japan will feel pressure to become a nuclear power and to have flat tops capable of launching F-35s or naval versions of F3s.

 

There many ways to look at this. The fact that China's economy is massive, and will continue to boom, may actually make them think more than twice about sacrificing that for some silly little island. Look at China in the old days where it used force almost without a second thought in Korea, India and Vietnam. But the minute it opened up economically and people started driving Maseratis and wearing Chanel, they became much less militarily aggressive as there is so much more to lose.

 

WIth Russia, its economy is also booming. But the fact that it is not as economically huge as China also means that it is more likely to care less about world opinion and act aggressively, as it had already done so on a few occasions WRT Georgia and Ukraine.

 

It is incorrect to say th if China claims something, it means they will fight for it. Taiwan has so far been unmolested. Even more importantly, little islands like Jinmen spitting distance from the mainland, garrisoned by ROC, are still firmly in Taiwan's hands.

 

Traditionally, China is very aggressive on land, but distrust the sea. Taiwan and Japan are SAFE because China will take a long time to build up forces that can secure an offshore invasion. If they invade, say Taiwan, USN's arrival will cut off and trap all PRC forces on Taiwan island.

 

I will be the first to agree that a strong military is not necessarily used for fighting and is a useful tool for trade and diplomacy, as well as nation building. But my only gripe with Japan is their continued refusal to recognise their wartime guilt and move on. It just creates a lot of illwill and suspicion.

[chino]

 

Generous, in terms of re-interpreting the original pacifist terms imposed on Japan. Unlike Germany post WW1, where Hitler had to secretly rebuild its military. The Japanese were able - and in fact aided and encouraged by the US post Korean War - to build not just a very powerful military, but also a very sophisticated and capable military industry.

 

Generous not just in terms of letting the Japanese build very sophisiticated equipment under the Article 9 terms, but also in selling to them the latest, and best of what the US military has to offer.

 

Again, when looked at objectively, why shouldn't Japan be allowed to be armed to the teeth?

 

My POV is always to look through the East Asian historical filter. Isn't there a saying about history and the danger of ignoring it?

 

If the leaders of this historically warlike nation refuses to acknowledge WW2 crimes, then it cannot be trusted. If this nation that cannot be trusted becomes progressively well-armed and militaristic - again - then the cause for concern is to be heightened.

 

 

Why do you compare post-WW2 Japan to post-WWI Germany? Comparing to post-WW2 Germany would make more sense, wouldn't it? Germany has been a NATO member since 1955, actively encouraged by the US to become as militarily powerful as possible against the Soviet threat. Of course Japan was encouraged to do the same, but did both much less than Germany and much less than the US expected from Tokyo. The Americans wanted them to get rid of/alter Article 9 pretty much since the new constitution came into force, but they failed - the Japanese people did not want it. And it looks that if anyone can persuade them, it's neither their own government nor the US, it's PRC and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

 

 

Compared to post-WW1 Germany because Germany was at the time prevented from building a military.

 

Similarly, post-WW2, the US at first prevented Japan from building a military, then changed its mind.

[chino]

1. Because it's a legitimate question.

2. I'm sure the victims cared how they were murdered. Oh wait, being murdered in the name of socialist progress is so much better than being murdered for being of different nationality. That's why Stalin was a good guy, as opposed to Herr Hitler.

3. Because Chinese government worked very hard on Chinese collective memory since early 90's? Before that the Japanese heard that their reckoning with the past was satisfactory.

4. I assure you that Tojo is as dead as Mao. Actually even 'more dead', I think you won't find Tojo monuments and portraits everywhere in Japan.

5. I assure you that there is no Tojo in the Japanese government and/or LDP, there was no Tojo-like figure since the end of WW2. And there's much bigger guarantee that some batshit crazy Japanese politician will be opposed/stopped, Japan is a democracy. Not 'people's democracy', but consolidated liberal (for East Asian standards) democracy.

6. Sure, armed to the teeth, after decades of spending no more than 1% of GDP for defense, battle-hardened by so many wars since 1945...oh wait... In the commie years state propaganda also tried to scare the Poles with 'German revisionists', who were 'lackeys of American imperialism', looking to retrieve lands they lost to Poland after WW2. I see many similarities here.

 

WRT comparing Mao vs the IJA:

 

Why do the Paletinians hate the Israeli so much even though they fight endlessly amongst themselves? Human beings are emotionally-driven more so than logic and numbers. If you do not agree then leave it at that and move on.

 

Sorry, Tojo did not invent the Japanese bushido code or the worship of the emperor as a god. Tojo's death means nothing. Their refusal to accept responsibility for war crimes is part of the same code that causes IJA troops to kill themselves rather than surrender. Tojo's death, or even the emperor's, will not matter if Japan continue down the path to revive militarism in their country.

 

Abe is a saint compared to Tojo. But while governments can change, the fact that they are well-armed will remain. Until they drop their WW2 denial and move on, a well-armed and unfettered Japan cannot be trusted. Didn't Japan used the excuse of "helping other Asian countries counter western colonialist powers" as their reason for starting WW2?

 

...

 

 

WRT Japan's 1% GDP defence budget:

 

You do not understand percentages. 1% of Japan's massive GDP could be half the entire GDP of a small sized country. Remember Japan were the No 2 economy in the world for a very long time...

 

In 2005, they ranked 4th in the world for military budget. That's a very respectable USD 42billion!!! And it's a constant average of 40+billion every year and you make it sound like they are armed with nothing more than rocks.

 

Today, they are ranked around No 6, 7 or 8, but still higher spending than South Korea, at a respectable USD 50+ billion compared to Korea's 30+ billion. Korea is never a pacifist nation and is technically still at war. Yet Japan spends more on "defence".

 

China, even though it is geographically and demographically many many times larger than Japan, only spends a paltry two or three times as much as Japan.

 

Have you actually looked at Japan's military strength or we're just arguing for the sake of arguing? Sure, they're numerically smaller than China. But they're much more sophisticated, and more than enough for self-defense against a seaborne threat. Because no matter how large China's military is on paper, it will take them decades of continued expansion before they can hope to be able to project power to threaten even Taiwan, much less Japan. Currently, only USN can project power, but that comes with a hefty price tag of nearly USD 650billion annually.

 

My point, once again, is NOT that Japan shouldn't be well-armed, but that they ALREADY ARE damned bloody well-armed. More than enough for a so-called pacifist nation.

 

The question you have to ask is, do they want to be even better armed? I'm sure they'll say that to counter N Korea they need a nuclear strike capbility. And they have the technology to achieve that very quickly.

 

ETA:

I am not mainland Chinese so am not exposed to so-called propaganda by the CCP. The Nanjing Massacre is a fact whether or not Mao killed more.

 

The slaughter of ethnic Chinese by Japanese occupational forces happened also in Singapore where the Chinese were singled out for this special treatment. So you can say, the bad blood is much more deeply ingrained than you can ever hope to understand.

 

I am also not hateful of Japanese people and quite the opposite is a big fan of its contemporary music and culture. In fact I just bought tickets to watch Toe, a young Jap jazz-inspired band, this September. My late father served in the IJN occupational forces coast guard unit so my views are already a little off-centre compared to my peers.

 

My point is very simply that Japan's apparent revert to right-wing militarism will be bad for everyone including the Japanese themselves. The first step to curing themselves of this cancer is to admit to their wartime guilt, and move on. Join NATO and build nuclear bombs etc afterwards for all I care. But without this first step, it says they are not leaving the past behind and starting anew. And we (Chinese) should be suspicious.

 

And even more distressing is that the further (in terms of time) that we move away from WW2, the more the Jap leaders deny WW2 wrongdoings.

Edited August 22, 2014 by chino

[urbanoid]

Not for anyone of us to predict the future. So I cannot say that Japan will, or will not, get up to mischief when it shakes off the yoke of US control/domination. Things have a way of NOT developing along expected trajectories.

 

So without knowing the future, I look at the past. And like many Japanese people themselves, they know - perhaps instinctively or intuitively - that Japan going right wing is bad news. This is not logical and therefore not acceptable to someone going by facts alone, but there it is.

 

WRT Russia, I fail to see, why it is not obvious that Russia is the bigger threat. Or maybe perhaps "threat" is not the most accurate term. Perhaps I should say bigger "danger" or bigger "headahe". Russia is not disputing Japanese claim for a far away deserted offshore island. No. Russia already OCCUPY by force, and conducts military exercises, on islands right next to the Japanese home island of Hokkaido. If that doesn't constitute a bigger and more immediate threat or danger, then I fail to see any point in continuing to talk about this.

 

Japan's aim, has been, and will continue to be, the retaking of these northern islands.

 

To get a geographical scale of the threat that Diaoyu poses by comparison... Diaoyu is further south of the Jap home islands than the far flung Okinawa islands, and is actually just on top of Taiwan. Definitely nowhere near Japan proper. They can atomic bomb and sink the Diaoyu islands and Japanese will not even notice at first.

 

The danger of Diaoyu erupting into conflict may actually pass with no shots fired - don't be surprised or disappointed - but the fact that the Russians holding the northern islands will never go away. Therefore, while the chance for conflict with China may not actually happen, the chance for conflict with Russia is in fact far more certain.

 

But another point to prove once and for all that even Japan considers Russia the bigger threat is how differently it handles the two disputes with the two giants, differently. The Japanese know that there is a bigger chance they can provoke the Chinese whom are pushovers. And US is more supportive of a conflict with China. But they are more cautious with the Russians, for there is no doubt the Russians will be sure to shoot first, and ask questions later. And you can also count on the US to stay far away from a shooting war with Russia. Not only do they have a very strong navy and airforce compared to China, you simply don't mess with the Russians unless you're in for a real fight.

 

The fact that squabbles for little faraway deserted island has suceeded in projecting China as the region's biggest threat, is partly the clumsiness of China itself. When Russian wants an island or two, they'll just take it unannounced. But CHina has to do stupid things like draw 9-dot maps etc and basically pain a target on their forehead and say "shoot me". And partly the success of western propaganda *ahem* media. US Navy need something to keep the budget cutters away. Abe needs an excuse to re-militarise. China presents itself on a platter. Problems solved.

 

Sure, no one can predict the future, but debating such improbable scenarios is pointless. There are (not many) people in Poland babbling how ze ebil Germans will come, they are laughed at as weirdos, the idea of Japan invading a nuclear power with 10x times more population is even more laughable.

 

As for the Russians occupying Japanese islands that's true, but the Japanese didn't take a single military action against this occupation and probably won't, same for Korean-occupied Takeshima, it would be nice if countries having territorial disputes with China, including Japan, had the same level of safety from invasion as the Russians in Northern Territories and Koreans in Takeshima.

 

What I meant by comparing Russia and PRC is the future economic and military potential, PRC will surely have the upper hand in the future and more ability to shape international relations. And there will also be a more or less formal alliance between the two powers, but this time with Beijing as a senior partner.

 

And I disagree about the Americans vis a vis Russia, they are a superpower not only because of biggest economy and military, but also a system of alliances that they created in last few decades. When there was a problem with Russian actions few months ago the US was the first country to send military to her NATO allies, Poland and the Baltics, they simply don't care what Russia thinks about it.

[urbanoid]

Why do the Paletinians hate the Israeli so much even though they fight endlessly amongst themselves? Human beings are emotionally-driven more so than logic and numbers. If you do not agree then leave it at that and move on.

 

 

Sorry, Tojo did not invent the Japanese bushido code or the worship of the emperor as a god. Tojo's death means nothing. Their refusal to accept responsibility for war crimes is part of the same code that causes IJA troops to kill themselves rather than surrender. Tojo's death, or even the emperor's, will not matter if Japan continue down the path to revice militarism in their country.

 

Abe is a saint compared to Tojo. But while governments can change, the fact that they are well-armed will remain. Until they drop their WW2 denial and move on, a well-armed and unfettered Japan cannot be trusted. Wasn't it Japan who used the lie that they will help their Asian neighbours get rid of western colonialists their reason for starting WW2?

 

1% of Japan's massive economy is could be half or even several times of, say... Poland's entire economy back in the day. Remember they were the No 2 economy in the world or something... Back then they were what China is now.

 

Have you actually looked at their military strength or we're just arguing for the sake of arguing? Sure, in some areas they're numerically smaller than China. But they're much more sophisticated, and more than enough for self-defense against a seaborne threat.

 

My point, once again, is NOT that they shouldn't be well-armed, but that they ALREADY ARE well-armed. More than enough for a so-called pacifist nation. They are as well armed as S Korea, a nation that is technically still at war. Maybe even better than SK in terms of equipment and manpower quality as they do not rely on conscription

 

 

No, Tojo did not invent bushido code, but somehow I can't see contemporary Japanese following it, not to mention that Emperor is no longer a god.

 

Yes, the government may change, the Japanese will remain well armed, but I still can't see how the denial of the past atrocities is an indication that they want to repeat them, not to mention their inability to do so. As you can see there is no butthurt in most of countries occupied by IJA prior and during WW2, except China and Korea (IMHO it's politically convenient for political elites in those countries), on the contrary - they seek better relations with Japan, including military ones, as a counterweight to PRC's growing military capabilities coupled with intensified territorial demands.

 

1% of Japanese GDP is still a lot of money, but their military spending is comparable with Britain and France, who have half of Japan's population and significantly less security risks than Japan. And you're right about Poland's GDP, it's not that impressive (though growing), 2% spent on our armed forces means that our military budget will still be 5-6 times smaller than Japanese one (we have circa 1/3 of Japan's population). But in their security situation 1% is not enough (and in our 2% is also not enough TBH), they are potentially facing two very powerful militaries. Besides, it's dishonest towards the US which guarantees (among others) their safety and has to spend 4-5% on military.

[urbanoid]

ETA:

I am not mainland Chinese so am not exposed to so-called propaganda by the CCP. The Nanjing Massacre is a fact whether or not Mao killed more.

 

The slaughter of ethnic Chinese by Japanese occupational forces happened also in Singapore where the Chinese were singled out for this special treatment. So you can say, the bad blood is much more deeply ingrained than you can ever hope to understand.

 

I am also not hateful of Japanese people and a big fan of its contemporary music and culture. In fact I jsut bought tickets to watch Toe, a young Jap band, this September. My late father served in the IJN occupational forces coast guard unit.

 

My point is very simply that Japan's seeming reverting to right-wing militarism will be bad for everyone including Japanese. The first step to curing themselves of this cancer is to admit to their wartime guilt, and move on. Join NATO and build nuclear bombs etc for all I care. But without this first step, it says they are not leaving the past behind and starting anew. And we (Chinese) will be suspicious.

 

 

To make things clear, I don't support denial of the atrocities committed in the past, I just can't see any potential danger coming from Japan against neighbouring states, or any other. Even if their military was twice as powerful as it is.

 

As you probably know in Poland we have issues with Russia, we suffered quite a lot from them (and they still claim they 'liberated' us, conveniently forgetting they were Hitler's ally in 1939-41), but concerns about their growing military spending is NOT because of their state of denial, but CURRENT political and military actions, support of separatism in post-Soviet states, annexations, military exercises with scenarios that include nuking our capital etc. We have yet to see sth like that coming from the Japanese, but I'm not holding my breath.

[BansheeOne]

Compared to post-WW1 Germany because Germany was at the time prevented from building a military.

 

Similarly, post-WW2, the US at first prevented Japan from building a military, then changed its mind.

 

Same with post-WW II Germany. Of course the West German constitution had no expressive pacifist clause like the Japanese Article 9; its Article 26 merely outlaws "action fit and intended to disturb the peaceful co-existence of the peoples, particularly to prepare for waging a war of aggression". But then Germany did not have the benefit of an insular position and practically unified control of one Allied power either, rather the enemy camps were right on its pre-war territory.

 

Still, an acrimonious public debate was led in the West about re-armament in the 1950s, which many did not want after the experience of the war. Also, joining NATO was seen as prejudical against future re-unification with East Germany. But reality won out, and the Bundeswehr was established in 1955 (before most of the atonement for WW II and the Holocaust). Overseas deployments were later based upon Article 24 of the constitution which says that the Federation can join a system of mutual collective security for preserving the peace; it is held that joining such systems like the UN and NATO also legitimizes military action mandated by them.

 

[X-Files]

A Chinese jet fighter flew dangerously close to a U.S. Navy P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft near Japan this week in an encounter that highlights China’s continued aggressiveness in the region.

The P-8, a new, militarized Boeing-737 anti-submarine warfare aircraft, was conducting routine surveillance of the Chinese coast over the East China Sea on Monday when the incident occurred, said U.S. defense officials familiar with reports of the encounter.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeffrey Pool had no immediate comment but said he would provide “an explanation of the event” on Friday.

The defense officials said the Chinese Su-27 interceptor jet flew within 50 feet of the P-8 and then carried out a barrel roll over the top of the aircraft—a move described by officials as dangerous and meant to threaten the surveillance aircraft.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-jet-threatened-u-s-intelligence-aircraft/

[JasonJ]

 

Russia took those islands immediately after WW2 During the late 1950s, if I recall correctly, Japan and the Soviet Union were making progress on settling the issue with a compromise deal which would return two of the relatively bigger islands to Japan. The US blocked Japan from finishing the deal probably for cold war related reasons. Afterwards, as far I as know, no progress has been made. Its the status que as of now. Nothing has changed. And Russia hasn't made any new territorial claims on further islands or tiny bits of Hokkaido.

 

The Russian economy isn't very big. Neither is its market. It's sizable but it pales in comparison to China. Economical power is key to Japan. Countless companies around the world will and are competing in the Chinese market. Succeeding in China means a big competitive advantage on the business world stage.

 

China says the island belongs to them now. It is a national territorial status que that they want to change.

 

A point continually not recognized is potential. China's potential is great. Russia's influence is slowly shrinking if anything.

 

The "threat" isn't going to be land invasion.. of course not. But with greater Chinese economical and military power (most importantly naval power), Japan will be susceptible to more and more of getting the short end of the stick in international bargaining. Japan isn't the one building nuclear powered subs capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles or large size carriers. In order to meet equal parity, Japan will feel pressure to become a nuclear power and to have flat tops capable of launching F-35s or naval versions of F3s.

 

There many ways to look at this. The fact that China's economy is massive, and will continue to boom, may actually make them think more than twice about sacrificing that for some silly little island. Look at China in the old days where it used force almost without a second thought in Korea, India and Vietnam. But the minute it opened up economically and people started driving Maseratis and wearing Chanel, they became much less militarily aggressive as there is so much more to lose.

 

WIth Russia, its economy is also booming. But the fact that it is not as economically huge as China also means that it is more likely to care less about world opinion and act aggressively, as it had already done so on a few occasions WRT Georgia and Ukraine.

 

It is incorrect to say th if China claims something, it means they will fight for it. Taiwan has so far been unmolested. Even more importantly, little islands like Jinmen spitting distance from the mainland, garrisoned by ROC, are still firmly in Taiwan's hands.

 

Traditionally, China is very aggressive on land, but distrust the sea. Taiwan and Japan are SAFE because China will take a long time to build up forces that can secure an offshore invasion. If they invade, say Taiwan, USN's arrival will cut off and trap all PRC forces on Taiwan island.

 

I will be the first to agree that a strong military is not necessarily used for fighting and is a useful tool for trade and diplomacy, as well as nation building. But my only gripe with Japan is their continued refusal to recognise their wartime guilt and move on. It just creates a lot of illwill and suspicion.

 

 

I'm not so sure about the Russian economy booming. Its growth rate is kind of average. Its GDP isn't going to surpass, say, Germany within the next 10 years. OTOH, China's GDP is likely to surpass the US's GDP within 10 years. Of course there are particularities that complicate the picture of the trend, but generally speaking, relative power throughout the world will increase for China where as it is difficult to see relative power increasing for Russia.

 

On the point you made that the greater economy should make China cautious so that they don't rock the boat is well taking. But I use the word "should" instead of "will" here because also like you say, the future is difficult to predict. Any country that is having a sudden raise changes the entire relation dynamics in a giving system. Thus the raising country gets the spotlight. The raising country is getting their first taste of true power so the question on everyone's mind is what will said country do?

 

The denial situation in Japan is not black and white. There are different degrees to it. The straight out deniers of the Nanking incident or Unit 731 are few in numbers, however they are tenacious. So they have to continually be checked. However, Japan is a country of freedom of speech so they have to be permitted some wiggle room to bark. I think they get too much attention from outsiders. Just as the Chinese government may have to satisfy their patriotic citizens, Japanese politicians probably have to do the same otherwise it might push the nationalists over the edge. The Japanese do a lot of lip service amongst themselves so it is difficult to know what they are actually thinking. Giving that talking about war stuff is a great way to isolate yourself in Japanese society is a good indicator that the deniers way of thinking and intentions has a very small imprint on society. The whole society can't just simply turn around on a dime should the deniers agendas take central policy.

 

While Japan's military is very high tech, its activities in the world is still less then what a typical country with that economy would suggest. Japan still has not reached a regular degree of involvement in military world affairs. Just as arguments can be made that China ought to have a military that reflects its size and economy, so should Japan.

 

So as China raises, I mean never mind China, just take it as when country A has a sudden raise, country B will take some caution to it. It doesn't have to be China and Japan. Country A is quite in their right to raise as they like and country B is quite in the right to be cautious about the change.

 

Heading over to the Nanking massacre, Chinese claims say 300,000 were killed. Japanese estimates vary depending on the historian. From as low as 20,000 up to 200,000 or more killed. The mainstream consensus in the government is between 40,000 to 200,000 killed I think.

 

Same with the comfort women. Its been said that 200,000 Korean women including the under-aged were used. Without actually seeing specific facts, it is difficult to judge. I have a gut feeling that 200,000 is a little too high of an estimate.

 

If the terms for acceptable recognition on the part of the Japanese which would enable China and Korea to feel at ease is for Japan to recognize 300,000 killed in Nanking and 200,000 comfort women, then Japan may never be able to satisfy China and Korea since the evidence of such numbers may simply just not be there. Something strange while worth pointing out is that Osska mayor Hashimoto said that the comfort women and brothel system was necessary for lots of soldiers stationed in foreign lands. That caused a huge uproar from which Hashimoto had to, more or less, apologize. So while considered a right-winger, Hashimoto indirectly confirmed that comfort women were indeed used to the degree usually quoted as. TBH, I think some Koreans are just milking the comfort women issue now

 

For today's culture norms, Japan could probably do a little more, something that gives a stronger affirmative message about its recognition of the past, but at some point, it has to be seen as simply as bad history and then moved on by China and Korea. Sometimes you have to be careful for what you wish for. Making Japan apologize for more then what a comprehensive look at mankind's history would suggest would have ill-consequences. Like having a standard of taking the weak side as the poor victim when the weak is not always a poor helpless and innocent victim but in reality was making a lot of foolish decisions. During the Imperial age, if a country was weak, they become a power vacuum and that has consequences for any adjacent country. There is the reasoning to Korea as a dagger pointed to Japan's heart. Korea dragged on the hermit kingdom for too long making them a power vacuum that needed to be filled by Japan. And indeed Korea was a power vacuum as the Russians were looking to fill it. So now Koreans may have a tendency to capitalize in today's day in being the poor victim back then when in fact their country was making bad decisions that kept them feeble in that time. I say that at some point, it is wrong to pull old history out of context into today's cultural norms. At any rate, I would like to see Takeshima returned to South Korea for reasons I have made in other posts.

[firefly1]

.

 

People seem to be "forgetting" the huge numbers of Chinese civilians killed during WW2 (or strictly speaking from 1938 to 1945).

 

I cannot find any reliable figure, but have seen quoted figures from 3 million to over ten million (the UK government just stated "countless").

 

.

[firefly1]

 

............. a U.S. Navy P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft near Japan .............

 

............. was conducting routine surveillance of the Chinese coast over the East China Sea ..........

 

 

 

They should make their minds up.

 

.

[swerve]

 

The Russian economy isn't very big. Neither is its market. It's sizable but it pales in comparison to China.

 

WIth Russia, its economy is also booming.

The Russian economy is about the same size as Germany's at PPP. And it ain't booming. Expected to be more or less stagnant this year.