Japan again, Because Biden

[R011]

2 minutes ago, Colin said:

The UK put the defense of the Pacific possessions and empire at a low priority and sadly sent a rather limp wristed general to oversea the defense of Malay/Singapore. 

Montgomery would have been an excellent choice for Malaya and might even have managed not to lose it.  Of course, he was needed elsewhere.  They also needed more aircraft, tanks, and troops, but they were also needed elsewhere before December 1941.

[futon]

8 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I'd say Britain was much smarter in the process of taking control of India, not to mention that international environment was a lot more favorable. 

The problem with war against China was that the Japanese could pretty much achieve as many victories as they wanted and still not win, while it drained their rather limited resources. Actually that's the way it happened, the Japanese were able to hand the Kuomintang's asses to them even in late 1944, it didn't change anything.

The Second Sino-Japanese War grinded down to a stalemate by 1940. The KMT put up some good fighting and scored some victories. That's why it grinded down to a stalemate. Although the stalemate probably would have ended with KMT defeat/surrender due to resource exhaustion if there was no external support. What made that so was after the Japanese captured Wuhan and some areas further west of it, which further past it was mostly just a route that went to Chongqing. But there were several Battles of Changsha in which the KMT held the line. The Battle of Kunlun Pass in Dec 1940 in which the KMT deployed SU supplied T-26s was a critical battle for both KMT and Japan it would determine the fate of the supply line to KMT from Indochina. But even though they got it to a stalemate, later the KMT would never really be able to mount an offensive. Hence, lifeline for KMT in Chongqing. Although both sides explored peace settlement a little in 1940. A peace settlement would not have meant the end of KMT but the merging back of KMT into Wang Jingwei's regime back in Nanjing/Shanghai. What embolened the CKS in Chongqing to not seek end was US lines of credit with prospect of greater involvement. KMT problems really got big with tremendous mass forced conscription. In 1944, when the Japanese launch operation Ichi-Go, in the first phase, when the KMT army moved in to engage the Japanese, the Chinese locals shot at the KMT as revenge for breaking the dam for flooding the river some years earlier.

[futon]

6 hours ago, R011 said:

American rivalry with Japan pre dated the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, but relations were still mostly good until 1931.  The UK also had concerns, but their focus was firmly on Europe by 1938 for obvious reasons. In Asia, it was Britain following the US rather than the other way round.

That's exactly so. GB did give in to Japanese pressure at one point to close the Burma supply road and so for a 2-3 month period. British Malaysia did not become a target primarily because of GB. 

The Japanese were not justified in the invasion of China but nor was the US for stepping for CKS's KMT. All the talk about Japanese not playing their hand well while not noting the Xi'an incident. What the Chinese in the 1930s should have done to maximize their effort was to end CCP unite under KMT, stay on the path they were already on in the mid 1930s of growing industry and a modern military. The Xi'an incident and going along "unified front" and getting hot headed about north China and shooting first in Shanghai preemptly pulled the rug under their own feet on all that self-development. That alone causes fault lines in their arguments. A common mistake westerners always make in their points about Second Sino-Japanese is always calling it "China". It was CKS's KMT, CCP, and Wang's KMT. China was roughly about 500 million people. CKS KMT around 250-300 million. Wang's KMT around 200 million. Although a big part in both KMTs probably quite indifferent (yeah surely in CKS KMT too since there was that massive forced conscription going on) And w/e left overs to CCP that exploded in size by 1944/45 and continued to explode in size in 46/47 and later as KMT defection exploded. The US dealt with CKS's KMT, not "China". Ignoring Wang's China makes a point drop dead on the spot. So both sides put interests of different sides that conflicted on China. That's why its 50/50 on causing the Pacific War.

Edited April 27, 2023 by futon

[Angrybk]

On 4/24/2023 at 5:12 AM, urbanoid said:

Colonialism came to them, forcibly opened them up, the Japanese simply had enough sense to modernize the country in the image of those colonial powers, in order not to end like half-colonised China.

They were no more brutal than other colonialist powers since 1890s, when they began their expansion, up to WW1. The treatment of Russian POWs of 1904-05 was not just good, it was exceptional. Nothing bad happened to the German POWs they captured during brief campaign against German possessions in East Asia.

When they decided to be brutal, their brutality was exceptional too, but it only began in the 1930s.

This. I’m so tired of accounts that see Japanese history as some sort of a continuum where the fact is that a crazy-ass military dictatorship seized power in the 1930s. 

[futon]

35 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

This. I’m so tired of accounts that see Japanese history as some sort of a continuum where the fact is that a crazy-ass military dictatorship seized power in the 1930s. 

If the Japanese military actually have seized power to the extent of dicatorship, then something like the Taisei Yokusankai would have been formed much earlier, not in Oct 1940. Military dictatorship includes civilian life control. That did not happen until 1941, 42, 43. What the military was influencing was foreign policy. Which brings an intetesting point actually. Despite so much on "Japan military control" it was those civilian governments of the other powers (minus Stalin of course) that were still capable of colonizing and the whole business of maintaining the colonies. While it was Japanese civilian politicians that had to heed the other civilian governments. The breaking of Anglo-Japan alliance and naval treaty ratio really probably was a big discrediting moment for civilian in foreign affairs. Did US really need that ratio? They could just come back for "round 2, round 3, and round 4." Look at the video Ryan just posted, the Japanese diplomats had to heed to such a ratio. One other example, much later, the Nomonhan incident.. Japan-SU battle in Spring/Summer of 1939. The SU side had Stalin's full support while the Japanese government not. It limited Japan's ability, such as ability to make full use of aircraft. The US had Canada, Mexico, and two big oceans for neighbors. Japan had the SU. What business does Moscow have in going so far as outer Manchuria and Mongolia anyway? 

More food for thought...

Edited April 27, 2023 by futon

[Murph]

Monty might have been the right general for the command instead of Percival.  That is an interesting what if.  

[Murph]

Reading Toland and others you get the impression that the Kwangtung Army pretty much did what it wanted to do without a whole lot of civilian or even military oversight with junior officers wagging the dog....

[futon]

On 6/10/2023 at 7:49 AM, DKTanker said:

Every single one of them that remains silent on the matter while they extoll the virtues of the leftist ideology.  By their silence we can assume consent.  This is especially significant considering their mumbling leader just today dismissed people's concerns about the sterilization and mutilation of children as being hysterical and prejudiced and is an appeal to fear.

I don't know about hysterical, but I'm damned sure prejudiced against those that seek to normalize the sterilization and mutilation of children.
 

https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/48133-japan-again-because-biden/&do=findComment&comment=1671722

[futon]

3 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I'm sure you'll be able to point to a clip or a quote of what happened... because I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about.  (No surprise, there...)

Joe Scarborough.. a reckon no American thought of Scaborough Shoal after reading that. Dysfunctional Rs and Ds abound

[futon]

 

[Skywalkre]

44 minutes ago, futon said:

Joe Scarborough.. a reckon no American thought of Scaborough Shoal after reading that. Dysfunctional Rs and Ds abound

No idea what you're talking about here and still no idea what Murph was originally implying.

All I could find was some Fox stories about Rs being upset Blinken mentioned we don't support independence.  Which... is a big non-story.  Saw an interview yesterday with an ex-Trump official highlighting it's a big non-story since most Taiwanese don't want independence themselves (the polling I found showed a whopping 6% want it, 5% want to be absorbed by China, and the rest are some form of keeping things at the status quo [equally split between forever, maybe eventual independence, maybe eventual talks to join with China]).

What matters is what we have said repeatedly - we will defend Taiwan if China tries to change the status-quo militarily.  We've made that clear with several comments from Biden, with spending from Congress, and with preparation by our military.

So... was Murph referring to something else or is this yet another example of him talking out of his ass?  I can't read minds... some help would be appreciated.

[futon]

3 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

No idea what you're talking about here and still no idea what Murph was originally implying.

All I could find was some Fox stories about Rs being upset Blinken mentioned we don't support independence.  Which... is a big non-story.  Saw an interview yesterday with an ex-Trump official highlighting it's a big non-story since most Taiwanese don't want independence themselves (the polling I found showed a whopping 6% want it, 5% want to be absorbed by China, and the rest are some form of keeping things at the status quo [equally split between forever, maybe eventual independence, maybe eventual talks to join with China]).

What matters is what we have said repeatedly - we will defend Taiwan if China tries to change the status-quo militarily.  We've made that clear with several comments from Biden, with spending from Congress, and with preparation by our military.

So... was Murph referring to something else or is this yet another example of him talking out of his ass?  I can't read minds... some help would be appreciated.

What, China matter started only last year? No idea how Scarborough Shoal can be related? FFS. That's the dysfunctional. And on a military board of all places

Reagan 1980s America was worthy to lead and for Japan to be second and to and place trust in stabalizing the region. Nakasone seemed to remark how messy race issues are in the US with a sense if Japanese superiority. But to Nakasone was a problem he seemed entirely unconcerned with which was the extreme development of materialism in Japan that IMO planted the seeds of low fertility rates. There can be a US to lead and for Japan to follow and support. But ever since Clinton, that US has started to fade. Now it is a real shit show in the US and I hate how Japan has to hope on the US and China to not screw the region further. 

Statements are one thing, what's actually happening is another. The great dependency on China for the economy is a corrupting agent on the effort to keep China bottled up. It's a dirty game for a country that declares being the later in democracy and human rights to be so highly entangled and dependent  in the PRC economy. Tienamein Square, Liu Xioa bo, Fulan Gong, great China internet firewall, Charter 08, Hong Kong umbrella... there were so many check points for the US to pause, think, and put a cap on trade things. Why the hell did trade continue to balloon? Defending Taiwan means not letting the conditions to give China a fighting chance to take Taiwan. This brinkmanship may lead to becoming another meat grind Ukraine War in which lots of Taiwanese end up dead, soldier and civilian, the island ruinef, US military personnel also dead, as well as JSDF personnel.. all because steps in averting the conditions in creating this ever more so obvious potential flash point. Such irresponsible policies on the pedestal of "freedom and democracy" in which the pedestal is mounted on a stage that has a squashed Imperial Japan underneth. An Imperial Japan that during peace years never been nearly as authoritative as the PRC, heck not even during most if not all the war years aa well. Disgusting hypocracy and cowards. Murph was one of the few from the US contingent to concede some points. So much obtuse rat bs games by both Ds and Rs. 

Reading minds would be uncessary if knowing what's going on here without a disposition to be so biased serving. 

A necessity to read minds to fancy an understanding automatically disqualifies for the role that 1980s America had.

Edited June 23, 2023 by futon

[Skywalkre]

16 minutes ago, futon said:

Statements are one thing, what's actually happening is another. The great dependency on China for the economy is a corrupting agent on the effort to keep China bottled up. It's a dirty game for a country that declares being the later in democracy and human rights to be so highly entangled and dependent  in the PRC economy. Tienamein Square, Liu Xioa bo, Fulan Gong, great China internet firewall, Charter 08, Hong Kong umbrella... there were so many check points for the US to pause, think, and put a cap on trade things. Why the hell did trade continue to balloon? Defending Taiwan means not letting the conditions to give China a fighting chance to take Taiwan. This brinkmanship may lead to becoming another meat grind Ukraine War in which lots of Taiwanese end up dead, soldier and civilian, the island ruinef, US military personnel also dead, as well as JSDF personnel.. all because steps in averting the conditions in creating this ever more so obvious potential flash point.

You're preaching to the choir with this bit.  I've highlighted in recent years how we've helped build China up and COVID was a wonderful opportunity to step things back and pass legislation to encourage/help businesses to move out of China (and to neighboring countries just as cheap, which would also help them build up their own defenses through the revenue to oppose China in partnership with us).  That didn't happen.  Why?  Americans want their cheap shit.  The $ rules in this country, pure and simple.

[futon]

1 minute ago, Skywalkre said:

You're preaching to the choir with this bit.  I've highlighted in recent years how we've helped build China up and COVID was a wonderful opportunity to step things back and pass legislation to encourage/help businesses to move out of China (and to neighboring countries just as cheap, which would also help them build up their own defenses through the revenue to oppose China in partnership with us).  That didn't happen.  Why?  Americans want their cheap shit.  The $ rules in this country, pure and simple.

Exactly on this instance, that goes way beyond just Blinken saying the US will defend Taiwan.

So it goes to show that even if Blinken said, it is by no means sufficient. Sufficiency is the longterm attention, uncorrupted guiding principles, and knowledge about what's been going on.