They were indeed badly led. However, under better leadership, we have shown that defeating even the United States is possible. Where Japanese and German defenses crumbled, ours held, and pushed the US army back, with the same weapons as WW2 and the same soldiers as WW2, just different leadership. By extension, if those that can defeat Japan were defeated by us, then how can we possibly lose against Japan ever since 1949?
There was no need to build such an elaborate scaffolding and to structure such an elaborate piece of logic. The raw courage and the fighting ability of a Chinese soldier was never in question. Further, the battles that we are discussing, the questions that are on the table relate to WWII; iin particular, they relate to that portion of the Second Sino-Japanese War that overlapped with WWII, that is, 1941 to 1945. I am not sure what the relevance of 1949 is, therefore; the Japanese were no longer in the battlefield in 1949.
Let us get our facts clear. Japan and China fought an open war from 1937 onwards. There was warfare, intermittent warfare earlier than that, with bloody battles and some courageous displays by both sides, but because of the Japanese apprehension of American sanctions - there would have been automatic suspension of certain types of commercial and strategic supplies dealings, including petroleum supplies, in case of Japan being at war - these were always called 'Incidents' in English.
Apparently in either combatant's own languages, other terms were used, but it is difficult for a stranger to these languages to describe them, or to explain why some terms used by one side were considered insulting by the other.
It was with the attack on Pearl Harbour that Japan was officially at war, when the US officially declared war.
My original point was only that a commercial dispute, for that matter, a dispute of any other sort, ought not to make China and every Chinese commentator break out into warlike language and to start making threats to the other party. That was all that I sought to say. It was unpleasant to have a Chinese commentator give the matter a jingoistic turn by making references to the reasons for China's role and position in the world, and to make entirely unnecessary, inappropriate and untrue parallels to India. The part which was insulting to both the present-day Indian Army, Pakistan Army and Bangladesh Army was to say that India slept through this entire war. Obviously the person making this silly comment was remarkably uneducated in the history of those times, but whatever the reason, the statement was made and needed refutation, since this is not the first time it has been made, and it continues to be made. Therefore thorough and detailed, also robust refutation was clearly necessary.
Please stop trying to prove the unnecessary and also stop trying to distort history. China lost on the whole to Japan from 1937 to 1945; it was after 1945, in battle against Allied forces in Korea in support of the North Korean forces, that she was able to display fighting qualities at both individual as well as at formation level, and that her leadership was shown to be outstanding. Similarly, the Japanese had the upper hand from 1937 onwards against the Chinese, with occasional Chinese victories, and had the upper hand against the Allies from 1941 onwards until 1944 on the Burma front, and until 1943 in the Pacific. The Allies gained the momentum for victory against Japan commencing from the naval victories of 1942, largely, almost totally an American effort, and based on this, the Pacific campaign of that year and the following led by two sets of military leaders, as well as the western land campaign on the India-Burma front in 1944. The results of this weakening of the Japanese on their operations in China is well-known to all of us, and it is hoped that no further elaboration will be necessary.
Let us also get our facts clear on the role of the Indian soldier and the role of the Indian people.
First, the numbers speak for themselves. While the largest armies in the field exceeded the numbers put out by India (today, the state of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), the Indian contingent was the single largest voluntary army. None of our forefathers who fought did so because they were forced to; they did so as volunteers. In 1944, numbers of volunteers were actually turned away.
Second, a certain number of Sikh, Muslim and Hindu soldiers volunteered for the INA and fought for the INA. Popular resistance prevented their trial and persecution by the British, and some of the survivors went on to become prominent in civilian life. Three of them, - a Sikh, a Muslim and a Hindu - were put on trial by the British; the grandson of the gentleman who was Muslim is today the most prominent personality in films in India and a sponsor of sports as well. Their legacy is alive and well in our societies.
Third, while the independence movement did not oppose the British move to defend themselves initially, the Indian masses fought an increasingly bitter political struggle against Britain even while the war was going on. That is one reason why at the end of WWII, with war fatigue among their own soldiers, more than 2.5 million Indian (meaning Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) soldiers under arms, and an increasingly defiant population, which defied them using non-violent means, the British gave up and granted independence to the entire sub-continent, that is, the portions of which they controlled.
Please remain as respectful of the history of other nations as you expect respect for your own history.
. They were dictating the terms of the trade in China, and if China objected they just sent in their army to boss around.
. There is nothing wrong in accepting that Westerners beat us Asians in the 18th/19th/20th century. Are we going to let it happen again? I don't think so
