What's new

South China Sea as the New Middle East

Japan at its height never managed to occupy more than 1/3 of our territory, and even then their control was shaky at best.
Which was pretty damn good for a country of its size. Like it or not, objectively minded people have no problems praising Imperial Japan for its daring.

We were part of the Big Five at the end of WWII, a club of victors that formed the permanent members at UN security council today.
China was a member of that club because the Allies needed a native representative, not because during the war Chinese troops conducted major set piece battles against the Japanese.

Viet monkeys on the other hand, got sold off like slaves back to the French.
If you have to resort to this cheap insult, it mean you ran out of credible arguments.
 
Which was pretty damn good for a country of its size. Like it or not, objectively minded people have no problems praising Imperial Japan for its daring.


China was a member of that club because the Allies needed a native representative, not because during the war Chinese troops conducted major set piece battles against the Japanese.


If you have to resort to this cheap insult, it mean you ran out of credible arguments.

Japan never had a chance of holding China unless Japan would integrate itself into China. Much like the Manchus, Japan itself would disappear if they attempted such a thing.

Remember, Japan in the 1930's was at the peak of its power vis-a-vis China, fighting against a China *BEFORE* industrialization, still gripped in the turmoils of dynastic revolution in 1911, and fighting a CIVIL WAR to boot.

If Japan could only get 1/3 of China with those kind of odds, there would have been no way for Japan to hold Chinese lands after China has had a chance to recover. Period. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

The only way Japan could've held China would be like the Manchus, integrating themselves into a greater Chinese society. Which I don't think would've been a bad thing at all.

Also, I'm not even gonna answer the allegations that China was just chosen as an ally because they just needed a native representative. If that's what you think, then you have a lot to learn still about WW2.
 
Japan never had a chance of holding China unless Japan would integrate itself into China. Much like the Manchus, Japan itself would disappear if they attempted such a thing.

Remember, Japan in the 1930's was at the peak of its power vis-a-vis China, fighting against a China *BEFORE* industrialization, still gripped in the turmoils of dynastic revolution in 1911, and fighting a CIVIL WAR to boot.

If Japan could only get 1/3 of China with those kind of odds, there would have been no way for Japan to hold Chinese lands after China has had a chance to recover. Period. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

The only way Japan could've held China would be like the Manchus, integrating themselves into a greater Chinese society. Which I don't think would've been a bad thing at all.

Also, I'm not even gonna answer the allegations that China was just chosen as an ally because they just needed a native representative. If that's what you think, then you have a lot to learn still about WW2.

Japan now needs US protection against China.

Without the US, China could even think about invading and occupying Japan within 5 years.
 
China currently generates more electricity than Japan, Russia, India, South Korea, Vietnam , the Philippines, and the rest of ASEAN put together.

Think about that for a second. :lol:

;)), yeah, China also "generates" double the people of those countries put together!!! Think about that for a second. Man, talk about birth control LOL
 
There's only two hostile states in ASEAN, Vietnam and Philippines. The others we can befriend, while these two need to be beaten once in a while.
In my opinion, China has only 2 which can be considered friend. Nord Korea and Pakistan. Nord Korea needs food from China whereas Pakistan needs weapon to fight with his brother - India. Cambodia would be friend if Polpot was alive and the leader of Cambodia.
 
lol 1904 was during the qing dynasty, the map doesn't show Manchuria either guess the Manchus didnt consider their homeland to be within the empire's territories?

silly viet fan-boys clearly the map is merely one page out of several, i can get a official US map showing only new york state, that doesnt mean the US consists of only new york.

The map is not a map of a province. It is a national map.

According to Wikipedia, the Qing Dynasty, which replaced the Shun and Ming dynasties in China, was founded by Manchus from Manchuria (modern Northeastern China). However, the Manchu emperors did not fully integrate their homeland into China.

This text may explain your question. I suppose you understand Chiness and the Chiness history better than me.
 
Japan never had a chance of holding China unless Japan would integrate itself into China. Much like the Manchus, Japan itself would disappear if they attempted such a thing.
Wrong assumption. Smaller countries like from Europe carved up China into colonial pieces. None of them were absorbed into greater China proper.

Remember, Japan in the 1930's was at the peak of its power vis-a-vis China, fighting against a China *BEFORE* industrialization, still gripped in the turmoils of dynastic revolution in 1911, and fighting a CIVIL WAR to boot.
What else do you expect Imperial Japan to do? Picked on US? What happened then? If Imperial Japan did not attacked US and negotiated some kind of peace, no matter how uneasy, Imperial Japan and the Europeans would have continued to occupy parts of China as colonial spoils.

If Japan could only get 1/3 of China with those kind of odds, there would have been no way for Japan to hold Chinese lands after China has had a chance to recover. Period. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
And you are delusional if you think China could have 'recover' if the above scenario had panned out.

Also, I'm not even gonna answer the allegations that China was just chosen as an ally because they just needed a native representative. If that's what you think, then you have a lot to learn still about WW2.
Who else could there be? The Koreans?
 
Wrong assumption. Smaller countries like from Europe carved up China into colonial pieces. None of them were absorbed into greater China proper.
Europeans did not "Carve china into pieces". They got concessions from a weak Qing Government prior to the dynastic revolution. Carving China into pieces implies they got large pieces of land, not isolated territories within cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong.

What else do you expect Imperial Japan to do? Picked on US?

You're going off completely in the wrong direction. My point was that Japan was at the PEAK of its power, and yet was only able to occupy less than 1/3 of the territory at the PEAK of the entire war. Your response: "What else do you expect imperial Japan to do? Picked on US?" Note how your response has little to do with the point being made, and does nothing to refute my point.

If Imperial Japan did not attacked US and negotiated some kind of peace, no matter how uneasy, Imperial Japan and the Europeans would have continued to occupy parts of China as colonial spoils.
You're expressing a personal opinion on conjecture and made up history with no historical backing whatsoever. It's ok. I've done the same when I was unable to counter a point.

And you are delusional if you think China could have 'recover' if the above scenario had panned out.
Which scenario? The real scenario where Japan was only able to occupy 1/3 at the peak before quickly beaten back? Or your imaginary scenario where a imaginary China gets swallowed up by a Fantasy Japan with illusory forces?
 
Europeans did not "Carve china into pieces". They got concessions from a weak Qing Government prior to the dynastic revolution. Carving China into pieces implies they got large pieces of land, not isolated territories within cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Please...The issue is that smaller countries than China -- far smaller -- were able to subjugate China. So your criticism of how 'little' Imperial Japan got under control is worthless.

You're going off completely in the wrong direction. My point was that Japan was at the PEAK of its power, and yet was only able to occupy less than 1/3 of the territory at the PEAK of the entire war. Your response: "What else do you expect imperial Japan to do? Picked on US?" Note how your response has little to do with the point being made, and does nothing to refute my point.
Of course it does. Imperial Japan, like other conquerors, do not usually go after powers they are uncertain of defeating.

You're expressing a personal opinion on conjecture and made up history with no historical backing whatsoever. It's ok. I've done the same when I was unable to counter a point.
Please...Give me any evidence that without WW II, the Euros were going to leave China out of shame. Same for Imperial Japan.

Which scenario? The real scenario where Japan was only able to occupy 1/3 at the peak before quickly beaten back? Or your imaginary scenario where a imaginary China gets swallowed up by a Fantasy Japan with illusory forces?
And how small Japan was compared to China?
 
Please...Give me any evidence that without WW II, the Euros were going to leave China out of shame. Same for Imperial Japan.

More conjecture and what-if scenarios. Imaginary history fun for you? Read up on real history and see what happened to the Europeans in China without fighting a war.

Quite disappointed in your points. Weak, unsupported, and does not address the point at hand. I feel like I'm arguing with the mentally challenged who can't hold 3 seconds of coherent thought together (by the way, and I mean this seriously. no offense if you're really mentally challenged. Just let me know and I will stop picking on you).
 
Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines all covered.

Do you people understand now? :lol:

MRCcl.png


R4KhC.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom