Right Wing Discussion Thread XIX

[Totally Not OEP]

Imperial Japan was the strategic focus of the Red Army throughout the 1920s and 1930s, being considered by Moscow as their most realistic threat and for which they responded to by placing the best units of the RKKA within the Far East to counter the Kwantung Army of the IJA. In 1937 along the Amur River and 1938 at Lake Khasan the IJA decisively rebuffed the Red Army and then in 1939 at Nomonhan achieved a strategic draw. From there, the IJA remained a going concern for Moscow, with STAVKA declining to enact force transfers until late 1941 based on intelligence from Richard Sorge. Until 1945, the Soviets steadfastly maintained a neutrality vis-a-vis Japan, including completely shutting down American efforts to establish bases in 1943 and 1944.

I make no morale judgement on China, as obviously and without question the conduct of the China Expeditionary Army was flawed, to understate the situation. That is, however, irrelevant in strategic calculations. Understood through the prism of Imperialism and economic development, it made perfect sense for Japan; it secured them resources, strategic base and a captive market, just like the Europeans enjoyed in Africa and the United States in Latin America. I do not begrudge them that although, again, their conduct was without morally wrong.

Still, I fail to see the rationale you're proposing here. The KMT only ever fought the Soviets twice, in 1934 and again in 1946. Both times they failed. I likewise fail to see the value of the Panay Incident, given I don't exactly see you wanting to blow Israel to hell over the U.S.S. Liberty.

And the Japanese were perfectly willing to oblige the Soviets with the non-aggression pact, which was a massive benefit to the Soviets.

And it gained them no real resources. Eastern China is resource poor. It just tied up tons of Japanese troops and killed massive numbers of people. It was not beneficial to Japan, it just got them dragged into an unnecessary war. The KMT was not interested in a war.
And again it was a direct attack on our interests in China. Even if it was In Japan’s imperial interests it was against ours.

The Panay proves (and the attacked US flagged merchants in China too) that the Japanese attack on China was an attack on our interests in China.

The KMT agreed to a Non-Aggression Pact, accepted Soviet aid, and then formed a United Front with the CCP. How is that better than what Japan did?

Eastern China is the richest portion of China and has always been that way, up until the present day. The Daqing and Liaoing Oil fields were sufficient, for example, to make Japan in the 1940s oil self-sufficient. Massive deposits of coal and iron ore likewise abound, while the millions of Chinese serve as a captive market for Japan's industry.

Finally, you side stepped my question; if you consider the Panay a definitive example, why not the Liberty?

[Genivaria]

We better be at some point.

Yet it's fine to not go to war with communism?

Ethically it would be fantastic to rid the world of both, the how is what I'm concerned with.

[Totally Not OEP]

The KMT was actually much better off in 1945, without question. During WWII, it had grown from 1-2 million to a force of eight million, with a degree of motorization equal to the Imperial Japanese Army it faced.

Again, I fail to see your rationale; our trade with Japan was much larger than China and they were not interfering with our SLOCs?

No they were not because numbers mean nothing if the troops have lost the will to fight.
Their best troops had been killed, the forces they had by 1945 were mostly demoralized conscripts. Their best troops died in Shanghai, something they never recovered from.

And you cannot easily recover from loosing millions.

China was also a huge source of trade, which they destroyed.
And they were a threat to SLOCs as they had major forces between us and East Asia. The very existence of the mandate was a threat.

And they were going to go to try to drive us out of East Asia, sooner or later, it was only a matter of time.
They wanted to dominate East Asia, which left no room for us.

The KMT was less willing to fight in 1945? Then why did they successfully push the IJA back in mid-1945, and then successfully confine the CCP to Manchuria by 1946? Your assertions are not backed up by the available evidence.

Again, I'm just not getting your rationale here. We traded far more with Japan than China and our former China trade could and would be picked up by a Japanese-occupied China. The Japanese had not fortified the mandate and the the U.S. kept the entire Asiatic Fleet in Cavito in the Philippines; why are you ignoring that aspect?

[Nakena]

Since we seem to be discussing the Kuomintang, it’s worth asking:

Aside from geopolitical alignment (and even then, who knows) what would fundamentally be the difference between a Nationalist Government in Beijing, and the current PRC Government? At the end of the day, isn’t Mao weeping in his grave for the policy decisions taken by his successors; they’re very - how shall we say - “Capitalist” (albeit Capitalism with State Controls; which is something a Nationalist Government might implement anyways). Aside from the aesthetics and other such cosmetic things, China isn’t really Communist anymore.

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

[Totally Not OEP]

Since we seem to be discussing the Kuomintang, it’s worth asking:

Aside from geopolitical alignment (and even then, who knows) what would fundamentally be the difference between a Nationalist Government in Beijing, and the current PRC Government? At the end of the day, isn’t Mao weeping in his grave for the policy decisions taken by his successors; they’re very - how shall we say - “Capitalist” (albeit Capitalism with State Controls; which is something a Nationalist Government might implement anyways). Aside from the aesthetics and other such cosmetic things, China isn’t really Communist anymore.

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

[Genivaria]

Since we seem to be discussing the Kuomintang, it’s worth asking:

Aside from geopolitical alignment (and even then, who knows) what would fundamentally be the difference between a Nationalist Government in Beijing, and the current PRC Government? At the end of the day, isn’t Mao weeping in his grave for the policy decisions taken by his successors; they’re very - how shall we say - “Capitalist” (albeit Capitalism with State Controls; which is something a Nationalist Government might implement anyways). Aside from the aesthetics and other such cosmetic things, China isn’t really Communist anymore.

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

The Kuomintang would've been much preferable to the PRC, they could've been directed at the Soviets.

[Nakena]

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

I doubt KMT China would be poorer, weren't for Deng Xiaoping the PRC might be much, much worse off nowadays and probably not nearly as economically powerful.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

The Kuomintang would've been much preferable to the PRC, they could've been directed at the Soviets.

I think they were less authoritarian as well, though I could be wrong.

[Pyrghium]

Again, I'm just not getting your rationale here. We traded far more with Japan than China and our former China trade could and would be picked up by a Japanese-occupied China. The Japanese had not fortified the mandate and the the U.S. kept the entire Asiatic Fleet in Cavito in the Philippines; why are you ignoring that aspect?

Sure, the United States could’ve avoided War with the Japanese Empire; but wouldn’t that have just made them the Great Asiatic Power the PRC is today, and instead of fighting a quasi-Cold War against them, it would be against the Japanese Empire.

I don’t think the underlying issue is really ideological, so much as it’s geopolitical; Washington cannot and will not abide any Equals in terms of Global Hegemony. They want to be Number 1, and anybody who gets in their way - whatever their ideological stance or stripe - is going down. That’s the idea, anyway.

However, I don’t believe that that position is tenable long term. America will have to learn to live with other Powers (Russia, China, India, for instance); and perhaps content itself with its own Sphere of Influence in the Americas. Fortress North America isn’t a bad idea in my book; and it’ll be enough of a mammoth task to heal the divisions within the United States and Canada; and maybe even achieve a North American Union - something our forefathers have dreamed about for generations (or had nightmares about, if those forefathers were Loyalist Canadians). Foreign adventures in others’ backyards - especially when nobody there wants us there - is a total waste of time; and does us no favours. We need to prioritize the most pressing matter: Security and Stability on our own Continent.

[Genivaria]

The Kuomintang would've been much preferable to the PRC, they could've been directed at the Soviets.

I think they were less authoritarian as well, though I could be wrong.

Compared to the PRC? Yes definitely.

[Novus America]

And the Japanese were perfectly willing to oblige the Soviets with the non-aggression pact, which was a massive benefit to the Soviets.

And it gained them no real resources. Eastern China is resource poor. It just tied up tons of Japanese troops and killed massive numbers of people. It was not beneficial to Japan, it just got them dragged into an unnecessary war. The KMT was not interested in a war.
And again it was a direct attack on our interests in China. Even if it was In Japan’s imperial interests it was against ours.

The Panay proves (and the attacked US flagged merchants in China too) that the Japanese attack on China was an attack on our interests in China.

The KMT agreed to a Non-Aggression Pact, accepted Soviet aid, and then formed a United Front with the CCP. How is that better than what Japan did?

Eastern China is the richest portion of China and has always been that way, up until the present day. The Daqing and Liaoing Oil fields were sufficient, for example, to make Japan in the 1940s oil self-sufficient. Massive deposits of coal and iron ore likewise abound, while the millions of Chinese serve as a captive market for Japan's industry.

Finally, you side stepped my question; if you consider the Panay a definitive example, why not the Liberty?

The KMT only accepted a United Front with the CCP at gun point, they did it out of desperation, not choice.
That is the difference.

MANCHURIA has resource yes. Daqing and Liaoing have resources yes. Nut they are in Manchuria. Which Japan ALREADY HAD!

The 1931 invasion of Manchuria made sense. The 1937 invasion made no sense at all.
Obviously as it cost Japan everything.
It was obviously stupid, and Japan knew it would greatly upset the US.

Panay alone was not the issue, they fact that they attacked other ships as well.
It ended all our sales to China.
Israel did not attempt to destroy all our military and economic assets in a country the size of China.

[Totally Not OEP]

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

I doubt KMT China would be poorer, weren't for Deng Xiaoping the PRC might be much, much worse off nowadays and probably not nearly as economically powerful.

The Landed Elites were a major bastion of power in the KMT and the loss of the mainland was the only thing that allowed them to be purged/cornered because they didn't hold any assets in Taiwan, given as it was being formerly Japanese.

[Nakena]

I don’t think the underlying issue is really ideological

It's absolutly ideological. It's about two different visions for the future of mankind. One is the chinese dream of Xi, the other the however western one.

They're both based on very different premises.

The choice is between living in relative freedom and be under the choke of an monstrous and abhorrent totalitarian megastate.

[Pyrghium]

It's absolutly ideological..

Ideological based on conflicting National/Imperial interests. Obviously, the visions will be different as you’re dealing with two very different Civilizations with two very different ways of seeing the World.

[Totally Not OEP]

The KMT agreed to a Non-Aggression Pact, accepted Soviet aid, and then formed a United Front with the CCP. How is that better than what Japan did?

Eastern China is the richest portion of China and has always been that way, up until the present day. The Daqing and Liaoing Oil fields were sufficient, for example, to make Japan in the 1940s oil self-sufficient. Massive deposits of coal and iron ore likewise abound, while the millions of Chinese serve as a captive market for Japan's industry.

Finally, you side stepped my question; if you consider the Panay a definitive example, why not the Liberty?

The KMT only accepted a United Front with the CCP at gun point, they did it out of desperation, not choice.
That is the difference.

MANCHURIA has resource yes. Daqing and Liaoing have resources yes. Nut they are in Manchuria. Which Japan ALREADY HAD!

The 1931 invasion of Manchuria made sense. The 1937 invasion made no sense at all.
Obviously as it cost Japan everything.
It was obviously stupid, and Japan knew it would greatly upset the US.

Panay alone was not the issue, they fact that they attacked other ships as well.
It ended all our sales to China.
Israel did not attempt to destroy all our military and economic assets in a country the size of China.

You're engaging in contradictions with yourself; formerly you've argue the KMT could've easily destroyed the CCP concurrent to the Japanese invasion but now argued they were forced to accept it at gun point?

What you also likewise ignore is that the KMT refused to accept the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and thus threatened an eventual war over Japan with it. Indeed, when Japan extended peace offers twice in 1938, China refused to consider such. Ironically, in both cases Japan was also asking for an alliance to fight Communism; the KMT refused -

Diplomatic recognition for Manchukuo
Inner Mongolia autonomy
Cessation of all anti-Japan and anti-Manchukuo policies
Cooperation between Japan, Manchukuo and China against communism
War reparations
Demilitarized zones in northern China and inner Mongolia
Trade agreement between Japan, Manchukuo and China

Finally, again we see your contradiction with regards to Israel here; why is the loss of a single Gunboat worth more than the attack on a major U.S. intelligence vessel that caused far more casualties?

[Joohan]

A lot of differences. First of the PRC and the CCP still see themself as communist and they have extremly totalitarian tendencies from beginning onwards that, safe for a short periods of moderate times, always comes back through and has now gone back in full force with Xi.

Nationalist China was never like that, despite it was at time a dictatorship.

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

I wouldn't say so. I could see them implementing a policy of industrialization akin to what most Marxist-Leninist states underwent ( the KMT was vaguely socialist after all ). The only reason we are friendly today is because of the communist's off their coast. Had they been victorious in their war, I imagine that our relationship to them would be very similar to our relationship with Russia.

Still, I would say that they would probably have been the better option. Not as quite as genocidal, and with Chiang-Kai Shek himself being a Christian, probably a lot less religious persecution.

[Nakena]

Finally, again we see your contradiction with regards to Israel here; why is the loss of a single Gunboat worth more than the attack on a major U.S. intelligence vessel that caused far more casualties?

I read somewhere that the Sixth Fleet was already preparing for a possible nuclear counterstrike in retiliation but then got a call from DC to stop it. Two F-4 Phantom with nukes were already in the air and being recalled.

[Novus America]

No they were not because numbers mean nothing if the troops have lost the will to fight.
Their best troops had been killed, the forces they had by 1945 were mostly demoralized conscripts. Their best troops died in Shanghai, something they never recovered from.

And you cannot easily recover from loosing millions.

China was also a huge source of trade, which they destroyed.
And they were a threat to SLOCs as they had major forces between us and East Asia. The very existence of the mandate was a threat.

And they were going to go to try to drive us out of East Asia, sooner or later, it was only a matter of time.
They wanted to dominate East Asia, which left no room for us.

The KMT was less willing to fight in 1945? Then why did they successfully push the IJA back in mid-1945, and then successfully confine the CCP to Manchuria by 1946? Your assertions are not backed up by the available evidence.

Again, I'm just not getting your rationale here. We traded far more with Japan than China and our former China trade could and would be picked up by a Japanese-occupied China. The Japanese had not fortified the mandate and the the U.S. kept the entire Asiatic Fleet in Cavito in the Philippines; why are you ignoring that aspect?

They fought some yes, but could not keep it up obviously, as their forces soon after collapsed from desertion. The Chinese were exhausted by years of the most grueling war imaginable. A war that was all Japan’s fault. Nor could they recover from the loss of literally millions of troops.
Again Mao himself credited Japan for his victory.

The Japanese occupied China was not going to allow US competition. Again it was only a matter of time, the Japanese wanted the US gone from the region. That was their long term goal.
What we offered was perfectly fair, Japan could keep Manchuria if it left the rest of China alone and Japan could freely export to China, but we would be allowed to to. China would be open. The open door policy was in our our interest.

The Japanese has a large naval force in the mandate, the Asiatic Fleet too weak to fight on its own. The existence of the mandate made us unable to defend Guam and the Philippines as events would prove. The Japanese DID cut off our SLOCs after all in 1941.

[Totally Not OEP]

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

I wouldn't say so. I could see them implementing a policy of industrialization akin to what most Marxist-Leninist states underwent ( the KMT was vaguely socialist after all ). The only reason we are friendly today is because of the communist's off their coast. Had they been victorious in their war, I imagine that our relationship to them would be very similar to our relationship with Russia.

Still, I would say that they would probably have been the better option. Not as quite as genocidal, and with Chiang-Kai Shek himself being a Christian, probably a lot less religious persecution.

I'd imagine it'd be better from the perspective of them not being as developed.

[Genivaria]

KMT China from an American point of view is probably best because they would've kept China much poorer than the CCP did.

I wouldn't say so. I could see them implementing a policy of industrialization akin to what most Marxist-Leninist states underwent ( the KMT was vaguely socialist after all ). The only reason we are friendly today is because of the communist's off their coast. Had they been victorious in their war, I imagine that our relationship to them would be very similar to our relationship with Russia.

Still, I would say that they would probably have been the better option. Not as quite as genocidal, and with Chiang-Kai Shek himself being a Christian, probably a lot less religious persecution.

And without the communist hatred of the West a Nationalist China would've been alot more open to relations and trade earlier on.

[Pyrghium]

Had they been victorious in their war, I imagine that our relationship to them would be very similar to our relationship with Russia.

Yes, which is not much better than America’s current relationship with the PRC; the only thing which made that slightly better than the relationship with Moscow, are the intense trade and commercial ties. So in short, it wouldn’t be that different. That’s my point. It’s not about the type of Government in Beijing; it’s about Beijing kowtowing to Washington and not striving to be its own Power.

[Totally Not OEP]

The KMT was less willing to fight in 1945? Then why did they successfully push the IJA back in mid-1945, and then successfully confine the CCP to Manchuria by 1946? Your assertions are not backed up by the available evidence.

Again, I'm just not getting your rationale here. We traded far more with Japan than China and our former China trade could and would be picked up by a Japanese-occupied China. The Japanese had not fortified the mandate and the the U.S. kept the entire Asiatic Fleet in Cavito in the Philippines; why are you ignoring that aspect?

They fought some yes, but could not keep it up obviously, as their forces soon after collapsed from desertion. The Chinese were exhausted by years of the most grueling war imaginable. A war that was all Japan’s fault. Nor could they recover from the loss of literally millions of troops.
Again Mao himself credited Japan for his victory.

The Japanese occupied China was not going to allow US competition. Again it was only a matter of time, the Japanese wanted the US gone from the region. That was their long term goal.
What we offered was perfectly fair, Japan could keep Manchuria if it left the rest of China alone and Japan could freely export to China, but we would be allowed to to. China would be open. The open door policy was in our our interest.

The Japanese has a large naval force in the mandate, the Asiatic Fleet too weak to fight on its own. The existence of the mandate made us unable to defend Guam and the Philippines as events would prove. The Japanese DID cut off our SLOCs after all in 1941.

Except for that fact they did keep it up, from 1945 onwards. As I said, you are not presenting a historically based argument. Indeed, the Chinese Army had expanded at least fourfold, increased its motorization to place it among the top militaries in that regard and, further, were modern in equipment and training thanks to the U.S. given the prevalence of U.S. advisers and Lend Lease. Japan did not destroy this force, it destroyed itself in 1946 in Manchuria.

We never offered such a deal to Japan and the reason they cut the SLOCs in 1941 is because we were at war lol. I have no problem with fighting other nations on Imperialist grounds, but my problem is with your defense of the KMT, which is extremely biased, as well as the notion that a strategic pay off vis-a-vis Japan was not possible.

[Totally Not OEP]

Finally, again we see your contradiction with regards to Israel here; why is the loss of a single Gunboat worth more than the attack on a major U.S. intelligence vessel that caused far more casualties?

I read somewhere that the Sixth Fleet was already preparing for a possible nuclear counterstrike in retiliation but then got a call from DC to stop it. Two F-4 Phantom with nukes were already in the air and being recalled.

The frothing defense of Israel in this thread hurts me.

[Genivaria]

Had they been victorious in their war, I imagine that our relationship to them would be very similar to our relationship with Russia.

Yes, which is not much better than America’s current relationship with the PRC; the only thing which made that slightly better than the relationship with Moscow, are the intense trade and commercial ties. So in short, it wouldn’t be that different. That’s my point. It’s not about the type of Government in Beijing; it’s about Beijing kowtowing to Washington and not striving to be its own Power.

Oh it's definitely about the government in Beijing, the PRC is currently harvesting the organs of it's own citizens in concentration camps.
Do you support that?

[Novus America]

The KMT only accepted a United Front with the CCP at gun point, they did it out of desperation, not choice.
That is the difference.

MANCHURIA has resource yes. Daqing and Liaoing have resources yes. Nut they are in Manchuria. Which Japan ALREADY HAD!

The 1931 invasion of Manchuria made sense. The 1937 invasion made no sense at all.
Obviously as it cost Japan everything.
It was obviously stupid, and Japan knew it would greatly upset the US.

Panay alone was not the issue, they fact that they attacked other ships as well.
It ended all our sales to China.
Israel did not attempt to destroy all our military and economic assets in a country the size of China.

You're engaging in contradictions with yourself; formerly you've argue the KMT could've easily destroyed the CCP concurrent to the Japanese invasion but now argued they were forced to accept it at gun point?

What you also likewise ignore is that the KMT refused to accept the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and thus threatened an eventual war over Japan with it. Indeed, when Japan extended peace offers twice in 1938, China refused to consider such. Ironically, in both cases Japan was also asking for an alliance to fight Communism; the KMT refused -

Diplomatic recognition for Manchukuo
Inner Mongolia autonomy
Cessation of all anti-Japan and anti-Manchukuo policies
Cooperation between Japan, Manchukuo and China against communism
War reparations
Demilitarized zones in northern China and inner Mongolia
Trade agreement between Japan, Manchukuo and China

Finally, again we see your contradiction with regards to Israel here; why is the loss of a single Gunboat worth more than the attack on a major U.S. intelligence vessel that caused far more casualties?

It is not like Japan left China alone between 1931 and 1937. It was engaging in steadily increasing aggression the entire time.
Politically the KMT could not openly surrender Manchuria but Chiang had no interest in fighting for it. He had to be literally held at gunpoint to agree to the United Front.
And Japan could easily defend Manchuria. Japan knew quite well that a further invasion of China would not be accepted by the US but did it anyways, showing zero regard for US interests in the region.

Again Panay was part of OTHER attacks on US merchants ships as well. It was not the me accidental attack, it was a direct threat to our interests in the region. It was part of Japan trying to force all competitors out. The open door was in our interest to defend.