|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 21 2025 15:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2025 15:14 ETisME wrote:On August 21 2025 15:06 KwarK wrote:
“Japan refused negotiation” sounds like an excuse. China should have negotiated harder. Were they just dumb? Japan wanted to bayonet babies. China had babies. Just make a deal. Ah you are now learning negotiation. i.e. offer and counter offer. So why didn't China simply stop the massacre with negotiation? The simple historical reality that I'm going to assert is true from now on when dealing with you is that Japan was ready to make a very reasonable deal and leave China alone but Boris Johnson stopped them. Japan only invaded China because China didn't want to negotiate.
Negotiation is negotiation.
A deal is a deal.
two different matters, let's not get confused here.
They were negotiating while Nanjing was attacked and fallen, just as Ukraine and Russia had negotiation while the war was happening.
Whether terms are reasonable or not is still a negotiation tactics.
And yes, if you actually know anything about the Sino Japan war, there were a bunch calling to sign the deal.
Ironically it was the SECOND harsher conditions by the Japan that got China to come to a stronger decision to reject it.
Even then, the entire negotiation phrased only ended in 1938, which is several months AFTER the massacre and the second terms.
|
United States43902 Posts
"entire negotiation phrased ended"? How can it end? Just make a deal.
How many Chinese died because China wouldn't just make a deal? Too much pride. And you still excuse their culpability saying that "Japan refused negotiation" after that.
|
On August 21 2025 15:24 KwarK wrote:
"entire negotiation phrased ended"? How can it end? Just make a deal.
How many Chinese died because China wouldn't just make a deal? Too much pride. And you still excuse their culpability saying that "Japan refused negotiation" after that.
Are you unfamiliar with how a negotiation can come to an end? I am confused.
OR are you thinking negotiation means a deal must be strike?
Good questions, now you understand why there was a fairly big minority asking to sign the treaty, because KMT was fighting the japanese and suffering from losing popularity to CCP backstab
Do you really want to keep asking what ifs?
|
United States43902 Posts
On August 21 2025 15:29 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2025 15:24 KwarK wrote:
"entire negotiation phrased ended"? How can it end? Just make a deal.
How many Chinese died because China wouldn't just make a deal? Too much pride. And you still excuse their culpability saying that "Japan refused negotiation" after that. Are you unfamiliar with how a negotiation can come to an end? I am confused. OR are you thinking negotiation means a deal must be strike? Good questions, now you understand why there was a fairly big minority asking to sign the treaty, because KMT was fighting the japanese and suffering from losing popularity to CCP backstab Do you really want to keep asking what ifs?
Yes, I am unfamiliar with how a negotiation can come to an end. Please explain to me at painstaking length because I'm just not getting it. Why did they not make a deal? Were they just dumb? Japan would have left China alone forever if they had just made a deal.
|
On August 21 2025 15:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2025 15:29 ETisME wrote:On August 21 2025 15:24 KwarK wrote:
"entire negotiation phrased ended"? How can it end? Just make a deal.
How many Chinese died because China wouldn't just make a deal? Too much pride. And you still excuse their culpability saying that "Japan refused negotiation" after that. Are you unfamiliar with how a negotiation can come to an end? I am confused. OR are you thinking negotiation means a deal must be strike? Good questions, now you understand why there was a fairly big minority asking to sign the treaty, because KMT was fighting the japanese and suffering from losing popularity to CCP backstab Do you really want to keep asking what ifs? Yes, I am unfamiliar with how a negotiation can come to an end. Please explain to me at painstaking length because I'm just not getting it. Why did they not make a deal? Were they just dumb? Japan would have left China alone forever if they had just made a deal.
🔥 How Japan Ended Negotiations with China (1930s–1940s):
Early 1930s – Rising Tensions:
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and established the puppet state of Manchukuo.
China protested diplomatically, but Japan ignored international pressure (including from the League of Nations).
1937 – Full-Scale War Begins:
The Marco Polo Bridge Incident in July 1937 escalated into the Second Sino-Japanese War.
After this, Japan abandoned serious diplomatic talks and pushed for a military solution—trying to force China into submission.
1937–1938 – Failed Peace Talks:
Japan attempted to create a puppet government in China (Reformed Government in Nanjing), while continuing brutal campaigns (e.g., Nanjing Massacre).
Chiang Kai-shek (leader of the Chinese Nationalists) refused to negotiate under Japanese terms.
No Return to Diplomacy:
Japan continued war efforts without real negotiation attempts.
After 1941, Japan’s focus shifted toward fighting the U.S. and Allies, sidelining diplomacy with China entirely.
🤔 Was Japan “Smart” to End Negotiations?
Strategically?
No, not really. Here's why:
Underestimated Chinese resistance: Japan thought China would fall quickly. Instead, they got dragged into a protracted war that drained resources and soldiers.
Failed to isolate China: Instead of splitting China diplomatically or politically, Japan’s brutality pushed China closer to the U.S. and Allies, leading to major support against Japan.
Overextended themselves: Japan opened too many fronts—China, then Southeast Asia, then war with the U.S., Britain, etc.
Tactically?
Militarily, Japan had short-term success (captured many cities), but couldn't achieve long-term control or peace.
The brutality backfired: atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre destroyed any chance of a negotiated settlement or legitimacy.
✅ Summary:
Japan ended negotiations with China by choosing war, assuming quick victory. This turned out to be strategically short-sighted. They overestimated their military ability and underestimated China's will to resist. In hindsight, diplomacy might have served Japan better—but they chose force, and it backfired badly
|
United States43902 Posts
On August 21 2025 15:41 ETisME wrote:
The brutality backfired: atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre destroyed any chance of a negotiated settlement or legitimacy.
So you're saying China refused to negotiate? Why was that?
If I were in charge the war would have been over in 24 years. I identify as a dealmaker.
|
On August 21 2025 15:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2025 15:41 ETisME wrote:
The brutality backfired: atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre destroyed any chance of a negotiated settlement or legitimacy. So you're saying China refused to negotiate? Why was that? If I were in charge the war would have been over in 24 years. I identify as a dealmaker.
Yes, there were secret negotiations and contacts between factions within China and Japan during World War II, even after Chiang Kai-shek refused to formally negotiate peace with Japan. However, these were not official negotiations by the Chinese Nationalist government (KMT) led by Chiang, which maintained its anti-Japanese stance throughout the war.
Here's a breakdown of what happened:
1. Chiang Kai-shek's Position
Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Nationalist government, refused to surrender or negotiate with Japan after full-scale war broke out in 1937 (Marco Polo Bridge Incident).
He pursued a strategy of "resistance to the end," relying on Allied support (especially the U.S. after 1941).
2. Wang Jingwei's Collaborationist Regime (1940)
One of the most significant “secret negotiations” came from within the KMT itself. Wang Jingwei, a senior KMT leader and former close associate of Chiang, became disillusioned with prolonged war.
Wang defected to the Japanese side in 1938 and negotiated to establish a puppet regime based in Nanjing in 1940, known as the Reorganized National Government of China.
These negotiations were conducted in secret initially.
Wang hoped to create a "peaceful" solution under Japanese oversight, but his regime had little legitimacy and was widely seen as a traitorous collaborationist government.
3. Japanese Attempts to Split Chinese Leadership
Japan continued to attempt back-channel negotiations with various Chinese warlords, local leaders, and factions to undermine Chiang’s central authority.
These were not official negotiations and often aimed to divide the Chinese resistance, not to secure peace in good faith.
4. Other Negotiation Attempts
There were some unofficial diplomatic feelers sent between Japanese officials and third parties (such as the Germans or the Vatican) to explore whether Chiang might be persuaded to accept a negotiated settlement. Chiang consistently rejected these.
Summary
Chiang Kai-shek never negotiated with Japan and maintained a hard anti-Japanese stance.
Wang Jingwei and some others did engage in secret negotiations with Japan, leading to collaborationist regimes.
Japan also tried to undermine Chinese unity through covert contacts with warlords and rival political figures.
If you're asking whether China as a state negotiated after Chiang refused—no. But individuals and factions within China (especially Wang Jingwei) did.
|
United States43902 Posts
Why would they not simply take a deal where Japan withdrew? Was it Boris Johnson?
"Japan continued to attempt back-channel negotiations" sounds like only Japan was interested in peace.
|
On August 21 2025 15:48 KwarK wrote:
Why would they not simply take a deal where Japan withdrew? Was it Boris Johnson?
"Japan continued to attempt back-channel negotiations" sounds like only Japan was interested in peace.
Yes, many Chinese people and historians have blamed the KMT (Kuomintang) for its role in refusing to negotiate a peace treaty with Japan during the early years of World War II, and by extension, for contributing to the Nanjing Massacre (1937). While it is a complex issue, there are several factors that contribute to this blame. Let’s break this down.
1. Chiang Kai-shek's Refusal to Negotiate
Chiang Kai-shek's stance on refusing to negotiate with Japan was rooted in his belief that China should resist Japan to the bitter end. He was determined to protect China's sovereignty and preserve its dignity, which earned him domestic and international respect. This approach garnered him support from the United States and other Allied powers.
However, critics argue that by refusing any peace talks with Japan, Chiang made the war inevitable and prolonged. China faced an invasion by Japan that it was ill-prepared to deal with, and this led to massive suffering, especially in cities like Nanjing (the capital at the time).
2. The Nanjing Massacre: The Direct Consequence of the KMT's Refusal
The Nanjing Massacre occurred between December 1937 and January 1938, when Japanese forces captured the city of Nanjing, then the capital of Nationalist China.
After the KMT forces withdrew, Japanese soldiers committed widespread atrocities, including mass executions, sexual violence, looting, and destruction of civilian infrastructure. Estimates of the death toll vary, but it is generally accepted that between 200,000 and 300,000 people were killed.
Many Chinese viewed the Nanjing Massacre as a direct consequence of the KMT's refusal to seek peace with Japan before the situation escalated to such a horrific level. In the eyes of many:
If Chiang Kai-shek had agreed to peace negotiations, the massacre might have been avoided or at least mitigated.
Some blame Chiang's refusal to cede Nanjing or reach a compromise as a major reason for the city’s fall to Japanese forces, which led to the massacre.
3. KMT's Internal Problems and Strategic Failures
The KMT’s inability to effectively prepare or defend against Japan’s aggression was another area of criticism. Despite having resources and support from the West, the KMT military was poorly equipped and uncoordinated in its defense efforts. The strategic withdrawal from Nanjing left the civilian population vulnerable to the brutal assault.
Some criticisms of the KMT during this period include:
Failure to build a strong defense network: China’s military was fragmented, and the KMT was unable to mobilize its forces effectively.
Poor coordination: The KMT forces struggled with internal divisions and sometimes lacked unity in facing the external threat of Japan.
Corruption: The KMT government was also notorious for its internal corruption, which some argue undermined China's ability to fight the war effectively, contributing to the military failures and the collapse of defenses in key cities like Nanjing.
4. Blame and Propaganda
During the Chinese Civil War (1945-1949), the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), which was in competition with the KMT for control of China, often used the Nanjing Massacre and the KMT's refusal to seek peace as propaganda to discredit Chiang Kai-shek’s government. They highlighted the KMT’s failures in leadership and its inability to prevent atrocities.
The Communists accused the KMT of being more focused on fighting internal rivals, like the Communists themselves, rather than dealing with the external threat of Japan. By focusing on the CCP as a threat, they argued, the KMT missed the bigger picture of China’s survival.
5. Divergent Views Among the Chinese Population
It’s important to note that blame for the Nanjing Massacre and Japan's aggression during this period was not universal. Many people in China, especially those in the Nationalist government and military, supported Chiang’s refusal to negotiate, believing that surrendering to Japan would mean the end of China’s independence.
At the same time, many Chinese civilians and intellectuals were deeply critical of the KMT’s handling of the war. The Nanjing Massacre exposed the KMT’s inability to protect civilians and their failure to organize an effective resistance, which led to lasting resentment among the people.
6. Historical Perspective
Today, historians tend to view the events in a more nuanced way. The KMT's refusal to negotiate with Japan certainly contributed to the scale of the war and suffering, but it’s also seen as a complex decision in the context of national sovereignty and patriotism.
While the KMT's failure to prevent the Nanjing Massacre is often seen as a strategic blunder, blaming Chiang Kai-shek alone for the tragedy overlooks the larger geopolitical forces at play. The Japanese invasion of China was an incredibly complex event driven by Japan's own imperial ambitions, and the KMT’s failure to prevent the massacre was a result of its military weakness, poor strategy, and internal political challenges, not just its refusal to negotiate.
Conclusion
While Chiang Kai-shek's refusal to negotiate with Japan contributed to the escalation of the conflict, and by extension, the Nanjing Massacre, it was only one of many factors. The Nanjing Massacre was primarily a consequence of Japanese aggression and the KMT's inability to defend China against that aggression. However, in the eyes of many Chinese, especially those critical of the KMT's leadership during and after the war, it was seen as part of the reason for the devastation that followed. The massacre, along with the KMT's failures, became a symbol of why the Nationalist government ultimately lost favor with large segments of the Chinese population, which led to the rise of the CCP after the war.
|
I don't like these GPT dumps. There should be some rules surrounding it imo.
|
yeah...
Kwark basically prompting a bot. through a supposedly human middleman.
can't decide if just sad or also slightly amusing.
|
United States43902 Posts
On August 21 2025 17:29 Doublemint wrote:
yeah...
Kwark basically prompting a bot. through a supposedly human middleman.
can't decide if just sad or also slightly amusing.
Obviously I recognized he was using AI which is why I stopped but I also recognized that the AI, based on the prompts he was entering, was ascribing the blame for the Japanese atrocities to the Chinese government. If he actually took the time to read the drivel he copied and pasted I suspect it would outrage his nationalistic Chinese sensibilities. The parallel I was drawing worked, he accepted the premise of the comparison and started defending the indefensible.
|
The AI also completely missed that BoJo for all his failings, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nanjing massacre. Etisme should upgrade his firmware...
|
well at least we now know he is using a Trumpian approved agent. tough on CHINA, logical fallacies and all!
|
|
|
On August 21 2025 17:58 Acrofales wrote:
The AI also completely missed that BoJo for all his failings, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Nanjing massacre. Etisme should upgrade his firmware...
The only one mentioning Boris Johnson was Kwark, no?
What I find interesting is the inability of certain people to not mention WW2 and to connect it with everything from the grass growing to interstellar travel. For them its always 1938 and World War 2 is the only thing that has ever happened in human history, its also happening right now and will happen in the future. We cannot mention other historical events or precedents because they just never happened. They don't exist.
Negotiations? You know who else negotiated from 1933 to 1938? Thats right, Hitler. If two countries negotiate for any reason at all its litterally Chamberlains Munich Agreement with Hitler. There is no record of any negotiations happening for any other reason connected to conflict in human history
Also the peremoga / zrada cycle over the Russian advance in Pokrovsk has been a wild ride these past few days. 5 elite brigades sent in to put out the fire, took over areas the Russians werent in to begin with and are now being pushed back. Meanwhile the towns the 5 brigades were taken out from now have the Russian army entering them. Wild.
Remember kids. You only achieve something if you kill a lot of civilians. The Israel shill lobby in the Palestine thread must love you.
|
Haha, KwarK, you didn't have to be so brutal. Also, it's not true that Ukraine didn't attempt negotiations, Russia simply won't back off.
I guess a lot of people forget that this conflict has actually been going on for over a decade now, with Russia breaking I think 3 peace treaties/deals they "negotiated" over this period of time.
When will people understand that the only way to make Russia make any concessions and actually respect a signed peace treaty is to negotiate from the position of strength with Russia on its knees? Anything else Russia will just consider a weakness to be exploited and any deal not worth the paper it was signed on.
It's like a school bully who'll just keep going and do pretend remorse when convenient until someone stronger shows up and actually fucks them up. Russia has not gotten a lesson in humility yet so they'll just keep doing what they've been doing for decades because they keep getting away with it.
|
Finland963 Posts
German prosecutors say a man suspected to be one of the coordinators of the Nordstream attack has been arrested in Italy.
AP link
A Ukrainian citizen man suspected to be one of the coordinators of the undersea explosions in 2022 that damaged the Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany has been arrested, German prosecutors said Thursday.
The suspect, identified only as Serhii K. in line with German privacy rules, was arrested overnight by officers from a police station in Misano Adriatrico, near the Italian city of Rimini, federal prosecutors said.
And not much more details than that. I'd imagine they want to move him to Germany eventually.
|
Can we just ban people unapologetically copy/pasting ChatGPT? It's literally like talking to an NPC.
|
On August 21 2025 18:56 zeo wrote:Remember kids. You only achieve something if you kill a lot of civilians. The Israel shill lobby in the Palestine thread must love you.
Glad you finally came out of your shell and told us what being a Russian sympathizer is really like
But I'm sure you are happy about the 574 drones and 40 ballistic and cruise missiles managing to hit a whopping, checks notes, a single American factory.. That's definitively a great success!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
