The Nanking Massacre and Iris Chang's Book The Rape of Nanking

[JoeB131]

Uh, how would you know anything about "sensible"? You're in no position to be talking about "sensible" when you routinely repeat Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda ("Hitler wasn't the problem, the Jews were" and "the Jews definitely caused Hitler's animosity by wrecking Germany after WWI," etc.), when you peddle neo-Nazi and ISIS/Hamas/Iranian propaganda about Jews and Israel ("the Jews have caused all the wars in the Middle East since 1948" and "Jews never pass up a chance to make money," "Was the Holocaust bad? I guess," etc.), and when you continue to deny that Mao Tse-Tung murdered tens of millions of people and to claim that Red China was less repressive than Free China.

The Jews ability to whine to me about the Holocaust has been completely erased by what they are doing in Gaza.

Oh, and taking my comments out of context again? Or just fabricating quotes. You do you, man.

You're the one who just can't help himself. I noted that the primary sources put the Nanking civilian death toll at around 10,000, which is an undeniable fact, as I have documented in several previous replies. But you wave aside all the primary evidence and rely on a discredited book written by a suicidal paranoid nutcase who wasn't even a professional historian. Even a number of openly anti-Japanese historians don't buy Chang's ridiculous 300K-plus figure for civilian deaths, not to mention her absurd expansion of the massacre area (never mind that Japanese forces were never in or near most of her fictional area).

Yeah, nobody accepts the 10,000 number, either.

"Hey, that one doesn't count, she was outside the walls!"
"That one doesn't count, he was old enough to be a soldier and we'll claim he was, even though he wasn't in uniform".
Hey, that one doesn't count, no white people saw it happen!"

We'll just keep going around and around and around. You cite one book written by an emotionally disturbed non-historian, while I cite all the primary sources and over a dozen Asia scholars. You don't care that most of the photos that Chang used in her book have nothing to do with the Nanking incident. You dismiss such brazen fraud as no big deal.

I cite a book by a scholar who actually bothered to research the issue, unlike most of the WHITE people you list who use it as a footnote. (In all seriousness, the Second Sino-Japanese War gets really downplayed in relation to the rest of WWII.

Both the Nationalist and Communist governments accept the 300,000 figure.

Finally, I note yet again that you still have not manned up, admitted, and apologized for purposely trying to mislead readers about General Fakui and Chiang Kai-Shek and Fakui's admission that the Chinese were the aggressors at Shanghai. You never had any credibility anyway, but you further blacken your already bad reputation by refusing to acknowledge your falsehood.

If Fakui said that, Chiang should have shot him for treason. Serious. Imagine if Husband Kimmel said that kind of shit after Pearl Harbor. Or McArthur said that kind of shit after Bataan.

Shanghai is in China. The Japanese had no business there. Further, Japan had launched an invasion of China a month before the battle for Shanghai. You absolutely do not leave a strategic point in the hands of the enemy when you are launching an offensive.

Zhang Fakui was a pretty big idiot, but then again, so were most of Chiang's generals.

That's why they lost.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Jews ability to whine to me about the Holocaust has been completely erased by what they are doing in Gaza.

Wow. Just wow. So because the Jews are finally acting decisively against Hamas in Gaza after the October 7 attack and after hundreds of Hamas rockets attacks over the last two decades, you think they have no right to "whine about the Holocaust."

Are you ever going to address the fact that Hamas has been using their civilians as human shields?

Oh, and taking my comments out of context again? Or just fabricating quotes. You do you, man.

Nope. In a reply in the USS Liberty thread, I copied and pasted your vile comments. You lie.

Yeah, nobody accepts the 10,000 number, either.
"Hey, that one doesn't count, she was outside the walls!"
"That one doesn't count, he was old enough to be a soldier and we'll claim he was, even though he wasn't in uniform".
Hey, that one doesn't count, no white people saw it happen!"

This silliness is further proof that you have no business talking about this subject.

I cite a book by a scholar who actually bothered to research the issue, unlike most of the WHITE people you list who use it as a footnote. (In all seriousness, the Second Sino-Japanese War gets really downplayed in relation to the rest of WWII.

Oh, so all those historians are wrong but the mentally ill, suicidal Iris Chang, who was not a historian, was right, never mind that she fabricated most of her photographic evidence and expanded the killing zone to such a ludicrous degree that she had Japanese soldiers killing thousands of people in areas where Japanese soldiers were never present.

Both the Nationalist and Communist governments accept the 300,000 figure.

Sigh. . . . As I've already proved to you, this is not what the Nationalists or the Communists said at the time. They gave much lower figures.

If Fakui said that, Chiang should have shot him for treason. Serious. Imagine if Husband Kimmel said that kind of BS after Pearl Harbor. Or McArthur said that kind of BS after Bataan.

This is an idiotic argument. Many scholars have likewise noted that the Chinese were the aggressors in Shanghai. It's not like Fakui is the only source for this fact. Sheesh, the Chinese assaulted the Japanese section of Shanghai with two divisions in violation of the truce that had been arranged. Thousands of people were there and witnessed the Chinese attack.

Shanghai is in China. The Japanese had no business there. Further, Japan had launched an invasion of China a month before the battle for Shanghai. You absolutely do not leave a strategic point in the hands of the enemy when you are launching an offensive. Zhang Fakui was a pretty big idiot, but then again, so were most of Chiang's generals. That's why they lost.

It is pointless dealing with you. It's like trying to reason with a teenager. You just keep repeating the same refuted falsehoods over and over. Again, the Japanese had both a legal and moral right to be in Shanghai. They had the largest foreign population in China at the time, and tens of thousands of Japanese civilians lived in Shanghai. The Japanese government had a treaty-approved and moral right to protect them. I've already documented these facts for you in this very thread, but you just ignore them and keep repeating your Chinese Communist talking points.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow. Just wow. So because the Jews are finally acting decisively against Hamas in Gaza after the October 7 attack and after hundreds of Hamas rockets attacks over the last two decades, you think they have no right to "whine about the Holocaust."

Are you ever going to address the fact that Hamas has been using their civilians as human shields?

No, when you slaughter 53,000 mostly innocent people, you don't get to claim "defense". When you are continuing the war to hold off elections and investigations into your failures, like Bibi is, then it gets into war crime territory.

Nope. In a reply in the USS Liberty thread, I copied and pasted your vile comments. You lie.

You mean you reprinted them and then claimed they were something I really didn't say. But let's try to keep on topic here.

This silliness is further proof that you have no business talking about this subject.

No, the silliness is trying to downplay the number so you don't hurt Japan's feelings. Say what you want about the Germans, at least they have the decency to feel bad about the stuff they did.

Oh, so all those historians are wrong but the mentally ill, suicidal Iris Chang, who was not a historian, was right, never mind that she fabricated most of her photographic evidence and expanded the killing zone to such a ludicrous degree that she had Japanese soldiers killing thousands of people in areas where Japanese soldiers were never present.

Just remember kiddies, Iris Chang published three critically acclaimed books.

Axis Mikey can't keep the links on his crank website working half the time.

Sigh. . . . As I've already proved to you, this is not what the Nationalists or the Communists said at the time. They gave much lower figures.

But it's what they both say NOW.

This is an idiotic argument. Many scholars have likewise noted that the Chinese were the aggressors in Shanghai. It's not like Fakui is the only source for this fact. Sheesh, the Chinese assaulted the Japanese section of Shanghai with two divisions in violation of the truce that had been arranged. Thousands of people were there and witnessed the Chinese attack.

Uh, it's not an attack when you are on your own territory, guy.

Japanese Section of Shanghai... you mean the part they took in 1931 when they bullied the Chinese government into concessions. Then when they committed further aggression, they used that as a launch point.

Sadly Zhang Fredo was in charge of securing the rear.

This is why you don't get Chinese history or why they act the way they do most of the time. From the First Opium War until Peanut was sent scurrying off to Taiwan, foreign powers had abused China to take her wealth and abuse her people.

Then the West scratched their big monkey heads wondering why Mao won.

Again, the Japanese had both a legal and moral right to be in Shanghai. They had the largest foreign population in China at the time, and tens of thousands of Japanese civilians lived in Shanghai. The Japanese government had a treaty-approved and moral right to protect them. I've already documented these facts for you in this very thread, but you just ignore them and keep repeating your Chinese Communist talking points.

They had the largest population because they had spent the previous six years invading and taking their territory.

January 28 incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here is an interesting and revealing fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film Why We Fight: The Battle of China put the number of people killed at 40,000. The film was a propaganda documentary produced for U.S. military personnel and spared no adjectives in excoriating the Japanese army. Yet, even this propaganda film, which referred to “the rape of Nanking,” did not claim that anything approaching 300,000 people were killed in Nanking. This is significant because the War Department was compiling evidence on Japanese war crimes, and this film was produced by the War Department. Here is part of what the film said about Nanking:

But again Japanese power was too great, and after a battle lasting but a few days, the city fell to the invaders. In their occupation of Nanking, the Japs again outdid themselves in barbarism. The helpless populace was trapped by the city walls and could not flee. The Japanese soldiers went berserk. They raped and tortured. They killed and butchered. In one of the bloodiest massacres of recorded history, they [the Japanese] murdered 40,000 men, women and children.

Not surprisingly, the film claimed that the massacre “was deliberately planned by the Japanese high command to tear the heart out of the Chinese people.” But we have known for many decades that the Japanese high command had nothing to do with the massacre, and that the Japanese high command was disgusted when they began receiving reports about it.

Even at a level well below the high command, senior Japanese officers were outraged when they heard about the criminal violence being committed by some Japanese soldiers. For example, at the headquarters of the Tenth Army, whose troops occupied Nanking, reports that some of their soldiers were committing serious crimes caused the command to send a strong rebuke to their commanders in Nanking, such as this 12/20/1937 message to them:

We have told troops numerous times that looting, rape, and arson are forbidden, but judging from the shameful fact that over 100 incidents of rape came to light during the current assault on Nanking, we bring this matter to your attention yet again despite the repetition. (Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, editor, The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, New York and London: Berghahn Books, 2007, p. 47)

When the Japanese high command received reports of war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers in Nanking, they sent Major General Masaharu Homma of the General Staff to Nanking in late January to investigate. On January 26, General Homma met with American officials at the U.S. Embassy in Nanking. He apologized for what had been occurring and explained that he and his staff were doing all they could to ensure that local commanders understood the need for proper conduct and discipline among their soldiers.

Those who have studied General Homma know that he was one of the most honorable senior officers in the Japanese army. He spoke fluent English and was very pro-Western. He opposed the war and detested the militarists. He was the commanding officer in the Philippines when the Bataan Death March occurred, but he had no idea that some of his soldiers were grossly abusing and murdering American and Allied prisoners during the march. When he learned about these crimes after the war, he was totally disgusted and shocked, and he harshly condemned the Japanese soldiers who committed the outrages (The Trial of General Homma).

Finally, Tenth Army and Central China Area Army (CCAA) legal documents prove that senior officers were punishing some Japanese soldiers for criminal acts in Nanking. These sources include a Tenth Army legal department daily log from 10/12/1937 to 02/23/1938 and a CCAA battlefield courts martial daily ledger from 01/04/1938 to 02/06/1938. As of February 18, 102 men had been convicted, 22 of them for rape, 27 for murder, and two for rape and murder, with others awaiting trial (The Nanking Atrocity 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, pp. 47-49).

 

[JoeB131]

Here is an interesting and revealing fact on the Nanking death toll: The 1944 War Department film Why We Fight: The Battle of China put the number of people killed at 40,000. The film was a propaganda documentary produced for U.S. military personnel and spared no adjectives in excoriating the Japanese army. Yet, even this propaganda film, which referred to “the rape of Nanking,” did not claim that anything approaching 300,000 people were killed in Nanking. This is significant because the War Department was compiling evidence on Japanese war crimes, and this film was produced by the War Department. Here is part of what the film said about Nanking:

Axis Mikey, why are you so interested in what white people who weren't there had to say about it?

I should point out that Wartime estimates of the Holocaust were well below the generally settled on six million Jews.

 

[Unkotare]

... why are you so interested in what white people who weren't there had to say about it?
....

Nobody cares what YOU have to say about it?

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody cares what YOU have to say about it?

Well, you keep following me around hoping I pay attention to you, so you must care.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Axis Mikey, why are you so interested in what white people who weren't there had to say about it?

Uhhh, because they were getting their information from people who witnessed the events in Nanking.

I should point out that Wartime estimates of the Holocaust were well below the generally settled on six million Jews.

I should point out that this is a laughable argument and a comical comparison. In the case of the Holocaust, unlike the Nanking Massacre, there were not numerous primary sources (people who witnessed the events) who were able to report what they saw to the world within weeks of the event.

Hundreds of Chinese left Nanking in the days after the worst part of the massacre. Both the Nationalists and the Communists put the civilian death toll far, far below 300,000 in the months following the event.

And I repeat that the only way nutjob amateur Iris Chang could concoct her 300,000-plus figure was to expand the killing zone to an area equal to the size of Delaware plus half of Rhode Island, and the Japanese never marched through or operated in most of that gigantic area.

Furthermore, as I have also pointed out to you several times:

One, Iris Chang's expanded killing zone is even larger than the area of Smythe’s agricultural survey! She included the six counties around Nanking, whereas Smythe excluded one of those counties and half of another one because he knew nothing had happened in them. Chang and here apologists claim that the Japanese killed 100,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians in the six surrounding counties, obviously never bothering to look at the marching routes and the areas of operations of the Japanese force under discussion.

Two, the Japanese force that attacked Nanking—the Central China Area Army, consisting of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army—only amounted to about 50,000 soldiers (some sources say 70,000; Wikipedia erroneously says 200,000). Furthermore, most of this force quickly left the city soon after the city fell and after order had been established.

Three, even the International Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) said the massacre occurred only in the city of Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area, and that the primary sources, most of whom were very anti-Japanese, said all or nearly all of the deaths occurred in the Safety Zone.

I've pointed out these facts to you several times and provided sources for each of them, yet you ignore them and just keep repeating your talking points.

 

[JoeB131]

I should point out that this is a laughable argument and a comical comparison. In the case of the Holocaust, unlike the Nanking Massacre, there were not numerous primary sources (people who witnessed the events) who were able to report what they saw to the world within weeks of the event.

Hundreds of Chinese left Nanking in the days after the worst part of the massacre. Both the Nationalists and the Communists put the civilian death toll far, far below 300,000 in the months following the event.

And they had a chance to evaluate and talk to people who lost relatives when a white person wasn't watching.

Today, both Taipei and Beijing accept the 300K number. This is pretty much good enough for me.

Two, the Japanese force that attacked Nanking—the Central China Area Army, consisting of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force and the 10th Army—only amounted to about 50,000 soldiers (some sources say 70,000; Wikipedia erroneously says 200,000). Furthermore, most of this force quickly left the city soon after the city fell and after order had been established.

You mean after they ran out of babies to bayonet? Damned babies, keep getting stuck on their bayonets!!!

Three, even the International Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) said the massacre occurred only in the city of Nanking and in the immediate surrounding area, and that the primary sources, most of whom were very anti-Japanese, said all or nearly all of the deaths occurred in the Safety Zone.

Blah, blah, blah, Mormon Mike,

You keep trying to make excuses for the Japanese. "OKay, to kill that one, he might be a soldier out of uniform!", "Okay to rape and kill her, she's not within the safety zone!" "Oops, a white person didn't see that one, he doesn't count!!"

 

[mikegriffith1]

And they had a chance to evaluate and talk to people who lost relatives when a white person wasn't watching.

Today, both Taipei and Beijing accept the 300K number. This is pretty much good enough for me.

You mean after they ran out of babies to bayonet? Damned babies, keep getting stuck on their bayonets!!!

Blah, blah, blah, Mormon Mike,

You keep trying to make excuses for the Japanese. "OKay, to kill that one, he might be a soldier out of uniform!", "Okay to rape and kill her, she's not within the safety zone!" "Oops, a white person didn't see that one, he doesn't count!!"

Folks, if anyone is taking any of this guy's drivel seriously, I would refer you to my previous replies in this thread. You might also want to take a look at his replies in the USS Liberty thread, to get some idea of where he's coming from.

 

[JoeB131]

Folks, if anyone is taking any of this guy's drivel seriously, I would refer you to my previous replies in this thread. You might also want to take a look at his replies in the USS Liberty thread, to get some idea of where he's coming from.

Mikey, you are the one being a Holocaust Denier... but it's okay, because they aren't white people.

I don't like the Zionists or their religion, but even I wouldn't claim the Holocaust wasn't as bad as they said it was. You seem fine with such drivel.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mikey, you are the one being a Holocaust Denier... but it's okay, because they aren't white people.

I don't like the Zionists or their religion, but even I wouldn't claim the Holocaust wasn't as bad as they said it was. You seem fine with such drivel.

The same old drivel. I again direct interested readers to my previous replies in this thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

To give everyone a better idea of how miserable and backward China was under Mao, I quote historian Jonathan Alter on the state of China in the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter decided to establish relations with China:

With China now poised to be the world’s largest economy, it’s hard to imagine the wrenching poverty of the mainland in the 1970s. During the Cultural Revolution, which lasted from 1966 to Mao Tse-tung’s death ten years later, the Chinese leader had killed or exiled to the countryside a whole generation of “counterrevolutionaries”—educated elites and middle-class strivers—sending China’s per capita income below that of sub-Saharan Africa.

Save for the sound of bicycle bells, the broad prewar boulevards of Beijing and Shanghai were eerily quiet in 1979 because they carried few cars. Cheap black-and-white television sets with snowy images remained luxuries shared by several families or an entire village. Private enterprise was strictly forbidden, which meant that shops and restaurants were run by the government and located mostly in ramshackle tourist hotels off-limits to ordinary Chinese.

Hardly any new office or apartment buildings had been built anywhere in the country in the forty years since the outbreak of World War II. Few Chinese had ever glimpsed a Westerner in person. Almost all still wore rough-hewn Mao suits and were barred from leaving the country. (Jonathan Alter, His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life, Simon & Schuster, 2020, pp. 418-419)

Mind you, this was about three decades after Mao came to power.

 

[JoeB131]

To give everyone a better idea of how miserable and backward China was under Mao, I quote historian Jonathan Alter on the state of China in the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter decided to establish relations with China:

With China now poised to be the world’s largest economy, it’s hard to imagine the wrenching poverty of the mainland in the 1970s. During the Cultural Revolution, which lasted from 1966 to Mao Tse-tung’s death ten years later, the Chinese leader had killed or exiled to the countryside a whole generation of “counterrevolutionaries”—educated elites and middle-class strivers—sending China’s per capita income below that of sub-Saharan Africa.

Here's more Mormon Mike Dishonesty. Another white person telling those Chinese what's what. Oh, whatever would the rest of the world do without white people telling them what to do?

The problem isn't comparing China in the 1970s to the 2020s, where they are eating our lunch.

The problem is comparing China in the 1940s to the 1970s. In the 1940s, China was a broken nation, devastated by war, factionalism, and rampant corruption under the "rule" of Chiang Kai-shek. By the 1970s, it was a global power, feared by the Russians and the US alike. The brilliance of Richard Nixon was realizing China's potential as an ally.

And if you use that standard, there's a reason why Mao is still revered by most Chinese.

Now, was the Cultural Revolution kind of a big clusterfuck? Sure it was. (Mrs. B131's father was one of those who were denounced during the CR. He got on with his life later, just fine.)

There's also an argument about how much of the Cultural Revolution was the fault of Mao, and how much of it was the Gang of Four and Lin Biao struggling for power. He of course, bore overall responsibility for it. He was the leader. He let it go on before reigning it in.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here's more Mormon Mike Dishonesty. Another white person telling those Chinese what's what. Oh, whatever would the rest of the world do without white people telling them what to do?

The problem isn't comparing China in the 1970s to the 2020s, where they are eating our lunch.

The problem is comparing China in the 1940s to the 1970s. In the 1940s, China was a broken nation, devastated by war, factionalism, and rampant corruption under the "rule" of Chiang Kai-shek. By the 1970s, it was a global power, feared by the Russians and the US alike. The brilliance of Richard Nixon was realizing China's potential as an ally.

And if you use that standard, there's a reason why Mao is still revered by most Chinese.

Now, was the Cultural Revolution kind of a big *&^&%? Sure it was. (Mrs. B131's father was one of those who were denounced during the CR. He got on with his life later, just fine.)

There's also an argument about how much of the Cultural Revolution was the fault of Mao, and how much of it was the Gang of Four and Lin Biao struggling for power. He of course, bore overall responsibility for it. He was the leader. He let it go on before reigning it in.

You again ignore facts and just repeat more of your Mao-loving, pro-Red China fiction and whitewashing.

Most of China's neighbors during Mao's rule developed far more rapidly than China did because they weren't under Mao's barbaric, backward rule.

China was a paper tiger even in the 1970s. The Chinese got their clocks cleaned when they invaded Vietnam in 1979 and quickly abandoned their invasion with their tales tucked between their legs. During the Korean War, by sheer force of numbers and the element of surprise due to supreme American overconfidence and laxity, the Chinese surprised our forces in North Korea, compelling us to withdraw back to South Korea, but the Chinese suffered staggering casualties because of their backward tactics, lack of technology, and paucity of armor and air assets. If Truman had not prohibited large-scale offensive actions and full use of our air superiority, we could have pushed the Chinese back across the Yalu in a matter of months and liberated North Korea once and for all.

 

[JoeB131]

You again ignore facts and just repeat more of your Mao-loving, pro-Red China fiction and whitewashing.

Most of China's neighbors during Mao's rule developed far more rapidly than China did because they weren't under Mao's barbaric, backward rule.

Really, which ones? Japan, because dumped a bunch of money into the place and let them **** over our auto industry. Good job there. Visit Detroit or Cleveland sometime if you're unsure how well that one worked out for us.

India was still dirt poor. Vietnam was still dirt poor. The Philippines are still dirt poor to this very day. Taiwan benefitted from all the money we dumped into it to keep China's UN vote out of Mao's hands.

Oh, you avoided the point. Where China was in 1949 was vastly worse than where it was in 1976, even with missteps like the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Backwards.

China was a paper tiger even in the 1970s. The Chinese got their clocks cleaned when they invaded Vietnam in 1979 and quickly abandoned their invasion with their tales tucked between their legs.

Wow, you didn't understand the dynamics of that conflict, did you.

Okay, to review. Vietnam invaded Cambodia. China intervened to take some pressure off the Khmer Rouge. Turned out to be pointless when it was discovered 1) How quickly Pol Pot's regime collapsed and 2) the absolute horror of what happened in the Killing Fields. (Ironically, the only movie made on the subject was another White Savior Project, you must have loved it.)

The Chinese were also restrained by the fact that if they did enter Hanoi, the Russians might intervene in the war.

No one wanted World War III.

During the Korean War, by sheer force of numbers and the element of surprise due to supreme American overconfidence and laxity, the Chinese surprised our forces in North Korea, compelling us to withdraw back to South Korea, but the Chinese suffered staggering casualties because of their backward tactics, lack of technology, and paucity of armor and air assets.

Actually, the Chinese fought the entire UN to a standstill. While the war didn't officially end until 1953, it had essentially become a stalemate by mid-1951.

If Truman had not prohibited large-scale offensive actions and full use of our air superiority, we could have pushed the Chinese back across the Yalu in a matter of months and liberated North Korea once and for all.

Do you masturbate to a picture of Joseph McCarthy every night? That's the only reason why I think you say such absurd shit. You wank of screaming "Who lost China!!!"

Even the man who planned and executed D-Day saw Korea was a lost cause and negotiated a peace.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Really, which ones? Japan, because dumped a bunch of money into the place and let them (&& over our auto industry. Good job there. Visit Detroit or Cleveland sometime if you're unsure how well that one worked out for us.

India was still dirt poor. Vietnam was still dirt poor. The Philippines are still dirt poor to this very day. Taiwan benefitted from all the money we dumped into it to keep China's UN vote out of Mao's hands.

Oh, you avoided the point. Where China was in 1949 was vastly worse than where it was in 1976, even with missteps like the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Backwards.

Wow, you didn't understand the dynamics of that conflict, did you.

Okay, to review. Vietnam invaded Cambodia. China intervened to take some pressure off the Khmer Rouge. Turned out to be pointless when it was discovered 1) How quickly Pol Pot's regime collapsed and 2) the absolute horror of what happened in the Killing Fields. (Ironically, the only movie made on the subject was another White Savior Project, you must have loved it.)

The Chinese were also restrained by the fact that if they did enter Hanoi, the Russians might intervene in the war.

No one wanted World War III.

Actually, the Chinese fought the entire UN to a standstill. While the war didn't officially end until 1953, it had essentially become a stalemate by mid-1951.

Do you masturbate to a picture of Joseph McCarthy every night? That's the only reason why I think you say such absurd shit. You wank of screaming "Who lost China!!!"

Even the man who planned and executed D-Day saw Korea was a lost cause and negotiated a peace.

You again repeat the Chinese Communist version of history mixed with the far-left version of history.

Just FYI, not that you care but our aid to Taiwan constituted a small fraction of their GDP. Taiwan flourished because Chiang Kai-Shek embraced free enterprise and allowed a degree of personal freedom unheard of in Red China. Conversely, Red China made such little progress economically and socially because Mao embraced Marxist economic policies and imposed a rigid and brutal police state.

 

[JoeB131]

You again repeat the Chinese Communist version of history mixed with the far-left version of history.

Just FYI, not that you care but our aid to Taiwan constituted a small fraction of their GDP. Taiwan flourished because Chiang Kai-Shek embraced free enterprise and allowed a degree of personal freedom unheard of in Red China. Conversely, Red China made such little progress economically and socially because Mao embraced Marxist economic policies and imposed a rigid and brutal police state.

Chiang was a fascist dictator. We invested a significant amount of money in the place because we didn't want Mao to secure China's seat in the UN. Even Richard Nixon realized that the policy was absurd. (although it didn't end until Carter.)

China has made plenty of progress. It went from a country that was a war-torn ruin for a couple of decades to one that could hold the entire UN to a standstill in Korea. There was a period in the 1960s where we were more terrified of China than the USSR.

Now please put McCarthy's picture away, you are getting jizz stains all over it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is Neanderthal thinking. The last time I checked, Japan did not fire-bomb its own cities and kill over 500,000 of its own citizens--FDR and Truman did that. FDR and Truman's bombing of 67 Japanese cities violated the very rules of war that FDR had trumpeted when the Japanese bombed a fraction of that number of cities in China.

There would have been no war with Japan in the first place if FDR had not followed Soviet policy and cut off Japan's access to the Panama Canal, cut off Philippine exports to Japan, abrogated a long-standing trade treaty with Japan, cut off most of Japan's supply of raw materials, cut off most of Japan's oil supply, frozen Japan's assets, stationed B-17s in the Philippines, inexplicably moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii against the advice of the fleet's commander and against all military logistical and strategic logic, and then rejected every Japanese peace offer to restore good relations.

And why did FDR pick a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan? Because he was desperate to save the Soviet Union and correctly feared that if Japan and the U.S. were not at war, Japan might attack the Soviet Union, or that at the very least the Soviet Union would be required to keep hundreds of thousands of troops on the Manchurian border to guard against a Japanese attack. When FDR, much to Stalin's delight, made sure that Japan would not threaten the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from Manchuria just in the nick of time to save the Soviet Union from collapse. And here you are, a supposed "conservative," taking the Soviet side on this issue and cheering this treasonous, disastrous act.

Japan had never been our ally, they were recognized as our main competitor in the Pacific and Asia. The USA didn’t ban Japanese merchant shipping from the Canal.

Japan was going to war with the USA, it was only a matter of time. Japan’s entire navy was designed and built to establish local superiority over the USN and defeat it like Japan had defeated the Russian navy at Tsushima. The oil embargo simply moved the beginning of hostilities up a year or so.

 

[eagle7-31]

You again repeat the Chinese Communist version of history mixed with the far-left version of history.

Just FYI, not that you care but our aid to Taiwan constituted a small fraction of their GDP. Taiwan flourished because Chiang Kai-Shek embraced free enterprise and allowed a degree of personal freedom unheard of in Red China. Conversely, Red China made such little progress economically and socially because Mao embraced Marxist economic policies and imposed a rigid and brutal police st

You again repeat the Chinese Communist version of history mixed with the far-left version of history.

Just FYI, not that you care but our aid to Taiwan constituted a small fraction of their GDP. Taiwan flourished because Chiang Kai-Shek embraced free enterprise and allowed a degree of personal freedom unheard of in Red China. Conversely, Red China made such little progress economically and socially because Mao embraced Marxist economic policies and imposed a rigid and brutal police state.

You again repeat the Chinese Communist version of history mixed with the far-left version of history.

Just FYI, not that you care but our aid to Taiwan constituted a small fraction of their GDP. Taiwan flourished because Chiang Kai-Shek embraced free enterprise and allowed a degree of personal freedom unheard of in Red China. Conversely, Red China made such little progress economically and socially because Mao embraced Marxist economic policies and imposed a rigid and brutal police state.

Too bad Sun Yat Sen did not live another 20 years.