China vs Japan

but Roel,please understand that the defeats of the chinese in those years you mentioned were when the Qing Empire was in control and that the emperors were weak and timid.

In Fact Qing China under the EWmperor KangXi and Qian Long was probably the strongest...Military expansion and technology underwent changes and it was during those eras that China's boundaries exapnded.In fact,the defeated MING actually ,prior to the emperors i have mentioned,managed to defeat the mighty dutch navy and regained Taiwan. Because it was during those times that the MING navy incorporated changes.

IT is also very telling that during those times in the 19th century,the Chinese ships Ding Yuan and Zhen Yuan were the biggest steam warships in the world(am i right?) and were actually close to defeating the japs were it not for the lack of ammunition caused of course by the lousy emperor and the empress dowager CIXI.(Corruption and weak control)

 

Yeah. China's gone far from that. It has nuclear subs, pretty good fighters, and, numbers. Can't forget the numbers. Besides, if Japan invaded China I'm sure one of the goodguys would intervene. Like the USA, with their F22s, and Ohio class subs, and M1A2 tanks and, all their other stuff. If China was invaded, I'm sure that someone will try to stop the conflict.

 

Remember that in the Korean War, after the initial shock of the Chinese advance, US forces learnt how do deal with mass infantry rushes and pretty soon it only became a tactic in which to incurr more losses. Numbers help, but only if you use them correctly

 

By the way, what are you referring to in 1905 Roel & Kitado? I assume a chinese defeat of some kind, thought I do not recall any particular battle, except for the Russo-Japanese War in Manchuria :-?

 

I must admit I was wondering too.

Loys of things happened in Manchuria, but that was Russian vs Japanese, not China vs anybody.

 

i think htey were referring to the 1895 sino jap war in korea....

 

Either way, I'm sure China will not be dominated by Japan anytime soon.

 

"Numbers alone don't win wars....but they certainly help"
(Some movie character... or someone here...or maybe even me?)

And with the tech being developed in Japan they could easily overwelm chinese forces with robots. (Aw cute little Robosapian(R)......Ah **** it bit me!) Seriously though a couple of years ago they bult a super computer that can predict weather a hundred years from now (Daily Planet goes to Japan...the same shows from the year before.)

How that could apply to a military action? Don't ask me.

 

The defeats of 1842, 1860, 1895, 1898 and 1905 are pretty telling as to the strength of the Chinese in those days, though.[/quote]

Very insightful on the part of facts on the downfall of previous 2 empires (Dutch & Brits), Thx!

As Kasier has mentioned, i would agree wif him that the military defeats from 1842 to 1905 was one of many sign that an empire is ending. The Great Manchus Empire lasted for a good 300 years (1600 to 1900) since its creation by founder Emperor Nu'er Haci. As a matter of fact, it already exist since AD 1115 as Jin only not be overrun by powerful Mongols (AD 1614) who swept across whole of Asia. During the earlier part of Chin Empire, With 4 capable Emperor (FuLin, KanXi, YongZheng, QianLong), making full use of the surrender Hans Generals and administrators, the Manchus "8 flaged" Cav swept west as far as Tibet, south as far as Vietnam and north as far as Russia, creating the Largest Chinese Empire in history. after200 years of glory, like all empire in history of mankind, it simply deteriorate. By mid 1800s, the once mightly Chin Army is still largly relying on Cav. Their firearms and Canon was by then hopelessly outdated as compared to the industrious Eurpoean powers. It is also that point when the Brits expansion reaches its peak.

Therefore, i would say it is a period of empire switching hands instead of naming the Chinese as military idiots, incapable of proper warfare.

By late 1800s, The last second Chin Emperor TaoKwang tried to reform the battled & corrupted Chin Government, Politics and military but only to be stop and brush aside by his mother, Cixi, who is actually the sole cause of doom for 5000 years of Chinese Dynasties. By then they have rised 10 modernised Inf Div and Navy Fleets. The Fleet (the "northern" fleet was wipe out by the Japanese fleet cos of better command/control & tactics, the Chin had modern weapornary but outdated command structures and framework as well as very conservative military thinking caused by Very centralised government). The funding reserved for maintainance of navy was also being diverted to Cixi birthday celebration. The fleet was wipe out in 1895 and Korea as China Clientele State was being taken over by Japs. The Inf Div was eventually used by Chinese Warlords after the downfall of Chin Empire in 1907, thus starting the Chinese Civil War from 1907 to 1930.

These are the defeats by Late Chin Empire forces at hands of Western Powers as well as Nationalist Chiang at hand of Jap from 1930 to 1944 aside. The Chinese military might rise gradually from 1949 onwards. Namely the Korean Intervention, the Tibet invasion, Border clashes with India & Soivet Union, Intervention in Vietnam war, border clashes with united Vietnamese Forces and East Sparkly islands clashes. The Chinese are learning fast esp after the 1991 Gulf War and will cont to evolve.

 

Sorry, I am referring to the Naval battle in 1895 at area location between Korea, China and Japan. The Chinese Fleet are wipe out and it led to treaty of 1897, in which China effectively lose Korea as Clientele state to Jap, thus starting Jap Colonisation of Korea (1897 to 1945).

 

Invasion? in either cases, Uncle Sam will be more than happy to have this opportunity to weaken th evolving Chinese Empire and destroy the Chinese Military the way they did it to the Iraqis. Good guy? Who? Who? :lol:

 

i wonder if we shouldnt let the japanese upgrade the size of their military to act as a counter weight to chinese military brawn...i know their constution forbids it but we (the allies ) wrote it...i bet we could with their help ,amend it...

 

How sure are you if the Japs won't turn on you?
Last i heard,Japs were america's allies before WW2...But look what they did to Pearl harbour...

 

British Allies early in WW1 (and snapped up all the German colonies in the Pacific as a result) but AFAIK never in a formal alliance with the USA. Think about the Zimmermann Telegram, when Germany tried to get Mexico and Japan to ally against the USA.

A very interesting "what if" would have been if the Japanese allied with Britain against Germany and Italy in return for a free hand in China

 

Just goes on to show that there's no "forever friends" in the world of politics.

The US has sponsored quite a number of organisations only to have them bite the hand that feeds it.It is definitely not worth it and unreliable to enter into an alliance with one that has a proven track record and furthermore,one that continues to provoke protests from its neighbouring countries

 

i think the pacific rim would be a safer and more stable place with a re militarized japan...i wonder the if the japanese soldier would be the same bushido code pit bull as his grandfather or if we have westernized and democratized him into a fluffy little cocker spaniel....?

 

The Pacific safer from a "remilitarised japan"?
I dare say that that's a farce.

Most if not all Asian countries have a score to settle with japan regardless of surface political ties.You can be sure that giving in to the Japanese nationalist will begin to be the new hotbed of controversy and violent protests from China and Korea.Making neighbours quarrel doesn't seem to be the best way for peace and safety if i might say so myself.

 

Culturally if not economically and politically, the Japanese are still very much Japanese. While I don't seriously expect them to show the same disregard for human life that they showcased in WW2, I doubt they will be anything like the "ask questions first, shoot later" kind of soldier the West currently seems to train.

 

Do you mean "Shoot first, ask questions later" ?

 

No, because they seem to be trained to do the exact opposite. After all, if they actually fire their guns and kill someone it's all over the news and they have to justify their actions elaborately.