Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.

I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.

 Frazzled wrote:

The feeling that I got from living in Japan is one of goodwill towards other nations in Asia. Japan has moved on.

Of course it is. They lost big time and were occupied as a result.

If I were Korea or China I wouldn't be forgetting any time soon. Nor the Phillipines, Vietnam, etc. etc. Oh and us too.

People will forgive once they forget, and they will forget when everyone who remembers has died.

I'm all about the health benefits of forgiveness and letting go of negativity -- both at a personal and community level.

But then I've also heard stories about some of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII -- not simply killing of innocents, but really gruesome stuff -- and I understand how it's hard to easily let go of those feelings.

The guilty party usually wants to move on, while the victims tend to want to never forget. The problem with your last point is that the stories get passed down, and so things are never really forgotten.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.

I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.

How about this: Japanese society is structured in such a manner that makes it more conducive towards militarism. Is that a more valid/better phrased analysis?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Chiang Kai-shek was kind of a bastard, so I'm not really sure he warrants 'appreciation'.

BTW, not really relevant but was reminded of this by his mention, in my Senior year of High School I was the only person who had any idea who Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang were. In fact, according to the teacher, I was the first student she had had in 20+ years who had any idea who they were lol. Not sure if that is a positive reflection on me or a negative reflection of Americans.

Appreciation was probably the wrong word to use. Acknowledgement would have been a better word in hindsight. As you probably know, thousands? hundreds of thousands? of nationalist troops died fighting the Japanese invasion and of course, more died in the civil war afterwards.

I've long argued that modern China would not exist without the Kuomintang's sacrifices, something the modern Communist regime has only grudgingly acknowledged in recent years. But we're getting a bit off topic now.

Oh, on that I agree with you on, and I believe in the past its been said by even ardent communist party members that Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintangs greatest success was making the CCP successful.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.

I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.

How about this: Japanese society is structured in such a manner that makes it more conducive towards militarism. Is that a more valid/better phrased analysis?

Better phrased, certainly.

I'm still not completely convinced of its validity, but most of my doubts would be based on semantics, and a debate over what exactly being 'militaristic' would entail. So I'll bow out there.

Fair enough.

chaos0xomega wrote:
US based martial arts are a bit of a joke IMO, heavily watered down money making schemes, but I get the point you're trying to make, but still not what I was referring to.

Shinto has some of its roots in ancient Japanese martial traditions for example (and was believed by the Allies, perhaps erroneously, to have been an element of Japanese ultra-nationalism during WW2), and there is a movement in Japan to restore it as the state religion.

The Japanese educational system is heavily regimented and based on a military structure, from the uniforms the students wear to the respect that teachers command from their students. Japanese education also features 'moral education' amongst other things, which has been described as indoctrination and/or nationalistic brainwashing by many in the west.

And then there is Bo-Taoshi...

etc. etc. etc.

I'll contest the Shinto point. Your average, modern-day, Japanese person's take on religion in general is very laissez faire; they think nothing about visiting a Christian church in the morning, a Shinto shrine in the afternoon and a Buddhist temple in the evening. For an interesting read on a mostly-scientific study completed by an online community, check out:
http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html

The findings very closely match my own experiences while living in Japan and interacting with Japanese people.

I can speak volumes to the Japanese educational system. I worked in it for over 2 years, teaching English at high-schools in the Saitama region. I can tell you that there is very little nationalistic indoctrination occuring in the Japanese public school system, unlike in the US where we start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, the uniforms have a common root but the same types of school uniforms are worn in Chine and S. Korea as well, and around the rest of Asia now that I think about it. It's a tradition and no different these days, regardless of how it started, than wearing uniforms in Europe or even the U.S.

I never saw Bo Taoshi, maybe it's a regional thing. On sports days in the high schools that I taught at it was more a mini-olympics than anything else. Teams of students from different classes competed informally against each other (some might say lethargically) There's even a relay race at the end of the day where teachers run against students; I was conned into it by another teacher and pulled a hamstring 1/4 of the way through. ugh, I never lived that down.

If you want to talk indoctrination and scary practices, I'd look more at the practice of shoving Kindergarteners outside, 1/2 naked and in shorts on the coldest day of the year with a towel because it will make them tougher, Daikan I think it's called.

In my time in Japan I never saw anything on a prevalent level that involves anything close to the chest-thumping nationalism that occurs daily in the U.S. In fact, while I was there, there was a big debate on even playing the national anthem at schools. There's been quite a bit of hooplah over it and there's even record of the crazy guy that somehow got elected to be Mayor of Tokyo requiring teachers to sing the anthem but in Saitama people just stood and mostly didn't talk during the playing of the anthem at the few events where it was played.

It could be argued that Japanese culture could be inherently militaristic, and the American culture even moreso. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The inherent conformity or lack there of in a culture is not going to predict militarism or warlike behavior. The role of war in the culture will.

For Japan, prior to the end of WWII, its history was dominated by celebrated warriors who clashed for control of the country. Their struggles were heavily romanticized in fiction and folklore.

At the end of WWII, Japan was a country that had been ravaged by war on a scale beyond belief. In the post war period disease and famine furthered the misery.

While the children of Japan are taught a rather slanted view of the war and the actions of their country within it, the dominant narrative of their war history is now the utter waste and tragedy that their nation went through. I think this narrative will do well to tamp down the fires of militarism for a few generations yet.

 agnosto wrote:


I'll contest the Shinto point. Your average, modern-day, Japanese person's take on religion in general is very laissez faire; they think nothing about visiting a Christian church in the morning, a Shinto shrine in the afternoon and a Buddhist temple in the evening. For an interesting read on a mostly-scientific study completed by an online community, check out:
http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html

The findings very closely match my own experiences while living in Japan and interacting with Japanese people.

Interesting, i'll concede the point.

I can speak volumes to the Japanese educational system. I worked in it for over 2 years, teaching English at high-schools in the Saitama region. I can tell you that there is very little nationalistic indoctrination occuring in the Japanese public school system, unlike in the US where we start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, the uniforms have a common root but the same types of school uniforms are worn in Chine and S. Korea as well, and around the rest of Asia now that I think about it. It's a tradition and no different these days, regardless of how it started, than wearing uniforms in Europe or even the U.S.

I stopped hearing the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem at the start of the school day in the 4th grade, is that something that is still done? As for uniforms, while I did wear one in the 6th and 7th grades, it was in a private school, and not at all close to a military uniform (I'm talking a polo shirt and khaki slack, very business casual). As for education, you are aware that the 'moral education' was revised just recently, I believe just this year as of February, from what I understood it sparked some controversy.

I never saw Bo Taoshi, maybe it's a regional thing. On sports days in the high schools that I taught at it was more a mini-olympics than anything else. Teams of students from different classes competed informally against each other (some might say lethargically) There's even a relay race at the end of the day where teachers run against students; I was conned into it by another teacher and pulled a hamstring 1/4 of the way through. ugh, I never lived that down.

ouchies.

In my time in Japan I never saw anything on a prevalent level that involves anything close to the chest-thumping nationalism that occurs daily in the U.S. In fact, while I was there, there was a big debate on even playing the national anthem at schools. There's been quite a bit of hooplah over it and there's even record of the crazy guy that somehow got elected to be Mayor of Tokyo requiring teachers to sing the anthem but in Saitama people just stood and mostly didn't talk during the playing of the anthem at the few events where it was played.

Like I stated previously, the chest thumping in the US is largely (to me) misconstrued. In general the whole "'Merica" attitude is done in a bit of parody of itself, or maybe I'm just looking at it too cynically lol.

 Ketara wrote:
It could be argued that Japanese culture could be inherently militaristic, and the American culture even moreso. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I would argue the reverse. While American society is perhaps heavily militarIZED, its not necessarily militaristic (again, im not sure if these are the appropriate terms for what I am trying to describe), in the sense that while the military holds some prominence in American culture, society and culture as whole in this country is not derived from it IMO. At the very least, Americans tend to (or at least did) have a general (but healthy) disdain for obedience to authority, something essential for a militaristic society (again, IMO), whereas in Japan obedience is generally expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
The inherent conformity or lack there of in a culture is not going to predict militarism or warlike behavior. The role of war in the culture will.

For Japan, prior to the end of WWII, its history was dominated by celebrated warriors who clashed for control of the country. Their struggles were heavily romanticized in fiction and folklore.

At the end of WWII, Japan was a country that had been ravaged by war on a scale beyond belief. In the post war period disease and famine furthered the misery.

While the children of Japan are taught a rather slanted view of the war and the actions of their country within it, the dominant narrative of their war history is now the utter waste and tragedy that their nation went through. I think this narrative will do well to tamp down the fires of militarism for a few generations yet.

Thats a fair point, however to me it seems that the concepts of nuclear devestation and war have been somewhat split gradually over the past few decades, so while the pain of being nuked (twice) is still strong in the Japanese psyche, it doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with pacifism.

Also, conformity does predict militarism (or at least it is accepted that it does in many popular theories regarding the rise of militarism in various societies). Strictly regimented and conformal societies have a tendency towards militarism as a result of general obedience towards authority, which (generally speaking) tends to be more heavily centralized (and thus more politically powerful) in such societies (and Japans government is certainly heavily centralized in many aspects), which in turn tends to skew towards more aggressive behavior.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now that I mention it, there was an interesting article I read about 5 years ago while researching a semi-related topic, written in post-war Germany (I believe it was in the 50s or maybe early 60s) that basically discussed this exact topic (in regards to both Germany and Japan). The article in question pointed out a number of things that most people wouldn't even realize were derived from military traditions, etc. and spoke to a sort of cultural mindset that was conducive towards it, and concluded that both countries would gradually (but eventually) return towards that same sort of mind set as a result of deeply rooted cultural traditions, etc. It acknowledged that Japan was more likely to see this outcome as a result of the geopolitical realities which allowed it to avoid the situation Germany found itself in, and that even though Germany was increasingly 'liberalized' (again, terminology) some of those 'old ways' continued to survive.

I'll see if I can find it floating around somewhere.

One large difference between Japan and the U.S. is that the concept of owning a gun is completely foreign to most Japanese people whereas in the U.S. we have people walking into grocery stores with rifles on their backs. My wife was terrified the first time she saw someone with a shoulder rig and I told her he probably wasn't a police officer.

Casual violence is soup de jour in the U.S. and though it does happen in some horrific ways in Japan, it's not nearly as common-place.

Another factor to consider is that the Japanese society is a graying one and unless they're going to stock geritol on the ships, they're going to have trouble even maintaining the 225,000 or so that are serving now.

interesting article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-14/japan-defense-academy-recruitment-jumps-as-china-tensions-rise.html

The age issues and population demographics in that country, I think, are kind of irrelevant IMO (although definitely worthy of discussion in a separate thread, theres a lot going on in Japan as it pertains to social perceptions of sex, relationships, procreation, etc.).

As for casual violence in the US, etc. thats not indicative of militarism unless you equate militarism and violence as being one and the same, which they aren't. If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).

Great article though.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).

Just going to leave this here.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/

chaos0xomega wrote:
The age issues and population demographics in that country, I think, are kind of irrelevant IMO (although definitely worthy of discussion in a separate thread, theres a lot going on in Japan as it pertains to social perceptions of sex, relationships, procreation, etc.).

Actually, the age of the population in Japan is of particular importance to this discussion. Historically speaking, nations with large numbers of young men tended towards violence (internally and externally). Especially if there was a corresponding shortage of women. Nations that had a lot of young men tended to be aggressive, because they had plenty of guys to do the fighting. Japan is getting older. The population is graying, because they are a developed nation with families having fewer children and next to no immigration to offset the lower birth rate. Japan can re-arm all it wants, it can even become beligerant and aggressive all it wants, but it won't matter if, in a few decades, it doesn't have sufficient young people to send to war.

And that's where all the robots come in.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).

Just going to leave this here.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/07/11/public-esteem-for-military-still-high/

Okay, your point is? Oddly (or maybe not) the American public sees the military as being a separate entity from the government, politicians, government institutions, government bearacracy, and (oddly enough) law enforcement (including those at the state and local levels). The number of people I see raging against the government and law enforcement (ESPECIALLY state/local law enforcement) while continuing to proudly 'support the troops' is staggering.

And again, part of that has to do with a sort of 'us and them' mentality that has developed in this country, wherein military personnel are a separate and distinct entity from the average American citizen or its political leadership, ala a caste system.

Actually, the age of the population in Japan is of particular importance to this discussion. Historically speaking, nations with large numbers of young men tended towards violence (internally and externally). Especially if there was a corresponding shortage of women. Nations that had a lot of young men tended to be aggressive, because they had plenty of guys to do the fighting. Japan is getting older. The population is graying, because they are a developed nation with families having fewer children and next to no immigration to offset the lower birth rate. Japan can re-arm all it wants, it can even become beligerant and aggressive all it wants, but it won't matter if, in a few decades, it doesn't have sufficient young people to send to war.

Thats a great point I hadn't considered, and gorgon beat me to the punch line lol, although one of the population/demographic trends of past militant societies was an increasing birth rate, often a result of heavy state incentives to promote population growth/reproduction. Theres a bit of a chicken/egg situation there I suppose, were they militant because of the increasing birth rate and having more young people available, or were they reproducing faster because of hightened nationalism/positive outlook as a result of milatantism?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thats a great point I hadn't considered, and gorgon beat me to the punch line lol, although one of the population/demographic trends of past militant societies was an increasing birth rate, often a result of heavy state incentives to promote population growth/reproduction. Theres a bit of a chicken/egg situation there I suppose, were they militant because of the increasing birth rate and having more young people available, or were they reproducing faster because of hightened nationalism/positive outlook as a result of milatantism?

Interesting point in that Japan is subsidizing birth (to a lesser extent) but really the society is in such turmoil regarding two-earner households and lack of child-care services that it's been largely ineffective in increasing the birth rate.

Good article:
http://www.ny1.com/content/news/health_and_nutrition_the_japanese_way/209976/the-japanese-way--newborn-costs-subsidized-to-promote-family-expansion

(read the whole series if you're interested, some good information in those articles)

Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.

I just want to know when I can get a cheap Veritech fighter. Coal rollers look out, there's a new sheriff in town....

 agnosto wrote:
One large difference between Japan and the U.S. is that the concept of owning a gun is completely foreign to most Japanese people whereas in the U.S. we have people walking into grocery stores with rifles on their backs. My wife was terrified the first time she saw someone with a shoulder rig and I told her he probably wasn't a police officer.

Casual violence is soup de jour in the U.S. and though it does happen in some horrific ways in Japan, it's not nearly as common-place.

Another factor to consider is that the Japanese society is a graying one and unless they're going to stock geritol on the ships, they're going to have trouble even maintaining the 225,000 or so that are serving now.

interesting article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-14/japan-defense-academy-recruitment-jumps-as-china-tensions-rise.html

So there I was in Safeway in uniform getting steaks to grill for dinner.
Guy "Hey, so how was your hunting?"
Me "Say again?"
Guy "Hunting. How was it?"
Me "You serious?"
Guy "You hunt right?"
Me "........."
Bystander "Think you need to take his order and not ask him that again."



Perception at times can be mofo

 Jihadin wrote:


Perception at times can be mofo

That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.

Any luck finding that article?

 agnosto wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Perception at times can be mofo

That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.

The "in your face" South Korean vice versa to whoever usually involve Soju

 Jihadin wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Perception at times can be mofo

That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.

The "in your face" South Korean vice versa to whoever usually involve Soju

Ooh. Bringing back some bittersweet memories there of kettle houses and nights camped around a trash can with a barbeque grill on it.

Edit for those who don't know what I"m talking about:



And soju "kettle"....they still used real kettles to serve the stuff in the winter when I fist visited Korea in '94..we still had to land with the plane's window shades down because of spying as well because Kimpo airport housed military aircraft as well as domestic traffic....and there was a nationwide midnight curfew for everybody and it was your ass if you were caught outside after midnight. BIG changes since '94.

Good memories. They just need to stay buried The Juicy Girls, Hooker Hill, Thunder Runs, midnight noodle, deep fried larvae in a bag at 0300, and the stay out all night because we missed the curfew to get back on post .......wife has gone through my photo album of my tours there heck at that time it was the closest thing to combat one can get. Also did thelast full rotation at 4Papa3 A live artillery base

chaos0xomega wrote:
Sebster, the US is different though, in the sense that our 'militarism' (again, not sure thats the appropriate word) basically revolves around a general pride in the military and our military history (whether its really warranted or not is another question). We don't have a 'bushido' code, we don't have a martial tradition that permeates the country at a deeper societal level.

I'm not going to argue about modern Japanese culture, partly because I'm out of my depth but also because there's no need. We just need to look at the capabilities of Japan - when they decided to try and take over Asia the first time it was pretty stupid and doomed to failure. There simply aren't the resources in Japan to fuel a war of expansion. And since then all that's changed is that China is no longer a war torn backwater but a major economic power.

Even if Japan decided it wanted to reform its Asian empire, it simply can't. It's as scary as Sweden deciding it wanted another crack at taking over Europe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We're going off topic here, sebster, but reheated economic policies from the 1980s are not going to stimulate Japan's economy.

The point is that these aren't reheated '80s policies. That was the concern a lot of people had - that Abe was basically using big claims to dress up the same old pork barreling efforts, but there are massive substantive differences.

You probably know as well as I do that Japan has a declining population and a less than friendly approach to immigration. All the defence spending in the world won't change this.

Well you might have noticed I already mentioned Japanese demographic issues, so yeah I am as aware as you are. But note that in addition to the increased spending there's also pretty significant efforts to include women in the workplace, on top of economic and structural policies to improve export competitiveness. It isn't just throwing money to boost demand.

I agree (as you hinted at) that a new approach to encourage immigration needs to be made.

As most dakka members probably know, the nationalists were ruling China in the 1930s, and it is them who bore the brunt against China. This has led to many people questioning the official history (that paints the Communists in a better light) and there seems to be more of an appreciation of Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang.

I remember being taught in high school that the Nationalists were mostly corrupt and ineffective, and it was the Communists who were more effective against the Japanese. I think it was actually the dominant opinion among Western academics for a long time, though probably not when I was taught it in highschool (curriculums change slowly, especially when the current narrative is so much easier for highschool kids to understand).

It's interesting that reality might be starting to set in in China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Chiang Kai-shek was kind of a bastard, so I'm not really sure he warrants 'appreciation'.

We're talking about 20th century Chinese history, outside of Sun Yat-sen they were all bastards.

But when it comes to fighting the Japanese, Chiang Kai-shek's was fairly maligned, while Communist efforts vastly overstated. Partly this is because Chiang Kai-shek had to underake operations or lose American support (and even then he was limited in effectiveness by corrupt generals), but the point still remains that most effective resistance to the Japanese came from the KMT. Meanwhile the Communists just waited, and built their strength.

The point is that for a long time history reported the opposite as true, and it's interesting if that reality is finally now reaching China.

Hazarding a guess. They're a very select all volunteer military (using military and not defense force being that their damn military) are they not. So if they expand they would have a experience cadre to build around. Last nation that did something similar was Pre WWII Germany. I am in no way saying they're Hell bent to take over Asia or anything.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.

Any luck finding that article?

Unfortunately none whatsoever.

 sebster wrote:


Even if Japan decided it wanted to reform its Asian empire, it simply can't. It's as scary as Sweden deciding it wanted another crack at taking over Europe.

Well, not to insult the rest of Europe, but I think that might actually be pretty scary. They seem to be a bit better prepared when it comes to military matters, at least by way of comparison to European nations that aren't the UK, Germany, or Russia.

I remember being taught in high school that the Nationalists were mostly corrupt and ineffective, and it was the Communists who were more effective against the Japanese. I think it was actually the dominant opinion among Western academics for a long time, though probably not when I was taught it in highschool (curriculums change slowly, especially when the current narrative is so much easier for highschool kids to understand).

This is both true and false. The Communists *were* more effective against the Japanese, but the KMT were the ones doing most of the fighting.

But when it comes to fighting the Japanese, Chiang Kai-shek's was fairly maligned, while Communist efforts vastly overstated. Partly this is because Chiang Kai-shek had to underake operations or lose American support (and even then he was limited in effectiveness by corrupt generals), but the point still remains that most effective resistance to the Japanese came from the KMT. Meanwhile the Communists just waited, and built their strength.

Not at all what I'm referring to, you are familiar with the various atrocities and war crimes he committed following his retreat to Taiwan, yes?

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is both true and false. The Communists *were* more effective against the Japanese, but the KMT were the ones doing most of the fighting.

To use an analogy, it's like saying that guy corner camping the room on the edge of the map with 12 kills and 1 death helped the team more than the guy who died 20 times but scored more objective points. Sure 12-1 is a great score, but we're not playing TDM here