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.

 Manchu wrote:
China is certainly self-conscious about it's colonial past and third world status. OTOH the 20th century is the exception to the rule of Chinese history. China's recent past represents a return to the larger status quo of regional dominance. Recovering the cultural attitude corresponding to that status will naturally involve a certain amount of nationalism, especially regarding Japan.

Agreed. I'm sure some of us remember the "Smog is Good" thread. That entire bit was nationalist (the wacky crazy nationalism that is mind jarring to anyone on the outside... or who likes healthy lungs). Nationalism is part of what I touched on when talking about strength not just as military power, but social strength. China's smog problems are particularly famous around the world, and I'm sure many Chinese are very unhappy with it. Can't have that. Being unhappy with the state of urban areas? Gotta nip that in the bud!

There was a "smog is good thread?"

 Ketara wrote:


This is what worries me. There are too many historical examples of these sorts of aggressive grabs for territory and escalating militarism eventually leading somewhere nobody wanted it to go.

Indeed. The creepy part even, is that from a certain perspective, the mentality is perfectly rational. Even logical. But it's a mentality that once you're locked into it, the more dangerous it becomes. It gets even more complicated when you consider that it's not just about international politics but domestic politics as well. No leader, even in a one party system without direct elections, wants to be remembered or seen as the person who showed weakness. It is a very dangerous mentality. One that by its own nature, becomes inherently self destructive.

I'm glad you brought that up. The PRC recently banned a homegrown documentary critical of air pollution called Under The Dome, which had become a kind of overnight sensation. Now the interesting thing is not that the government banned the movie (which was not even anti-government) but rather that it resonated with so many Chinese so immediately. In other words, nationalism is not tantamount to insanity. The Chinese people know smog is not good.

 tau tse tung wrote:
There was a "smog is good thread?"

The original news article that sparked the thread

The thread we had about it.

Thanks for the links.

Right now where I live there's little smog but I'm in the boondocks of the place, like anywhere I guess it depends where you are. Seeing a lot of the comments though on that new story i see nationalist western comments. I'm by no means defending pollution but I take more concern about comments people make about the place.

A friend of mine who also wants to move here said "China is definitely a place that some people can cope with and others can't at all." And I can't agree with this more. You have to adapt a certain mindset and realise that it's not the west. It's because of that foreigners move here. Those who go expecting the same won't find it a nice place to live.

I find we strayed off topic a bit.

My prediction, personally, is that nothing will come of any of this. The plans and counter plans are all stretched on to happen 5 & 10 years from now, and by then something else will have come out of left field to make everyone forget all about this. Economic or political chaos in some country in the region is probably the most likely thing.

The key point about China is that the government is trying to deal with a number of serious problems that upset the social order. One way they are trying to defuse the internal tension is by deflecting the people's attention to foreign policy situations.

 tau tse tung wrote:


Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion.

I disagree there, at least. Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire, which is why it didn't try to hang on to it for very long. It often just sort of...well, happened. You set up a trade post, and the locals massacre a few people. So you have to conquer the surrounding area to provide security. But then another bunch of natives start charging over the new border, so you have to deal with them too, etc etc. Other bits of land were acquired because we wanted a spot locally to recoal our ships. In other places still, we grabbed it just because it was a strategic location, we had shipping going through it, and the French/Russians/Germans were looking like they were about to grab it. So we grabbed it to stop them doing so.

Somehow or another, it kind of turned into an empire though.

It was something of a slightly different mentality in most cases from say, the two intended German Empires, the Romans, the Ottoman's and so forth. You did occasionally get a bit of land snapped up because it looked good, but we were usually there for the trade or another reason.

Why did it have to be taken at gunpoint and why didn't we follow their trade rules? Like America today why did we have a different set of rules being a nation so far away?

Because this was the nineteenth century, where Johnny Klatchian had to be shown the error of their ways. China was in exactly the same place mentally, and would probably have done it to us if the situation had been in reverse.

I'm not justifying, but I'm saying you need to view nineteenth century events through a nineteenth century eye.

I recommend lazlow Montgomery's history of China podcast on this, it's very detailed on the matter and is a better source than me at this moment. I feel that after the boxer revolt and if WW1 failed to ignite, China would of been dived up like Africa. Although that's opinion admittedly.

If anyone would have been moving in on China at that point, it would most likely have been Germany or America. Although we probably would have joined in, like in the Scramble for Africa, just to secure our own assets.

 sebster wrote:
My prediction, personally, is that nothing will come of any of this. The plans and counter plans are all stretched on to happen 5 & 10 years from now, and by then something else will have come out of left field to make everyone forget all about this. Economic or political chaos in some country in the region is probably the most likely thing.

Possibly. You do often tend to note however, certain behaviours which historically lead to conflict and strife, and whilst there's always the possibility for something to come out of the left field to change everything, there's an equally good possibility that it won't.

 tau tse tung wrote:
China loaned America the money it's using today. Both economies would be ruined. America do have raw navel power but the chinese have the numbers and production facilities, I personally would think they could hold their own.

I'm away from my source (my best books are in my dorm back in the UK) but I'm sure I could find a few passages laying to the claim in my texts. I know the earliest would have been Zhang He.

But in all honesty why is that America's jurisdiction in the first place? How far away is the South China Sea too Hawaii or California?

China in its entire history has not expanded a great deal, in fact it's lost huge amounts of land since Qing. Like Manchu said, there's no real scenario they would come too blows. But the new strong China won't let itself be bullied by the west like it was in the 19th century. The laying down of limits and patrolling of its sea borders I feel shows this new China that it won't be messed with weather the west likes it or not.

I think you are absolutely correct here. No one benefits when these 2 powers clash. US might hold a military edge but china would ramp up production to a such a high rate if a war started it would be to most devastating war this world has ever seen. Lets hope this can be settled diplomatically.

Its all fun and games till a missile comes off a rack

 tau tse tung wrote:
The South China see belongs to the PRC. The "the nine point line" clearly shows Chinese waters and has done so since imperial times. Claims by Taiwan are void since it's not a UN recognised state and Japan's should be even more void since their mainland ends well before the " nine point line". America would not dare declare full war on China but I could see them fuelling a war with Japan.

Taiwan's claims are as good as their ability, and the ability of other interested parties, to back them up.The UN is a failed organization with a corrupt agenda and no balls - their opinion carries zero weight.

That said, I think that you're right in saying that we will probably not see a direct armed confrontation between the US and China - neither party wants it.

The USA also does not recognize the sovereignty of RoC.

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

Anyway, back OT

In my view, the problems will arise when North Korea collapses and China is faced with a Pro America, united Korea on its doorstep. China would push for American withdrawal if that happened, but Washington might be tempted at leaving troops on China's doorstep.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

There can be a 'Victorian dream' by pure virtue of being a dream had by a Victorian. That does not necessarily translate into a deliberate policy of conquest, colonisation, and annexation. The British didn't join in the 'Scramble for Africa' until the Belgians, Germans, and Italians started eyeing it up. We took the Cape in 1806, but Africa wasn't really divvied up until eighty years later! We acquired India, Hong Kong, Burma, America and more long before we ever looked at Africa with an eye to incorporating it.

The fact is, we only participated in the 'scramble for Africa' because Bismarck and various other European powers were suddenly eyeing it up, and we felt our interests to be threatened if we didn't participate. So as a result, we more or less 'fell into' administering far more territory than we ever actually wanted or needed. Here's a good and cheap book on the affair if you want to read into it more closely:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Scramble-Africa-Thomas-Pakenham/dp/0349104492

Think the US troops will stay below the 38th. Also two more brigades from 2ID are coming back to the US of A. So that would leave like a ordinary division instead a plus up 10% over strength division like it was back in the day. So 8th Army will stay in Soeul and down south. The remainder of 2ID will stay in western corrigedor

British Imperialism was different from, for example, French Imperialism, in that the British were not interested in turning their colonial subjects into Britishers. But that doesn't mean the British did not desire an empire.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain never really had much of a desire for an Empire,

Ketara, with all due respect, that is complete hogwash!

Like I mentioned in the UK political thread, the Cape to Cairo railway was a Victorian dream and obviously required the acquisition of large chunks of Africa during the scramble in the 19th century. The Victorian thirst for Empire was legendary.

There can be a 'Victorian dream' by pure virtue of being a dream had by a Victorian. That does not necessarily translate into a deliberate policy of conquest, colonisation, and annexation. The British didn't join in the 'Scramble for Africa' until the Belgians, Germans, and Italians started eyeing it up. We took the Cape in 1806, but Africa wasn't really divvied up until eighty years later! We acquired India, Hong Kong, Burma, America and more long before we ever looked at Africa with an eye to incorporating it.

The fact is, we only participated in the 'scramble for Africa' because Bismarck and various other European powers were suddenly eyeing it up, and we felt our interests to be threatened if we didn't participate. So as a result, we more or less 'fell into' administering far more territory than we ever actually wanted or needed. Here's a good and cheap book on the affair if you want to read into it more closely:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Scramble-Africa-Thomas-Pakenham/dp/0349104492

I think we should start a new thread on this sometime - as I've got books of my own to counter this. Plus, we don't want to derail this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Think the US troops will stay below the 38th. Also two more brigades from 2ID are coming back to the US of A. So that would leave like a ordinary division instead a plus up 10% over strength division like it was back in the day. So 8th Army will stay in Soeul and down south. The remainder of 2ID will stay in western corrigedor

It may be a token force, but as you know better than me, it could be rapidly reinforced at any time.

During the Cold War, America aimed to get troops over to Europe within 48-72hrs if the Soviets crossed into West Germany.

Is this a similar response time in Korea if there's trouble, or is it even quicker in this day and age?

Guam about to have a sudden population boost

Edit

America Samoa also

Also a agreement was reached with the Phillappines to base US troops/naval/air force units

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key point about China is that the government is trying to deal with a number of serious problems that upset the social order. One way they are trying to defuse the internal tension is by deflecting the people's attention to foreign policy situations.

Totally agree. They don't have the ballot box to help siphon off descent and internal tension the way the U.S. does. That means they are an internal powder keg of labor, nationalism, and other disputes.

I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face. The US certainly liked to pretend it wasn't an Imperial power (what I dub Anti-Imperial Imperialism ), But Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands we went around taking and then bragging about how we 'liberated' them, certainly seems a lot like Empire building. Especially the poor Philippines. Man did we just not give a gak about Philippine independence

 LordofHats wrote:
I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face.

I'm not saying they 'never wanted it' necessarily. I'm saying that when you look at the motivations behind the various annexations, it was usually in the defence of British trade/interests, as opposed to a desire to expand. The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'. Desire for conquering/annexation/subjugation itself was rarely the actual motivating driving force, it was usually a byproduct of other more complex motivations relating to commercial/diplomatic/military interests.

In other words, there was no grand campaign or great strategy to increase the size of the Empire. Instead you had hundreds of little incidents spread across the better part of two centuries, each one adding a small territory here, an island there, and so forth, for various manifold reasons, until the Empire was far bigger than anyone had ever forseen. In other words, the Empire was something that gradually evolved, nobody had actually planned for it quite to occur the way it did.

 Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think that when your every action builds an empire, it's really had to say "but I never wanted an empire!" with a straight face.

I'm not saying they 'never wanted it' necessarily. I'm saying that when you look at the motivations behind the various annexations, it was usually in the defence of British trade/interests, as opposed to a desire to expand. The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'. Desire for conquering/annexation/subjugation itself was rarely the actual motivating driving force, it was usually a byproduct of other more complex motivations relating to commercial/diplomatic/military interests.

In other words, there was no grand campaign or great strategy to increase the size of the Empire. Instead you had hundreds of little incidents spread across the better part of two centuries, each one adding a small territory here, an island there, and so forth, for various manifold reasons, until the Empire was far bigger than anyone had ever forseen.

Okay yeah. This seems much less odd than the what the previous statement came off sounding like

 LordofHats wrote:
The US certainly liked to pretend it wasn't an Imperial power (what I dub Anti-Imperial Imperialism ), But Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands we went around taking and then bragging about how we 'liberated' them, certainly seems a lot like Empire building.

And Panama, and the attempted re-coup in Nicaragua.

Yes the list does go on

 Ketara wrote:
The motivation was not 'Let's go out and conquer the natives' so much as it was, 'Let's stop the natives attacking our trade outpost (by conquering them)'.

And what about that trade outpost? And why are the "natives" attacking it?

This is a really bizarre distinction you are attempting to make here ... Sure, Britain did not just want "more land" but it did want the land, for its resources, for its location relative to other colonial possessions, for the sake of dominating other powers, etc.

History is full of bizarre distinctions (but they're often useful so *shrug*). The distinction Ketara is drawing is that Britain did not set out to claim a massive swathe of Colonial possessions, but rather targeted specific locations for their <insert Manchu's list of desires>. The massive swathe of Colonial possessions came not because they wanted them, but from a successive series of minor armed and political fights to protect specific interests leaving the British controlling a much larger stake in the world than they initially intended or desired.

That collection of controlled interests you mention is called an empire. The distinction in this case is merely bizarre, not useful.

I agree that Ketara's first attempt at this distinction was weird and made no sense. I choose however to look at the actual distinction being made now that he has explained his position rather than get caught up on the word Empire.

To go full circle, the original point I was responding to was this:-

Your right, but given the chance it would have been used as a staging point for an invasion.

Namely the concept that Hong Kong would be used as a staging point for an invasion of China by the British Empire, presumably to incorporate it into the British Empire. I was also responding to a query as to why when China asserts it owns something it is colonialism, but Hong Kong was not. I then asserted that we didn't originally want Hong Kong out of a desire for colonialism, that is, to create a colony. Although it later became one, it was just meant to be a place we could unload our wares safely until the situation settled down-hence the hundred year contract.

In other words, I was drawing distinction between the Chinese desire to control this territory purely to incorporate it (it serves little useful purpose after all, being mostly empty water), or the acquisition of land of many other empires in history for similar reasons, and that of the British, who rarely set out to add land purely for jingoistic/nationalist/outright acquisitive purposes. Their motivations usually lay in more commercial roots, and desires to safeguard pre-existing interests.

That is the distinction that was being made. I'm not saying one is necessarily morally better than the other, I'm merely noting the difference in motivation for expansion between the two.