Bharat Rakshak

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:I think you're confusing de jure with de facto. De facto needs no "lip service" like laws and treaties to justify it, only power. In the case of the Diaoyutai islands, the power would be naval and aerial since neither side has ground presence.

PRC has neither de facto nor de jure claim on the Senkakus and never has, considering PRC existed since 1949, and the islands transferred to USA hands in 1945 and then into Japanese hands in 1971.

Proclaiming an ADIZ does not give you any manner of de facto control unless you consistently demonstrate your ability to enforce it. PRC has not been able to do that - others like Japan and SoKo not only violate your ADIZ, but maintain their own overlapping ones as a basis for claiming that they have no need to identify themselves within what they consider their own ADIZ.

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:But I digress, this dichotomy between disliking a people/culture vs. disliking a government is quite another topic of conversation.

No, the point is that this entire modern day PRC enmity towards Japan is an artificially sustained construct primarily meant for local PRC political consumption, whether it be demonstrating nationalism or pride. There is no similar record by the Taiwanese government. None of the KMT folks have an issue with the Japanese government; their ire is directed at the mainland government, whom they see as illegitimate usurpers of political control over their ancestral land, or 'their beautiful country controlled by barbarians' to paraphrase someone who spoke about it.

The ones who actually fought in war and take pride in their knowledge of Chinese history also recognize scorched earth tactics for what they are - a tactic of warfare that has been used throughout Chinese history by its own rulers, quite brutally even compared to the Japanese. They instead have an issue with Beijing - whom they see as illegitimate rulers of the mainland, not worth of succeeding ROC.

DavidD wrote:It's a confusing day for you isn't it? First confusing the meaning of Bombastic, next the difference between de jure and de facto, and now the meaning of an ADIZ. Tell me, how does one enforce an ADIZ vs. a no-fly zone? What's the issue with overlapping ADIZ's?

DavidD wrote:What's the issue with overlapping ADIZ's?

DavidD wrote:Do I really need to point out the difference between what people to do each other vs. what other people do to you? I can bad mouth my cousin, but I'll punch if you if you bad mouth her.

Suraj wrote:There is no similar record by the Taiwanese government. None of the KMT folks have an issue with the Japanese government; their ire is directed at the mainland government, whom they see as illegitimate usurpers of political control over their ancestral land, or 'their beautiful country controlled by barbarians' to paraphrase someone who spoke about it.

shyam wrote:This is an interesting point. All the alleged Japanese atrocities in China happened when KMT was ruling it, and they had no problem with it.

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:It's a confusing day for you isn't it? First confusing the meaning of Bombastic, next the difference between de jure and de facto, and now the meaning of an ADIZ. Tell me, how does one enforce an ADIZ vs. a no-fly zone? What's the issue with overlapping ADIZ's?

You've consistently stated PRC has de facto control over the Senkaku Islands. Prove it. It's better than nitpicking over whether or not anyone satisfies your own convenient definition of a word.

SSridhar wrote:

DavidD wrote:What's the issue with overlapping ADIZ's?

The overlapping ADIZs lead to confusion in communication with the pilots overflying such a zone as differing instructions might be relayed to him/her from the owners of the different overlapping ADZs. Besides that, there is no international law covering the ADZs and such zones are implemented in a cooperative way while the Chinese intention is definitely to challenge such international order and equilibrium. Unlike other ADZs, China also demands that any aircraft overflying such a zone, even when it is flying away, not approaching, Chinese territory to report to it.

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:Do I really need to point out the difference between what people to do each other vs. what other people do to you? I can bad mouth my cousin, but I'll punch if you if you bad mouth her.

Therefore it's all relative. You have no actual morality in the matter, just convenient expediency laced with xenophobia. Let's summarize:

* If a prior Chinese dynasty burned down entire towns and killed thousands on a vastly greater scale and and a modern Chinese government claimed to be its heir, they are not responsible. But if a Japanese military does so, they still hold the cross, regardless of how much money and technology they've since provided as a goodwill measure.

* You turned to your former colonizer for money and technology. They gave it to you as a means to normalize relations. Now that you've developed quite a bit, your domestic compulsions drive you to suddenly remember 'past humiliations' and 'lost shipwrecks'. That's not principle, or even close to it.

Had China kept Japan at arms length all these decades as well as repudiated the actions of its old dynasties, it would actually earn sympathy for its position, because it was willing to bear the costs of its principles. It has borne none, and therefore it has no principles in this matter that someone else can appreciate.

DavidD wrote:

Suraj wrote:You've consistently stated PRC has de facto control over the Senkaku Islands. Prove it. It's better than nitpicking over whether or not anyone satisfies your own convenient definition of a word.

Sure, the Chinese conduct regular patrols over sea and over air over the islands. There's my proof.

DavidD wrote:Instructions? No sir. The ADIZ does not give any country authority to give instructions to a pilot, it only requires the disclosure of information (course heading, etc.). A plane traversing overlapping ADIZ's only need to report their intentions to two (or more) countries.

An ADIZ is a publicly defined area extending beyond national territory in which unidentified aircraft are liable to be interrogated and, if necessary, intercepted for identification before they cross into sovereign airspace. In addition to providing an added measure of security, an ADIZ can help reduce the risk of midair collisions, combat illicit drug flows, facilitate search-and-rescue missions, and reduce the need for fighter jet sorties for purposes of visual inspection.

DavidD wrote:So basically, what you're saying is that there is no difference between self and others. I'm sure you've made a bad financial decision before and lost money, does that mean I can steal your money?

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:So basically, what you're saying is that there is no difference between self and others. I'm sure you've made a bad financial decision before and lost money, does that mean I can steal your money?

Poor analogy. Self implies there was some unified entity. In the 1930s, there was no such thing in China. There was no confidence then that there would even be one, just a bunch of warring parties amidst a 3-decade long civil war, among which the Japanese were just one more party doing exactly what China would like to do at the Senkakus - step in and stake a claim. No central government, not even a fixed capital, no one who could authoritatively claim rule over the land, nothing. The Japanese did just that - create a puppet state and run things the way the chose.

Between the Japanese, Communists and Nationalists, all were just trying to do the same thing - capture and hold territory. For a Japanese Siege of Shanghai, you have the Communist Siege of Changchun afterwards, which arguably killed even more civilians. To single them out today is just expedient revisionism.

To provide a more pertinent example - you have a massive family quarrel, leave your house in disarray, stop paying property taxes, and in the midst of it all, someone else walks in and squats on your property for a while while paying for upkeep on his part. Ultimately he's evicted, and you get your house in order. Good luck getting the law to make him pay you for squatting - the law will simply point out that he had de facto control and maintained his part of the place.

SSridhar wrote:

DavidD wrote:Instructions? No sir. The ADIZ does not give any country authority to give instructions to a pilot, it only requires the disclosure of information (course heading, etc.). A plane traversing overlapping ADIZ's only need to report their intentions to two (or more) countries.

What are the functions of ADZ ?

An ADIZ is a publicly defined area extending beyond national territory in which unidentified aircraft are liable to be interrogated and, if necessary, intercepted for identification before they cross into sovereign airspace. In addition to providing an added measure of security, an ADIZ can help reduce the risk of midair collisions, combat illicit drug flows, facilitate search-and-rescue missions, and reduce the need for fighter jet sorties for purposes of visual inspection.

An ADIZ is therefore not merely reporting heading etc. It is far beyond that. It is especially so when the intent of setting up the ADIZ seems aggressive as seen from the requirements imposed by PRC and the deliberate overlap with other long-established ADIZ. This is clearly a provocative action by PRC which is also not surprising considering the regular provocations that every neighbour constantly faces from a 'peacefully rising' China. However, now, China has outdone itself in airspace after doing a similar thing over high seas by claiming entire SCS for itself.

DavidD wrote:Not a pertinent example. In China that man would pay for squatting, as there are no property taxes and you can do as you wish with your property. Squatter's rights don't exist in China.

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:Not a pertinent example. In China that man would pay for squatting, as there are no property taxes and you can do as you wish with your property. Squatter's rights don't exist in China.

Oh it is a very pertinent example. China may have all manner of rules and traditions, as you explained. However none of it matters, because you were in no position to enforce any of them, for reasons *entirely* related to your own internal civil war. You had neither de facto nor de jure control over territory, and the Japanese simply took advantage of that.

In doing so, they did what the Mongols and Manchus did before that - walk in and grab a share because there was no one at home and everything was lying around to be picked and carried away, so to speak. They simply asserted their own de facto control over a sphere of influence - the Manchukuo state. The only difference between them and the Mongols or Manchus is that the latter two were subsequently absorbed into the Chinese demographic base and Sinicized, while with Japan there was a clean break in 1945.

What Japan did is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary within the circumstances or history of China. They weren't the first, or the last, nor were they anywhere near original about what they were doing. They weren't even doing what their opponents among the communists and KMT weren't doing themselves at the same time - fighting each other and getting a lot of innocent people killed in the process.

Chinese history is wracked with great rises and violent upheavals. When the latter happens, you are taken advantage of because anyone can walk in and assert control over the remnants. It's the nature of the beast that is your society. History just shows that it happens again and again, and everyone - Mongols, Manchus, Russians, Europeans, the Americans, and Japanese, have all walked in and grabbed a share of the loot in the process.

DavidD wrote:Imagine the German chancellor visiting a shrine that worships Hitler. You can philosophize all you want, this ain't gonna go over well in East Asia.

DavidD wrote:What does all that have to do with confusion for planes traversing the overlapping ADIZs again?

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit on Thursday to the controversial Yasukuni shrine was “absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese people,” China’s Foreign Ministry said.

The visit would cause “great harm to feelings of the people of Asia,” the ministry said shortly after Abe became the first Japanese premier to visit the shrine in Tokyo since 2006.

The shrine is dedicated to Japan’s 2.5 million war dead, including 14 Class A war criminals from World War II.

DavidD wrote:It's just like how the Indians don't mind the Japanese' past crimes because you were never slaughtered by the millions by the Japanese, the descendents of natives like Lee Teng Hui are much more tolerant of the Japanese. The rest, not so much, as exemplified by Lee's expulsion from the KMT after his presidency. The KMT, of course, is mainly composed of mainlanders who moved to Taiwan after 1949.

Suraj wrote:

DavidD wrote:Imagine the German chancellor visiting a shrine that worships Hitler. You can philosophize all you want, this ain't gonna go over well in East Asia.

I have been to Yasukuni, to see the memorial of Dr. Radhabinod Pal. It is a Shinto shrine, and they venerate their war dead, starting from the Meiji Period in 1867 until the end of WW2. That place isn't their 'shrine to Hitler'. It's their equivalent of a tomb of the unknown soldier.

Contrary to general depiction, the place isn't full of nationalists screaming paeans to Tojo. Instead, it's a fairly popular recreational area visited by families and tourists, with a park and a weekend market in front on Sundays. Interestingly enough, some of the wares being sold there included Chinese decorative artifacts.

SSridhar wrote:

DavidD wrote:What does all that have to do with confusion for planes traversing the overlapping ADIZs again?

It shows that it is not true that there is only a one-way communication from the plane to the ADIZ owner and the latter have no instructions to pass on in case they decide to do so. There are aspects such as interrogation, interception and reducing mid-air collisions. All these add to pilot overload when there are multiple overlapping ADIZs and certainly a possibility of confusion.

Christopher Sidor wrote:

DavidD wrote:It's just like how the Indians don't mind the Japanese' past crimes because you were never slaughtered by the millions by the Japanese, the descendents of natives like Lee Teng Hui are much more tolerant of the Japanese. The rest, not so much, as exemplified by Lee's expulsion from the KMT after his presidency. The KMT, of course, is mainly composed of mainlanders who moved to Taiwan after 1949.

We in India make a distinction between Japanese, i.e. citizens of contemporary Japan and the Nipponese empire, i.e. the Empire of the Rising Sun. Certain imperial Nipponese might have carried out massacres in East Asia but they pale in comparison to the horrors which were done by the Chinese nationalist and the communist on the people of PRC. Both of these justified their actions on the basis of their opposition to the Imperial Nipponese. So to say that Japanese had been evil is not the whole truth. It is like whitewashing part of the truth and just focusing on the rest.
We are not even talking about the horrors which were visited on the citizens of PRC and Taiwan by their respective ruling class years after Japan had become the most pacifist nation in the world. The Chinese have to realize that Japanese become the most pacifist country since 1945. While the Taiwanese and the PRC have gone on and taken on the mantle of the Imperial Nipponese.

So please keep things in perspective before ranting about the so called actions of Japanese prior to 1945. The Chinese themselves have been the biggest mass murders of their fellow Chinese. Even before 1945 and after 1945. It has not been Japanese.

And it looks like you have not read history. Japense did attack India and killed many Indians. They were repulsed in their attempt to take over India. This was the first time IJA was repulsed by any force on the land mass of Asia when they were cutting down the nationalist forces and when the communist were holed up in their caves and sanctuaries. But we still maintained a distinction between the ordinary Japanese and the soldiers carrying out the horrors.

Suraj wrote:How about the British, French, Germans, Portuguese, Russians and Americans ? I don't see China getting bent out of shape about the first two burning down the old summer palace in Beijing, or for the Boxer Rebellion or the indemnities they charged in the aftermath.

The Japanese, both from their viewpoint and in the view of the broader world, considering the little sympathy China garners, have already paid in the form of all the money and technology they invested in China.

DavidD wrote:

Christopher Sidor wrote: We in India make a distinction between Japanese, i.e. citizens of contemporary Japan and the Nipponese empire, i.e. the Empire of the Rising Sun. Certain imperial Nipponese might have carried out massacres in East Asia but they pale in comparison to the horrors which were done by the Chinese nationalist and the communist on the people of PRC. Both of these justified their actions on the basis of their opposition to the Imperial Nipponese. So to say that Japanese had been evil is not the whole truth. It is like whitewashing part of the truth and just focusing on the rest.
We are not even talking about the horrors which were visited on the citizens of PRC and Taiwan by their respective ruling class years after Japan had become the most pacifist nation in the world. The Chinese have to realize that Japanese become the most pacifist country since 1945. While the Taiwanese and the PRC have gone on and taken on the mantle of the Imperial Nipponese.

So please keep things in perspective before ranting about the so called actions of Japanese prior to 1945. The Chinese themselves have been the biggest mass murders of their fellow Chinese. Even before 1945 and after 1945. It has not been Japanese.

And it looks like you have not read history. Japanese did attack India and killed many Indians. They were repulsed in their attempt to take over India. This was the first time IJA was repulsed by any force on the land mass of Asia when they were cutting down the nationalist forces and when the communist were holed up in their caves and sanctuaries. But we still maintained a distinction between the ordinary Japanese and the soldiers carrying out the horrors.

Thanks for a rehash of Suraj's views, it makes for a good skim.

Anand K wrote:The Japanese are the only people who mounted long lasting existential threats to China - in both military and social aspects. Also, the Japs had a robust culture that resisted (or even looked down on) the Chinese culture - unlike the Mongols who assimilated. From the Chinese perspective, the Japanese invasion of Korea (And onwards to Manhcuria most probably) in the 16th century only because of the strong Ming Empire. Well, they rotting from the inside and they had the Mongol Foederati (a la Gothic Foederatis of Rome) but they were able to stave off the Japanese onslaught. Fast forward 300 years and the Japanese were crawling all over a weak and fragmented China. If not for WW2 perhaps the Japs would have stayed there to date too.

This kind of wound traumatizes them no end. I mean, Zhongguo and Mandate of Heaven and irredentist-unification concepts like that? When kicked in the daddy-bags as severely as the Japanese did, twice, and still them "getting away with it" and overshadowing China in perhaps every sphere, makes it worse. The imperial scrambles of other powers doesn't hurt them as bad as this I guess.

ADDED: Forgot one more thing..... the Japanese are thriving right next door too! You can't hate the far away sad Portuguese or the poodle Brits or the neutered Germans for what little they did. Still, a lot of Chinese movies feature arrays of villains from every nationality that "Wronged" them. Including a li'l Chinese brother in brown-face as "Yoga-Guru" fighting all-proper-Chinese one-armed boxer.

That's right, it's traumatizing, humiliating, and it'll serve as unending motivation.....

Christopher Sidor wrote:It is like certain East Asian nations and certain citizens of these East Asian Nations live in a time wrap set in the years 1931-45. They have not been able to move on. Just like in West Asia and North Africa there is a section of people who still swoon to the 7th or 10th century deserts of Arabia......

Christopher Sidor wrote:Why do a section of Chinese talk about defeating the Japanese when Japanese were defeated by the Soviets, Americans, Australians, Indians and other Commonwealth countries in 1945?
Is it because they know that they had no role to play in the defeat of IJA and Kwantung Army?
Or is it the fact that unlike the Indians which got their independence due to their own efforts the East Asians were handed their independence by the hated outsider without any of their efforts bearing fruit?
Is this an inferiority complex at work or something more?