- 19 Jul 2021 11:27
#15181639
Chinese experience was different compared to Europes and Western experience for them and it didn't end in 1945 for them. Chinese WW2 participation was basically a war of independence and later of unification.
The difference is the lessons that both sides learned from the war, Europe and US learned that peace in Europe needs to be maintained to prevent WW3 and not to look the other way when a genocide is happening in a very very simplistic explanation. Hence institutions like the EU, NATO, UN and so on appeared along with tougher sanctions for genocide and other atrocities.
For China though, other lessons were learned as I said. Bloody conflicts doesn't mean that you will learn all of the lessons for some reason. Usually underlying problems or causes or severe excesses of a conflict are adressed when the war is over. If it was that simple that after 1 war you can learn all of the lessons then how come the systems of governance, politics and diplomacy changed so much with every major conflict? Change in Europe and US happened incrementally conflict after conflict. It didn't happen with 1 war that catapulted us from nothing to the EU, UN and so on after lets say just the 30 years war.
I do not think that any nation is hopeless to change; however, I think that some nations do require a lot more effort than others to become changed. - Verv
B0ycey wrote:The point is China have had the same type of history that the West have. In fact I would say it is significantly more bloody than the West in particular the US which is a relatively new nation anyway.
Also I have found Thingking Pandas Posts rather interesting as he reminds me of Balancer, a Russian, a few years back which have given us an insight of China from their perspective. You don't have to agree with him but I know first hand his voice is not alone in China. That is kind of why I have stayed out of this thread despite enjoying it. You see the Western opinion being challenged and what I have found is users that are challenging the Chinese narrative have no clue what they are talking about. Like China not being in WW2?? But that isn't saying there isn't a challenge to be made or that the Chinese narrative is correct. What I am saying is you need to learn about China in order to understand China and perhaps be able to challenge the arguments being made.
Chinese experience was different compared to Europes and Western experience for them and it didn't end in 1945 for them. Chinese WW2 participation was basically a war of independence and later of unification.
The difference is the lessons that both sides learned from the war, Europe and US learned that peace in Europe needs to be maintained to prevent WW3 and not to look the other way when a genocide is happening in a very very simplistic explanation. Hence institutions like the EU, NATO, UN and so on appeared along with tougher sanctions for genocide and other atrocities.
For China though, other lessons were learned as I said. Bloody conflicts doesn't mean that you will learn all of the lessons for some reason. Usually underlying problems or causes or severe excesses of a conflict are adressed when the war is over. If it was that simple that after 1 war you can learn all of the lessons then how come the systems of governance, politics and diplomacy changed so much with every major conflict? Change in Europe and US happened incrementally conflict after conflict. It didn't happen with 1 war that catapulted us from nothing to the EU, UN and so on after lets say just the 30 years war.
I do not think that any nation is hopeless to change; however, I think that some nations do require a lot more effort than others to become changed. - Verv