Aside from World War II, why do many Chinese people hate Japan?

[Magiver]

@Velocity

But Chinese dislike of Japan existed before WWII, and/or probably would have existed even without WWII. WWII simply poured fuel on an already-glowing fire.

Given what occurred in WW-II it’s hard to discount this. Just Doolittle Raid alone cost them a quarter million in civilian retribution casualties plus 70,000 military. Japan just recently acknowledged using Chinese women as organized sex slaves. Then there is the medical experiments where they infected people and then dissected alive to see the damage.

These are not things easily forgotten or forgiven. And after the war Japan is restructured into an economic power house while China chews up their resources in regional wars. All of this driven by Communism which to this day controls media content.

[PhillyGuy]

Aside from World War II itself, the number one reason is that the government-manipulated media works to keep the memories of Japan’s World War II perfidy as alive as possible.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@Nelson_Pike

The roots of the Korean War were an example of American hegemony, or something, that I need to know more about?

I thought I already knew enough, but since you apparently don’t think I do, how about telling me what I have missed, wise guy.

@madsircool

The exact cause of the Korean War was a misstatement from Dean Atcheson not including Korea in our defensive perimeter. Also, obviously drunk in its hegemonic powers, the US allowed Korea to be partitioned. A large mistake. Then, in 1949, the USA pulled out all of its troops from Korea.

The Soviets moved on the South in an effort to pre-empt the US from moving on the North, their reading of Dean Acheson’s Jan. 12 1950 speech. MacArthur was already talking about a war with USSR as an inevitability. Koreans to this day hold us responsible for keeping hostilities raw, and they really don’t like quartering our soldiers. Don’t take it personally.

[madsircool]

@Horatio_Hellpop

The Soviets moved on the South in an effort to pre-empt the US from moving on the North, their reading of Dean Acheson’s Jan. 12 1950 speech. MacArthur was already talking about a war with USSR as an inevitability. Koreans to this day hold us responsible for keeping hostilities raw, and they really don’t like quartering our soldiers. Don’t take it personally.

From The Cold War and Korea on the Korean War:

III. KOREAN WAR, 1950: WHAT HAPPENED
A. The partition of Korea, 1945–an American blunder.
B. The U.S. pulls all U.S. troops out of Korea, 1949. Another blunder.
C. Communist victory in China---->“who lost China?” debate in the USA.
D. Dean Acheson’s January 1950 speech delineating the “American defense perimeter
in Asia.” He omitted South Korea! (Another American blunder).
E. North Korea attacks South Korea, June 25, 1950. Why? Kim Il Sung and Stalin
expect the U.S. will not intervene; or that the North can crush the South
before the U.S. can intervene effectively. A huge miscalculation.
F. Truman decides to intervene. Reasons:
1. To preserve American credibility (but was it engaged in Korea?)
2. Domestic politics–1950 was a bad year to lose another Asian country to
Communism.

[Magiver]

@Horatio_Hellpop

The Soviets moved on the South in an effort to pre-empt the US from moving on the North, their reading of Dean Acheson’s Jan. 12 1950 speech. MacArthur was already talking about a war with USSR as an inevitability. Koreans to this day hold us responsible for keeping hostilities raw, and they really don’t like quartering our soldiers. Don’t take it personally.

Well I thought it was the crazy nut job heading NK keeping hostilities high. If it’s the United States stirring the pot then kick them out. I don’t think anyone will take it personally.

[Nelson_Pike]

The following comments will consider only false accusations of hegemonic ambition on the part of the 1950 US, and will not touch on the copious evidence of such ambitions on the part of the USSR.

@Horatio Hellpop

The Soviets moved on the South in an effort to pre-empt the US from moving on the North,

Data and quotes from the following five links. All bolding by me:

Link #1: US Active Duty Military Personnel, 1940–2011

Link #2: America’s First Cold War Army

Link #3: Soviet Military Power and Asia

Link #4: US Army Site: The Korean War: The Outbreak

Link #5: Speech on the Far East Dean Acheson January 12, 1950 FULL DOCUMENT

1,459,462 US military personnel were on active duty in 1950 per Link #1. In 1945 the US had over 12 million on active duty, and even that number was not nearly enough to prevail without the USSR and China tying down most of our enemies’ ground forces. It is therefore preposterous to think that the 1950 US entertained hegemonic ambitions against powers the size and strength of the USSR-China bloc.

Also, the US Army was actually below budgeted strength, and trending up and down rather than up, as it needed to be to support eventual hegemonistic ambition. See Link #2 Page 11:

684,000 July 1947 over 100,000 below congressional authorization
538,000 1948
651,000 1949
591,000 (June) 1950 at the start of the Korean War.

Of those 1950 troops only 108,500 were in the Far East, and, per Link #3, US withdrew all of its military forces from South Korea except for 472 advisers. Link #2 also describes serious deficiencies in US equipment and training: 370,000 unserviceable motor vehicles, and 17 weeks Basic reduced to 8.

The USSR would have been fully aware of all US worldwide force levels, and would have been as aware as we are now that the US could not contemplate hegemonic ambition with what it had.

As for the USSR own forces, per Link #3 page 77, about 2,900,000 Soviet military personnel were on active duty around the start of the Korean war, according to Khrushchev in a 1960 speech by to the Supreme Soviet: nearly twice as many as the US. Also, ground force multipliers would have heavily favored the USSR, because of US reliance on shipping over thousands of miles of ocean. And the Korean War revealed that Soviet tactical air power would have been a formidable opponent.

As for the SK armed forces, while they had approximate numerical parity with those of North Korea, their equipment was drastically inferior, and the USSR would have known that too:

(Link #4 Pages 5-6):

The weapons of the ROK divisions stationed along the 38th Parallel included the American M1 rifle, .30-caliber carbine, 60-mm. and 81-mm. mortars, 2.36-inch rocket launchers, and the M3 105-mm. howitzer. The South Korean armed forces had no tanks, no medium artillery, and no fighter aircraft or bombers. In October 1949 the ROK minister of defense had requested M26 Pershing tanks from the United States, but the KMAG staff concluded that the rough Korean terrain and inadequate roads would not allow efficient tank operations. In June 1950 the ROK Army possessed some 2,100 serviceable U.S. Army motor vehicles—830 21/2-ton trucks and 1,300 1/4-ton trucks (jeeps). The ROK Air Force consisted of twelve liaison-type aircraft and ten advance trainers (AT6).

The North Korean People’s Army was officially activated in February 1948. The Soviets exercised close control over its organization and training, and Soviet advisers worked directly with units. At that time 150 Soviets were assigned to each division; the number dropped to 20 per division in 1949 and to a lesser number by 1950 as trusted North Korean officers were developed. By June 1950 the NKPA and the Border Constabulary numbered about 135,000. The primary tactical units consisted of eight full-strength infantry divisions of 11,000 men each, two more infantry divisions at half strength, a separate infantry regiment, a motorcycle-reconnaissance regiment, and an armored brigade. The NKPA benefited from some 20,000 North Koreans who were veterans of the Chinese civil war of the late 1940s, which gave its units a combat-hardened quality and efficiency. The Soviet Union supplied much of the materiel for the NKPA. Of primary importance was the T34 medium tank, a mainstay of the Soviet armored force in World War II that weighed 32 tons and mounted an 85-mm. gun. The Soviets also supplied artillery support that resembled the weaponry of the older Soviet division of World War II: 76-mm. and 122-mm. howitzers, 45-mm. antitank guns, and 82-mm. and 120-mm. mortars. At the outset of the war North Korea had about 180 Soviet aircraft- 60 YAK trainers, 40 YAK fighters, 70 attack bombers, and 10 reconnaissance planes.

@Horatio Hellpop

their reading of Dean Acheson’s Jan. 12 1950 speech.

Here from Link #5 is the speech text:

What is the situation in regard to the military security of the Pacific area, and what is our policy in regard to it?

In the first place, the defeat and the disarmament of Japan has placed upon the United States the necessity of assuming the military defense of Japan so long as that is required, both in the interest of our security and in the interests of the security of the entire Pacific area and, in all honor, in the interest of Japanese security. We have American—and there are Australia—troops in Japan. I am not in a position to speak for the Australians, but I can assure you that there is no intention of any sort of abandoning or weakening the defenses of Japan and that whatever arrangements are to be made either through permanent settlement or otherwise, that defense must and shall be maintained.

The defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense positions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold. In the interest of the population of the Ryukyu Islands, we will at an appropriate time offer to hold these islands under trusteeship of the United Nations. But they are essential parts of the defensive perimeter of the Pacific, and they must and will be held.

The defensive perimeter runs from the Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our relations, our defensive relations with the Philippines are contained in agreements between us. Those agreements are being loyally carried out and will be loyally carried out. Both peoples have learned by bitter experience the vital connections between our mutual defense requirements. We are in no doubt about that, and it is hardly necessary for me to say an attack on the Philippines could not and would not be tolerated by the United States. But I hasten to add that no one perceives the imminence of any such attack.

**So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hardly sensible or necessary within the realm of practical relationship.

Should such an attack occur—one hesitates to say where such an armed attack could come from—the initial reliance must be on the people attacked to resist it and then upon the commitments of the entire civilized world under the Charter of the United Nations **which so far has not proved a weak reed to lean on by any people who are determined to protect their independence against outside aggression. But it is a mistake, I think, in considering Pacific and Far Eastern problems to become obsessed with military considerations. Important as they are, there are other problems that press, and these other problems are not capable of solution through military means. These other problems arise out of the susceptibility of many areas, and many countries in the Pacific area, to subversion and penetration. That cannot be stopped military means.

It is totally irrational to interpret this speech as an expression of hegemonic intent. In fact, the speech left Korea outside the explicit US defense perimeter, to be shielded only by the UN, whose military activity was at the time of the speech subject to Soviet veto (the USSR walked out of the UN on 1/13/50 and did not end its boycott until after the 6/27/50 UN authorization of military force against NK.)

@Horatio Hellpop

MacArthur was already talking about a war with USSR as an inevitability. Koreans to this day hold us responsible for keeping hostilities raw, and they really don’t like quartering our soldiers. Don’t take it personally.

Although MacArthur might have said this in private, he would not have said so in public, and saying so would not have given him the forces he needed just to hold Korea against Chinese intervention.

[bump]

@XT

And I seriously doubt that your average American in Kansas even knew what ‘American hegemony’ meant or whether we had it or not, and cared less. I’d say that it was mostly based on fear that the Soviets could attack and kill us, and they were obviously aggressive.

The US/western fear of the USSR was, as far as I can tell, rooted in two things that happened to unhappily converge in the post-war era.

First, the Communist rhetoric was unabashedly aggressive, in the sense that it actively fomented Communist revolutions in nominally democratic and capitalist societies, and that it actively threatened those societies in that rhetoric.

The Third International (Comintern) wanted to fight

“by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

Second, the Second World War/Great Patriotic War was a huge blow to the USSR, and most, if not all of their post-war military buildup and occupation of Eastern/Central Europe was aimed at preventing another invasion, rather than being an aggressive invasion force aimed at the heart of Western Europe. However, when combined with the sort of rhetoric listed above, and the official Soviet military doctrine, it was really easy to interpret that sort of troop buildup in East Germany as an invasion force.

So the US and Western Europe saw the USSR as being diametrically opposed to their way of life/system of government/economic system, and actually arming themselves to bring around the revolutions they so fervently espoused.

[madsircool]

You forgot to mention the aggressive Soviet military actions pre WW2…the invasion of Finland, the Baltic States, Bessarabia and the concurrent invasion of Poland in partnership with Germany. That, followed by their broken promises to allow eastern European nations to choose their governments, gave ample evidence of Soviet intentions.

[Jackmannii]

Again, there don’t have to be any reasons for Chinese feelings towards Japan beyond what the Japanese did in China in the 1930s and 1940s.

*"How many Chinese were killed by the Japanese in ww2?

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."*

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

Add in persistent Japanese failures to acknowledge these crimes and to outright deny them, and it is ample reason for Chinese resentment.

[Salvor]

@CarnalK

That’s not too believable. The whole cold war animosity was over the U.S. not liking Russia (sic) enslaving it’s own people?

There was some animus over being rival superpowers, but on balance I think it’s clear Russians were FAR more… insecure and invested in seeing the US as a destructive force. Americans thought that about Russia too… but we were more right. Facts are not egalitarian.

To see a more modern example of this persistent Russian Animus, take a look at this Kaku interview with RT

- YouTube

[alphaboi867]

@China_Guy

…1895 - Japan took Taiwan by force in 1895, and while China didn’t have real strong control over Taiwan it was part of China. (Oddly enough, most of the native Taiwanese from that time actually had pretty good memories of the Japan days based on my years in Taiwan. Those folks though are at least in their 70’s.)…

Japan viewed Taiwan as a model colony and consequently put a lot of resources into economic development, education, public works, etc. (though without anything in the way of self-government).

[the_diego]

A lot of Asians do not wear their wealth and prosperity well. They tend to become crass and social comparison becomes a norm. That pretty much describes the Japanese during the 80s-90s, the Singaporeans from the 90s to present, and the Chinese in recent times.

But the Japanese arrogance back during the the era of Japan, Inc. was legend. Do you yanks still recall being generalized as being fat and lazy?

[Siam_Sam]

@the_diego

A lot of Asians do not wear their wealth and prosperity well. They tend to become crass and social comparison becomes a norm. That pretty much describes the Japanese during the 80s-90s, the Singaporeans from the 90s to present, and the Chinese in recent times.

And Thais nowadays. Thais are much wealthier than they were 20 years ago, but “crass” pretty much defines many of the nouveay riche.

[Velocity]

@Horatio_Hellpop

World War II excluded? “Aside from them raping your grandmother, what could you possibly have against the Japanese?” I’ve asked my students about their hostility to Japan and WWII is what they pretty much always fall back on.

What I’m getting at in this thread is along the lines of,* “Do Chinese people hate Japanese accents? Japanese TV/culture? Fashion? Appearances? Attitudes? Mannerisms?”*
That’s what I’m mainly asking in this thread.

[madsircool]

Why Nationalism is Driving China and Japan Apart

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Velocity

What I’m getting at in this thread is along the lines of,* “Do Chinese people hate Japanese accents? Japanese TV/culture? Fashion? Appearances? Attitudes? Mannerisms?”*
That’s what I’m mainly asking in this thread.

Actually, I don’t think its the culture or any of that shit.

Japanese culture is not unpopular.

Japanese manga and anime have pretty large markets in places like China and Korea.

Japanese food is very popular in places like China and Korea.

The Japanese mythos of samurai and ninjas have been adopted (and thinly disguised) by popular culture in places like China and Korea.

What really pisses people off is not that they did horrible and cruel things during their age of imperialism. Its that they seem to have so little remorse over it. There is still rampant and severe discrimination against Japanese citizens of Chinese or Korean ancestry. There are constant attempts to whitewash all the horrible things they did out of their history books. They worship war criminals that did horrible things. They apologize on the international stage and walk back their apologies for domestic audiences. And up until fairly recently they thought they could get away with it because the region had to suck up to them because they were so rich and powergful. Now China is pushing back.

[XT]

@Velocity

What I’m getting at in this thread is along the lines of,* “Do Chinese people hate Japanese accents? Japanese TV/culture? Fashion? Appearances? Attitudes? Mannerisms?”*
That’s what I’m mainly asking in this thread.

As has been explained previously, they hate the Japanese themselves, not all that other stuff. That other stuff, if they hate it at all, they hate because it’s Japanese. You also have to understand that in China, the government (and all it’s quasi-government agencies like state run media/news) keeps the anti-Japanese propaganda on a slow (and recently a not so slow) boil. You should see some of the TV and news shows on that make the Japanese out to be pretty heinous, with a lot of the same kinds of racial caricatures that the US used to use during the war. This stuff is still happening today in China and in other countries in the region, though China is the one I know more about.

The Japanese haven’t done themselves any favors by their attitudes and actions after the war either, and they actually DID do a lot of heinous stuff during the period before and through WWII in the region. But the only ‘Aside from World War II’ hatred is really just WWI 1.5 or WWII .5 when the Japanese expansionism started to impact the region and they started their conquests of neighboring nations with all the brutality and callous disregard. You really don’t have to look deeper than this or the fact that Japan hasn’t exactly bent over backwards to apologize for what they did during that time to understand why there is still so much hatred in the region towards them.