Paris peace forum

WWWTT wrote:

https://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/11/100-years-after-first-world-war-forum-peace-opens-paris

This article above is terribly researched!!!

And again, it’s all about Europe. I found reading this article very painful and twisted. Rabble dropped the ball here!

Here’s what’s missing 

http://internationalschoolhistory.weebly.com/the-treaty-of-versailles-1919.html

20 million Chinese died as a result! I also believe that if Germany an Europe had not gone to war in 1939, millions more Chinese would have died. Not to mention Vietnamese Indonesians Indians Packastanis Sri Lankan’s etc etc etc. 

But again, it’s all about the white people hey?

I am not sure I understand the point you are making and I want to understand it.

The US and Japan were headed for war over resources. I think it is possible that if there had been peace in Europe that the US would have participated more readily in the war in China. Also I think that the other European nations might also have opposed Japan there - for selfish reasons of course.

There is a lot to say here since the US claimed to be an ally of China (they owed much to it).

The war in China was a complicated one as it was in many ways on the wrong side. Japan attacked China, it claimed, for the purpose of defeating imperialism - kicking the Europeans and Americans out of Asia. China was the greatest victim of imperialism in the world at that time. However, China was so weak that it relied on an alliance with the people who had victimized it.

The 20th century for China was truly horrific. It is easy to understand how communism became popular. But there is more to it than that and the fate of Shandong was a big part of it. If you read one of the links off the link you gave you can see the controversy.

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7733

The weakness of China was the fault of its empire that ended in revolt (the empire literally built a stone navy for the Empress rather than a real one to defend the country) and the brutal aggression of imperialism from the west. It was also the fault of the Chinese government if you consider the details and the betrayal of the Chinese negotiating team at Versailles by the Chinese government. It seems saving face was the objective more than anything more productive. Still -- all this is the legacy of European colonialism.

Many have heard the stories of the second world war when significant aid was given to the nationalists to fight the Japanese and much of it was used to fight the communists. Some have disputed the extent of this and have other explanations as to why the communist forces were more successful against the Japanese.

Many blame the death of one man for the tragedy of the loss of millions of lives. It is not that far-fetched either. Had Dr. Sun lived for another couple decades things may well have turned out differently. His vision of pan Asian cooperation was powerful and respected by many. It is hard to imagine China dividing as badly as it did and being weakened in the face of invasion as a result. Sun was admired in Japan as well, despite the craziness of the time, China with him as leader, would have been respected more by everyone. It is hard to imagine the attack on Shanghai that came six years after he died had he been alive even happening or there not being a more coordinated international response if it had. The incompetence of Chang Kai Shek would surely have been mitigated: both Mao and Chang deeply respected Sun. Sun was the essential glue in the cooperation between the KMT and the CPC. That all died with him. After the death of Sun the KMT in the hands of Zhang and Chiang Kai Shek had no possibility of any reconciliation with the CPC.

The division in China can be seen dramatically by reading the story of the Soong sisters -- Dr. Sun's wife Ching-ling, one of the sisters, sided with the Communists (became VP after the war) while her sister Mai-ling married Kai Shek (she spent much of the war in the US begging that country to come to China's aid. The US sent significant money as a result but little else - although the exploits of the Flying Tigers are famous.) The Muslims of China backed the KMT in the split - perhaps that created increased difficulty in them ever being trusted by the CPC and that has remained.

Yes I agree that imperialism - and the humiliations of China in the 19th century including the treaty ports are central. The story of Shandong was a cause of the May 4th protest. However, Asian politics and double-dealing within China was also a factor. You could say that all this coming together from the disasterous close to the Qing dynasty and revolution -- 1912 through to the attack in 1931 left China with little opportunity to heal. But the issues existed within and without China. It is one of those stories of multiple cuts.

The two biggest countries of the world, China and India, suffered so greatly due to imperialism in the 20th century.

French President Macron Praises Nazi Collaborating Leader, Whitewashing WW1 Bloodbath (and vid)

https://therealnews.com/stories/french-president-macron-praises-nazi-col...

"France's centrist President Macron ignited a firestorm for praising Nazi collaborator Philippe Petain for his role in WWI. Historian Adam Hochschild argues war resistors are the real heroes who should be honored, as Trump visits Paris to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI..."

Do it, WWTTT!     Appreciate the perspective you bring here - you'll have at least one dedicated reader.

WWWTT wrote:

@Sean and NDPP

The European colonial countries and the break up of the Ottoman Empire together with China, today accounts for roughly 5 billion people! That’s about 66% of the humans on Earth. 

And not a single peep about this huge majority of the population in Rabble’s article above. Huge shame!

Now how exactly China was treated or how they reacted or how they didn’t is really where the discussion should be! And not just China. What about India? Pakistan? The Congo? Indonesia? Etc etc etc? Rabble’s article doesn’t even mention these world players!

This is where I’d like to see Rabble putting more focus. 

But like the saying goes, if you want a job done right, then do it yourself!

Ive been considering writing articles for Rabble.

While colonialism may be the bad seed of most of what we see, you cannot treat it alone. Like a disease you have to treat the symptom as well as the cure. I encourage you to add more to the discussion of the colonial roots of present day issues.

In the case of a world that understands little of history a focus has to be on how things affect people here and now. And by people I mean the audience.

I am concerned by your word focus the most. Focus is a term to mean a desire to highlight something - even to the point of blurring everything else.

Not sure why you directed your comment at me, as I do link, as much as any here, the current issues including climate change to colonialism. I don't think it is wise to focus exclusively on this however.

I also have a great deal of concern that the focus can lead us to fighting old battles even as the new ones we ignore approximate the same problems. There is value to history but there is also value to addressing the present.

With respect to China, you and I might be on the same page when it comes to the past but not be in aggreement about the present. China is a country that is determined to focus much on the past battle - one where China was the relatively blameless victim. It is an easier narrative for China to fight the battles of yesterday and the wrongs it faced rather than engage witht he responsibility it has that is attached to its power of today. China in many ways is similar to the US and other imperialist powers, although in a modern context. It is not some magical benign power but very much like the powers that came before. It cannot assume the power of the imperialist and retain the moral position of the victim of a hundred years ago, although it appears that it is trying to do exactly that.

At this point we are in a global emergency. The worst humans have ever faced with survival on the line. This is not a time to place the focus anywhere other than the answers for today. Your reference to focus is disturbing in this context. I agree that how China was treated should instruct us to a great degree, but it is not the focus we should aspire to becuase of the present emergency. The focus ought to be the social and environmental sustainability required and the drastic action required of the world to get there.

In fact that is, for the most part, Rabble's focus. This is the reason Rabble endures and remains popular in the audience it has. Yes, the treatment of China in the 19th and 20th centuries can help inform that but the focus should not be changed to be this one thing -- even if this is your personal favourite topic and even if it the single most important element historically setting us up for where we are today. Your focus would limit Rabble to a group of interesting Sinophiles and historians at a time when the curtrent situation of the world has to have greater rather than more fractured and limited discussions. Your concerns fit extremely well within the present focus of Rabble and that is why your comments have been well recieved -- not becuase there is an essential problem with Rabble's focus. Your input can strengthen the present focus of Rabble through examination of colonialism and its aftermath.

As for the colonialism focus, there is another issue. That issue is that colonialism has changed into something else driven by the same root that may be less recognized if we were to focus on the past injustice in treatment of nation states. At present the world's nations are much more mixed. Much of the injustice is now within as well as between countries. When it is between countries it takes different forms. You may not see your arguments about colonialism in discussions about how countries behave towards each other today partly becuase the imperialism of the 19-20th centuries does not look exactly like the imperialism of the 21st century. Some of the previous victims have to be seen also as the aggressors today. This is the same force and a great deal of the learning about the earlier period can help. However, I hear in your language a desire to see the focus you desire, that this become an end (to address the wrongs of that time) instead of a means (to inform and correct the path of the wrongs of today. Otherwise how could you miss the fact that this is already the focus to a great degree of Rabble? Look at the principles of Rabble. It is focused on the very things, in a modern context, that you speak about.

Let's remember htat the word focus is not just about enlightenment but the word specifically includes the concept of exclusion. This is the essential meaning of the word and behind my reaction to how you used it.

But certainly, please do as you say and write your perspective and add to the weight of historical lessons. You have a lot that is essential to say. This is not the same as a re-direction of focus to 19-20th century colonialism. It is essential that everyone learn about that. But it is also important that they do so in the focused lens of current contexts so that the learning can be employed to benefit the future and prevent injustices in the future on the greatest scale possible.