The Instigator
Cruxispal
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

China could have won the Second Sino-Jap without US intervention.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,699 times Debate No: 23977
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Cruxispal

Pro

Hello, I would like to invtie someone to come debate this. I'm actually just bored. Semi-trolling allowed, but keep it serious enough that it can be kept serious for voters.This is my 2nd debate, so feedback would be nice.

Defenitions:
China- The Republic of China
Japan- The Empire of Japan
Victory- In this situation, driving off the Japanesse off of Chinese land.
Intervention- direct interference by a country in another's affairs.

4 rounds, 1st round just includes introducing oneself, and some defenitions.
2nd and 3rd round include establishing your arguments, and rebuttals.
last round for conclusion.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate crux.

== Definitions ==

Second Sino-Japanese War: the conflict occurring between Japan and China from July 7, 1937 – September 2, 1945.

Pearl Harbor: Japanese attack on US sovereign territory (on December 7, 1941) that led to the US declaring war on Japan and Germany

Intervention: assistance provided to improve a situation (Princeton's Wordnet); involvement in order to change what is happening (Kernerman English Learner's Dictionary); any interference that may affect the interests of others (Webster's)

Thus, in this context, intervention includes any military aid given to China; it also includes the American oil embargo which was aimed at forcing Japan to withdraw its forces from China. [1] Lastly, intervention includes any American military operations in the Pacific that served to distract Japan from the Chinese theater or aimed at forcing Japan to unconditionally surrender.

My opponent sets up a counterfactual, where the US never "intervened" to help China against Japan. In this context, two major historical events never would have happened:

1) Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have never happened for two reasons.

A. The resolution

The resolution asserts that the US provided no aid to China in ending the war. Ultimately, this means that the US never entered the war, never crippled Japan's navy, and never dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The official end to the Sino-Japanese War is September 2, 1945, the date Japan formally surrendered to the United States. So the resolution REQUIRES that the US never entered the war.

B. The Oil Embargo

The US oil embargo on Japan was aimed at helping the Chinese. We wanted Japan to cease military operations in China. [1] However, Japan received 80% of its oil from the United States. [1] They were forced to either give in to US demands and cease military operations OR attack the US in an attempt to achieve a quick victory in the Pacific, forcing the US to capitulate and resume oil supplies. [1] If the US had never attempted to help China, Japan would have never attacked us. The resolution thus means Pearl Harbor never happened.

So now we agree that the resolution means Pearl Harbor never happened. This also means:

2) The US never declared war on Germany

FDR used the attack on Pearl Harbor to convince an isolationist US to declare war on Germany. The declaration of war on Germany was almost an afterthought by Congress, but once he had his war declaration in hand, Roosevelt focused most of the United States' attention on the European front. Pearl Harbor finally provided FDR with the political cover he needed to enter the war.

So the resolution also means that the US never entered the war against Germany.

As of yet, I can only establish what the resolution means, in terms of history; I can't advance arguments yet, but arguments stemming from this include: the UK would have had to capitulate to Germany, Germany would have defeated the USSR and forced their surrender (because they would have faced a war on only one front), and then Germany could have aided Japan in subjugating China, assuming Japan had not done so already (given that Japan would be attacking a China lacking in US military assistance, with infinite oil supplies from the US, and with a war on only one front).

I look forward to my opponent's arguments.

Lastly, a note on burden of proof. As pro and instigator, my opponent is the one with the burden or proving that China had the military strength to defeat Japan, without any US intervention. This means that my opponent must prove that any Chinese victory he cites was achieved with ZERO US military equipment, ZERO US military advisers, and did not occur after the US oil embargo, which significantly hampered Japanese military operations. For reference, the embargo started on July 26, 1941.

[1] http://militaryhistory.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Cruxispal

Pro


Thank you for taking this argument. As you know, this is my 2nd debate.

Germany VS Russia
I will start outside of China. I belive that the Soviet Union would be able to stop the Germans. They might not be able to push all the way back to current borders, but they would still hold the line. The Soviet Union was already enmassing troops from the eastern front behind the front line, getting ready for a counterattack at the time. They would have been able to save Moscow, Stalingrad, and Lenningrad, denying Hitler precious oil and industries. Though without US support they wouldn't have the same momentum, they would be able to hold the Germany Army. The winter time giving them time to construct fortfications similar to those built during the Battle of Kursk.

United Kingdom
Winston Churchill would have never lay down to the Germans. Never. The huge casualties they infliced on the Luftwaffe ensured no further invasion of Great Britain, at least for the time being.

Japanesse Recources
While I was still hoping the Oil Embargo was in place, I will continue my argument with this point accepted. Japan even though being able to buy oil from the US, would not have "infinte" oil supply. There is a simple matter of currency. Occupying so many territories, and holding them against enemies was costing the empire a lot. Sooner of later, the government would soon run out currency to buy the precious oil they need to continue pushing into China. I am assuming since the US never put the Oil Embargo on Japan, they have had no need to invade the Philipenes and capture those oil supplies, which would basically give Japan free oil... well not free, you know what I mean. Also we are still assuming that China can buy supplies from other countries including the USSR and the US.

Battle Plans
I am also going to assume that Chiang Kai Shek still wanted foreign support. But, this hope is much dimmer due to no US oil embargo. Chiang would still dedicate his forces to defend Shanghai, forcing the Japanesse south, then eastward from there into Nanjing. Since there isn't as much hope of Foreign intervention, Chiang wouldn't have dedicated all of his German trained Divisions into the Battle of Shanghai.

We know for a fact, China was able to hold out against Japan, before the US intervened, China had already won quite a few battles, and have effectivley reached a stalemate in 1939. Both sides at this point would have access to mobililty, such as tanks and trucks.

After this, we see China holding back after the Winter Offesnive. The Winter Offensive, though considered a defeat proved that China was now able to launch offensives at Japan. They simply chose to hold in, as by this point US had commited to help China more. Without US help, China still have the strength to hold the line, and most importantly, take back territory gradually.

This is supported by the fact, that the supply lines stretching from Shangahi to Wuhan, is strenous to say the least. Guerilla Warfare behind the front line conduceted by the Eighth Route Army, would ensure limited supply for the Japanesse. The Nationalist Centaral Army, would be able to take back territory, slowly.

bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the quick response Crux.

== Germany vs. USSR ==

The Soviet military victories my opponent cites all happened AFTER the United States entered the war. In fact, Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad, which was the turning point on the Eastern Front, was caused by the US entering the war. Hitler took major risks at Stalingrad that ultimately led to his downfall because he wanted to defeat the Soviets before the full might of the United States came down upon him. [1] Without the US, Hitler could have been more cautious in Russia. It is well known that it was the fact that Hitler RUSHED his invasion of Russia that led to his downfall. If the US never entered the war, Hitler would not have needed to rush.

In addition, Hitler could have deployed more forces against the Soviets if he had not had a war on his Western Front. An analysis by Andrew Warinner found that without the casualties inflicted on the German army by the US, Hitler could have inflicted an additional 2 million casualties on the Red Army (which was composed of approximately 6 million soldiers). [2] In addition, it is likely Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler in 1942 had the US not entered the war; Stalin was giving up hope and might have been willing to cede parts of western Russia to Hitler. [2]

In addition, without a Western Front, Hitler would at least have been able to hold off the Soviets for long enough that his superior technology would have won the war; Germany was inventing new jets and rocket technology that would have let them easily conquer Russia. [3]

"In addition, Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, ... says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success." [4] Hitler's foreign minister credited the defeat of Germany to "The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement." [4] The Lend-Lease program was signed to help China, so it cannot exist under the resolution. [5] Without the $50 billion in equipment the US supplied, the Soviets could not have won.

Lastly, Overy points out that the American bombing campaign in Germany had a great deal to do with the Soviet victories. [4] The bombing campaign destroyed the German war machine by destroying their production capacity.

Once Russia belonged to Hitler, he could easily have assisted Japan in conquering China.

== England ==

England never posed a threat to the Germans, so there was no reason for Hitler to station troops on the Western Front to defend against England. England's air force holding out against the Germans (defensively) is DIFFERENT from England posing a threat to the Germans.

In addition, the same argument from above applies. Without the US, the Nazis could have held on for longer. Once they had invented the V2 rocket, they wouldn't have needed air superiority. They could have destroyed the British air force using rocket technology (when the planes were on the ground). Since planes cannot shoot down rockets, England would have been defenseless.

Also, without Lend-Lease, the British would have run out of supplies and the German embargo of British ports would have starved the British.

== Japanese Resources ==

Japan was not about to run out of money during World War II. My opponent provides no evidence of this. Money was certainly NOT the reason the oil ran dry in 1941; it was the oil embargo.

Governments can generally float enough treasury bonds during war to cover their expenditures. Japan spent most of their resources fighting the US. If they only had to fight China, they would have had far more resources. And they could have looted all of Southeast Asia in order to pay for oil.

== China ==

As early as the 1930's, there were already clashes between the KMT and the Communist forces in China. "Rebellions and other disloyalties by various regional military commanders throughout the 1930s had made Chiang Kai-shek very suspicious of a large part of his forces." [6] Both the Communists and the Nationalists were trying NOT to fight the Japanese because they wanted to save their forces for attacking each other, in order to control China. [6] Given the internal strife, it is unlikely China could have won without the US.

While my opponent is correct that Japan proved unable to conquer ALL of China, since this is an impossible task, Japan DID take over the most important parts of China. The Eastern parts of China have always been the wealthiest and most important parts of China. "Since 1937, when the Sino-Japanese conflict became an open war, China's best troops had been repeatedly defeated and its richest coastal and riverine cities captured by the Japanese… Japanese military forces occupied the eastern third of the country and controlled all of the seaports and main railroads and highways." [7]

In addition, Japan had utterly destroyed China's industrial base, so China was ENTIRELY dependent on the United States for military supplies; 100% of their logistical support came from the US. [7]

In addition, the Americans provided significant military advice to China. "At the unit level, the American advisers accompanied Chinese forces in the field' supervising local training as best they could and working with Chinese commanders on plans and tactical operations." [7] My opponent provides no proof that China could have won these victories without US advice. In addition, the US trained Chinese troops. "Training, American officers believed, was the key to success… U.S. troops assigned to the Chinese Training Center, under the command of Brig. Gen. John W. Middleton, trained individual soldiers and, in some cases, cadres of special units. Training Center members established and then operated service schools, prepared and distributed training literature, and gave technical assistance to those assigned to the Chinese Combat Command." [7] The Chinese army would have been completely ineffective against the Japanese without training, particularly in the use of artillery.

My opponent cites the Winter Offensive. However, according to a historian Loyd Eastman, the offensive was a fiasco, "destroyed what confidence Nationalist forces had left and reconfirmed their prior reluctance to seriously engage the Japanese." Nationalist war accounts have ignored and even denied it was launched, which one historian has described as a "devastating defeat" on the part of the Chinese. [8]

My opponent claims, without evidence, that Chinese gorilla tactics cut off Japanese supply lines. However, to cut off supply lines, China would have to HOLD territory, which gorillas do not do. They may have destroyed a few supplies, but this did not pose a serious threat to Japan.

== Definition of "winning a war" ==

To win the war by themselves, China would need Japan to have SURRENDERED to them and agreed to withdraw from China. Without the US, best case, China would have had to cede significant amounts of territory to Japan, which would have been considered a defeat. Japan would not have had to take ALL of China in order to be considered the victor.

[1] Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler: 1936-1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin Books, p. 528
[2] http://www.quora.com...
[3] http://www.wrongways.com...
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[5] http://www.ibiblio.org...
[6] http://ww2total.com...
[7] http://www.ibiblio.org...
[8] Lloyd Eastman (2010). Seeds of Destruction: Nationalist China in War and Revolution, 1937-1949. Stanford University Press. Pg.137; Rummel, R.J., China's Bloody Century, Transaction Publishers (1991), p. 107
Debate Round No. 2
Cruxispal

Pro

as
I'm gonna go into troll mode. Sorry, I've been really, really REALLY BUSY. So now i have barley anytime. Anyways, serious stuff.

Europe
Yes, stalingrad was after US joined, but US had barley commited much yet. Sure they did send supplies, and these did ultimately help the USSR push all the way into Germany. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that they would still have enough momentum, to break the inital attacks, and push back as far as say Kursk.

Also, just because there was no Pearl Harbor, doesn't mean the US wouldn't have joined the European Theatre. They had already constructed strong relationships with the UK.


Winter offensive and other stuff
The Winter Offensive, was aknowledged as a failure, but through recent research, not as huge as before seen. Sure they did suffer high casulties, but, the important part about this is that it proved China could launch an offensive without US military aid. This was all before the US joined the war. China still had some industries left, as the whole point of defending Shangahi... well part of the reason was to buy time to move these valuable recources. You kinda appeased to my liking for a challenge so I accepted your defenition of intervention without complaint, knowing it would be hard =P

fsadf
And I think you fail to recognize the importance of guerilla warfare. What makes it so advantegeou to the communists to use this kind of warfare?
They are not the government
They don't neccesarily risk being criticized for losing a major city, or losing a battle. They can stay behind, and plan and attack to their leisure... well more leisure than Chiang could have.

Knowledge of Surroundings
Of course they know the surroundings better. But lets once again analyze this on a larger picture. The chinese managed to divert Japanesse attention to the mid-south area of China, rather than the open plains of the north. This makes supply lines much more difficult for the Jappanese to maintain, and much easier for the Chinese to cut. This all revolves around the idea, that when facing an enemy, one must weaken it constantly. Even if it is so slight the enemy can't see it. This eventually builds up.


Neccesity of Survival
Another thing China had is the neccesity of survival. As prove already, Japan is not interested in accepting any peace aggrements, they are bent on attacking and taking territory. When this happens, and the chinese army finds themselves increasingly entrapped, their will to fight rises, and morale and will are major factors in any battle.

More umm... serious stuff
Japan repaired all the bridges and dams, that slowed them for quite a while, up to months in fact. The communists could blow up major damns, and bridges, quite a distance away from the front, all the way leading right up to the front. Pince movments, performed by Nationalists and Communists. This would allow them to seize major cities and terriories up to Wuhan. From there, with the able land and materals again. China has the potential to outlast. They simply had mroe potential. Japan will lose if they can't stop China completly, because China would just be able to harrass, push back, build up, and push forward, constantly.

TROLL TIME: Chiang Kai Sheks smile is just too godly, automatically burning the japaness armies with his smile alone.
File:Chiang Kai Shek and wife with Lieutenant General Stilwell.jpg
bluesteel

Con

Thanks Crux.

== Europe ==

I provided evidence that the USSR could not have won without the lend-lease program, which would not have existed if we were not helping the Chinese at all. The Nazi soldiers from the Western Front would have killed an additional 2 million Soviet soldiers. If the Nazis held out for long enough, they would have invented advanced fighter jets and missiles that could have won them the war easily.

My opponent claims the US would have entered the war anyways. This is simply not true. FDR wanted to enter the war, but the US was extremely isolationist at the time. He couldn't get domestic support for liberating France until Pearl Harbor.

== Winter Offensive ==

I provided evidence that neither the Communists or KMT wanted to fight the Japanese; they bothed hoped the other would do it. And they both wanted to save their strength to fight the other. My opponent drops my Loyd Eastman evidence which said that the Winter Offensive destroyed the KMT's confidence and "reconfirmed their prior reluctance to seriously engage the Japanese." They did not begin to seriously engage the Japanese again until the US entered the war.

My opponent also doesn't answer my evidence that Japan took over all the important parts of China (the ports and highways) and that Japan destroyed ALL of China's production capacity so they were utterly reliant on the US for 100% of their military supplies. The US also trained their inexperienced fighters and taught them how to use artillery.

My opponent repeats that gorilla tactics are important. Gorilla tactics are used to harass an occupying army. Gorilla tactics cannot win a war, by themselves. Otherwise, the French Resistance could have liberated France themselves. My opponent never quantifies how successful the gorilla tactics were.

== Necessity of Survival ==

Again, the same argument applies to the French. In addition, morale among the Chinese was low because neither the KMT or Communists wanted to fully commit to fighting Japan.

== Serious stuff ==

Burning bridges as an army retreats is a common tactic. This doesn't win wars. Japan was a MUCH wealthier and more industrialized nation than China, at this time. Japan could have easily outlasted China. Especially if Germany did a better job fighting the USSR. Japan held the most important parts of China. China had lost the wealthiest provinces, all the ports, railroads, and highways. China had all their production capacity destroyed. China was divided and afraid to attack the Japanese. They were screwed without us.
Debate Round No. 3
Cruxispal

Pro

dang finals -.-

Sorry, I forfiet this round. Go ahead and vote for Con to win. Sorry I couldn't finish =(
bluesteel

Con

Very well.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
Bluesteel, so sorry for long waits, I might have to forfeit this round due to finals. We'll see, i'll try to get in quick round.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
yes, yes i do mean the 2nd one, if the title didn't tip you off, lol =P
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
You mean the second one :)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
There are multiple sino jap wars
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Oh someone will accept it I'm sure but if not then yes I'll take it.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
aww, come back after the weekend if someone else haven't accepted it? lol XD
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Hmmm... tempting. But I'm busy this weekend sadly...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, as usually thanks to Pro for not wasting Con's time by forfeiting (i.e. not participating) the last round. However, Con obviously proved not only the drastic state of wartime China---with the dismantling of industries, the lack of widespread affluence and industrialization that, without US intervention, allowed it to make a credible war effort, the ties of US Intervention to its entrance, as well as other conflicts of the war period..and so forth.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a shame this ended prematurely as this was an interesting what-if scenario. However, even without Pro's concession Con seemed to be holding an edge argument wise.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backed out in the last round due to finals (a wise choice as finals are more important). However, Con's arguments and sources were better laid out and written. Pro seemed more geared to believing that China would simply "step up to the plate" without any real logic to back that up.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Bluesteel rocks enough to make opponents forfeit.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
CruxispalbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession