northface

Neither has China.

gunnut

Dream on.

I'll appologize to you when India sits on the SC with veto power.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Officer of Engineers

Nationalist China, the Kuomantang, aka the facists.

Only 1941 afterwards. The Sino-Japanese War started in 1931.

China was being slaughtered, both with and without foreign assistance but they held and at times on their own. The resupply only occurred after the British Indian Army clear their side and the Chinese re-openned the Burma Road. The Japanese were in China for 10 years before Pearl Harbour and they still did not manage to knock China out.

Good names, thank you. Anything on brigade level and up? Strategic thinkers? There has to be.

The person who did the comparison was Northface and the military commitement is still dwarfed by China's. And the entire reason why the Pacific War was fought in the 1st place is over China. The West slapped an embargo on Japan over their actions in China, resulting in Japan's attacks against the Allies. So, to state that China was not part of WWII victors ignores historic facts.

And very well at that but again, you're missing the point. As well as the Indians fought, they were not going to defeat either Germany nor Japan. They were not fighting the decisive theatres. China was a decisive theatre. Which do you think hold more importance to the Japanese: holding China or taking India?

More like a tar pit. The IJA in China was not going anywhere.

Of course they did. Mimimum 15 million military dead alone tells you how much they did. Not even M21Sniper is arguing that point. There is absolutely no question the Soviets did the majority of the killing and dying in the ETO. We did our share but pales in comparison in the amount of money, material, and men the Soviets burned to kill the Nazis.

__________________
Chimo

northface

LOL..


I guess none of these were decisive sectors/ theaters...

troung

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

zraver

not quite true, (PRC) China settled its claims with Pakistan, so at leas tthey have shown they can.

No offense to India, but she is not at the level of a security council permament seat yet. The permement members of the UNSC today can all do the following design and build tanks- submarines- jet fighters- en masse, go to space, all have literacy above 90% and GDP's above 750 milion USD.

India is almost there in tems of economy but is nowhere close on on the other fronts

gunnut

China has over 90% literacy rate? I'm surprised.

zraver

90.9 per CIA world fact book.

kams

Brigadier K.MCariappa in Iraq, Syria and Iran, later in Burma (He was promoted to Brigadier in 1946). Some others Major Srikant Korla DSO, MC, Major NC Rawlley MC and Major Rajwade, all in Burma Theater,

Tronic

Yes; they were fighting against the commies, the West's new enemy.


True.


Ok, I believe though the initial war was the invasion of Manchuria alone, I think only after 1937 did Japan start going after rest of China; I may be wrong.


Well, How about C-in-Cs?... General Robert Cassels, General Claude Auchinleck, General Alan Hartley, Field Marshal Archibald Wavell. Ray sir or LT probably know more.


China was part of WWII victors, ofcourse they were, did not state anything against it.


Sir, I doubt any one country could've have defeated them, no, not even China could've have defeated Japan and they didn't! Japan surrendered because of the Nukes.

Sir, I reckon the Italian campaign was a decisive theatre and so was Burma. India fielded the third largest force attacking Italy, after the US and Britain.

Before the allies entered, it would be taking China, but I believe after the allies entered the war, India was growing higher and higher on Japan's hitlist because India was the major resource centre for the allies. That is one reason for the Japanese to continue to Burma and beyond, their ultimate goal was India, and they did technically invade India by taking over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from India, but they failed to get past Burma.


Yes, true, they got bogged down.


Ok, sir, glad to hear it. And yes, for this point, the Chinese did spill more blood, no doubt. But the Indian contribution shouldn't be shrugged off by saying, you didn't do enough, thats why you don't get UN Veto seat. India did do enough, India did more then enough, and was one of the largest contributors to the war from the commonwealth. India didn't get UN Veto seat because all we did, we did under the British flag and under the command of the queen, not as a seperate nation, hence, tragically, Indian sacrifice IS very much neglected. I'm not saying China does not deserve Veto, just saying, if China got Veto as late as in the 70s, then why did India not get the same? despite being, a Democratic, secular state, and at that time, even economically, India was doing better then the CCP.


Zrav, namely two UNSC Veto members have border disputes and seperatist issues going on. Infact, the Russians have a FAR bloodier seperatist conflict brewing in Chechneya, then India has in Kashmir...

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

gunnut

China has always had veto power and has always been a permanant member of the SC, ever since the inception of the UN in 1945.

The nationalist government sat on the SC with veto power until the 70s, then as the world recognized the communist government as the legitimate representation of China, it was transfered to the CCP.

China's seat as a permanant member of the SC with veto power was not added in the 70s, if that's what you meant.

kams

So did India with Bhutan . Seriously zraver China's border dispute list with Philippines, Japan, Vietnam etc etc are at-least as long as that of India.

Pakistan donated part of Kashmir to China.

troung

Democratic; who cares? Two nations on it ain't and the YSSR not being democratic had more influence then India around the world. That is not a yardstick.

Secular; who cares? Communists had a state religion of sorts which bullied around the other faiths in their nation.

India wasn't on the orginal SC so that's why it ain't on it now and probably won't ever get on it. Plus the KMT was on the victors list as an independant nation while India was basically a colony.

The Philippines also fought but got no seat, plenty of nations got no seat after the war.

They had more troops in China then facing India. More Chinese died then Indians by a wide margin.

Officer of Engineers

If you guys want to argue about the P5, never mind China. She done her part. Argue France. What did she do? Surrendered?

gamercube

What claims? Pakistan and China never had any boundary dispute with each other. Pakistan occupied a part of Kashmir, which it acknowledges even now that it never claimed as part of its own. So it was easy for Pakistan to give away Indian territory to China.

When was the last time Britain or France sent a man into space? Besides, how many permanent members could claim to do all that just 3 decades ago?

Arbitrary standards like that can be set anytime by anyone. That does not mean that they are any kind of valid basis from which to judge countries.

How about human rights? What about military history? A country that treats its people well and appears to be reluctant to go to war on childish pretexts should be rewarded, shouldn't it?

__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre!