Enemity between Japan and China goes back much much farther.

To the 16th century in fact, which was the first time Japan invaded/conquered Korea and large parts of China, and they've been doing it ever since. Thats some 400 years of aggression that the Chinese won't forget in a hurry.

France and England have largely buried the hatchet and they were at each other throats for even longer.

One day Japan and China may grow threw this.

Doubt it'll be this day. 

StrategyPage does a great disservice to its readers when it allows writers to make up history to try to substantiate political arguments. This exercise in fantasy-making is at its peak during discussions of Japan-China relations.

 

For example, contributor Nate Dog writes "Japan invaded/conquered Korea and large parts of China, and they've been doing it ever since. Thats some 400 years of aggression that the Chinese won't forget in a hurry."

 

Yes, Japanese forces under Hideyoshi conquered parts of Korea. But not China. There is absolutely no 400 year history of aggression by Japan towards China, so there is nothing for the Chinese to stew about.

 

There is a history of Mongols conquering China, then using Chinese military power (mostly in the form of Korean troops) to attempt to conquer Japan. The behavior of the Korean troops before they reached Japan was so awful I hesitate to write it here. Nevertheless, the Koreans fighting for China never reached the Japanese mainland. They were thwarted by strong winds over the sea. Those winds are referred to in Japanese as "kamikazi" [kami  "divine" kaze = "wind"]. Japanese won't forget that episode of Chinese/Mongolian/Korean aggression in a hurry.

 

 

Wow, really?

You're talking about the 1290's Mongol invasion of the Japanese Islands, or failed invasion, using Koreans and Chinese troops too.

So, you really think passing judgement on soldiers behaviour 900 years removed is a legitimate historical argument? Please, tell us of these horrors that those wicked Koreans failed to commit on their failed invasion of Japan.

 

Also, Japanes imperialist attitudes towards China (earlier against others) started in 1592, with their first successful invasion of Korea, parts of China. pretty much a few hundred years of nasty history, of occupation, skirmish wars, etc, with another 2 major spikes in 1890's and 1930's.

I dont know where in that China has nothing to be concerned about.

Truth be told, I'm well and truly siding  with the Japanese, as a westerner, they are far more integrated with us, have proven a stable country that respects western precepts (rule of law, anti corruption, respecting I.P., aiding in tech development, as opposed to chinese r&d [receive and duplicate]).

Having said all that, have to be at least a little bit honest. Chinese don't like/trust Japanese, probably with good reason. 

1. Korea has been a protectorate of China for hundreds of years. It was called a "stone" territory (as opposed to other, more productive provinces of China, which were considered gold or silver). When the Ming dynasty ruled China it invented the name "Chosen" and began to have expansionist dreams for China and Chosen. The reigning Japanese political power (who was neither the Emperor nor a Shogun) Hideyoshi heard of China's expansionist plans and decided to strike first. He invaded Chosen/Korea. The king of Chosen fled from the capital at that time (a city whose name is unknown to all but the most rabid historians) to Pyongyang, where he was to be protected by 3000 Chinese troops. Hideyoshi went to Pyonyang and conquered it. He went no further. There was no other Chinese territory conquered and ruled by Japan. Period. Not one square inch. In the 19th century.Japan returned to Asia. It tried to occupy an otherwise barren territory (Manchukuo, which was given to Japan by Russia). But it did not use armies to map out its territory in Asia, it used treaties.

 

2. For a supposedly great country, China is an awful crybaby. It depicts itself as the victim of others. In the case of Japan, it tries to depict China as the victim of Japan's cruelty. Strangely, 99.99% of these supposed crimes never took place. There is no 400 year history of Japan attempting to rule small or large parts of China. But that doesn't stop Chinese textbook writers. In the same way, there was no "Rape of Nanjing." But that doesn't stop Chinese jingoists from trying to ramp up a sense of Chinese victimhood at the supposed hands of Japan. No Rape of Nanjing? Yes, look up contemporaneous records, like the reports by major newspaper reporters who resided in Nanjing at the time. None of them mention any such event. Nor does Mao in any of his writings. Go on the internet and look up the recently-released footage by the British newsreel company Pathe. You can see the history of the 20th century in news footage. There is no footage of any Rape of Nanjing. But that doesn't stop China from ginning up hatred of Japan, some of which seems to have rubbed off on some people who write on this website.

I was almost going to side with you in all this until I read that there was no rape of Nanjing. I wish you would temper your comment a little by maybe saying t was not as bad as it is made to be and not really worst than Nazi atrocities say in Poland.

 

The WW2 Japanese brought medieval notions of war with them and behaved accordingly every where they went. During the battle of Midway the only two airmen that they did manage to capture where tied to loaded fuel cans and thrown overboard to drown. Etc. They where indeed medieval in their attitudes.

 

China was a lost cause for the Japanese from day one. The ratio of Japanese troops to Chinese population was abysmal with just four million Japanese soldiers to garrison and protect communications over a vast continental scale while controlling a population of over half a billion people... the notion of evebn atempting this carries a Rumsfelian logic to it. It was just simply impossible and more so when you consider the inbred tensions and centrifugal social forces that plague China both then and now. 

 

As far as China and Japan over the centuries you are essentially correct. Korea was the real victimn sandwiched in between these two super powers. But theJapanese and the Chinese did eventually settled into a sort of detente that lasted a long time so you cannot actually convey an immage o centuries of war. No such thing.

 

England and France... completly different thing. Those where dynastic wars. Despite some spectacular English victories in some of the battles they where destined to loose on the long term. I can't see a parallel here.

BECAUSE OF MY MISTAKE WITH THE html ON THIS SITE THIS REPEAT POST WAS NECESSARY TO LINK REPLY TO QUOTE.

The British did it to India with <300,000 troops for 130 years. THINK before you write.