The British surrender of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942 should be instructive to U.S. policymakers eyeing China’s rise. War isn’t inevitable, but history is full of surprises.
Seventy years ago, on February 15, 1942, Lt. Gen. A.E. Percival, head of the United Kingdom’s Malaya Command, surrendered Singapore to the Japanese Imperial Army. The defeat of the so-called “Gibraltar of the East” was an even bigger shock to the British than Pearl Harbor was to the Americans just two months previously. Singapore was the cornerstone of the British Empire in Asia and its surrender, the largest in British history, marked the effective end of Britain’s colonial era there. The fall of Singapore still holds some lessons, even in a time of peace, and should serve as a cautionary tale for any power, such as the United States, playing a dominant role so far from home.
The first lesson is that a rising regional power will seek to displace an external status quo power. While intra-regional competition among established and new powers is common (as witnessed by centuries of European history), the position of a foreign status quo power in any given region is particularly vulnerable. It was relatively easy for the British to rule various divided territories in Asia since the East India Company first set up shop in Madras in 1639 and began spreading eastward. But the emergence of a cohesive, ambitious, and aggressive imperial Japan ultimately set up a clash between a Britain seeking to preserve its exposed position and a Japan bent on rewriting the regional security order. In fact, the British failure to renew its alliance with Tokyo in 1921 helped speed Japanese expansion in Asia, by ending cooperation between the two and removing restraints on Japanese ambitions. Ultimately, American sanctions on Tokyo threatened to derail its military strength, and Japan’s leaders decided to gamble on attacking all Western powers in Asia in a bid to secure vital raw materials and destroy European colonial holdings.
The second lesson is that miscalculating an adversary’s operational intentions (or misreading his doctrine) can lead to early and insurmountable reverses. Japan’s surprise attack on Singapore and its unorthodox strategy was crucial in knocking the British off balance and preventing them from effectively regrouping, even though they outnumbered the Japanese forces they faced. The British had long assumed that any Japanese attack, if it came, would be from the sea, and Singapore’s great guns were all emplaced facing out over the water. Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, who would be executed for war crimes in 1946, devised a brilliant plan to neutralize Singapore by capturing British Malaya first, then invading the island fortress from the north. He launched his invasion on December 8, 1941 and his force of approximately 30,000 combat troops took just two months to reduce the peninsula, before advancing on Singapore in a pincer movement. Fighting in Singapore itself lasted just a week before the smaller Japanese force captured over 80,000 British, Australian, Indian, and Malayan troops.
The third lesson is that tyranny of distance helped doom the British. For generations, Singapore was assumed to be impregnable, the very symbol of British might overseas. Yet, as Percival knew all too well, it was also isolated, undersupplied, and unprepared for war. The British were simply too far from home to be able to effectively resupply the island in the short crisis before collapse. The Japanese dominated the air, and had been bombing the island since December, with only token British resistance. The Royal Navy was driven from the seas around Singapore when HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse had been sunk off Malaya just two days after Pearl Harbor. The British had difficulty maintaining communications with their regional commands on the island. The Japanese attacked the island’s water stations, and it was this, along with dwindling food supplies, that finally forced Percival to heed the entreaties of his subordinate commanders and surrender. The war in Asia would rage for three more years, and the British would play only a marginal role in defeating Japan.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mark Thomason
The US is far closer, three weeks you say vs two months for Britain in 1942.
More important, the world is not convulsed in a larger and all consuming war on the other side of the world at the same time. A key factor in the Japanese attack thinking in October-December was that Germany was defeating Russia. At the time of Pearl Harbor, Germany was still advancing and almost at Moscow. The great Russian winter and the unexpected Russian reserves had not yet appeared, and even Stalin was panicked and evacuating Moscow. Britain was not merely distant, it was entirely pre-occupied.
Critically, Japan's economy was entirely divorced from the West by 1941, both by Japanese design and by Western sanctions, both ten years in the making. That was the China war from 1932. By contrast, China today is entirely tied in to the West for raw materials and markets and the very structure of its economic activity.
Sanctions and its isolation due to its war in China forced Japan into war. By contrast, relations with the outside world would shatter China's economy in any attempt at going to war today.
We should worry if China sets out on a decade long quest to isolate its economy from the rest of the world, as North Korea does today and Japan, Germany, and Italy did in the 30s.
Stefan Stackhouse
The real lesson is that what might have made sense in one century may no longer make sense a century later, and a failure to accept and adjust to that changed reality can be perilous in the extreme.
A globe-spanning empire with far-flung outposts, all tied together by a large navy of surface ships, worked very well for the British in the 19th century, when they were the world's leading industrial power and could leverage the import of raw materials into higher-value manufactured products better than anyone else. By the 20th century, quite a few important countries were catching up and wanted their own "place in the sun", and Britain no longer had the competitive advantage that it used to. Yet it still had those far flung commitments, now more of a liability than an asset. When the inevitable conflict came, Britain simply didn't have the military assets necessary to hold everything, and the empire started to crumple. The truth is that they were lucky to hold out and survive on even the home islands, it was by no means a certain outcome. After the war, they really had no choice but to disengage, withdraw, and redeploy around a considerably shrunken defensive perimeter that was more in keeping with their relatively diminished capacity.
What about the US? At the end of WWII we were at the height of our power, alone on top of the world, and circled the globe with our military. Almost immediately the Soviets started to challenge us, and after a couple of decades much of the rest of the deveveloped world had recovered, and a couple of decades after that we started seeing "the rise of the rest" in earnest. The Soviet challenge has shrunk to little more than occasional Russian crankiness, but China seems to some extent to be picking up where the USSR left off. Our reality today is that our far-flung, globe-circling quasi-"empire" is now starting to look more like a liability than an asset. It burdens us with a lot of expensive commitments that we can't really afford, it exposes us to a lot of vulnerability, and it seems to be making us far more enemies than friends. We just assume that in spite of all this, we can just keep it up forever. We probably can't. Sooner or later, someone – maybe China, but that isn't absolutely inevitable – will realize that a concentration of limited forces at a vulnerable, stretched thin point can achieve more than most people would expect, and have far more significant consequences than would be thought from the event seen in isolation.
What we CAN do is to defend ourselves. The US is in an extremely fortuitous geopolitical position, being bordered by neighbors that do not present a serious threat, and thus effectively being surrounded by oceans and separated by huge distances from any real threats. We also have the land area, resources, and population to assure that we will always be one of the world's leading nations, regardless of what happens with the rise of the rest. It is quite feasible for the US to have sufficient naval and air forces to secure substantial strategic depth off-shore, and combined with a survivable nuclear deterrent and some minimal anti-missile technology, we could very feasibly secure our territory to an extent that has never in history been matched by any other major power. We could do all of this in a sustainably affordable manner.
What is required to achieve this, however, is a deliberate strategic decision to abandon the neo-imperialist pretentions, and to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We would have to terminate our commitments on the Afro-Eurasian mainland (responsibly, I would hope) and disengage our forces there. We might also want to disengage from the Indian Ocean and turn the responsibility for maintaining maritime security there to the Indians, Australians, and maybe the South Africans; as Commonwealth members, these already share some common history and interests, and are as close as you are likely to find in that part of the world to natural allies. With these moves in place, the US could then redeploy behind a considerably more compact maritime defense perimeter. We might retain alliances with a few key island nations on the periphery of this defensive line: Britain, Iceland, Japan, Australia, NZ, and maybe a few of the other Pacific and Caribbean island nations. These are all defensible with the same navy and air force that we'll need for our own maritime defense strategy, and help us to maintain the strategic depth that we need. With this strategy fully implemented, we will find that while we still need a navy nearly as large as we have now, we can make some small cutbacks in the air force (especially in the tactical air wings) and very large ones in the army and marines. If we stop pretending to be a Eurasian land power, then we simply don't need large land forces. I am guessing that we could eventually cut our national security budget by upwards of 50%, which is bringing it back into a sustainably affordable range.
If we do this, I am guessing that China might still not like the fact that we continue to have a presence in the western Pacific at all. I'm guessing that it is unlikely that they would risk an all-out war to dislodge us, especially if our forces were more concentrated along that line than they are now. China is the major Eurasian land power that we're not, and their natural grand strategy should dictate that any expansionary ambitions they might ever have should be to their north and west. That is where they would find the underpopulated, resource rich territory that they crave. If I were Russian or Mongol or Khazak, I'd be shaking in my boots. Today the Chinese are pretending to be good friends, but geography is what it is.
Khalid Arab
Nirvana also seems to have a fetish with the CCP of China. Is he the same person as DownRedChina and John X? These fanatics do nothing but mindless attacks on the Chinese. Dogs! Even I, as an Arab is shocked by such extremist. Unless of course, they are Pentagon recruits to do exactly just that. With the ultimate aim to topple the government of China through unrest. “CCP” being their code word for attacking China and stirring up the readers against the government of China.
Louis IV
Anyone has seen a Chinese’s Arab faking on the loose? He’s even faked his last name as Arab to fool people.
China is a country with an expansionist ambition (like Tibet, evil intention on the SCS, ECS, etc). CCP is a communist regime which is not only bad to its own people, but, very nasty its neighbours, and a cheater to other World trading partners (like currency manipulation, IP theft, making lots of fake products, own an infamous Huawei company who’s acting as PLA’s International spy organiztion front end, etc.)
JohnX
Et tu Brutus.
I must accept being slandered with my right of rebuttal removed.
Khalid Arab
The blog seems to be an American anti-China propaganda broadsheet written by full-time writers like nirvana, girish, John X, Louis Iv, Ling Viet, DownRedChina,… etc…
These internet terrorists and fanatics are paid to do what they do in preparation for a justification for America to attack China. It is so obvious. Their constant harping on “CCP” is but a campaign to destroy the good name of Chinese leaders first before they can justify an attack.
Dogs and curs. Why do the Diplomat encourage such provocative and instigative campaigns by not minimising them?
America – liar and manipulator of the world. A thousand curses upon you and your progenies, great satan!
JohnX
Wow, now I am a fanatic. It seems that universal truth still applies that one mans _________ is another mans __________.
If you know that the Pentagon is hiring then ask them to send me a message or maybe you can ask PLA General Staff Headquarters to send me an application form considering you think my presentation of facts is up for sale.
I focus on one issue and that is Chinas growing militarization and expansion in the South China Sea as that has the greatest chance of impacting my country in the future. If my harping on about that issue makes me a fanatic then so be it.
Though as some one who has an Arabic name and comments suspciously like a 50 center, I would be curious if it takes one to know one?
JohnX
Oh by the way, if Taiwan is part of China then CCP is not the Government of Chinese people, but rather a political party that leads one section of them.
The other Chinese people have chosen thier parties which doesn’t appear to be the case for those living on the ‘mainland’.
Chris
The point is not about weather china willl invade america or not.
The point is as much as zhongguo doesn’t have reason to being aggressive against american influence in the Asia, nothing will stop china from trying to eliminate american influence in the region like i was for japan in 1940s.
the article is all about American should prepare.
Of course, the article is self-contradict. after all like the article mentions, the vary reason of america’s fear of rising china is not only surge of china power but also america’s facing bankruptcy which willl underprepare america to prepare rising china.
so, david yu don’t give american people your piece of shit.
americans are not as stupid as you wan them to be.
of course, they are more stupid than I think, though…
with threat of bankcruptcy, only solution for america to balance against rising china is pull out from Korea, japan and let them defend themselves, even if they become nuclear power.
after all, America can save tones of money by let Korea and japan defend themselve and if Korea and japan become nuclear power, they can defend themselve against rising china without american force.
Will it reducing american influence? Yes, but it wil become impregnable fence against china.
consider it as sacrifice mov
ACT
For once, I’ll make a rather nationalistic and off-color statement that i might engender some thoughtful reply:
what i think everyone is forgetting regarding potential conflict was what the United States was able to pull off; while it only fought roughly 20% of the German Army in World War II, it also managed to take on a good chunk of the Japanese Army as well. (although, admittedly, most of Japan’s 3-million-man- army was bogged down in China just holding the front against the KMT and CPC combined force). What won the war for the United States in world war II was not the quality of its weapons (somewhat shoddy), but the fact that it managed to mobilize so much of its population; the Armed Forces of the United States employed at its maximum strength 16.1 MILLION soldiers across all services, less than a third of which were actually deployed overseas. That’s 16% of the population of the United States during that time period, and it does not count the millions more who went to work in the factories producing tanks and aircraft. I’m willing to wager that the United States could match if not exceed that kind of potential today if the need arose. For example, the Lima Tank Factory, Which produces M1 Abrams tanks could, at maximum rate of production, churn out four fully equipped tanks per day.
For those of you–John Chan–who advocate war with the United States in order to prove the cultural, racial, and global supremacy of the Chinese Communist Party, I invite you to imagine once again dozens, if not hundreds, of factories being converted for military use across the country staffed with well-trained electricians, software programmers and other required staff…..
What i am trying to say is that, John Chan and Ling1a, China should indeed stick to self-defense rather than advancing imperialistic claims on areas such as Tibet (originally incorporated into the Chinese Empire in the 18th century and then lost with then end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911) or Taiwan (first colonized by the Dutch in 1623, conquered by the Han Dynasty in 1661 [formally incorporated into the Qing government in 1885] and then lost to the Japanese at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War via the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895). I name these imperialist claims because they are based, of course, on the boundaries of an empire that wanted to ‘rule all under heaven’, that saw all other states and peoples as inferior, that demanded tribute from peoples it had never before seen under the assumption of military might and unquestionable military authority. I speak of the Qing, the empire the imploded after centuries of stagnation, defeated by the very technology it exported to those whom it deemed “inferior”. This is the very same empire that the PRC sought to eliminate all traces of during the Cultural Revolution, seeking to purge “old ways that the bourgeoisie might use to dominate the people of the PRC once again”. So why, I ask, is the PRC basing territorial claims on the boundaries of an empire it so loathed? To better phrase the question, i’ll quote the organization Students for a Free Tibet:
“Beijing is opposed to past Western and Japanese imperialism, but sees nothing wrong in claiming Tibet based on the Manchu Qing Empire…The Manchu rulers of China were Buddhists, and Tibet’s Dalai Lamas and the Manchu emperors had a special priest-patron relationship called Cho-Yon whereby China committed to providing protection to the largely demilitarized Tibetan state. Chinese nationalists may see this as sovereignty, but it wasn’t. As the relationship became strained, China at various times exercised influence and sent armies into Tibet – but so did Nepal during this time. China expanded its influence in Tibet after 1720, as a powerful country dealing with a weaker neighbor. It later tried to occupy Tibet by force, violating the Cho-Yon relationship, but with the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Tibetans expelled the Chinese and the 13th Dalai Lama proclaimed Tibet’s complete independence” (http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=422)
I’ll take a very large step outwards and theorize that the Chinese Empire never truly died; it just shifted gears, switching leaders and transforming its political methods, but never its end goals, namely the rule of all under heaven, a geographical term which–i might add–has expanded significantly over the past century.
John Chan
@ACT,
Vietnam War was the turning point of American patriotism, that’s why USA switched to mercenary force. Building more killing machines is possible because it fills the pockets of the American MIC, but filling the cannon fodders with American youth other than those mercenary is a fantasy, particular USA is a financial egoism and self centered society, so far there is no sign that Americans are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the nation.
China is not Japan, thinking USA’s production can surpass China is a fallacy. It is Chinese scared duty to protect its ancestor’s land. USA’s meddling China’s internal affairs in the western Pacific Ocean is a predicatory imperialist aggression, such aggression must be defeated at all costs.
The Dalai Lama is an CIA paid proxy, and a traitor of China.
Using your creative revisionist history cannot divert the focus on “What Singapore Teaches US.” that is a distant external status quo power is unsustainable when there is a rising regional power, and US must tune down its bellicose anti-China rhetoric and exit western Pacific gracefully,
M Gandhi
Just a thought .. Has he U.S. Military Industrial Complex ever considered there is another way to make money, if money is what’s its all about?
Why not just sell high tech weapons to China? China will be the biggest market in the world for the MIC .. worth trillions of dollars. Why worry about what the rest of Americans think? Their thoughts have never counted and should not, now.
These non productive assets will just sit and rust. Afteral with American and Russian nuke missiles, Beijing is not going to wage MAD with nay other nuclear armed nation.
The solution is so simple. You can stop all that smear campaign. You can achieve your goals without kiling anyone and make trillions in the process.
Peace .. brother, sisters ..
ramadurais
Rat is a lion in rat hole. No country can fight a war far away from home and win the war. The battles were won on surprise element and superiority of arms. Japan started losing after pearl harbor, Germany after Russian attack, USA has no victory in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
British was the only exception in India because British made it clear and conducted themselves as a locals in India. When Canadians / Australians needed passport to visit Britain, Britain allowed both British Indians and Indians in princely states to visit Britain with no passport or VISA.
India was not colonial to British like Saudi or arabs to USA to day. There was no apartheid , but cultural differences were respected. When Hindus said beef fat could not used to lubricate guns, British banned use of beef fat. many instances can be given of British accommodation. British officers were not afraid Indians carrying a loaded gun , Can USA and China trust trust other nationals.
A world power will need lot of compromises to be accepted / loved as world power neither USA nor China has the quality.
USA can never win a war far from home that too against China.
nirvana
@ACT,
Indeed !! I may add:
In an all-out war, a strong economic foundation and technology superiority are important but the determining factor is always the mobilisation of your people (and today of the international public opinion as well). History shows plenty of examples.
But China is somewhat different. It is a nightmare for a Chinese emperor when his Mandate from the Heaven is questioned. There is nothing better for a Chinese emperor than when his tributary system works; that is when he can project an external image (even if it is only a façade) of a mighty China, so feared by all neighbours that he can rule inside, ruthlessly if needed. This is the mindset of all Chinese rulers that explains why the CPC considers Tibet, Taiwan and the SCS their “core interest”. If Tibetans, Taiwanese and the coastal countries of the SCS accept to pay tribute to China, even symbolically, they may avoid armed conflicts with China.
Unfortunately for the CPC, today we have the Internet. Teaching somebody a lesson can backfire if you face a resilient opponent. The PLA, which has NEVER fought a just war of any length, favour Blitzkriegs because if these ventures result in a flop, their propaganda machine may be able to masquerade their incompetence.
Chinditone1
Singapore needs to remember that it is essentially ethnically Chinese and not the British colony that Japan invaded in WW2 – and so the article is not very relevant (perhaps only to those in the US with wishful thinking!!) . Thus Singapore’s bread and butter is always going to be Chinese – which will mean China and Chinese ways will always play a major role in Singapore.
Having said that – thanks to the British and the US – and the genius of the Singaporeans – Singapore is also a high tech Pacific trading hub between China and the US/Europe – a kind of Pacific Hong Kong. This is where Singapore excels – leveraging itself in the US and leveraging itself in China – eating the commercial pie from both ends. As time goes by – Singapore will become less valuable as China itself takes on this role – but its Chinese ethnicity will mean that its citizens can always move to China to work.
Singapore is too small to be of any significance militarily – and it should quietly keep its head down – so that it does not offend China and does not get used by the US military. Keeping the trade lanes open and free of piracy is the limit!! If it ever gets used by the US to try and attack China’s ships – then it will be difficult – which is why its currently treading delicately.
Listen here…
Singapore is strategically located next to the Strait of Malacca…google that to have a clue about it’s importance.
Why do you think Singapore is asking the US to station warships there if they are so buddy buddy with China? Singapore certainly doesn’t need to be lectured on who they should be worried about for their safety. They know a threating Imperial power when the see one.
Richard
Singapore is ruled by English educated elites.
Most of the leaders do not speak Chinese.
They claimed to be neutral and warned US not to isolate China.
But they gave US the naval port,with the station of US marines and US warships.
Their ex-prime minister Mr Lee K Y educated in Cambrige was called by a British leader as the best Englishman in Far East.
They simply do not trust China but claimed otherwise.
megakids
I think you get the equation wrong. Singapore didn’t ask US to station navel vessels in Singapore. It’s the other way around.
Richard
Station of foreign troops in a sovereign country is no small matter,especially one that was built on the belief that Asian Values are superior.
I believe you when you said Singapore leaders did not put up a request to US leaders to put troops in Singapore,but this is not what diplomatic and big powers play works.
Let just say that both sides(US and Singapore leaders) are willing parties.
aaron
Show us some evidence to support your claim. If Singapore doesn’t trust the U.S. then why doesn’t it invite China to station some navy vessels in its port? China is building naval facilities in Pakistan. Wouldn’t it have a presence in Singapore if it could???
Richard
It goes without saying that Singapore ruling english educated elites trust US as their own family.
And those ruling elite spent their life time fightingb the Chinese Communists.
Jeffrey
The only reason Japan went to war with the Western powers in WW2 was because the government had the full support of their population. China does not a militaristic and nationalistic population like Japan. Yes, Chinese are proud of being Chinese and belonging to the longest lasting civilisation in history but traditional Confucian values means that Chinese are reluctant to escalate conflicts. The only time when China will go to war are if there is an immediate threat or if there is an eminent impeding doom should nothing be done. As in the case of the Korean War, China only went to war when McArthur foolishly decided to bomb Chinese villages near the border. McArthur was also suggesting that the 8th Army continue their advance into China itself and topple the newly founded Communist Government. Ironic that the US retreated faster than they advanced down the Korean peninsula. The world can be assured that the Chinese would not be the first to escalate a conflict, I’m not too sure about the Yanks though, those trigger-happy idiots can do anything.
William Hawkins
Communist China’s intervention in the Korean War was not defensive. Mao planned to invade long before MacArthur approached the border. Mao did not have much confidence that the North Koreans could conquer the South after the U.S. came to Seoul’s rescue. The Chinese objective was to capture the entire Korean penisula, which is why they did not stop at the border when they went on the offensive. Chinese troops entered Seoul on January 4, 1951. Mao believed that the U.S. might escalate, bombing Chinese cities and blockading the coast, but did not believe such actions could offset a Chinese capture of the peninsula. The US-UN air and sea campaign would eventually end once the land battle was lost. But the Chinese were driven back and the war became a stalemate. Yet, it should never be forgotten that the war was always an act of aggression by the Communist side (NK-Soviet-Chinese) with the objective of “uniting” Korea by conquring the South.
Robert Turnbull
This is pure propaganda. I have never come across such nonsense; turning history on its head.
nirvana
@Robert Turnbull,
No it is not. Google “China’s road to the Korean War” by Chen Jian
Artis
What did the Chinese do in Vietnam in 1979 ? A military drill that cost more than 10,000 Vietnamese civilian lives ?
DownRedChina
CCP is the same as imperial Japan WW2.
China is hungry for resources for its military buildup. What is the aircraft carrier for? China extends its hegemony over almost entire SCS by submitting a map to UN in May 2009. It’s not only about the oil and gas; it’s also about territorial, access-denial strategy and power.
US made a big mistake for not doing any or too little to Japan and US paid a dear price for it. Why makes the same mistake now by knowing China is a real threat?
Forward defense makes sense. Hopefully we can work with regional allies to bring peace and prosperous to Asia and the world.
Grant
While it is possible that China could mirror Japan’s early successes in 1941 and 1942 I would suggest that China remember Japan’s fate. Unless a more western power also threatened the U.S the U.S would be able to cement national unity, drastically increase tax revenues and raise a large number of soldiers, planes and ships for an Asian war. Also the U.S would face the difficult task of logistics but due to geography and technology it would be far easier than the problems the U.K faced in the 1940s. Lastly, unlike Singapore in 1942, any major attack on a U.S base in Asia would also mean attacking the nation that is hosting the base.
John Chan
@Grant,
Vietnam War was the turning point of American patriotism, that’s why USA switched to mercenary force. Building more killing machines is possible because it fills the pockets of the American MIC, but filling the cannon fodders with American youth other than those mercenary is a fantasy, particular USA is a financial egoism and self centered society, so far there is no sign that Americans are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the nation like the South Korean to get the nation out of difficulty.
It is better to stop advocating “any major attack on a U.S base in Asia would also mean attacking the nation that is hosting the base.” So that American can exit gracefully.
Mercenary is expendable, that’s what they are paid for, so that ordinary citizens won’t get involved in the messy job of defending the nation, that was the way in the dying days of Roman Empire. British Empire imitated Roman Empire, and USA was born out of British Empire.
ACT
if you want that other western power, look no further than Putin’s Russia, which invaded Georgia in 2008 to assist a separatist movement, and then aided the ethnic cleansing of native Georgians conducted by South Ossetia Army.
Grant
In re. to John Chan: I would say that this is a definite sign that the Chinese (or at least the ones most likely to post at this site) definitely don’t have a good understanding of American mentality, something I’ve been suspecting ever since China showed anger over Libya. A war with China is one of the occurrences that would actually make a draft politically viable (though unlikely). Only a war with the Soviet Union/Russia or China would do that. Additionally it has been accepted for quite some time in America that the U.S will go to war to defend South Korea and/or Japan.
On another note the British empire did not make much use of mercenaries by the 1940s and the U.S has a standing army of several hundred thousand soldiers (which could easily go into the millions if we wanted to).
Lastly I don’t how you could possibly think that my pointing out the international hazards of attacking a U.S base was ‘advocating’. Either you missed the nuances of the English language or you did not really read the sentence.
In re. to ACT: Russia doesn’t really have that power anymore. True, it’s more powerful than most nations but Germany, France or the U.K could probably fight it to a standstill without help from any other nation. If Russia does rise in power again, it’ll probably be checked by Western Europe. The days when the Soviet military was the largest and most dangerous on Earth are long since gone and the vast amount of corruption and poor infrastructure in Russia means that they aren’t coming back.
Just look at the results of the brief Georgian conflict. It’s true that Russia won, but only through sheer numbers and they took more casualties than they should have.
Also I have to note that Georgia did send troops into South Ossetia first, apparently hoping to quickly take over and force Russia to accept the de facto situation with U.S backing. Yes, Russian soldiers did allow South Ossetian separatists to fire rockets into Georgia but Georgian leaders were foolish enough to give Russia the excuse it wanted.
Cyrus14
Then if we are talking of history why not highlight how stubbornly the Filipino and American soldiers refused to surrender against the Japanese.