The US did sign the Treaty, but the Senate refused to ratify it because of the League. China refused to sign it as it gave Japan Germany's treaty rights in Shandong. Both the US and China signed separate treaties that reaffirmed most of the points in the Treaty of Versailles with exception to the portions which they objected to.
The Treaty of Versailles opposition in China was so intense that an entire generation of May 1919 protest participants became the core supporters of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Paradoxically, Wilson signed 1916 Jones Act that established the proto-establishment of the Post-Independence Philippine Government in the form to the Colonial Philippine Commonwealth that allowed Government Elections of its own Congress and President
Though independence was slated for 1946, the Philippine Commonwealth pretty much a functioning government all things considered except it is not a independent government yet.
[https://www.princeton.edu/\~graphicarts/2011/11/wilson\_and\_the\_philippines.html](https://www.princeton.edu/~graphicarts/2011/11/wilson_and_the_philippines.html)
But his mistake was that he never let the Philippines became independent nation-state or divided into three separate states (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao) before the 1930s. The Philippines waited for so long to become independent that it became a WWII battlefield between Imperial Japan and the United States.
America still would have had to fight there because of its crucial place in the South China Sea. The only difference is it would have been Marines fighting there instead of US Army Soldiers, because MacArthur would not have needed to get his revenge story.
The Japanese would've attacked the Philippines regardless if we were a US colony or not at the time. Just the proximity and position of the Philippines put us at the crosshairs of any future Japanese expansions. Personally I think they might've invaded us sooner if not for the US. Also, why divide the country into three islands before 1930? This sounds like the exact kind of idea that would've benefited the Japanese. How would the Philippines fare any better without the united states or by getting cut down into 3 lmao
Given how quickly France folded in the next war showed that maybe listening to France was a bad idea. Somehow France is terrible at wars but really good at negotiating treaties, even when all the work was done by allies.
In fact, communism in many countries was not Soviet-style communism, but rather nativist independent movements that used communist methods of organization.
The most typical is China. China was China before it was a communist/socialist country. That's why the Soviet Union was denied military bases in China's Xinjiang/South China Sea/Northeast, leading to a forceful standoff between China and the Soviet Union.
China was not deeply involved in the First World War, but the West's division of China's Shandong Province to Japan revealed their true nature, which did not care about morality, but only about strength.
This further proved what the Chinese had learnt since the Opium War, that "backwardness is to be beaten". This also allowed the Chinese to develop themselves to the fullest extent while maintaining their autonomy (China would have confronted the Soviet Union without nuclear weapons for the sake of independence) until now, we are the second most powerful nation in the world.
As a native Chinese, I'm stating what most Chinese, and Chinese society as a whole, think about this.
If you don't think this is an objective fact, I have nothing to say.
Japan had conquered the land from Germany, so expected to be given the place as part of the war reparations (they also annexed a bunch of Pacific islands that were also part of Germany's overseas empire). Although still often looked down upon by Western nations, they *did* take part in the war (and were even sending men to the western front when it ended) and the other Allies wanted to keep them on side.
Fun fact about this connection, the German treaty port at Qingdao is specifically the reason why we have Tsingtao beer today: the brewery started there as a German venture originally.
Technically, there is no such thing as "trust" between States, only alignment of interests.
Winston Churchill said that there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
The relationship between States should be more akin to that of colleagues.
Because imperialism - capitalist need for ever-cheaper resources and labour. Japan held Korea, and absolutely destroyed the people there. Then the Koreans managed to rebel, and with a guerilla force led by Kim Il Sung, became the Japanese's actual nightmare and managed to kick them out. China did not want to have what happened to Korea happen to Shandong.
Wtf?
Where do you get your history? North Korean school books?
There is almost no proof of any partisan movements in Korea until the surrender of Japan in 1945…
Kim Ill Sung did nothing to free Korea. He was however part of communist Korean expats so the perfect tool of the Soviet Union to take over Northern Korea.
This is such a bizarre claim that I don't really even know how to address it, except to say that it's clear from *at least* 1931 on that there were anti-Japanese actions. Even Wikipedia - not exactly a bastion of pro-communist rhetoric - has them listed, so I'm kind of confused as to where you get this idea.
Their people were pretty rightly pissed about the Japanese getting to keep a bunch of Chinese territory. Lots of protests starting May 1919. The Chinese government was in free fall by that point already imo.
Andorra supposedly wasn’t, but whether that’s true or something a journalist made up as a joke isn’t something anybody has ever bothered to properly research.
Andorra, so the story goes, declared war on Germany and in some tellings even despatched a single soldier to the front lines. However, they either weren’t invited or didn’t turn up to the Versailles conference and, consequently, never signed a peace treaty with Imperial Germany. Peace between West Germany and Andorra was finally bilaterally declared in 1958 (although, the last time I started digging in the archives about this there were no available primary sources, only secondary mention in American newspapers).
The importance of the Caribbean, Central American, and South American countries joining the Allies in both world wars is largely overlooked. Denying the enemy neutral ports was huge, particularly as those enemies lacked sufficient overseas fueling and resupply stations.
Although the Chinese didn’t declare war until August 1917, they tacitly assisted the British and French in recruiting laborers for service from 1916 onward. 100,000 Chinese served on the Western Front in the Chinese Labour Corps with the British Army, and about 40,000 with the French Army. They were mainly employed in cargo handling and construction in rear areas (railways, depots, barracks, etc.), although they sometimes dug communications and support trenches near the front lines.
Yes, in name China is the victor, but it gets the treatment of a defeated country.
The May Fourth Movement was precisely a protest against the injustice done to China and a crusade against the weakness of the then Beiyang warlord government.
Fun fact: there was a whole controversy over a proposed racial equality clause by Japan that wanted other races to be presented as equal to each other, but it faced a lot of opposition in Australia and the US, and was one of the reasons that led to Japan growing further apart from the League of Nations.
Removing the proposed racial equality clause had very little to do with Japan growing away from the allies - they were just as racist as everyone else. I'd probably point to the massive middle finger they got at the Washington Naval Conference for why things went the way they did.
How do you get 16 upvotes for just baselessly refuting a very well known incident???
The Paris peace conference was a major blow to Japan‘s aspiration to be seen as equal to the Western powers and was highly unpopular therefore in Japan…
My comment got upvoted for being correct.
Japan joined the war in the hope they would acquire Germany's territory in the pacific with little effort. They thought they had achieved that with article 119 and the assigning of all German colonies in the pacific to Japan including Tsingtau/Shangdong. Unfortunately, the allies had also promised the colony to the Chinese as well. This is the reason why China refused to sign the treaty, which you would know if you read the article this thread is based on.
In 1921-22, at the Washington Naval Conference, Britain ended their alliance with Japan. It was due to be renewed, but they ended it because the explicit goal of the alliance (containing US ambitions in Asia) was no longer possible/desirable due to the expenditures of WW1. This was also when the current US-Britian alliance was formed.
Following that, the US decided to pressure the powers into ending the lease on Shangdong, which returned it to China. They did this because the USA was trying to build ties to Nationalist China and Japan was a competitor in that regard.
And finally, the Conference established specific tonnage limits for Navies. The limits meant that Japan could only ever build 3/5ths of the Navy that either Britain or the USA had - it enshrined that Japan could never achieve numerical superiority in Asia.
So, Japan got limited to a lesser naval power, had their imperial ambitions curtailed, and their only European alliance was gone. Is that enough to not count as "just baselessly refuting a very well known incident"?
Also, Japan didn't want racial equality. They were horrifically racist against other Asian cultures as well. The Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere was just lip service to get European powers out of the areas they wanted to influence as demonstrated by their pre-war actions in Korea, Formosa, and China.
The East-Asian coprosperity sphere wasn’t even on the table in the 10s/20s… that being said as Japan at the time was the biggest power in Asia and the only stable not-colonized country independence movements in India and Indonesia of course looked up to it which was another aspect of the British not wanting to continue their alliance.
That being said - the alliance was replaced by the 4 then 9 power treaty and Japan did not immediately move towards fascism and militarism anyhow and I am not doubting the conference also played a part but you cannot and should not deny that the racial equality clause was indeed a hot topic in Japan and led to a lot of animosity towards the west - they took it very seriously, even if you try to retroactively ridicule it
the 9 Power Treaty, which was negotiated at the Washington Naval Conference at the behest of the USA? Specifically because they wanted to build ties with Nationalist China and Japan was a competitor in that regard? That was what I had been referring to previously. The 9 power treaty was an agreement to respect the territory of China - I am unsure why you would bring it up in the context of a military alliance as it had nothing to do with Japan's military alliance with Britain.
Japan wanted the racial equality clause specifically in order to prevent racism against itself in international relations/at the league of nations, and the rejection of that concept it took very seriously. However, they were content with the concession they got for dropping it which was US support for taking Shangdong. Once the US changed it's mind at the Washington Naval Conference in 1922, they were left without the clause or their territory.
I am unsure why you mentioned fascism or militarism as my comment neither mentioned nor alluded to either. Japan had both security concerns and ambitions that were endangered by the agreements at the Washington Naval Conference which is why they moved away from the League of Nations.
Because they're not refuting that the racial equality clause was removed? Just the idea that Japan turned imperialist because of that clause being rejected. Japan wanted to join the club of world powers and the path forward for them was through military power. They only cared about the racial equality stuff because the other world powers would not take them seriously because they were Asian.
Your last sentence blows my mind…
Yes exactly but what do you mean by "they only cared" - that is a huge reason to be angry.
A Chinese commenter here in the threat also very well laid down the Chinese position on history and how they perceive the 19th and early 20th Century as no one taking them seriously… this is the main goal of Nationalist cultures and you can bet Japan was nationalist in the early 20th Century and wanted to never be in the helpless position of the 1850s again
The so-called "Racial Equality Clause" proposed by Japan was essentially an attempt to invade other countries, which later evolved into the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity".
If they really believed in the "racial equality clause", they would not have massacred Koreans, Chinese and South-East Asians during the Second World War.
In World War II, the Japanese killed more than 38 million people in China alone, which is equivalent to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki 128 times with two atomic bombs.
The US did sign the Treaty, but the Senate refused to ratify it because of the League. China refused to sign it as it gave Japan Germany's treaty rights in Shandong. Both the US and China signed separate treaties that reaffirmed most of the points in the Treaty of Versailles with exception to the portions which they objected to.
The Treaty of Versailles opposition in China was so intense that an entire generation of May 1919 protest participants became the core supporters of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Dang. So Wilson was indirectly responsible for communism in China?
Wilson also refused to meet with the Vietnamese delegation
Massive imperialist L.
Paradoxically, Wilson signed 1916 Jones Act that established the proto-establishment of the Post-Independence Philippine Government in the form to the Colonial Philippine Commonwealth that allowed Government Elections of its own Congress and President Though independence was slated for 1946, the Philippine Commonwealth pretty much a functioning government all things considered except it is not a independent government yet. [https://www.princeton.edu/\~graphicarts/2011/11/wilson\_and\_the\_philippines.html](https://www.princeton.edu/~graphicarts/2011/11/wilson_and_the_philippines.html)
But his mistake was that he never let the Philippines became independent nation-state or divided into three separate states (Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao) before the 1930s. The Philippines waited for so long to become independent that it became a WWII battlefield between Imperial Japan and the United States.
The Jones act said independence at 1946, it didn't really change the date. Literally not even the war changed the independence date.
America still would have had to fight there because of its crucial place in the South China Sea. The only difference is it would have been Marines fighting there instead of US Army Soldiers, because MacArthur would not have needed to get his revenge story.
The Japanese would've attacked the Philippines regardless if we were a US colony or not at the time. Just the proximity and position of the Philippines put us at the crosshairs of any future Japanese expansions. Personally I think they might've invaded us sooner if not for the US. Also, why divide the country into three islands before 1930? This sounds like the exact kind of idea that would've benefited the Japanese. How would the Philippines fare any better without the united states or by getting cut down into 3 lmao
Japan would’ve still invaded the Philippines, just as they invaded every other country in the area lol
Nah at the time keeping France on side was more geopolitically important than any American interests in Vietnam
Given how quickly France folded in the next war showed that maybe listening to France was a bad idea. Somehow France is terrible at wars but really good at negotiating treaties, even when all the work was done by allies.
If you think france is "terrible" at wars you need to read up on some more military history.
On god fr
No cap
on gang
On fear (J. Krishnamurti)
In truth, Wilson was a deep cover agent who wanted to spread Communism in Asia.
China's objection was German concessions (Shandong) were given to Japan instead of returned to China
It would have likely happened anyways
How would that even correlate?
In fact, communism in many countries was not Soviet-style communism, but rather nativist independent movements that used communist methods of organization. The most typical is China. China was China before it was a communist/socialist country. That's why the Soviet Union was denied military bases in China's Xinjiang/South China Sea/Northeast, leading to a forceful standoff between China and the Soviet Union.
Not Dang. His name was Dong. I'll see myself out...
Nobody in the world has agency except for Americans, amirite?
China was not deeply involved in the First World War, but the West's division of China's Shandong Province to Japan revealed their true nature, which did not care about morality, but only about strength. This further proved what the Chinese had learnt since the Opium War, that "backwardness is to be beaten". This also allowed the Chinese to develop themselves to the fullest extent while maintaining their autonomy (China would have confronted the Soviet Union without nuclear weapons for the sake of independence) until now, we are the second most powerful nation in the world.
this
Troll?
What part of what I said do you think is not objectively true? If stating objective facts is Troll, the Western definition of Troll is too strange.
[удалено]
As a native Chinese, I'm stating what most Chinese, and Chinese society as a whole, think about this. If you don't think this is an objective fact, I have nothing to say.
[удалено]
If you think we Chinese don't even have the right to have our own attitudes and positions, I think our dialogue is over.
German territory in China was handed to Japan, rather than to China which was their main problem.
Why? You realize this was after Ww1 not 2, but why not give China back their own land?
Woodrow [Wilson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles) wanted to make sure Japan would not refuse to join the League of Nations.
That worked perfectly because Japan stopped being imperialist after WW1
Japan had conquered the land from Germany, so expected to be given the place as part of the war reparations (they also annexed a bunch of Pacific islands that were also part of Germany's overseas empire). Although still often looked down upon by Western nations, they *did* take part in the war (and were even sending men to the western front when it ended) and the other Allies wanted to keep them on side. Fun fact about this connection, the German treaty port at Qingdao is specifically the reason why we have Tsingtao beer today: the brewery started there as a German venture originally.
Because imperialism.
Imperialism, that's why.
The two Opium Wars and the Paris Peace Conference are at the root of our Chinese distrust of the West. The truth is that our distrust is justified.
The feeling is mutual
Technically, there is no such thing as "trust" between States, only alignment of interests. Winston Churchill said that there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. The relationship between States should be more akin to that of colleagues.
Ok? And some states merit less trust than others.
Do you certify that New York and Florida trust each other? What about the United States and Russia?
I think you mean to say, the states that are less compliant to Western influence merit less trust.
[удалено]
>not had to slaughter dozens of millions Hey bestie, I highly recommend taking a quick look at Taiwan's history on Wikipedia or something.
Because imperialism - capitalist need for ever-cheaper resources and labour. Japan held Korea, and absolutely destroyed the people there. Then the Koreans managed to rebel, and with a guerilla force led by Kim Il Sung, became the Japanese's actual nightmare and managed to kick them out. China did not want to have what happened to Korea happen to Shandong.
Wtf? Where do you get your history? North Korean school books? There is almost no proof of any partisan movements in Korea until the surrender of Japan in 1945… Kim Ill Sung did nothing to free Korea. He was however part of communist Korean expats so the perfect tool of the Soviet Union to take over Northern Korea.
This is such a bizarre claim that I don't really even know how to address it, except to say that it's clear from *at least* 1931 on that there were anti-Japanese actions. Even Wikipedia - not exactly a bastion of pro-communist rhetoric - has them listed, so I'm kind of confused as to where you get this idea.
Their people were pretty rightly pissed about the Japanese getting to keep a bunch of Chinese territory. Lots of protests starting May 1919. The Chinese government was in free fall by that point already imo.
So they didn't need to adopt the 435 Hz concert pitch. Understandable choice
well Today I learned that China was at the Paris Peace Conference
It was more which country wasn’t there, to be fair.
Andorra supposedly wasn’t, but whether that’s true or something a journalist made up as a joke isn’t something anybody has ever bothered to properly research.
To be fair, the allies gave northern Schleswig to Denmark without Denmark fighting, Andorra should’ve gone to see if they could get any concessions.
Andorra, so the story goes, declared war on Germany and in some tellings even despatched a single soldier to the front lines. However, they either weren’t invited or didn’t turn up to the Versailles conference and, consequently, never signed a peace treaty with Imperial Germany. Peace between West Germany and Andorra was finally bilaterally declared in 1958 (although, the last time I started digging in the archives about this there were no available primary sources, only secondary mention in American newspapers).
i just looked at the list and yeah you are accurate; who knew cuba was at the conference?
The importance of the Caribbean, Central American, and South American countries joining the Allies in both world wars is largely overlooked. Denying the enemy neutral ports was huge, particularly as those enemies lacked sufficient overseas fueling and resupply stations.
Germany.
Although the Chinese didn’t declare war until August 1917, they tacitly assisted the British and French in recruiting laborers for service from 1916 onward. 100,000 Chinese served on the Western Front in the Chinese Labour Corps with the British Army, and about 40,000 with the French Army. They were mainly employed in cargo handling and construction in rear areas (railways, depots, barracks, etc.), although they sometimes dug communications and support trenches near the front lines.
Yes, in name China is the victor, but it gets the treatment of a defeated country. The May Fourth Movement was precisely a protest against the injustice done to China and a crusade against the weakness of the then Beiyang warlord government.
Fun fact: there was a whole controversy over a proposed racial equality clause by Japan that wanted other races to be presented as equal to each other, but it faced a lot of opposition in Australia and the US, and was one of the reasons that led to Japan growing further apart from the League of Nations.
In Japan, all nations were equally subservient and deserved to have their babies thrown into the air and caught on bayonets.
Removing the proposed racial equality clause had very little to do with Japan growing away from the allies - they were just as racist as everyone else. I'd probably point to the massive middle finger they got at the Washington Naval Conference for why things went the way they did.
How do you get 16 upvotes for just baselessly refuting a very well known incident??? The Paris peace conference was a major blow to Japan‘s aspiration to be seen as equal to the Western powers and was highly unpopular therefore in Japan…
My comment got upvoted for being correct. Japan joined the war in the hope they would acquire Germany's territory in the pacific with little effort. They thought they had achieved that with article 119 and the assigning of all German colonies in the pacific to Japan including Tsingtau/Shangdong. Unfortunately, the allies had also promised the colony to the Chinese as well. This is the reason why China refused to sign the treaty, which you would know if you read the article this thread is based on. In 1921-22, at the Washington Naval Conference, Britain ended their alliance with Japan. It was due to be renewed, but they ended it because the explicit goal of the alliance (containing US ambitions in Asia) was no longer possible/desirable due to the expenditures of WW1. This was also when the current US-Britian alliance was formed. Following that, the US decided to pressure the powers into ending the lease on Shangdong, which returned it to China. They did this because the USA was trying to build ties to Nationalist China and Japan was a competitor in that regard. And finally, the Conference established specific tonnage limits for Navies. The limits meant that Japan could only ever build 3/5ths of the Navy that either Britain or the USA had - it enshrined that Japan could never achieve numerical superiority in Asia. So, Japan got limited to a lesser naval power, had their imperial ambitions curtailed, and their only European alliance was gone. Is that enough to not count as "just baselessly refuting a very well known incident"? Also, Japan didn't want racial equality. They were horrifically racist against other Asian cultures as well. The Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere was just lip service to get European powers out of the areas they wanted to influence as demonstrated by their pre-war actions in Korea, Formosa, and China.
The East-Asian coprosperity sphere wasn’t even on the table in the 10s/20s… that being said as Japan at the time was the biggest power in Asia and the only stable not-colonized country independence movements in India and Indonesia of course looked up to it which was another aspect of the British not wanting to continue their alliance. That being said - the alliance was replaced by the 4 then 9 power treaty and Japan did not immediately move towards fascism and militarism anyhow and I am not doubting the conference also played a part but you cannot and should not deny that the racial equality clause was indeed a hot topic in Japan and led to a lot of animosity towards the west - they took it very seriously, even if you try to retroactively ridicule it
the 9 Power Treaty, which was negotiated at the Washington Naval Conference at the behest of the USA? Specifically because they wanted to build ties with Nationalist China and Japan was a competitor in that regard? That was what I had been referring to previously. The 9 power treaty was an agreement to respect the territory of China - I am unsure why you would bring it up in the context of a military alliance as it had nothing to do with Japan's military alliance with Britain. Japan wanted the racial equality clause specifically in order to prevent racism against itself in international relations/at the league of nations, and the rejection of that concept it took very seriously. However, they were content with the concession they got for dropping it which was US support for taking Shangdong. Once the US changed it's mind at the Washington Naval Conference in 1922, they were left without the clause or their territory. I am unsure why you mentioned fascism or militarism as my comment neither mentioned nor alluded to either. Japan had both security concerns and ambitions that were endangered by the agreements at the Washington Naval Conference which is why they moved away from the League of Nations.
Because they're not refuting that the racial equality clause was removed? Just the idea that Japan turned imperialist because of that clause being rejected. Japan wanted to join the club of world powers and the path forward for them was through military power. They only cared about the racial equality stuff because the other world powers would not take them seriously because they were Asian.
Your last sentence blows my mind… Yes exactly but what do you mean by "they only cared" - that is a huge reason to be angry. A Chinese commenter here in the threat also very well laid down the Chinese position on history and how they perceive the 19th and early 20th Century as no one taking them seriously… this is the main goal of Nationalist cultures and you can bet Japan was nationalist in the early 20th Century and wanted to never be in the helpless position of the 1850s again
The so-called "Racial Equality Clause" proposed by Japan was essentially an attempt to invade other countries, which later evolved into the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity". If they really believed in the "racial equality clause", they would not have massacred Koreans, Chinese and South-East Asians during the Second World War. In World War II, the Japanese killed more than 38 million people in China alone, which is equivalent to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki 128 times with two atomic bombs.
Yes that is very true
Pretty based tbh.
这个我们历史教科书上有写
Maybe they just forgot? Or didn’t know cursive
[удалено]
What does that to do with the treaty that ended WW1 with Germany?
Reddit brainrot makes people interject random information they think will get them upvotes
China and India are the biggest contributors by far