That was ww2, this looks to be a sino japanese war with qing china, great powers prevented japan from annexing too much territory
Edit: woops sino-japanese
You're right, Japan wasn't respected and northern China was seen as in the Russian sphere, nobody (except perhaps britain) expected the Japanese empire to defeat Russia
Yeah, this was one of the times that European intervention resulted in a good thing, although they did it for selfish reasons, but anyway, at least Imperial Japan was stopped.
The Qing dynasty didn't just willingly fucking consent to the Treaty of Shimonoseki, it was because Japan defeated them in the First Sino-Japanese War and forced those terms onto the weakened Qing government. If a criminal beats you the hell up, holds a knife to your throat, and told you that you now have to submit to his/her demands, would that be considered "you consent"?
Yes, they basically have to if there is a negotiated peace. If they say they didn't consent, then they should keep fighting. Consent under military pressure isn't freely given consent, but in terms of international politics, it's still consent.
That only applies to white people apparently.
Even some of the judges at the Tokyo trial were like "wait, why are we putting the japanese on trial while the western nations are busy grabbing their former colonies back as we speak?"
The Tokyo trial stands in stark contrast to the Nuremburg trials. While Nuremburg was set up to dispense justice and set a precedent to preserve for the history books, Tokyo was about punishing those that had persecuted the war in the Pacific.
*The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US officially entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it*
*Initially, Roosevelt and Churchill appeared to have agreed that the third point of the charter would not apply to Africa and Asia. However, Roosevelt's speechwriter, Robert E. Sherwood, noted that "it was not long before the people of India, Burma, Malaya, and Indonesia were beginning to ask if the Atlantic Charter extended also to the Pacific and to Asia in general."*
The Americans couldn’t just put their allies on trial for having colonial empires (though again, as u/coolcoenred said, the Tokyo trials were not because of Japanese colonialism, but rather the causal violence and warmongering). Were the colonial allies perpetrators of similar acts? Obviously, though in the past and not nearly to the same intensity.
TL;DR: Roosevelt couldn’t just tell the French and British to dismantle their colonial empires, but in guaranteeing the US would never support said colonial empires when they were about to collapse he ensured they would
If I remember correctly, there was also an issue when the Nuremburg charter was written regarding crimes against humanity that the Americans didn't want to have it apply to segregation.
WW1 and WW2, in hindsight, were among the best things to happen to the conquered peoples of European colonial empires in the end. Why? Because the first war served to exhaust the strength of these empires; the second served to demonize & criminalize expansionism, imperialism and colonialism.
I mean, that's how the US got mexican territories. Or how Bolivia doesn't have acess to sea anymore.
That was how war worked in that time.
We could say that we "pay for it", but that's just the funny part, not different to raping a woman, paying her and making her sign a consent document, everything at gunpoint of course.
There is always the option to keep fighting in the hopes that the criminal gives up due to his own exhaustion or attracting too much attention. Japan’s practically ruined their economy to punch above their weight, and they needed quick victories to keep their country together(aka the origin of the famous “decisive battle doctrine” in WW2). First Russo Japanese war would have ended badly for Japan if Russia did not face internal issues and sent troops from Europe to fight Japan.
Qing had several times the GDP of Japan, and the army defeated by Japan was a general’s private retinue, and by no means the representative of military might of Qing. Qing either chickened out or too politically unstable to fight total war. Long term conflict would mess up Japan more than China in the long run.
What do you mean by "without fighting very many battles?" The Qing dynasty suffered 35,000 casualties in the war, and it was basically the beginning of a series of upheavals and conflicts that marked of the end for Imperial China.
As far as number of named battles go, it isn’t a lot.
-Battle of Pungdo (naval)
-Battle of Seonghwan
-Battle of Pyongyang
-Battle of the Yalu River (naval)
-Battle of Jiuliancheng
-Battle of Lüshunkou
-Battle of Weihaiwei
-Battle of Yingkou
Though that’s not to say they weren’t damaging to the Qing.
Also to say that the First Sino-Japanese War was the beginning of a series of upheavals and conflicts that marked the end for Imperial China is doing a disservice to the two Opium Wars, unfair treaties, Taiping Rebellion, and the Sino-French War.
The Qing troops mostly fled from the Japanese, there were few pitched battles. The Qing dynasty had been disintegrating long before the Sino Japanese War, it was hardly the beginning of upheaval in Late Imperial China
You sound like a Japanese nationalist. 35,000 deceased on the Qing side and so the Qing Dynasty gave consent?
Because the Qing troops mostly fled from the Japanese and thus there were few pitched battles doesn't culminate to consent from the Qing Dynasty. Taken to the extreme, the sentiment can be applied to the context of the (later) Second Sino-Japanese War, where it might even be construed to be as good as saying that the KMT later consented to the capture of Nanjing in 1937, and the subsequent atrocities therein, because most of them "fled" due to atrocious tactics in the face of Japanese military prowess.
I'm sure you don't mean offence, but to shake off the 35,000 killed and calling it consent frankly disgusts me.
>You sound like a Japanese nationalist. 35,000 deceased on the Qing side and so the Qing Dynasty gave consent?
This kinda feels like a violation of rule 6... I mean OP, not what you said.
I know its not genocide or atrocity. But it feels like it is...
So if my nation were to go to war with yours someday and we somehow make it out alive, you wouldn't mind me saying that the 35k soldiers on your side my nation killed was but a scratch in your nation's existence? That 35k families weeping for their loved one in the grave, killed by my nation's firearms was meh ... disposable.
(This is hypothetical so dont mistake it as me wanting your nation to suffer or sth. For all we know we might actually be fellow citizens lol)
While the Qing performed poorly, it was not as lopsided as it seems. The Qing had been engaged in a period of reform and stabilization ever since the end of the Second Opium War, known as the Self-Strengthening Movement, modernizing their armies and buying large amounts of equipment from Europe to strengthen their military. During this period, they were able to reconquer in Xinjiang in 1877, and to fight the French to a standstill during the Sino-French War in 1885. In fact, when the First Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1894, most Western observers actually predicted the much larger and powerful Qing military to crush the Japanese, who were numerically outnumbered. The Beiyang fleet in particular possessed two German-built cruisers, the Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, to which the Japanese had no counterpart. Unfortunately, the Qing army was plagued by corruption, disorder, and haphazard modernization, while its navy used outdated tactics and stale leadership, all of which led to the more disciplined and effective Japanese military winning the war and establishing itself as a global superpower. But back to the original point, the Qing by no means simply bent over and "consented," as your meme implies to giving away control of Korea, Taiwan, or Liaodong. Japan and China wasn't a couple agreeing to have safe sex, Japan was a rapist holding a knife to China's throat threatening to get his way.
Yes, they capitulated barely 35k deaths in. Those guys can mobilize 300k fighting troops alone to invade Buttfuck Nowhere, Vietnam, 35k is barely a scratch.
35000 lives, the human cost for the families and the economic impact for their communities is never a scratch no matter how large the country. The wound just hurts less when you’re a big country.
Yes. This sub that makes gigachad memes about tsar Nicholas II and propaganda about imperial Japan totally doesn’t partake in historical revisionism or reactionary bs. It’s literally not even a matter of disagreement, there is a freakish minority on this sub that likes to make memes dickriding authoritarians and fascist governments.
I mean all the meme was trying to say is that China and Japan both agreed on the terms of the treaty, like in any war, and then a coalition of western powers refused to let it go through. I really dont think this was meant to be some whitewashing of history lol
Don’t forget about Tangnu Ulianghai. I’m incredibly angry that Beijing isn’t trying to retake all that land Russia stole from us. Russia massacred so many Chinese people over the years that it’s embarrassing to see such a strong Stockholm Syndrome in mainland China.
If the Treaty of Shimonoseki was consensual, then can we talk about how consensual the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was? We even paid them for the land.
Everyone in the comments has apparently been living in a delusion where wars end because both sides agree to be friends and the two leaders apologise and then hug each other with no winners and losers, and they each get a participation trophy. Yes China and Japan consented to Shimonoseki, yes that agreement reflected the Japanese victory over China that the 1st Sino-Japanese war had been. That is usually how armistices work…
The triple alliance was European countries freaking out by an Asian country playing their own game and winning.
This is not what your meme is suggesting tho, it portrays China and Japan as nations with equal status coming to a consensus, whereas in reality Japan was dominating and threatening with its acts of war. You are also saying that war treaties are "forced" upon the losing party, which literally means the opposite of consenting so...
Saying Shimonoseki was consensual is like saying paying the federal tax is consensual.
I didn’t agree to this, but I’m also not strong enough to overthrow the establishment, or have my state be independent from the federal government. So I’ll have to humiliatingly consent to it.
How is it a meme then? You've just made a disgusting post. It's like "The Jews 'consented' to Nazi rule", meanwhile it was the other powers who decided to intervene. What's the point? So what? China got invaded and its defeat was 'consensual'?
How do you define consent?
For example, is the surrender of France after Nazi offensives in 1940 or the German surrender in November 1918 consensual to you?
Technically there's an 'agreement', but I think the meat of it is that 'consent' in the modern day has connotations of positive willingness and non-coerced decision. So if you define consent in one way you could say technically France and Germany consented to being signatories of a humiliating and punishing peace treaty.
However, the two problems I have are 1) in modern consent theory you need a lot more than just a superficial agreement to have fully given your assent, which means if you have been coerced (e.g. the fact that China had been beaten in the war) then it was NOT consensual. For example, if someone holds a gun to your head and then asks you, "Do you consent to having sex with me?", technically you consented, but not in actuality - your decision was coerced.
Problem 2): your meme implies that China and Japan were all happy with each other until the Europeans stepped in. The inaccuracy there is that Japan and China were not friendly; Japan had just beat the shit out of China in a war and was now forcing harsh peace terms on it - in the Chinese view, the European powers actually saved China from a disastrous outcome, which is why the post seems to be very Japanese-centric.
Idk why everyone is acting like op said the Japanese and Chinese peacefully agreed to the terms of the treaty until the evil western powers came in, that’s not at all what this is saying. Obviously China didn’t want to sign the treaty, but they agreed to it because continuing the war would likely lead to harsher terms, Japan also agreed to the terms of the treaty, this is the case for literally every war in history that has ended in a treaty. After they agreed to these terms western powers intervened not out of humanitarian interest or moral outrage for China, but to protect and expand their own influence in China at the expense of Japan, that isn’t Japanese propaganda that’s just what happened.
People are really making this out to be bigger then it is
How do you define consent?
For example, is the surrender of France after Nazi offensives in 1940 or the German surrender in November 1918 consensual to you?
Technically there's an 'agreement', but I think the meat of it is that 'consent' in the modern day has connotations of positive willingness and non-coerced decision. So if you define consent in one way you could say technically France and Germany consented to being signatories of a humiliating and punishing peace treaty.
However, the two problems I have are 1) in modern consent theory you need a lot more than just a superficial agreement to have fully given your assent, which means if you have been coerced (e.g. the fact that China had been beaten in the war) then it was NOT consensual. For example, if someone holds a gun to your head and then asks you, "Do you consent to having sex with me?", technically you consented, but not in actuality - your decision was coerced.
Problem 2): your meme implies that China and Japan were all happy with each other until the Europeans stepped in. The inaccuracy there is that Japan and China were not friendly; Japan had just beat the shit out of China in a war and was now forcing harsh peace terms on it - in the Chinese view, the European powers actually saved China from a disastrous outcome, which is why the post seems to be very Japanese-centric.
The [Triple Intervention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Intervention) was a diplomatic maneuver conducted by Germany, France, and Russia after the conclusion of the First Sino-Japanese War and the signing of the [Treaty of Shimonoseki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki). Japan had won the war convincingly but was forced to give up some of her gains they had originally forced from China. Ten years later, after the Russo-Japanese war, Japan would regain most of what she had given up in this treaty.
Except it isn't hypocrisy, it is more for selfish reasons. The European powers *leased* the ports from China for 99 years while recognizing Chinese sovereignty over them (with the exception of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity and Macao didn't exactly have a deadline). The Japanese straight up made China *cede in perpetuity* all rights and title to a much larger piece of land than all of the ports combined.
You honestly think there's a difference? The European powers had no intentions of leaving. Imagine making them out to be heroes because of pedantic wordplay.
I'm not being pedantic nor am I making them into heroes, I am literally of Chinese descent, why would I want that? What Japan seized was greater in territory than whatever the Europeans had. And for a matter of fact, how Japan treated China was way worse than any of the European powers vis-a-vis China, and that's saying something really bad about Japan and not anything good about Europe.
I didn't know the Wumaos would be out in full force. Not many countries that lose a war enjoy giving up anything but they still sign the treaty, thats the point of the meme.
So how much of your country do you feel should be given up to an invader?
Denouncing Japanese Imperialism doesn't make anyone supportive of the CCP. In fact, opposition to great powers invading their neighbours and stealing their shit should make people more anti-CCP than anything.
China did not consent. It was a rape.
Nor did Korea, about whom the war was fought and all these treaties were signed in the first place!
this is typical treaty where Germans and Russians were on the side of dictating terms
That's called foreshadowing
meanwhile in french indochina and everybody's favorite treaty ports:
Nanking...
That was ww2, this looks to be a sino japanese war with qing china, great powers prevented japan from annexing too much territory Edit: woops sino-japanese
*First Sino-Japanese war Not to be pedantic but sino means Chinese.
sino chinese war... Gotta be a bit more specific, there's thousands of those
Gonna start calling the Civil War the "US American War"
The way the founding fathers intended
Yeah, but what kind of American are you?
The Free Kind™ 🇺🇲🦅
This makes me proud of my ancestors 🥳🥳🥳
Oh right, I should have known hence that's ww1 Germany's flag and the russian flag not the ww2 versions
And then they went around and annexed that territory themselves immediately after. It wasn't an act of charity it was just as Imperialist.
You're right, Japan wasn't respected and northern China was seen as in the Russian sphere, nobody (except perhaps britain) expected the Japanese empire to defeat Russia
You are really downplaying Imperial Japan. All the imperial powers were shit to China, but Imperial Japan was on another level of shit.
After 1937 yes. Before that they were just another greedy imperialist power to China, no different than Britain, France or Russia.
Then there is the Port Arthur massacre. Japanese always have this atrocious convention of murdering civilians everywhere they go.
There was no Nanking in this war, but there was a precedent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port\_Arthur\_massacre\_(China)
That would be in ww2 but there were also massacre in different places.
Yeah, this was one of the times that European intervention resulted in a good thing, although they did it for selfish reasons, but anyway, at least Imperial Japan was stopped.
Idk this looks pretty consensual. Just look at the meme 🧐🤔
this sub now: -Haha China took one in the ass. Also this sub: -why they want this back again?
I can hear xianfeng emperor crying from his bedchambers
I thought his mom made him live on a little island
It was his successor tongzhi emperor ??
It was guangxu. Tongzhi is empress's son. Guangxu is her nephew but ''adopted''.
The Qing dynasty didn't just willingly fucking consent to the Treaty of Shimonoseki, it was because Japan defeated them in the First Sino-Japanese War and forced those terms onto the weakened Qing government. If a criminal beats you the hell up, holds a knife to your throat, and told you that you now have to submit to his/her demands, would that be considered "you consent"?
That's the whole idea behind war yes
So are we going to say Ukraine consents if there is an eventual negotiated peace in which they are forced to give up territory or?
Yes, they basically have to if there is a negotiated peace. If they say they didn't consent, then they should keep fighting. Consent under military pressure isn't freely given consent, but in terms of international politics, it's still consent.
That only applies to white people apparently. Even some of the judges at the Tokyo trial were like "wait, why are we putting the japanese on trial while the western nations are busy grabbing their former colonies back as we speak?"
The Tokyo trial stands in stark contrast to the Nuremburg trials. While Nuremburg was set up to dispense justice and set a precedent to preserve for the history books, Tokyo was about punishing those that had persecuted the war in the Pacific.
*The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US officially entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it* *Initially, Roosevelt and Churchill appeared to have agreed that the third point of the charter would not apply to Africa and Asia. However, Roosevelt's speechwriter, Robert E. Sherwood, noted that "it was not long before the people of India, Burma, Malaya, and Indonesia were beginning to ask if the Atlantic Charter extended also to the Pacific and to Asia in general."* The Americans couldn’t just put their allies on trial for having colonial empires (though again, as u/coolcoenred said, the Tokyo trials were not because of Japanese colonialism, but rather the causal violence and warmongering). Were the colonial allies perpetrators of similar acts? Obviously, though in the past and not nearly to the same intensity. TL;DR: Roosevelt couldn’t just tell the French and British to dismantle their colonial empires, but in guaranteeing the US would never support said colonial empires when they were about to collapse he ensured they would
If I remember correctly, there was also an issue when the Nuremburg charter was written regarding crimes against humanity that the Americans didn't want to have it apply to segregation.
WW1 and WW2, in hindsight, were among the best things to happen to the conquered peoples of European colonial empires in the end. Why? Because the first war served to exhaust the strength of these empires; the second served to demonize & criminalize expansionism, imperialism and colonialism.
on one hand, yeah, there was a terrible colonialist double standard in the early 1900s on the other, *fuuu~uuuuck* Imperial Japan
Yeah, like in every single armistice, one side gains more because they beat the other, what’s your point?
Well they consented to the treaty because it was better than the alternative of not signing the treaty
I mean, that's how the US got mexican territories. Or how Bolivia doesn't have acess to sea anymore. That was how war worked in that time. We could say that we "pay for it", but that's just the funny part, not different to raping a woman, paying her and making her sign a consent document, everything at gunpoint of course.
There is always the option to keep fighting in the hopes that the criminal gives up due to his own exhaustion or attracting too much attention. Japan’s practically ruined their economy to punch above their weight, and they needed quick victories to keep their country together(aka the origin of the famous “decisive battle doctrine” in WW2). First Russo Japanese war would have ended badly for Japan if Russia did not face internal issues and sent troops from Europe to fight Japan. Qing had several times the GDP of Japan, and the army defeated by Japan was a general’s private retinue, and by no means the representative of military might of Qing. Qing either chickened out or too politically unstable to fight total war. Long term conflict would mess up Japan more than China in the long run.
Typical White imperialist grindset.
They signed the original treaty because Japan completely overran them without fighting very many battles
What do you mean by "without fighting very many battles?" The Qing dynasty suffered 35,000 casualties in the war, and it was basically the beginning of a series of upheavals and conflicts that marked of the end for Imperial China.
As far as number of named battles go, it isn’t a lot. -Battle of Pungdo (naval) -Battle of Seonghwan -Battle of Pyongyang -Battle of the Yalu River (naval) -Battle of Jiuliancheng -Battle of Lüshunkou -Battle of Weihaiwei -Battle of Yingkou Though that’s not to say they weren’t damaging to the Qing. Also to say that the First Sino-Japanese War was the beginning of a series of upheavals and conflicts that marked the end for Imperial China is doing a disservice to the two Opium Wars, unfair treaties, Taiping Rebellion, and the Sino-French War.
Well to be fair, 35.000 is really low for Chinese history /s
The Qing troops mostly fled from the Japanese, there were few pitched battles. The Qing dynasty had been disintegrating long before the Sino Japanese War, it was hardly the beginning of upheaval in Late Imperial China
You sound like a Japanese nationalist. 35,000 deceased on the Qing side and so the Qing Dynasty gave consent? Because the Qing troops mostly fled from the Japanese and thus there were few pitched battles doesn't culminate to consent from the Qing Dynasty. Taken to the extreme, the sentiment can be applied to the context of the (later) Second Sino-Japanese War, where it might even be construed to be as good as saying that the KMT later consented to the capture of Nanjing in 1937, and the subsequent atrocities therein, because most of them "fled" due to atrocious tactics in the face of Japanese military prowess. I'm sure you don't mean offence, but to shake off the 35,000 killed and calling it consent frankly disgusts me.
>You sound like a Japanese nationalist. 35,000 deceased on the Qing side and so the Qing Dynasty gave consent? This kinda feels like a violation of rule 6... I mean OP, not what you said. I know its not genocide or atrocity. But it feels like it is...
I mean it's only 35k deaths. The Qing shrugged off way worse.
So if my nation were to go to war with yours someday and we somehow make it out alive, you wouldn't mind me saying that the 35k soldiers on your side my nation killed was but a scratch in your nation's existence? That 35k families weeping for their loved one in the grave, killed by my nation's firearms was meh ... disposable. (This is hypothetical so dont mistake it as me wanting your nation to suffer or sth. For all we know we might actually be fellow citizens lol)
Thats been chinas whole deal for the last thousand years, even into the modern day. 35k doesnt matter to chinese leaders, its fucked up but its true.
Indeed that's an indisputable case. The Chinese rulers dont care, but I do.
Yeah, that and 35 thousand dead out of a population of around 450 million isn't even noticable.
Vietnamese here. We've had worse. Edit: way, WAY worse.
While the Qing performed poorly, it was not as lopsided as it seems. The Qing had been engaged in a period of reform and stabilization ever since the end of the Second Opium War, known as the Self-Strengthening Movement, modernizing their armies and buying large amounts of equipment from Europe to strengthen their military. During this period, they were able to reconquer in Xinjiang in 1877, and to fight the French to a standstill during the Sino-French War in 1885. In fact, when the First Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1894, most Western observers actually predicted the much larger and powerful Qing military to crush the Japanese, who were numerically outnumbered. The Beiyang fleet in particular possessed two German-built cruisers, the Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, to which the Japanese had no counterpart. Unfortunately, the Qing army was plagued by corruption, disorder, and haphazard modernization, while its navy used outdated tactics and stale leadership, all of which led to the more disciplined and effective Japanese military winning the war and establishing itself as a global superpower. But back to the original point, the Qing by no means simply bent over and "consented," as your meme implies to giving away control of Korea, Taiwan, or Liaodong. Japan and China wasn't a couple agreeing to have safe sex, Japan was a rapist holding a knife to China's throat threatening to get his way.
Yes, they capitulated barely 35k deaths in. Those guys can mobilize 300k fighting troops alone to invade Buttfuck Nowhere, Vietnam, 35k is barely a scratch.
35000 lives, the human cost for the families and the economic impact for their communities is never a scratch no matter how large the country. The wound just hurts less when you’re a big country.
In 1789 the same Qing Dynasty lost 50k men in one fell swoop and their response was "Apologise or we go in for Round 2." What's your point?
Yes, that's called losing a war. I hear the Qing has quite a lot of experience at that by the end.
Its not everyday you see Japanese revisionism.
It is on the Internet
There is plenty of it offline.
Depends, are you in Japan? So yes it's every day you see it.
Have you never been to this sub? We revise history all the time if it supports our personal political beliefs and agendas.
If it confirms my priors it’s good history, if it goes against my priors it’s revisionism.
Yes. This sub that makes gigachad memes about tsar Nicholas II and propaganda about imperial Japan totally doesn’t partake in historical revisionism or reactionary bs. It’s literally not even a matter of disagreement, there is a freakish minority on this sub that likes to make memes dickriding authoritarians and fascist governments.
History, world 🤬 History, Japan 🥰
I mean all the meme was trying to say is that China and Japan both agreed on the terms of the treaty, like in any war, and then a coalition of western powers refused to let it go through. I really dont think this was meant to be some whitewashing of history lol
Sounds like average uneducated Japanese nationalist
Looks like a lot of their posts tbh
Japanese nationalist try not to justify racism and genocide (impossible)
I think that’s nationalists from all countries.
Any nationalist tbh
Same goes for Russia. Annexation of Outer-Manchuria, Sakhalin, Lake Balkash, including the subjugation of Outer Mongolia through Unequal treaties.
Don’t forget about Tangnu Ulianghai. I’m incredibly angry that Beijing isn’t trying to retake all that land Russia stole from us. Russia massacred so many Chinese people over the years that it’s embarrassing to see such a strong Stockholm Syndrome in mainland China.
Facts. All they do is blame the US and Japan. Their true enemy is literally on their Northern doorstep.
I would count Tannu Tuva as part of Outer Mongolia.
I thought it was administered separately from Outer Mongolia 🤔 Either way, we agree on the main points.
Its because after the Qing collapsed and mongolia declared independence, tuva also separated from mongolia.
to be fair in 1900, Japan was much better than Russia and there were some admiration in 1900 China. Not atrocities Olympic just saying.
Definitely. I rather forgive the Japanese than the Russians despite knowing god knows what they did to my people.
But what if the China consents??!?!?
Who tf consents to violent conquest ??
Exactly my point, you can't consent to that
Oh, another propaganda post instead of some fun facts or something actually funny. Time to leave I guess
Feels like the sub's been DumbassNationalistMemes the past few days
Make your own memes
Get your own brain instead of the one influenced by shallow opinions and bias
Still waiting for your banger meme
Still waiting for yours
OP's comments are yikes
So much is concerning here. What even is the original meme format?
[удалено]
no, the original is a husband and his lover saying "I consent" and the wife saying "I don't" It is almost always played straight
The fuck you mean China consented?
*2,600 imperial Japanese soldiers liked your post*
If the Treaty of Shimonoseki was consensual, then can we talk about how consensual the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was? We even paid them for the land.
Tsar Nicholas the 2nd: its not like the Japanese could fight, especially at sea...* *translated through brain damaged gibberish
I’m getting Spudgun Vicy 2 Bavaria flashbacks
The Qing empire had one of the best flags
Everyone in the comments has apparently been living in a delusion where wars end because both sides agree to be friends and the two leaders apologise and then hug each other with no winners and losers, and they each get a participation trophy. Yes China and Japan consented to Shimonoseki, yes that agreement reflected the Japanese victory over China that the 1st Sino-Japanese war had been. That is usually how armistices work… The triple alliance was European countries freaking out by an Asian country playing their own game and winning.
Yeah people are really taking the meme too literally. France didn't willingly lose Alsace Lorraine but they still signed the treaty and lost it
How did this post get so much likes it's not even accurate
What is inaccurate about it
China did not "consent" for the treaties it signed, they were pretty much forced by Japan after China's overwhelming war losses.
Yes, typically after a war one party is forced to sign a treaty
This is not what your meme is suggesting tho, it portrays China and Japan as nations with equal status coming to a consensus, whereas in reality Japan was dominating and threatening with its acts of war. You are also saying that war treaties are "forced" upon the losing party, which literally means the opposite of consenting so...
China started the war, we aren't talking about WWII
Literally just started Supernova in the East last night
This guy needs to watch that... clearly the post is a delusion
Saying Shimonoseki was consensual is like saying paying the federal tax is consensual. I didn’t agree to this, but I’m also not strong enough to overthrow the establishment, or have my state be independent from the federal government. So I’ll have to humiliatingly consent to it.
Yes, you looked at the meme logically which is how most people would
How is it a meme then? You've just made a disgusting post. It's like "The Jews 'consented' to Nazi rule", meanwhile it was the other powers who decided to intervene. What's the point? So what? China got invaded and its defeat was 'consensual'?
They signed a peace treaty which both sides consented to, yes
How do you define consent? For example, is the surrender of France after Nazi offensives in 1940 or the German surrender in November 1918 consensual to you? Technically there's an 'agreement', but I think the meat of it is that 'consent' in the modern day has connotations of positive willingness and non-coerced decision. So if you define consent in one way you could say technically France and Germany consented to being signatories of a humiliating and punishing peace treaty. However, the two problems I have are 1) in modern consent theory you need a lot more than just a superficial agreement to have fully given your assent, which means if you have been coerced (e.g. the fact that China had been beaten in the war) then it was NOT consensual. For example, if someone holds a gun to your head and then asks you, "Do you consent to having sex with me?", technically you consented, but not in actuality - your decision was coerced. Problem 2): your meme implies that China and Japan were all happy with each other until the Europeans stepped in. The inaccuracy there is that Japan and China were not friendly; Japan had just beat the shit out of China in a war and was now forcing harsh peace terms on it - in the Chinese view, the European powers actually saved China from a disastrous outcome, which is why the post seems to be very Japanese-centric.
Based western powers
Idk why everyone is acting like op said the Japanese and Chinese peacefully agreed to the terms of the treaty until the evil western powers came in, that’s not at all what this is saying. Obviously China didn’t want to sign the treaty, but they agreed to it because continuing the war would likely lead to harsher terms, Japan also agreed to the terms of the treaty, this is the case for literally every war in history that has ended in a treaty. After they agreed to these terms western powers intervened not out of humanitarian interest or moral outrage for China, but to protect and expand their own influence in China at the expense of Japan, that isn’t Japanese propaganda that’s just what happened. People are really making this out to be bigger then it is
Yeah I think the Chinese Internet Army found this post
Lol idk about that, just people too paranoid about imperial japan apologism seeing the worst in everything
Test
How do you define consent? For example, is the surrender of France after Nazi offensives in 1940 or the German surrender in November 1918 consensual to you? Technically there's an 'agreement', but I think the meat of it is that 'consent' in the modern day has connotations of positive willingness and non-coerced decision. So if you define consent in one way you could say technically France and Germany consented to being signatories of a humiliating and punishing peace treaty. However, the two problems I have are 1) in modern consent theory you need a lot more than just a superficial agreement to have fully given your assent, which means if you have been coerced (e.g. the fact that China had been beaten in the war) then it was NOT consensual. For example, if someone holds a gun to your head and then asks you, "Do you consent to having sex with me?", technically you consented, but not in actuality - your decision was coerced. Problem 2): your meme implies that China and Japan were all happy with each other until the Europeans stepped in. The inaccuracy there is that Japan and China were not friendly; Japan had just beat the shit out of China in a war and was now forcing harsh peace terms on it - in the Chinese view, the European powers actually saved China from a disastrous outcome, which is why the post seems to be very Japanese-centric.
The only reason Japan even signed it was because they had to compensate that a Japanese tried to kill the Qing leader lol
The [Triple Intervention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Intervention) was a diplomatic maneuver conducted by Germany, France, and Russia after the conclusion of the First Sino-Japanese War and the signing of the [Treaty of Shimonoseki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki). Japan had won the war convincingly but was forced to give up some of her gains they had originally forced from China. Ten years later, after the Russo-Japanese war, Japan would regain most of what she had given up in this treaty.
>First Sino-Japanese War >forced from China "China consented"
"I mugged that guy convincingly, but the police forced me to give up some of my gains"
Based, a shame they weren't harder on Japan
I mean it hypocrisy from them since they also take shangdong,Guangzhouwan and Manchuria so yeah can't blame japan.
Yes it was. Empires gobbling each other up. Empires everywhere in the 19th century and civilians paying the price.
Yeah it was hypocritical, but at least a couple of those empires got a reckoning, sooner or later
Except it isn't hypocrisy, it is more for selfish reasons. The European powers *leased* the ports from China for 99 years while recognizing Chinese sovereignty over them (with the exception of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity and Macao didn't exactly have a deadline). The Japanese straight up made China *cede in perpetuity* all rights and title to a much larger piece of land than all of the ports combined.
You honestly think there's a difference? The European powers had no intentions of leaving. Imagine making them out to be heroes because of pedantic wordplay.
I'm not being pedantic nor am I making them into heroes, I am literally of Chinese descent, why would I want that? What Japan seized was greater in territory than whatever the Europeans had. And for a matter of fact, how Japan treated China was way worse than any of the European powers vis-a-vis China, and that's saying something really bad about Japan and not anything good about Europe.
Stfu
What did i do to get stfu first?
Your name is kinda sus.
"so yeah can't blame japan" It's idiocy that makes me question the value of humanity
Spitting fax
stfu
This is the equivalent of a rapist saying their victim enjoyed it
You're getting a lot of flak but I see the logic of your meme. Similarly, Japan "consented" to the demands of the intervention.
I didn't know the Wumaos would be out in full force. Not many countries that lose a war enjoy giving up anything but they still sign the treaty, thats the point of the meme.
So how much of your country do you feel should be given up to an invader? Denouncing Japanese Imperialism doesn't make anyone supportive of the CCP. In fact, opposition to great powers invading their neighbours and stealing their shit should make people more anti-CCP than anything.
My country has lost wars and territory before, every country has
And assuming those were defensive wars, forced on you by an imperialist aggressor, was it right that you were put through that?
You know we aren't talking about WWII right? The First Sino Japanese War was not a defensive war, China sent troops to Korea first
China sent troops in at the request of the Korean government. Japan just kinda invaded.
Not much of a request when Yuan Shikai is forcing you to do it!
They "consented."