How China Began World War III in the South China Sea

[Pepsi Cola]

The specific question is what was the military impact of China's contribution to the defeat of Imperial JPN. Once all the facts are examined, the answer is not strategically or tactically significant.


The point is that there is no comparison between WW II and the Cold War. In WW II, the diplomacy component between powers was largely discarded. In the Cold War, diplomacy between the superpowers were still active and at the forefront. Proxy wars do not count as actual military conflicts between the US and the Soviet Union.

Looks like you still have a lot of reading to do, preferably none approved by The Party.

I don't care how significant it is. I'm simply here to prove that you fake claim and said that China did nothing to help defeat the Japanese army. If you go tell this to anyone in the US, they'd laugh at you. WWII veterans certainly had a lot of praise for the Chinese soldiers who helped them. So what index do you go by? What're your parameters for saying that it's insignificant? Don't give me FAKE ANALYSIS.

Your argument that the Cold War is different to WWII because it lacked the PHYSICAL element. I proved you wrong that there are PHYSICAL elements.

Anyway, are you saying that the defeat of the Soviet was insignificant... don't worry because China is siding with Russia now ))

 

[Surya 1]

as seen in balakot, though no jf-17s were lost for the 2 flying coffins downed..

1 Mig 21 and other one is your wishful thinking. In return , 1 F 16 shot down. A fourth generation kill achieved by a 2nd generation plane.

 

[gambit]

I don't care how significant it is.

Your loss.

I'm simply here to prove that you fake claim and said that China did nothing to help defeat the Japanese army.

Sure, China helped defeat the Kwantung Army on mainland China. But that had nothing, or at best very little, to the defeat of JPN overall.

In Operation Ketsu-go, Kwantung Army veterans would be the crucial element in fighting an occupation force on the JPNese islands. The army itself maybe defeated and drove from mainland China, but their combat experience, skills, and patriotism would be vital in creating a defense force using urban guerrilla warfare against the US and allies occupation. The US did not know of Operation Ketsu-go but from battlefield experiences, was convinced that such a bloody future for JPN was assured, hence, the need for a weapon that would definitively convince JPN's leadership to surrender.

What would China do to help US and allies in that occupation? Probably nothing. With the current history, China entered a civil war immediately after JPN's surrender. So there would be no reason to believe that China, either the Communists or Nationalists, would send troops to help the US and allies on that occupation force.

That means in reality, what China did in WW II was for China, nothing more. Nothing wrong with what China did, after all, China was brutally occupied by JPNese forces. Unit 731, and all that. But that does not mean China contributed to the total defeat of Imperial JPN.

If you go to anyone in the US, they'd laugh at you. WWII veterans certainly had a lot of praise for the Chinese soldiers who helped them. So what index do you go by? What're your parameters for saying that it's insignificant? Don't give me FAKE ANALYSIS.

Of course we would say positive things about Chinese troops regarding WW II. But this is not about the bravery of Chinese forces. This is about the strategic contribution towards forcing Imperial JPN to a surrender. What China did on mainland China did not helped in Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima or Midway.

Your argument that the Cold War is different to WWII because it lacked the PHYSICAL element. I proved you wrong that there are PHYSICAL elements.

Your lack of understanding does not 'proved' me wrong. We 'defeated' the Soviet Union only in the rhetorical or metaphorical sense, not the military sense. Our military was the physical deterrence while our economic competition was the true battle.

 

[Suika]

The Imperial Japanese Army was also tied down by the Soviet Union, with a couple of major battles in 1938 and 1939 and of course their sudden rush in mid 1945.

Order of power that knocked out Imperial Japan..

US Marine Corp, US Navy, US Air Force, US oil embargo, US Army, Soviet Union, Chinese Nationalists, Great Britain, Australia, Filipino soldiers (with USA), and lastly Chinese communists.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Your loss.


Sure, China helped defeat the Kwantung Army on mainland China. But that had nothing, or at best very little, to the defeat of JPN overall.

In Operation Ketsu-go, Kwantung Army veterans would be the crucial element in fighting an occupation force on the JPNese islands. The army itself maybe defeated and drove from mainland China, but their combat experience, skills, and patriotism would be vital in creating a defense force using urban guerrilla warfare against the US and allies occupation. The US did not know of Operation Ketsu-go but from battlefield experiences, was convinced that such a bloody future for JPN was assured, hence, the need for a weapon that would definitively convince JPN's leadership to surrender.

What would China do to help US and allies in that occupation? Probably nothing. With the current history, China entered a civil war immediately after JPN's surrender. So there would be no reason to believe that China, either the Communists or Nationalists, would send troops to help the US and allies on that occupation force.

That means in reality, what China did in WW II was for China, nothing more. Nothing wrong with what China did, after all, China was brutally occupied by JPNese forces. Unit 731, and all that. But that does not mean China contributed to the total defeat of Imperial JPN.


Of course we would say positive things about Chinese troops regarding WW II. But this is not about the bravery of Chinese forces. This is about the strategic contribution towards forcing Imperial JPN to a surrender. What China did on mainland China did not helped in Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima or Midway.


Your lack of understanding does not 'proved' me wrong. We 'defeated' the Soviet Union only in the rhetorical or metaphorical sense, not the military sense. Our military was the physical deterrence while our economic competition was the true battle.

You can twist all you want but the fact is China, US, Soviet and other allied forces faught together and all of them, including the Filipinos mind you, deserved credits. This is a position even you can't deny.

How is it even possible that China wouldn't send any troops to fight the Japanese?? One thing you don't know is that one major reason why the Nationalist lost to the Communists was that the KMT was too busy fighting the Japanese, while the Communists were gaining grounds elsewhere.

"An estimated 14 million to 20 million Chinese died during this epic struggle of resistance against Japanese aggression in a war that produced a staggering 80 million to 100 million refugees. Despite the prolonged onslaught of Japan’s modern military machine for eight long years, a divided China, mostly on its own, put up a heroic fight against steep odds, pinning down 600,000 of its troops and playing a crucial role in weakening Japan by inflicting heavy casualties on forces that were better armed, supplied and trained. The official death toll for Japanese soldiers killed in China between 1937 and 1945 is 480,000.

China was a quagmire that forced Japan to squander vast amounts of resources that put it on a collision course with the Allied powers and undermined its Pacific War effort. To secure the resources it needed to win the war in China, Japan attacked resource-rich Western colonies in Southeast Asia and fatefully, the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.

Historian Rana Mitter points out that China’s key role in World War II is often overlooked, usually portrayed as a sideshow. Here we are given a magnificent rendering of these horrific years and a sense of the terrible price the Japanese exacted before their ultimate surrender.

The Sino-Japanese War began in July 1937, somewhat haphazardly in the vicinity of Beijing at the Marco Polo Bridge. After deadly skirmishing, local commanders had arranged a cease-fire and it seemed unlikely that the incident would flare into all out war, but Tokyo wanted to settle matters.

Mitter draws on a wide array of sources to give us a flavor of war in all its merciless manifestations. He presents a relatively sympathetic account of the Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, the generalissimo who led Chinese resistance, pointing out that his forces did much more of the fighting than Mao Zedong’s Communists. But in 1949 Mao won the civil war against Chiang and thus the victor’s history that has prevailed until recently in China greatly inflates the role of the Communists while the far more crucial role of the Nationalists has been marginalized. Here they get their due, perhaps overly so.

In a war that was marked by awful atrocities inflicted by the Japanese marauders, the myth that Tokyo was out to liberate Asia is a cruel joke in China.

Perhaps one of the most devastating episodes was when Chiang ordered the breaching of dikes that held back the Yellow River. The deliberate flooding of vast stretches of Henan, Anhui and Jiangsu in 1938 was aimed at slowing the Japanese advance and was done without warning to preserve the element of surprise. Some half a million Chinese died in the deluge and another 4 million were displaced from their homes. It was a ghastly price to pay, but is emblematic of the determination and sacrifices that enabled the Chinese to prevail. True, Chinese battlefield victories were few, but by trading space for time and avoiding decisive defeat, Japan’s proud warriors were worn down by a nation that would not surrender."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/cultur...s-contribution-to-japans-defeat/#.XJBycSj0mUk

@Suika

 

[gambit]

You can twist all you want but the fact is China, US, Soviet and other allied forces faught together and all of them, including the Filipinos mind you, deserved credits. This is a position even you can't deny.

There is no 'twist' here.

At the state level, a fractured China disqualified China from that status. Fractured in the sense that there was no central authority to which the US and allies could appeal to and agreed to a unified strategic position regarding Imperial JPN. That leave the US and allies and the Soviet Union against Imperial JPN. Yes, Mao and Chiang wanted JPN out, but that was the end of their common ground. Whereas, the goal of the US and allies was the complete defeat or unconditional surrender of JPN and that mean the delivery of ordnance on JPN herself. From that perspective, the Soviet did not performed as agreed upon, and China was unable to contribute.

China was a quagmire that forced Japan to squander vast amounts of resources that put it on a collision course with the Allied powers and undermined its Pacific War effort. To secure the resources it needed to win the war in China, Japan attacked resource-rich Western colonies in Southeast Asia and fatefully, the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.

Yes, resources from China. Not from JPN. This was the most of China's contribution to the defeat of JPN. But Operation Ketsu-go showed that to resist an occupation force, JPN can go without those resources from mainland China.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

There is no 'twist' here.

At the state level, a fractured China disqualified China from that status. Fractured in the sense that there was no central authority to which the US and allies could appeal to and agreed to a unified strategic position regarding Imperial JPN. That leave the US and allies and the Soviet Union against Imperial JPN. Yes, Mao and Chiang wanted JPN out, but that was the end of their common ground. Whereas, the goal of the US and allies was the complete defeat or unconditional surrender of JPN and that mean the delivery of ordnance on JPN herself. From that perspective, the Soviet did not performed as agreed upon, and China was unable to contribute.


Yes, resources from China. Not from JPN. This was the most of China's contribution to the defeat of JPN. But Operation Ketsu-go showed that to resist an occupation force, JPN can go without those resources from mainland China.

LMAO.. this is where your logic and story starts to drop. Britain, China, and the US released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender. So they did agreed on a unified solution.

Are you even making sense right now? China didn't perform what? China was unable to contribute what??

You're not even making sense so I'm just going to post my party sponsored sources here.

"
But relatively few will remember a historical fact that underpins the ceremony: China was the first country to enter what would become the Second World War, and it was the ally of the United States and the British empire from just after Pearl Harbor in 1941, to the Japanese surrender in 1945.

Yet today, China's memory of the war is becoming more, not less, important, as we move further away from it.
And many in China are becoming resentful that the West fails to remember that China was itself a significant player in the eventual Allied victory.
Some 14 million Chinese died and up to 100 million became refugees during the eight years of the conflict with Japan from 1937 to 1945.

But overall, was the Chinese contribution to the war really so important? Consider a "what if" scenario.
On July 7, 1937, a clash between Chinese and Japanese troops at the Marco Polo Bridge, just outside Beijing, led to all-out war. A year later, by mid-1938, the Chinese military situation was desperate.
Most of eastern China lay in Japanese hands: Shanghai, Nanjing, Wuhan. Many outside observers assumed that China could not hold out, and the most likely scenario was a Japanese victory over China.
Nonetheless, China's leader, the Nationalist Chiang Kai-shek, along with his unlikely allies, the Communists, refused to surrender, retreating inland to carry on resistance.
This decision changed the fate of Asia.
If China had surrendered in 1938, Japan would have controlled China for a generation or more. Japan's forces might have turned toward the USSR, Southeast Asia, or even British India.
The European and Asian wars might never have come together as they did after Pearl Harbor in 1941.
"
https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/index.html

"
One such documentary on China, produced in 1944 by United China Relief, Inc., introduces Americans to their faraway allies: “China once seemed almost as remote as the moon to us here in America… [But] our common struggle has brought its people close to our hearts. Today our soldiers and theirs fight together on many battlefields.”

A 1941 United China Relief documentary contains an intriguing quote from Pearl S. Buck, an American who grew up in China and set her novels in the country. “I believe that China is at this very moment a pivot nation,” Buck said. “Who has her friendship will rule the future; who loses it will be lost.”

Strangely, the United States sided with China to win the war – but still lost “her friendship” thanks to the Communist victory in the Civil War (and U.S. support for the opposing Nationalists). Throughout the 1940s, Americans were strongly encouraged to view China as a friend and ally, worthy of both support and sympathy. After 1949, China became the enemy, a communist nation affiliated with the Soviet Union (another World War II ally turned Cold War antagonist). China and the United States fought each other in the Korean War and turned their propaganda machines against each other.
"

https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/when-the-us-and-china-were-allies/

 

[Viet]

The Imperial Japanese Army was also tied down by the Soviet Union, with a couple of major battles in 1938 and 1939 and of course their sudden rush in mid 1945.

Order of power that knocked out Imperial Japan..

US Marine Corp, US Navy, US Air Force, US oil embargo, US Army, Soviet Union, Chinese Nationalists, Great Britain, Australia, Filipino soldiers (with USA), and lastly Chinese communists.

It was the Soviet Red Army that annihilated the Japanese land Army in the Manchuria. It was the US that defeated the Japanese Navy in the Pacific. Both factors played the decisive roles. The battles in China or other theaters such as in Vietnam played minor roles or... the Germans will say: Nebenschauplätzen.

Anyway, why talking of the past? Time has changed. Even a baby in Vietnam knows China is an essential threat. A potential war in the SC sea will pose a major challenge for Vietnam navy, airforce, coastal missile and artillery batteries. In this regard, my friend, it is also in Japan’s interest to contribute to Vietnam defense.Should we fall, Japan’s fate is at stake. You should increase the military spendings to at least the 2/3 level of China. If they increase, you follow.

 

[gambit]

LMAO.. this is where your logic and story starts to drop. Britain, China, and the US released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender. So they did agreed on a unified solution.

The Potsdam Declaration had Chiang Kai-shek because the US favored him. Not because Chiang Kai-shek was the proper leader of China.

China didn't perform what? China was unable to contribute what??

Given the military disparity between China and JPN, the best China did was checked JPN's expansionist goal, of which geography played a major part. But checking that expansionist dream does not constitute a defeat of JPN herself.

The US once proposed to recognize JPN's claim to Manchuria in return for regional peace, that JPN would be satisfied with just Manchuria. JPN refused and war ensued.

Now...Let us speculate that JPN agreed to US proposal, no attack on Hawaii, JPN turned Manchuria into a JPNese province, China resists, and the result is a war between China and JPN. Would 19th century China be able to defeat 20th century JPN? Not likely.

In the same vein, as Chinese forces met JPNese forces on mainland China, it was DIRECT actions on JPN herself, including the A-bombs, that eventually wore down the Emperor. China contributed nothing to that effect. The JPNese military was more troubled by the US and allies from the sea and the Soviet Union from mainland Asia, than from any possible threat from mainland China.

You're not even making sense so I'm just going to post my party sponsored sources here.

That is the beauty of living in a free society -- I can access from more than just whatever the US goobermint approves.

 

[Feng Leng]

hahah a white-worshipping dothead trying to talk about China's history to a ethnically-chinese like me?

try harder:

also, u have not answered my simple questions directly, just shying away and babbling about other stuff:

China won ww2 = yes/no?

The bulk of the Japanese army were tied down in china = yes/no?

Not even a single US soldier landed on the Japanese home islands during the war = yes/no <= answer this( sorry, not referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition lollololol)

The US lost the Vietnam war = yes/no?

The Korean war isn't over = yes/no?

You got called names like 'dothead' by the Whites in the US= yes/no?

The American Chinese in the US despised you(and pinch their noses when they are near you)- yes/no?





sorry i dont buy bharati stories and the PR stunt of using a 'fragment of a f-16' as evidence.

I can imagine the IAF procuring a piece of metal, spray-painting the wordings found on the F-16's and burning and twisting it to make it look like it came from a f-16 wreckage.

i hold bharatis in low regard with their constant lies after lies, especially here in singapore.

You guys have a serious, culturally-accepted(yours)and even expected- LYING society that me and my fellow countrymen have experienced.

Everyone tells lies, but bharatis take lying to the next level and perfect it as an art.. You know it yourself.

Thanks.

gambit is a Vietnamese American not an Indian. He scrubbed latrines for the USAF as an enlisted man in the 1980s.

 

[Suika]

The Potsdam Declaration had Chiang Kai-shek because the US favored him. Not because Chiang Kai-shek was the proper leader of China.


Given the military disparity between China and JPN, the best China did was checked JPN's expansionist goal, of which geography played a major part. But checking that expansionist dream does not constitute a defeat of JPN herself.

The US once proposed to recognize JPN's claim to Manchuria in return for regional peace, that JPN would be satisfied with just Manchuria. JPN refused and war ensued.

Now...Let us speculate that JPN agreed to US proposal, no attack on Hawaii, JPN turned Manchuria into a JPNese province, China resists, and the result is a war between China and JPN. Would 19th century China be able to defeat 20th century JPN? Not likely.

In the same vein, as Chinese forces met JPNese forces on mainland China, it was DIRECT actions on JPN herself, including the A-bombs, that eventually wore down the Emperor. China contributed nothing to that effect. The JPNese military was more troubled by the US and allies from the sea and the Soviet Union from mainland Asia, than from any possible threat from mainland China.


That is the beauty of living in a free society -- I can access from more than just whatever the US goobermint approves.

When did the US propose to recognize Manchuria as part of Japan? If I recall correctly, that was an idea put out by some Americans but was not the official word of the US government during negotiations.

 

[Suika]

You can twist all you want but the fact is China, US, Soviet and other allied forces faught together and all of them, including the Filipinos mind you, deserved credits. This is a position even you can't deny.

How is it even possible that China wouldn't send any troops to fight the Japanese?? One thing you don't know is that one major reason why the Nationalist lost to the Communists was that the KMT was too busy fighting the Japanese, while the Communists were gaining grounds elsewhere.

"An estimated 14 million to 20 million Chinese died during this epic struggle of resistance against Japanese aggression in a war that produced a staggering 80 million to 100 million refugees. Despite the prolonged onslaught of Japan’s modern military machine for eight long years, a divided China, mostly on its own, put up a heroic fight against steep odds, pinning down 600,000 of its troops and playing a crucial role in weakening Japan by inflicting heavy casualties on forces that were better armed, supplied and trained. The official death toll for Japanese soldiers killed in China between 1937 and 1945 is 480,000.

China was a quagmire that forced Japan to squander vast amounts of resources that put it on a collision course with the Allied powers and undermined its Pacific War effort. To secure the resources it needed to win the war in China, Japan attacked resource-rich Western colonies in Southeast Asia and fatefully, the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.

Historian Rana Mitter points out that China’s key role in World War II is often overlooked, usually portrayed as a sideshow. Here we are given a magnificent rendering of these horrific years and a sense of the terrible price the Japanese exacted before their ultimate surrender.

The Sino-Japanese War began in July 1937, somewhat haphazardly in the vicinity of Beijing at the Marco Polo Bridge. After deadly skirmishing, local commanders had arranged a cease-fire and it seemed unlikely that the incident would flare into all out war, but Tokyo wanted to settle matters.

Mitter draws on a wide array of sources to give us a flavor of war in all its merciless manifestations. He presents a relatively sympathetic account of the Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, the generalissimo who led Chinese resistance, pointing out that his forces did much more of the fighting than Mao Zedong’s Communists. But in 1949 Mao won the civil war against Chiang and thus the victor’s history that has prevailed until recently in China greatly inflates the role of the Communists while the far more crucial role of the Nationalists has been marginalized. Here they get their due, perhaps overly so.

In a war that was marked by awful atrocities inflicted by the Japanese marauders, the myth that Tokyo was out to liberate Asia is a cruel joke in China.

Perhaps one of the most devastating episodes was when Chiang ordered the breaching of dikes that held back the Yellow River. The deliberate flooding of vast stretches of Henan, Anhui and Jiangsu in 1938 was aimed at slowing the Japanese advance and was done without warning to preserve the element of surprise. Some half a million Chinese died in the deluge and another 4 million were displaced from their homes. It was a ghastly price to pay, but is emblematic of the determination and sacrifices that enabled the Chinese to prevail. True, Chinese battlefield victories were few, but by trading space for time and avoiding decisive defeat, Japan’s proud warriors were worn down by a nation that would not surrender."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/cultur...s-contribution-to-japans-defeat/#.XJBycSj0mUk

@Suika

There's a lot to say. There really is. But having been trolled more times than the number of posts I have made on these boards, I'm not going long.

But one point to make is that Japantimes is generally left-wing or Pro-America, which means "Imperial Japan was at fault/bad/stupid" is usually the lens they put on. Some blame on Imperial Japan, yes for sure, but the point to get to about that piece is the following part:

China was a quagmire that forced Japan to squander vast amounts of resources that put it on a collision course with the Allied powers and undermined its Pacific War effort. To secure the resources it needed to win the war in China, Japan attacked resource-rich Western colonies in Southeast Asia and fatefully, the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.​

Sure the campaign in China took a lot of resources. And China fought it to a stalemate. Japan did want a negotiated peace but Chiang Kai-chek wasn't having it. At that time, Japan did have a Southern Expansion Doctrine which was about getting the resources in South East Asia but it was not the official plan. The "Northern Expansion Plan" was the preferred choice which was to go into Siberia. What happened was the oil embargo put in place by the US in the summer of 1941. That's when the Southern Plan became the central strategy. So the campaign in China was not the event that triggered Japan adopting the Southern Expansion Doctrine. It was the oil embargo. The article doesn't mention the oil embargo.

 

[cochine]

@cochine is sorry for you, Oriental betrayer, Western lover, American shit is also fragrant (spoiled, dogs eat shit) =))), US & West treat you as much as you do in a western house dog, hehe haha ) =))

@cochine you know the truth is, the whole world wants to erase America and young Vietnamese buffalo.
@cochine you know the truth is, no country can defeat China.

hehe haha in my heart, in my head(cochine)too understand the real truth ) =))
@Viet
@Viva_Viet
@Get Ya Wig Split

What do you cry here, kid ? You are chinese idiot with false flags.
Do chinese began WW III in SCS ? The history is repeated again like this picture.

 

[nahtanbob]

I promise you this, If 3/4 big cities in different states are taken out, there would be no USA. The states would exercise their option of independent states. The Union would be broken.

so says armchair warrior sitting in UK

 

[Pepsi Cola]

The Potsdam Declaration had Chiang Kai-shek because the US favored him. Not because Chiang Kai-shek was the proper leader of China.


Given the military disparity between China and JPN, the best China did was checked JPN's expansionist goal, of which geography played a major part. But checking that expansionist dream does not constitute a defeat of JPN herself.

The US once proposed to recognize JPN's claim to Manchuria in return for regional peace, that JPN would be satisfied with just Manchuria. JPN refused and war ensued.

Now...Let us speculate that JPN agreed to US proposal, no attack on Hawaii, JPN turned Manchuria into a JPNese province, China resists, and the result is a war between China and JPN. Would 19th century China be able to defeat 20th century JPN? Not likely.

In the same vein, as Chinese forces met JPNese forces on mainland China, it was DIRECT actions on JPN herself, including the A-bombs, that eventually wore down the Emperor. China contributed nothing to that effect. The JPNese military was more troubled by the US and allies from the sea and the Soviet Union from mainland Asia, than from any possible threat from mainland China.


That is the beauty of living in a free society -- I can access from more than just whatever the US goobermint approves.

So China, Britain, and the US did issue a joint statement to end WWII and demand Japanese surrender together, which proves your point wrong they did not agree on a unilateral decision.

Your hypotheticals scenarios won't matter here and those articles prove you wrong.

In case you don't understand SARCASM Gambit, my sources aren't really party sponsored. The sources that I linked were Japan Times, CNN, and the Diplomat. I could have selected other sources, but they wouldn't be as ironic. Clearly, you are too dumb to understand.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME. When you can't fight facts, you try to switch to other irrelevant topics and blabbing on irrelevant things. THIS IS WHY I POSTED THOSE ARTICLES, because you can't switch topics when the American and English articles stand by my point.

There's a lot to say. There really is. But having been trolled more times than the number of posts I have made on these boards, I'm not going long.

But one point to make is that Japantimes is generally left-wing or Pro-America, which means "Imperial Japan was at fault/bad/stupid" is usually the lens they put on. Some blame on Imperial Japan, yes for sure, but the point to get to about that piece is the following part:

China was a quagmire that forced Japan to squander vast amounts of resources that put it on a collision course with the Allied powers and undermined its Pacific War effort. To secure the resources it needed to win the war in China, Japan attacked resource-rich Western colonies in Southeast Asia and fatefully, the U.S. at Pearl Harbor.​

Sure the campaign in China took a lot of resources. And China fought it to a stalemate. Japan did want a negotiated peace but Chiang Kai-chek wasn't having it. At that time, Japan did have a Southern Expansion Doctrine which was about getting the resources in South East Asia but it was not the official plan. The "Northern Expansion Plan" was the preferred choice which was to go into Siberia. What happened was the oil embargo put in place by the US in the summer of 1941. That's when the Southern Plan became the central strategy. So the campaign in China was not the event that triggered Japan adopting the Southern Expansion Doctrine. It was the oil embargo. The article doesn't mention the oil embargo.

The biggest reason that made Japan lost could be attributed to anything, and no one can really say which one is the main reason. Personally, I think the atomic bomb was the main reason. However, the point here is that Gambit totally disregarded any Chinese efforts that contributed to the end of the war. That is WRONG and FAKE.