There is an often-cited saying in China: “A weak power has no diplomacy弱国无外交” meaning weaker powers can not dictate the terms of international relations and can only try to survive at the mercy of big powers.
The most striking thing about this story is the cold calculated logic that ultimately went into Chiang's decision. You conclude by saying that smaller states can only listen to their inner voice and do the "right" thing, but it's clear to me that when stakes are that high, moralistic values takes the back seat to cold realism.
I have a different read. It's not easy to take a moralistic view in international relations. In Chiang's shoes for example, which one was more moral, Britain or Nazis? Britain in 1940 yielded to Japanese demands to cut off Burma Road for China, so was siding with Britan more moral for China? Britain also occupied Shanghai and Hong Kong, as a colonizer. Also in 1940, people didn't know anything about the upcoming Holocaust. These were just the same imperialistic powers.
I think it's fair to regard Germany as less moral, as they had pushed all the way into France and was the expansionist side. In any case, I agree with you that history has precarious moments, and we can breathe a sigh of relief that it turned out the way it did.
Meh, it's almost never that clear in international affairs. France declared war on Germany. Germany invaded Poland instead of following France (and Britain's) plan of joining forces with Poland to invade Russia (because Poland insisted on keeping most of the loot). If Poland had been more flexible, then France would be a war criminal state, yet again.
Indeed, choosing the right thing to do and doing it is never easy. Yet, do we have any real alternatives unless we’re willing to be accomplices of dictators, oligarchs, invaders and bullies?
«since China would have been too weak to change the ultimate trajectory of WW2, so China would eventually be partitioned into “North China” and “South China”, just like the two Koreas of today.»
Or western Europe and eastern Europe were for a long time, both sides obedient vassals of their conquerors. Or as China-PRC and China-ROC/Taiwan have been separated, when China-PRC chose to side for a while with the USSR and China-ROC/Taiwan chose to be a vassal of the USA.
Great article. Hadn’t known that part of history. To be honest, I probably would have joined Germany, its seems in the moment the most beneficial.
yeah, hard choice
The most striking thing about this story is the cold calculated logic that ultimately went into Chiang's decision. You conclude by saying that smaller states can only listen to their inner voice and do the "right" thing, but it's clear to me that when stakes are that high, moralistic values takes the back seat to cold realism.
I have a different read. It's not easy to take a moralistic view in international relations. In Chiang's shoes for example, which one was more moral, Britain or Nazis? Britain in 1940 yielded to Japanese demands to cut off Burma Road for China, so was siding with Britan more moral for China? Britain also occupied Shanghai and Hong Kong, as a colonizer. Also in 1940, people didn't know anything about the upcoming Holocaust. These were just the same imperialistic powers.
I think it's fair to regard Germany as less moral, as they had pushed all the way into France and was the expansionist side. In any case, I agree with you that history has precarious moments, and we can breathe a sigh of relief that it turned out the way it did.
Meh, it's almost never that clear in international affairs. France declared war on Germany. Germany invaded Poland instead of following France (and Britain's) plan of joining forces with Poland to invade Russia (because Poland insisted on keeping most of the loot). If Poland had been more flexible, then France would be a war criminal state, yet again.
Indeed, choosing the right thing to do and doing it is never easy. Yet, do we have any real alternatives unless we’re willing to be accomplices of dictators, oligarchs, invaders and bullies?
«since China would have been too weak to change the ultimate trajectory of WW2, so China would eventually be partitioned into “North China” and “South China”, just like the two Koreas of today.»
Or western Europe and eastern Europe were for a long time, both sides obedient vassals of their conquerors. Or as China-PRC and China-ROC/Taiwan have been separated, when China-PRC chose to side for a while with the USSR and China-ROC/Taiwan chose to be a vassal of the USA.