How did India give UNSC seat to China?

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
165
He wasn't trying to invalidate his authority. No Smoking meant that it gave other scholars as much authority as this guy.
who has disputed any other scholar's right? mr. tharoor was in the UN for a long enough time. so he will have info that you or anybody here will not have. that is what gives more credibility to what he says. you beleiving it or not does not count.
India was not offered a seat, full stop.
that is your opinion based on your ignorance.

China contributed most to both the creation of the UN charter, and the establishment of the UN. Why on earth would anyone have offered India the seat rather than China? China wasn't offered either, it decided it should have one.
alice in wonderland.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
India was also there when the UN was formed and so were 45 other nations.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
993
Here's an exerpt taken from UN's official page.

"Is it fair that only five major Powers have the right to veto?
At the end of World War II, China, France, the
Russian Federation (originally the USSR),
the United Kingdom and the United States
played key roles in the establishment of
the United Nations. The creators of the UN
Charter conceived that these five countries
would continue to play important roles in
the maintenance of international peace and
security. So the “big five” were given a special
voting power known as the “right to veto”. It
was agreed by the drafters that if any one of the “big five” cast a negative vote in the
15-member Security Council, the resolution or decision would not be approved."

He wasn't trying to invalidate his authority. No Smoking meant that it gave other scholars as much authority as this guy.

India was not offered a seat, full stop.

China contributed most to both the creation of the UN charter, and the establishment of the UN. Why on earth would anyone have offered India the seat rather than China? China wasn't offered either, it decided it should have one.

Again, explain to me hbogyt in detail:


What exactly the Kuomintang's contribution, or more specifically the contribution of the RoC, was to the victory of WWII. Compare it in light of the contributions of Indian troops fighting under the British flag in the various Asian theatres of war.


In what light was Taiwan considered a 'major power' and thereby given the right to veto under the aegis of the "Big Five".


What exactly was Taiwan's / the Republic of China's contribution to the constitution of the UN, and more particularly to the constitution and apotheosis of the P5.


The PRC was admitted in 1971 not because "it decided to". Stop fooling yourself boy. China's admission in 1971 was in large part due to Nixon's policy of detente with China. This was exacerbated by the introduction of newly independent (primarily African) developing nations in the 1960s that turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon administration to improve relations with the de facto government of mainland China - which decision was lent credence by the concomitant campaign promise to end the unpopular war in Vietnam - to counterbalance the Soviet Union, reduced American willingness to support the ROC. This transpired finally in the UN General Resolution 2758 of October 25, 1971 that received support from two-thirds of all United Nations' members including approval by the Security Council members excluding the ROC. Again, China was voted to the P5 NOT because "it decided to". ROFL
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

Again, explain to me hbogyt in detail:


What exactly the Kuomintang's contribution, or more specifically the contribution of the RoC, was to the victory of WWII. Compare it in light of the contributions of Indian troops fighting under the British flag in the various Asian theatres of war.


In what light was Taiwan considered a 'major power' and thereby given the right to veto under the aegis of the "Big Five".


What exactly was Taiwan's / the Republic of China's contribution to the constitution of the UN, and more particularly to the constitution and of the P5.


The PRC was admitted in 1971 not because "it decided to". Stop fooling yourself boy. China's admission in 1971 was in large part due to Nixon's policy of detente with China. This was exacerbated by the introduction of newly independent (primarily African) developing nations in the 1960s that turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon administration to improve relations with the de facto government of mainland China - which decision was lent credence by the concomitant campaign promise to end the unpopular war in Vietnam - to counterbalance the Soviet Union, reduced American willingness to support the ROC. This transpired finally in the UN General Resolution 2758 of October 25, 1971 that received support from two-thirds of all United Nations' members including approval by the Security Council members excluding the ROC. Again, China was voted to the P5 NOT because "it decided to". ROFL
I don't have time to go into deails. The quote I wrote was from UN's official page. Maybe you can forward your claim to them and pray that they change it.

ROC tied down large number of IJA troops.

At least the UN charter was worked out, based on the proposal by China, Russian, USA and UK. The link I provided show extensive Chinese participation in the constitution and establishment of the UN. India was nowhere mentioned.

Did I say PRC? Stop fooling yourself boy.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
993
I don't have time to go into deails. The quote I wrote was from UN's official page. Maybe you can forward your claim to them and pray that they change it.
Then why on Gaia's great A*SE are you here?


ROC tied down large number of IJA troops.
"Tied down" is not a consideration. I want their victories in comparative perspective with those of the CCP and those of the forces of Hind.


At least the UN charter was worked out, based on the proposal by China, Russian, USA and UK. The link I provided show extensive Chinese participation in the constitution and establishment of the UN. India was nowhere mentioned.
Your argument is redundant. Refer to my debunking of that tripe in your other post. There were 26 other signatories to the original UN Declaration. That does not in itself constitute an entitlement to a UNSC seat.


Did I say PRC? Stop fooling yourself boy.
Stop playing at games with me 'boy'. You said:

72440 said:
'"China wasn't offered either, it decided it should have one."
Whether that was in context of the PRC or the ROC, regardless, it was and IS WRONG. Do you hear me, 'boy'?
 

Koji

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
758
Likes
1
Again, explain to me hbogyt in detail:


What exactly the Kuomintang's contribution, or more specifically the contribution of the RoC, was to the victory of WWII. Compare it in light of the contributions of Indian troops fighting under the British flag in the various Asian theatres of war.
As you so eloquently put it, the KMT fought under its own flag and fought under its sovereign decision. The Indians fought under the British flag, and they fought because the British wanted them to fight They were no different that the Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, and Pakistanis.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
993
As you so eloquently put it, the KMT fought under its own flag and fought under its sovereign decision. The Indians fought under the British flag, and they fought because the British wanted them to fight They were no different that the Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, and Pakistanis.
Its "sovereign decision"? Sovereign to what pray tell 'Koji'? To a nation state that is in civil war and is officially disputed between two ideologically diaposed political parties.

The KMT's exploits were insignificant as compared to those of the CCP. Again, you fail to answer the fundamental question.
 

Koji

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
758
Likes
1
Its "sovereign decision"? Sovereign to what pray tell 'Koji'? To a nation state that is in civil war and is officially disputed between two ideologically diaposed political parties.

The KMT's exploits were insignificant as compared to those of the CCP. Again, you fail to answer the fundamental question.
Sovereign to a country in strife and war, and recognized as the legitimate rulers of China by other countries. Hence, the KMT was given a UNSC seat after the war.

We had 4.1 million troops on the ground in China and lost 480,000 there. And the KMT's troops were signficant because they were the only ones facing us in conventional battles. The PRC were too involved with underminding Chaing's rule, and instead fought the IJA mainly through guerilla tactics. The KMT fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes

Mao once said, "Our aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, in order to stage a coup d'état. Therefore this main directive is to be strictly followed: "70% of our efforts for expansion, 20% for dealing with the Kuomintang, and 10% for resisting Japan." All party members and groups are hereby ordered not to oppose this paramount directive"
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
993
Sovereign to a country in strife and war, and recognized as the legitimate rulers of China by other countries. Hence, the KMT was given a UNSC seat after the war.
Sovereign to a country in civil war. Revisit the definition since you are evidently oblivious, and in particular its context within international politics.

Now you come to the point: the recognition was an act of pure Cold-War geopolitics and sought to undermine the flow of the Communist tide in a large and populous nation, even though the de facto government of that nation was nothing else. Again, to entrust a (perceived) de jure government of a nation-state with a responsibility of such gravity as a seat on the Permanent Security Council was nothing but political expediency, and did not represent nor levitate upon any fulfilling of nominally circumscribed preconditions to that extent.


We had 4.1 million troops on the ground in China and lost 480,000 there. And the KMT's troops were signficant because they were the only ones facing us in conventional battles. The PRC were too involved with underminding Chaing's rule, and instead fought the IJA mainly through guerilla tactics.
Your point- an inane one- centres upon the distinction between 'conventional warfare' and 'guerilla warfare'. It is a poor one. To boot, it also detracts from your previously asserted position of the KMT's 'contribution' to the Allied victory as ostensibly juxtaposed with the Communist one. Chiang Kai Shek also held the policy throughout of dealing with domestic insurrections first and then with external threats, and to that end had to be kidnapped by his generals to arrive at the negotiating table.

Again, the KMT's successes were far less, and their exploits far more insignificant than the CCP's victories borne of 'guerilla tactics' over 'your' forces during the War.



The KMT fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes
Chinese Communist Party -Mainstay of the War of Resistance Against Japan (July 1937-August 1945) - Jongo Knows - Encyclopedia of China
The Rise to power of the Chinese ... - Google Books
People's Daily Online War of Resistance Against Japan (1937-1945)


Mao once said, "Our aim is to develop the military power of the CCP, in order to stage a coup d'état. Therefore this main directive is to be strictly followed: "70% of our efforts for expansion, 20% for dealing with the Kuomintang, and 10% for resisting Japan." All party members and groups are hereby ordered not to oppose this paramount directive"
Verbatim: Hence to boot: "Despite the rural context within which the Communists were fighting the Japanese War of Resistance, Mao referred to the proletariat in April 1939 as the "vanguard in resistance to Japan", and in July 1939 as the "backbone" of the Anti-Japanese United Front."

Rethinking Mao: explorations in Mao ... - Google Books
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

Then why on Gaia's great A*SE are you here?




"Tied down" is not a consideration. I want their victories in comparative perspective with those of the CCP and those of the forces of Hind.




Your argument is redundant. Refer to my debunking of that tripe in your other post. There were 26 other signatories to the original UN Declaration. That does not in itself constitute an entitlement to a UNSC seat.




Stop playing at games with me 'boy'. You said:



Whether that was in context of the PRC or the ROC, regardless, it was and IS WRONG. Do you hear me, 'boy'?
You didn't even read the whole thing. Just look around the UN official page. Somewhere in there says that representatives from [51 or 26, can't remember] countries deliberated on the draft based on the proposal by USA, UK....China. That was at minimum was what China did other countries didn't.

The un page doesn't go into details, but do you deny that it says China played a key role in the establishment of the UN?

The drafters of the UN charter decided, China was one of them.

Sure, Indian troops had some victory, but against against how much IJA force.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

Sovereign to a country in civil war. Revisit the definition since you are evidently oblivious, and in particular its context within international politics.

Now you come to the point: the recognition was an act of pure Cold-War geopolitics and sought to undermine the flow of the Communist tide in a large and populous nation, even though the de facto government of that nation was nothing else. Again, to entrust a (perceived) de jure government of a nation-state with a responsibility of such gravity as a seat on the Permanent Security Council was nothing but political expediency, and did not represent nor levitate upon any fulfilling of nominally circumscribed preconditions to that extent.




Your point- an inane one- centres upon the distinction between 'conventional warfare' and 'guerilla warfare'. It is a poor one. To boot, it also detracts from your previously asserted position of the KMT's 'contribution' to the Allied victory as ostensibly juxtaposed with the Communist one. Chiang Kai Shek also held the policy throughout of dealing with domestic insurrections first and then with external threats, and to that end had to be kidnapped by his generals to arrive at the negotiating table.

Again, the KMT's successes were far less, and their exploits far more insignificant than the CCP's victories borne of 'guerilla tactics' over 'your' forces during the War.





Chinese Communist Party -Mainstay of the War of Resistance Against Japan (July 1937-August 1945) - Jongo Knows - Encyclopedia of China
The Rise to power of the Chinese ... - Google Books
People's Daily Online War of Resistance Against Japan (1937-1945)




Verbatim: Hence to boot: "Despite the rural context within which the Communists were fighting the Japanese War of Resistance, Mao referred to the proletariat in April 1939 as the "vanguard in resistance to Japan", and in July 1939 as the "backbone" of the Anti-Japanese United Front."

Rethinking Mao: explorations in Mao ... - Google Books
You didn't debunk me, you ostensibly debunked the UN.

Since when did you start believing "commie propaganda". Don't just cited it here because it happens to fit your purpose.

ROC had far larger commitment in anti-Japanese war than the Chinese red army. Since it claimed to be the legitimate government, it had obligations to fight foreign invasion. The CCP and the Chinese red army were recognised as legal organisation, hence fought under the flag of ROC. Their uniforms of this period had emblems of KMT units.

Withou KMT troops, Japanese army could divert forces from the frontline to fight the Chinese and Soviet red army. Hitler would've loved to see 4 million Japanese troops on Soviet's behind. Who knows what this will lead to. The Soviet Union might be beaten. Hitler would be able to focus on the west. Europe might not be liberated.

What would the world be if we now in our thought experiment take away those Indian troops?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,958
Sure, Indian troops had some victory, but against against how much IJA force.
Indian Army fought the Japanese in Burma. Helped Britain and Soviets invade and take Iran. Were in the front lines against Rommel in Egypt and also against the Germans and Italians in East Africa. Were one of the first to invade Italy and formed the 3rd largest contingent in Italy.

In the end of 1944, India had contributed 2.5 million men who were fighting all over the globe. More importantly, Indian army was the largest all volunteer army in the world at the time. And India was also the most important supply base for the Americans against the Japanese.

Without India, the allied victory in Egypt and East Asia would have been a fable.
 

hbogyt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
231
Likes
11
re

Indian Army fought the Japanese in Burma. Helped Britain and Soviets invade and take Iran. Were in the front lines against Rommel in Egypt and also against the Germans and Italians in East Africa. Were one of the first to invade Italy and formed the 3rd largest contingent in Italy.

In the end of 1944, India had contributed 2.5 million men who were fighting all over the globe. More importantly, Indian army was the largest all volunteer army in the world at the time. And India was also the most important supply base for the Americans against the Japanese.

Without India, the allied victory in Egypt and East Asia would have been a fable.
And so did Britain.

You wouldn't have done so without China tying down Japanese troops, who would not tie down Soviet troops, who tied down German troops.

East African operations were strategically insignificant.

China commited far more than 2.5 million.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
The question is not who contributed how many troops in WWII but how could have the SC organized back then. It could have well been a P6 with India in there. But the politics of the time didn't allow it.
 
X

xiaocao

Guest
sigh ,india was nowhere closed to a major power at that time ,just a volunteer,check your history book ,and if you guyz trust your history book that much ,i have nothing to say,india was just a volunteer compared to china usa btitan and cccp,open your eyes ,
 
X

xiaocao

Guest
major power and major battlefield to deal with major jp trops ,we get the p5 for reasons ,definitly not some volunteer stuff
 

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
165
i don't know why ww2 is being discuseed now. UN is supposed to be reflective of today. too many things have changed in 60 years. whether india should or should not be a permanent member of UNSC with equal rights is the question. UN reforms are for today not for what existed 60 yrs back.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top