China could have won the Second Sino-Jap without US intervention.

Thanks for the debate crux. == Definitions == Second Sino-Japanese War: the conflict occurring between Japan and China from July 7, 1937 – September 2, 1945. Pearl Harbor: Japanese attack on US sovereign territory (on December 7, 1941) that led to the US declaring war on Japan and Germany Intervention: assistance provided to improve a situation (Princeton's Wordnet); involvement in order to change what is happening (Kernerman English Learner's Dictionary); any interference that may affect the interests of others (Webster's) Thus, in this context, intervention includes any military aid given to China; it also includes the American oil embargo which was aimed at forcing Japan to withdraw its forces from China. [1] Lastly, intervention includes any American military operations in the Pacific that served to distract Japan from the Chinese theater or aimed at forcing Japan to unconditionally surrender. My opponent sets up a counterfactual, where the US never "intervened" to help China against Japan. In this context, two major historical events never would have happened: 1) Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have never happened for two reasons. A. The resolution The resolution asserts that the US provided no aid to China in ending the war. Ultimately, this means that the US never entered the war, never crippled Japan's navy, and never dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The official end to the Sino-Japanese War is September 2, 1945, the date Japan formally surrendered to the United States. So the resolution REQUIRES that the US never entered the war. B. The Oil Embargo The US oil embargo on Japan was aimed at helping the Chinese. We wanted Japan to cease military operations in China. [1] However, Japan received 80% of its oil from the United States. [1] They were forced to either give in to US demands and cease military operations OR attack the US in an attempt to achieve a quick victory in the Pacific, forcing the US to capitulate and resume oil supplies. [1] If the US had never attempted to help China, Japan would have never attacked us. The resolution thus means Pearl Harbor never happened. So now we agree that the resolution means Pearl Harbor never happened. This also means: 2) The US never declared war on Germany FDR used the attack on Pearl Harbor to convince an isolationist US to declare war on Germany. The declaration of war on Germany was almost an afterthought by Congress, but once he had his war declaration in hand, Roosevelt focused most of the United States' attention on the European front. Pearl Harbor finally provided FDR with the political cover he needed to enter the war. So the resolution also means that the US never entered the war against Germany. As of yet, I can only establish what the resolution means, in terms of history; I can't advance arguments yet, but arguments stemming from this include: the UK would have had to capitulate to Germany, Germany would have defeated the USSR and forced their surrender (because they would have faced a war on only one front), and then Germany could have aided Japan in subjugating China, assuming Japan had not done so already (given that Japan would be attacking a China lacking in US military assistance, with infinite oil supplies from the US, and with a war on only one front). I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Lastly, a note on burden of proof. As pro and instigator, my opponent is the one with the burden or proving that China had the military strength to defeat Japan, without any US intervention. This means that my opponent must prove that any Chinese victory he cites was achieved with ZERO US military equipment, ZERO US military advisers, and did not occur after the US oil embargo, which significantly hampered Japanese military operations. For reference, the embargo started on July 26, 1941. [1] http://militaryhistory.about.com...