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

Thanks for the quick response Crux. == Germany vs. USSR == The Soviet military victories my opponent cites all happened AFTER the United States entered the war. In fact, Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad, which was the turning point on the Eastern Front, was caused by the US entering the war. Hitler took major risks at Stalingrad that ultimately led to his downfall because he wanted to defeat the Soviets before the full might of the United States came down upon him. [1] Without the US, Hitler could have been more cautious in Russia. It is well known that it was the fact that Hitler RUSHED his invasion of Russia that led to his downfall. If the US never entered the war, Hitler would not have needed to rush. In addition, Hitler could have deployed more forces against the Soviets if he had not had a war on his Western Front. An analysis by Andrew Warinner found that without the casualties inflicted on the German army by the US, Hitler could have inflicted an additional 2 million casualties on the Red Army (which was composed of approximately 6 million soldiers). [2] In addition, it is likely Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler in 1942 had the US not entered the war; Stalin was giving up hope and might have been willing to cede parts of western Russia to Hitler. [2] In addition, without a Western Front, Hitler would at least have been able to hold off the Soviets for long enough that his superior technology would have won the war; Germany was inventing new jets and rocket technology that would have let them easily conquer Russia. [3] "In addition, Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, ... says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success." [4] Hitler's foreign minister credited the defeat of Germany to "The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement." [4] The Lend-Lease program was signed to help China, so it cannot exist under the resolution. [5] Without the $50 billion in equipment the US supplied, the Soviets could not have won. Lastly, Overy points out that the American bombing campaign in Germany had a great deal to do with the Soviet victories. [4] The bombing campaign destroyed the German war machine by destroying their production capacity. Once Russia belonged to Hitler, he could easily have assisted Japan in conquering China. == England == England never posed a threat to the Germans, so there was no reason for Hitler to station troops on the Western Front to defend against England. England's air force holding out against the Germans (defensively) is DIFFERENT from England posing a threat to the Germans. In addition, the same argument from above applies. Without the US, the Nazis could have held on for longer. Once they had invented the V2 rocket, they wouldn't have needed air superiority. They could have destroyed the British air force using rocket technology (when the planes were on the ground). Since planes cannot shoot down rockets, England would have been defenseless. Also, without Lend-Lease, the British would have run out of supplies and the German embargo of British ports would have starved the British. == Japanese Resources == Japan was not about to run out of money during World War II. My opponent provides no evidence of this. Money was certainly NOT the reason the oil ran dry in 1941; it was the oil embargo. Governments can generally float enough treasury bonds during war to cover their expenditures. Japan spent most of their resources fighting the US. If they only had to fight China, they would have had far more resources. And they could have looted all of Southeast Asia in order to pay for oil. == China == As early as the 1930's, there were already clashes between the KMT and the Communist forces in China. "Rebellions and other disloyalties by various regional military commanders throughout the 1930s had made Chiang Kai-shek very suspicious of a large part of his forces." [6] Both the Communists and the Nationalists were trying NOT to fight the Japanese because they wanted to save their forces for attacking each other, in order to control China. [6] Given the internal strife, it is unlikely China could have won without the US. While my opponent is correct that Japan proved unable to conquer ALL of China, since this is an impossible task, Japan DID take over the most important parts of China. The Eastern parts of China have always been the wealthiest and most important parts of China. "Since 1937, when the Sino-Japanese conflict became an open war, China's best troops had been repeatedly defeated and its richest coastal and riverine cities captured by the Japanese… Japanese military forces occupied the eastern third of the country and controlled all of the seaports and main railroads and highways." [7] In addition, Japan had utterly destroyed China's industrial base, so China was ENTIRELY dependent on the United States for military supplies; 100% of their logistical support came from the US. [7] In addition, the Americans provided significant military advice to China. "At the unit level, the American advisers accompanied Chinese forces in the field' supervising local training as best they could and working with Chinese commanders on plans and tactical operations." [7] My opponent provides no proof that China could have won these victories without US advice. In addition, the US trained Chinese troops. "Training, American officers believed, was the key to success… U.S. troops assigned to the Chinese Training Center, under the command of Brig. Gen. John W. Middleton, trained individual soldiers and, in some cases, cadres of special units. Training Center members established and then operated service schools, prepared and distributed training literature, and gave technical assistance to those assigned to the Chinese Combat Command." [7] The Chinese army would have been completely ineffective against the Japanese without training, particularly in the use of artillery. My opponent cites the Winter Offensive. However, according to a historian Loyd Eastman, the offensive was a fiasco, "destroyed what confidence Nationalist forces had left and reconfirmed their prior reluctance to seriously engage the Japanese." Nationalist war accounts have ignored and even denied it was launched, which one historian has described as a "devastating defeat" on the part of the Chinese. [8] My opponent claims, without evidence, that Chinese gorilla tactics cut off Japanese supply lines. However, to cut off supply lines, China would have to HOLD territory, which gorillas do not do. They may have destroyed a few supplies, but this did not pose a serious threat to Japan. == Definition of "winning a war" == To win the war by themselves, China would need Japan to have SURRENDERED to them and agreed to withdraw from China. Without the US, best case, China would have had to cede significant amounts of territory to Japan, which would have been considered a defeat. Japan would not have had to take ALL of China in order to be considered the victor. [1] Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler: 1936-1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin Books, p. 528 [2] http://www.quora.com... [3] http://www.wrongways.com... [4] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [5] http://www.ibiblio.org... [6] http://ww2total.com... [7] http://www.ibiblio.org... [8] Lloyd Eastman (2010). Seeds of Destruction: Nationalist China in War and Revolution, 1937-1949. Stanford University Press. Pg.137; Rummel, R.J., China's Bloody Century, Transaction Publishers (1991), p. 107