Stunning EU Ignorance

"In China, both Nationalist and Communist forces fought a relentless campaign that tied up Japanese resources."

Among all the images from Beijing this week, the one that genuinely alarms the West isn't the truckloads of nuclear missiles, nor the hypersonic projectiles, nor the latest drones or precision drill by line after line of troops. What truly unsettles the West is the picture of three men greeting each other.

​The sight of Xi, Modi, and Putin together sent a clear message that the centre of geopolitical influence has shifted. And for that, we can thank President Trump. In a matter of months, he's managed to alienate both friends and foes; indeed, sometimes it's challenging to tell if he fully understands the difference. 

If the statement that "states don't have friends, only interests" is true, then Trump has taken that to the extreme. Along the way, he's dealt the final blow to a rules-based world order. 

China is now filling the space left by Trump: presenting itself as a stabilising influence, a country that acts rationally as it attempts to maintain the line against Trump's mercurial approach to geopolitics.

The events in Beijing, commemorating the 80th anniversary of Japan's defeat in World War II, including the military parade, have prompted widespread reflection in the EU, where the influence of Trump's actions is leading to a swift reassessment of policies and military expenditure. 

Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that the officials representing the EU have notable gaps in their understanding of history and the reasons behind China's actions. 

​Ms Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat, responded to the anniversary with shocking ignorance. She took to the TV to claim that China was trying to shape the narrative and inflate its role in WWII to gain favour with the Global South. It quickly became clear she didn't know that China's war began in 1931, when Japan invaded. 

That's a full eight years before the war arrived in Europe and ten years before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. She then goes on to claim that Russia's assertion that it fought the Nazis is "something new". Really. 

The chart below details the deaths during the war; the Soviet Union and China suffered the highest toll.

Let's be clear, the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Germans, responsible for about 70% or 80% of all German casualties. In China, both Nationalist and Communist forces fought a relentless campaign that tied up Japanese resources. Indeed, the war against Japan in the Pacific was a collaborative effort between China and the US.

To gain some further perspective, the US military casualty count for the war is around 400,000 dead overall. Meanwhile, the Soviets lost approximately the same number of troops in a single battle at a place called Rzhev.

And while the US supplied much of the war-fighting material across all fronts, the British and their Empire contributed large numbers of troops.

In terms of military and civilian deaths, China paid a far higher price than the UK or the US. Those deaths include the horrors of the Nanjing massacre and activities of the infamous Japanese Unit 731. Research suggests that Unit 731 killed at least 12,000 Chinese men, women and children in gruesome experiments.

Without Chinese resistance, Japan might have freed up hundreds of thousands of troops to confront the British in India and oppose the US retaking the Philippines. China was responsible for approximately 25% of Japan's losses in the Pacific War.

Furthermore, with Germany's defeat in May 1945, the Soviets shifted their focus to attacking Japan, beginning with the invasion of Manchuria on 9 August 1945. Some historians argue that this event, along with the atomic bombings (the Nagasaki bomb was dropped on 9 August 1945), prompted Japan to surrender.

As a boy, I enjoyed watching Saturday afternoon war films and read the works of Captain Liddell Hart. From that perspective, the British had won World War II with a bit of help from the Americans, who arrived late as usual. Only later, with broader reading and travel, did I realise that the truth was elsewhere.

All of this escaped the hapless Ms Kallas, who should hang her head in shame. The sacrifice of the Chinese is not narrative, but hard facts. And, of course, none of this detracts from the individual effort made by millions of people from all races and nations.

Nevertheless, Ms Kallas should consider why China is celebrating this anniversary with such grandeur instead of dismissing it. If she reflects the calibre of EU officials, it's alarming. A question then arises: how can the EU formulate effective policies, navigate diplomatic nuances, and address complex geopolitical issues when led by such a lack of understanding?