anarchyintheuk -> RE: Letters From Iwo Jima on AMC tonight (2/22/2008 6:35:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Snowman999 quote:
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk quote:
ORIGINAL: Snowman999 Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations. Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other. To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well. As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other. As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad. Edited to add stuff. The Sino-Japanese War didn't spring forth from nothing. It was part of a continuum. I'd say mid-19thC when Japan opened to the West after 400 years is a better starting point than the 1930s for the inception of Japan's imperial program. As to the S-A War, it led to American interests in the Pacific where they had not existed before. The Russo-Japanese War showed Japan for the first time that they could compete and win with the West and taking the right side in WWI got them Pacific possessions of their own. We were going to tussle, and FDR knew it. He just didn't know how and when. I characterized the S-A War as "bad" because it was a war of choice for the USA, much like the Mexican War. We clothe our imperialism, either military, economic, or cultural, in a lot of bushwa about spreading democracy and God's will, but we're no different at base than Japan was. Just trying to make our way in the world. We have our own continuum. As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad? Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.
|
|
|
|