USA, Japan and China

USA, Japan and China (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

fbs -> USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 2:53:12 AM)
Interesting paragraph from "The Rising Sun", from John Toland: "With the seizure of Manchuria and the invasion of North China, the gulf widened as America denounced Japanese aggression with increasingly forceful words. This moral denunciation only hardened the resolve of the average Japanese. Why should there be a Monroe Doctrine in the Americas and an Open Door principle in Asia? The Japanese takeover in the bandit-infested Manchuria was no different from American armed intervention in the Caribbean. ... Why was it perfectly acceptable for England and Holland to occupy India, Hong Kong, Singapore and the East Indies, but a crime for Japan to follow their example? Why should America, which had grabbed its lands from Indians by trickery, liquor and massacre, be so outraged when Japan did the same in China?". That is an interesting list of arguments that Japanese politicians could have used (and probably did use) between 1937-1941. What do you guys think? fbs

jwilkerson -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 2:58:06 AM)
Looking at things through an impartial lens (like a real historian) might get you called a bunch of names around here - so fasten your seat belt! [:D]

GB68 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 3:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs Interesting paragraph from "The Rising Sun", from John Toland: "With the seizure of Manchuria and the invasion of North China, the gulf widened as America denounced Japanese aggression with increasingly forceful words. This moral denunciation only hardened the resolve of the average Japanese. Why should there be a Monroe Doctrine in the Americas and an Open Door principle in Asia? The Japanese takeover in the bandit-infested Manchuria was no different from American armed intervention in the Caribbean. ... Why was it perfectly acceptable for England and Holland to occupy India, Hong Kong, Singapore and the East Indies, but a crime for Japan to follow their example? Why should America, which had grabbed its lands from Indians by trickery, liquor and massacre, be so outraged when Japan did the same in China?". That is an interesting list of arguments that Japanese politicians could have used (and probably did use) between 1937-1941. What do you guys think? fbs I think its an argument that should be avoided. But, the comparsions drawn are from a Japanese biased perspective. That being said, it may or may not be correct in some eyes. There is an old saying used when a relationship breaks down, and I guess it can be applied to this "relationship" breaking down, i.e.- between Japan and America or even England and India and many others. The saying goes "there is always three sides to a story, her side, his side and the truth" Everyone can interpret the same thing many ways too!

JeffroK -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 5:24:58 AM)
Reviewing history should never be sidelined because the answers are unacceptable. I think these are questions which have to be asked and the answers accepted, for good or bad. Keep your head in the sand and you will keep repeating your actions until someone with a bigger stick (The Allies in the case of WW2) knocks you on the head. I could argue that the actions of the US & UK as mentioned, were 100 odd years into the past and that civilization had moved on. While Nations occupied lands that they considered "unoccupied" it was different to one nation waging war upon another nation. I would see the japanese actions in Asia (pre ww2) more similar to recent happenings, similies Toland could forsee.

GB68 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 5:40:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Reviewing history should never be sidelined because the answers are unacceptable. I think these are questions which have to be asked and the answers accepted, for good or bad. Keep your head in the sand and you will keep repeating your actions until someone with a bigger stick (The Allies in the case of WW2) knocks you on the head. I could argue that the actions of the US & UK as mentioned, were 100 odd years into the past and that civilization had moved on. While Nations occupied lands that they considered "unoccupied" it was different to one nation waging war upon another nation. I would see the japanese actions in Asia (pre ww2) more similar to recent happenings, similies Toland could forsee. Agreed, but I guess what i was trying to say in a roundabout way, was many people have strong feelings on this subject and perhaps don't always appreciate (or even attempt to understand) the other sides view. History is always a good subject for debate, it is my personal favourite, but I've often found the internet and its forums are about the worst place to discuss contentious issues. It'll just get ugly! edit: I'am currently considering writing a thesis on this very subject, so would be open to discussion, but my apprenhension stems from the above stated regular problem. No disrespect intended to the fine gentlemen and ladies (do we have regular ladies here??) on this forum.

oldman45 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 6:17:01 AM)
I am not sure what the debate would be? The Japanese government had to justify what they were doing in China and if the Western powers objected they could point to the Wests past action. I think using the past actions of a government (especially when it was 100 years in the past) a poor justification.

Kull -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 6:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs That is an interesting list of arguments that Japanese politicians could have used (and probably did use) between 1937-1941. What do you guys think? As with all such comparisons, the Melian Dialogue (from Thucydides' "Peloponessian War") is instructive. Melos was a small island city facing an invasion from the Athenian Empire, a war they had little chance of winning. Here's the most famous sentence, spoken by the Athenian delgation to the Melians: "You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." It's the age old law of power politics - might makes right. The Japanese could quibble all they want about how their actions were no different than those of the US or Britain, but they forgot the most important rule of all. Against China they were Athens and it appeared they should be able to do anything they wished. Except that once a bigger dog said "no you can't", then the game was up. Point, Set, Match. They could whine all they wanted about "unfairness", but that never enters into the workings of real power. If you haven't read the whole thing, the Melian dialogue is quite fascinating. Today we're so accustomed to political "spin" that unvarnished speech is almost shocking: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm Edit: Here's one section of the Dialogue which is strikingly apropos to Japan's pre-war attitude, and subsequent actions: "You will surely not be caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall wilfully into hopeless disaster, and incur disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of misfortune."

GB68 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 6:44:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull It's the age old law of power politics - might makes right. The Japanese could quibble all they want about how their actions were no different than those of the US or Britain, but they forgot the most important rule of all. Against China they were Athens and it appeared they should be able to do anything they wished. Except that once a bigger dog said "no you can't", then the game was up. Point, Set, Match. They could whine all they wanted about "unfairness", but that never enters into the workings of real power. I think, there in lies the basis of a good argument. What defines that power? The US was certainly a power to be reckoned with in the late 1930's, but in a very fluid environment. One could enter many mitigating factors to the debate. My first one would be calling the US circa 1941 "Athenian". Potentially Athenian yes, but in that time , certainly not. It had really never showed its power, save crushing some 3rd rate militias and somewhat mixed performance in Europe during WW1. Japan knew it could not sustain a long term offensive, but intrinsically, it felt it had the right based on the notions in the OP's quote. Which in response to Oldman45, is the contentious issue. Was Japan just following the UKs and USA lead (and others, France, Belguim, Spain...etc)?? Determined to be recognised as a power of at least equal? I think , yes for sure. I've always found the question of, what if Japan decided against Pearl Harbor? But, just invaded Malaya and the DEI? Ignored the PI and placated the US? It would have made for an interesting situation. Would the USA have entered the war? Would they have played the Switzerland of the Pacific? So many questions and theories, but it is always difficult to base that upon "what ifs" , especially when the written history is still debated.

Kull -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 7:11:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GB68 I think, there in lies the basis of a good argument. What defines that power? The US was certainly a power to be reckoned with in the late 1930's, but in a very fluid environment. One could enter many mitigating factors to the debate. My first one would be calling the US circa 1941 "Athenian". Potentially Athenian yes, but in that time , certainly not. It had really never showed its power, save crushing some 3rd rate militias and somewhat mixed performance in Europe during WW1. Well, the kinds of Naval Quotas dictated by the Washington Treaty certainly make it clear that the US was recognized as being well ahead of Japan. And the not insignificant fact that when the US embargoed oil and steel that Japan had no national recourse other than war or submitting to Washington's will. And every Japanese leader with actual experience in America (i.e. had lived and/or traveled there) knew that war would be a disaster. But that misses the point. The Japanese question in your opening post was, "since the US and Britain built their nations/empires by subjugating weaker nations, why can't we?" And the answer was, neither of those risked national destruction in so doing. Once Japan vs. China turned into Japan vs. the US, it was a different game. But instead of facing facts, Japan threw a national hissy fit and plunged itself into group seppuku. In fairness, they were misled by success against Russia in 1904. But a corrupt and tottering monarchy is an order of magnitude different than the kind of opponent the US had demonstrated itself to be against Spain in 1900 and Germany in 1917. 2400 years earlier, the Athenians diagnosed the real Japanese problem as "fear of disgrace" (see edit to my original post), and they just as easily predicted the result.

stuman -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 7:20:32 AM)
Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country. The Japanese did not move into China to restore order , help out, and then leave. They came to counquer and enslave. And that is wrong.

Kull -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 7:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country. The Japanese did not move into China to restore order , help out, and then leave. They came to counquer and enslave. And that is wrong. Absolutely true, but equally, utterly beside the point. The US had an economic interest in maintaining unfettered trade with China (the "Open Door" policy), and the fact is that once Japan took control of an area, fair trade effectively ceased. The utterly ruthless and inhumane policies of the Japanese military in China made it easy for the Western Powers to take a high moral tone, but they would have been equally unhappy if the Japanese had extended their rule using flowers and bribes, because the effect would be the same (i.e closing the door to free trade). But it would have been a lot harder to play hardball with embargoes without being able to point at Japanese atrocities. In this, as in everything else, the Japanese Empire excelled at shooting itself in the foot.

Anthropoid -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 8:09:08 AM)
Hypocrisy is not an absolute thing. It is virtually impossible for any social entity (particularly an aggregate like a "nation") to be either completely hypocritical or completely honest, truthful and sincere, as in the all or nothing logic implied in the Japanese argument quoted to legitimate their conquests. The fact that another nation does not live up to their claims with 100% perfection is not a sound basis to legitimate emulating their bad behavior. Thus, even given the racist and incoherent conceptions of individual human rights of the era, there was a fundamental contradiction in the logic underlying the Japanese argument quoted. The Monroe Doctrine, and myriad other aspects of U.S. policy and actions over the years have indeed been hypocritical in contradicting basic principles of the national social contract. My own granny was among those forced the march the Trail of Tears as part of U.S. expansionism. But that does not make displacement of less powerful people, nor expanionism any more right or justifiable, and it never did. Let alone justifying massacres and enslavement.

Puhis -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 9:15:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country. Well I guess they didn't want anyone in their country. Remember Boxer Rebellion, where 7 western nation and Japan united against chinese. Or Opium wars... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

FatR -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 10:02:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: GB68 I think, there in lies the basis of a good argument. What defines that power? The US was certainly a power to be reckoned with in the late 1930's, but in a very fluid environment. One could enter many mitigating factors to the debate. My first one would be calling the US circa 1941 "Athenian". Potentially Athenian yes, but in that time , certainly not. It had really never showed its power, save crushing some 3rd rate militias and somewhat mixed performance in Europe during WW1. Well, the kinds of Naval Quotas dictated by the Washington Treaty certainly make it clear that the US was recognized as being well ahead of Japan. And the not insignificant fact that when the US embargoed oil and steel that Japan had no national recourse other than war or submitting to Washington's will. And every Japanese leader with actual experience in America (i.e. had lived and/or traveled there) knew that war would be a disaster. But that misses the point. The Japanese question in your opening post was, "since the US and Britain built their nations/empires by subjugating weaker nations, why can't we?" And the answer was, neither of those risked national destruction in so doing. Once Japan vs. China turned into Japan vs. the US, it was a different game. But instead of facing facts, Japan threw a national hissy fit and plunged itself into group seppuku. In fairness, they were misled by success against Russia in 1904. But a corrupt and tottering monarchy is an order of magnitude different than the kind of opponent the US had demonstrated itself to be against Spain in 1900 and Germany in 1917. 2400 years earlier, the Athenians diagnosed the real Japanese problem as "fear of disgrace" (see edit to my original post), and they just as easily predicted the result. "Fear of losing face" was just a Japanese euphemism for "we must choose between going to war and being overthrown by a military coup and replaced with a new government, which will then go to war". The smarter decision would be not trying to grab the possessions of colonial powers that lied unprotected after Germany's conquests in Europe and concentrating on defeating China, but once the move was made, agreeing to USA demants (even their non-provocative version) was a literal suicide for people involved. Moreover, retreating from French Indochina meant making RL-style conquest of DEI impossible (it was considered incredibly risky even in RL, no one knew, that Allies would lose so badly), thus leaving Japan at USA mercy and without any leverage (which would have been the main justification for the above-mentioned military coup). With an ally like Germany, which was seemingly on the verge of final victory in continental Europe, Japanese decision-makers thought that Japan's position would be stong enough to resist Allied powers and convince them to sue for peace by delivering a long string of humiliating defeats to Allies, like they did to Russia in 1904-05. Of course, this plan hinged on IJN/IJA ability to deliver to Allies a long string of humiliating defeats (to make it comparable with Russo-Japanese war they needed to sink most of Pacific fleet, then obliterate the newly-built USA fleet in late 1943), and this never happened. Of course, their hopes for Germany failed as well.

FatR -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 10:11:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull Well, the kinds of Naval Quotas dictated by the Washington Treaty certainly make it clear that the US was recognized as being well ahead of Japan. And the not insignificant fact that when the US embargoed oil and steel that Japan had no national recourse other than war or submitting to Washington's will. And every Japanese leader with actual experience in America (i.e. had lived and/or traveled there) knew that war would be a disaster. But that misses the point. The Japanese question in your opening post was, "since the US and Britain built their nations/empires by subjugating weaker nations, why can't we?" And the answer was, neither of those risked national destruction in so doing. Once Japan vs. China turned into Japan vs. the US, it was a different game. But instead of facing facts, Japan threw a national hissy fit and plunged itself into group seppuku. In fairness, they were misled by success against Russia in 1904. But a corrupt and tottering monarchy is an order of magnitude different than the kind of opponent the US had demonstrated itself to be against Spain in 1900 and Germany in 1917. Spain was a very minor power at 1900. It is hard to find a modernised country in 1900 that wouldn't be able to spank Spain. USA performance against Germany was rather underwhelming. quote: ORIGINAL: Kull 2400 years earlier, the Athenians diagnosed the real Japanese problem as "fear of disgrace" (see edit to my original post), and they just as easily predicted the result. Athenians lost the Peloponessian war utterly, mostly thanks to engaging in reckless military undertakings and needlessly making new enemies, so, at that time, they hardly were good judges of when to fight and when not))).

GB68 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 10:12:30 AM)
quote: Well, the kinds of Naval Quotas dictated by the Washington Treaty certainly make it clear that the US was recognized as being well ahead of Japan. And the not insignificant fact that when the US embargoed oil and steel that Japan had no national recourse other than war or submitting to Washington's will. And every Japanese leader with actual experience in America (i.e. had lived and/or traveled there) knew that war would be a disaster. But that misses the point. The Japanese question in your opening post was, "since the US and Britain built their nations/empires by subjugating weaker nations, why can't we?" And the answer was, neither of those risked national destruction in so doing. Once Japan vs. China turned into Japan vs. the US, it was a different game. But instead of facing facts, Japan threw a national hissy fit and plunged itself into group seppuku. In fairness, they were misled by success against Russia in 1904. But a corrupt and tottering monarchy is an order of magnitude different than the kind of opponent the US had demonstrated itself to be against Spain in 1900 and Germany in 1917. 2400 years earlier, the Athenians diagnosed the real Japanese problem as "fear of disgrace" (see edit to my original post), and they just as easily predicted the result. While the Washington Naval Treaty is significant, to disminish it is wrong. I think it should be considered roughly in the same terms of the SALT treaties of the 1970's. More a recognition of the limiting of potential or even real arms races. In reality, the treaty was dead in the water by the early 1930's. (excuse the pun) But, no doubt all five signatories used loopholes and subterfuge to get around the treaty. I think the nation that suffered the most by the treaty was actually the French. I think the Japanese did not suffer from "fear of disgrace", more from a "I demand respect" perspective. quote: Absolutely true, but equally, utterly beside the point. The US had an economic interest in maintaining unfettered trade with China (the "Open Door" policy), and the fact is that once Japan took control of an area, fair trade effectively ceased. The utterly ruthless and inhumane policies of the Japanese military in China made it easy for the Western Powers to take a high moral tone, but they would have been equally unhappy if the Japanese had extended their rule using flowers and bribes, because the effect would be the same (i.e closing the door to free trade). But it would have been a lot harder to play hardball with embargoes without being able to point at Japanese atrocities. I'm interested in this notion of "free trade" that occured with China, In reality, it did not exist. It was a typical colonial enterprise. As it mainly used British and French interests to be the middle man. In other words, the European powers pillaged the resources and sold them to the US via the open Chinese ports. I am in no way condoning the activities of the Japanese military in China, but it is also correct to say that the British and French (and earlier the Portuguese) actions were certainly not "gentlemanly" Ruthless and sinister are words that come to mind. Which is partly the basis for the opening quote, I feel, anyway. P.S>- I actually did not post the OP, it was fbs. I was cautious of responding as I have found in the past, many respond with nationalistic and vitriolic replies. The real debate gets lost in the confusion... Thanks Kull, great responses BTW.

Kull -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 3:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GB68 I am in no way condoning the activities of the Japanese military in China, but it is also correct to say that the British and French (and earlier the Portuguese) actions were certainly not "gentlemanly" Ruthless and sinister are words that come to mind. Which is partly the basis for the opening quote, I feel, anyway. P.S>- I actually did not post the OP, it was fbs. I was cautious of responding as I have found in the past, many respond with nationalistic and vitriolic replies. The real debate gets lost in the confusion... Thanks Kull, great responses BTW. I completely agree that the Western Powers hardly had clean hands in their earlier actions. In many cases they were as or even more ruthless than the Japanese in China. And I can also see why Joe was a bit concerned at what this thread could devolve into. For the record I'm not claiming that the earlier actions of the West were "moral" while those of the Japanese were not. The reality is that Great Powers indulge - and have always indulged - in actions that can only be described as "might makes right". The Melian Dialogue is simply one of the baldest statements of the true nature of "Big Power mentality", and is instructive reading for anybody who would like to believe the world actually works differently (not directed at you, by the way) Anyway my point is - and remains - that your opening post contained a quote which amounted to Japanese whining, and Great Powers don't whine. They just do it and then justify it later. The fact that Japan couldn't do so without risking national suicide was all the reason they needed to know that they were NOT a great power, and thus would have to play by different rules. FatR does make one good point, in that Japanese politics of this era pretty much eliminated the possibility of rational national action. Keep reading Toland (he captures the spirit of the era perfectly) and you'll see that any politician who tried to put a brake on the Army's actions was at risk of near certain assassination. The Japanese were on a march to disaster and nothing could stop it.

NightFlyer -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 3:23:05 PM)
IMO Japan got into the Imperialism game with regards to Asia 100 years too late. If they had started "colonizing" at the same time as the US, Spain, the Dutch, Germany and France, no one would have cared because they were all doing it. It doesn't make what Japan later did right, but I can see why Japan would think the protests hypocritical.

fbs -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 4:41:01 PM)
That paragraph in the first post was part of a chapter about the deterioration of the Japanese-American relationship. It is quite interesting: in 1905 the US and Japan were best friends; that went downhill to threat of war by 1924. John Tolland's point on that chapter was that the Japanese geo-political goals were to contain the USSR, which they believed was the biggest threat, and were quite divided in whether an invasion of Northern China was needed for that or not. It is rather intriguing that the US and Japan (and the Kuomingtang) worked against their geo-political goals in China during WW2, and the USSR and the Chinese Communists were the ones that actually benefited from the war in China. fbs

Przemcio231 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/26/2009 5:28:02 PM)
quote: But a corrupt and tottering monarchy is an order of magnitude different than the kind of opponent the US had demonstrated itself to be against Spain in 1900 and Germany in 1917. Well Russia had one big problem during that war and to be exact during the I WW and that problem was extremly poor leadership... I don't know if you know that Russian Currency before the WW I was one of the most stable currency's in the world and was fully covered by gold. As for your war with Spain US showed nothing but incompetence during that War if they would be up against some one who actualy wanted to fight US would be in deep trouble[:D] I remeber reading that Vth Corps assambly before going to Cuba was a makeshift operation and it was a miracle that the Corps sailed for Cuba and if Spanish would contest the landings they would end up as a massacre for US... also Spanish troops were far better armed with their Mauser Rifles against One shoot Black Powder rifles most of the US forces used. So if US troops would be lead as in Cuba Japanese would have no problem in beating them...

Menser -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 5:02:38 AM)
It is ever just a question of what the current leadership wants or believes or is obligated for....nothing more. We need to go into here because they have weapons of mass destruction, we need to go into here becasue they have the resources we need, we need to go into here because our treaties and agreements say we must. It has always been that simple to throw away millions of lives.

stuman -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 5:14:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: stuman Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country. Well I guess they didn't want anyone in their country. Remember Boxer Rebellion, where 7 western nation and Japan united against chinese. Or Opium wars... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars No they didn't, and who can blame them.

canuck64 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 6:17:04 AM)
Intelligent discussion, though I see little ground for much debate, except perhaps the subtleties of which shade of lipstick to put on the pig.... -winners write history. Expansionist undertakings (successful ones-think here of Teddy Roosevelt's "talk soft and carry a big stick" gunboat diplomacy) seldom work. Thus did we see the death of Fascism.....but only AFTER Poland (in limited fashion), France (little less limited fashion) and finally Soviet Union were attacked. Healthier points of view allow nations to "expand" without making that their purpose. There's an immense risk in pure militarism-because the militarists begin inevitably to demand more action, more expansion and argue for more defense of the gains made. The argument in ww2 as I see it was not between the Japanese people and the American people and points of view. It was fuelled by Japan's militarism, which was operating under a full head of steam. That, coupled with Japan's emerging importance as SE Asia power, it's radical emergence into modern industrial competition, and a much too healthy respect for pure authority, made her course rather inevitable. Lots of radical 'change' in Japan for the 100 years leading up to their 1906 tussle with Russia..... Drop in a splash of celebrated racism: (Japanese/Chinese, Japanese/West, West/Japanese) and you've got a fine elixir for war and atrocity. The calculated attack on Pearl Harbor to wipe out the US Pacific fleet was seen entirely as "unfair" by a United States that itself has a somewhat difficult history with relative morality. It's a sad truth that Germany, Italy and Japan's 1930's approach to the world are entirely too human, and heavy in hubris. And I believe the lessons learned form the basis for objection to modern military adventuring. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Japanese understood this. We arguably sometimes forget.[:(] I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps. Once ahead in the arms race, it's easy to negotiate a SALT or arms limitation treaty. It guarantees the pecking order. Soviet Union was feared by the west post ww2, likely with good reason-but the world seen from their point of view was one of "gaining buffer states"-precisely to avoid losing 40-60 million people again. I believe we saw it in the west as expansion by "godless commies"........dehumanize your enemy being the first rule of thumb. How could the West relate to any of those points of view, really? morality is not absolute....though perhaps the concepts are.

Anthropoid -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 1:00:10 PM)
quote: I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps. I agreed with you 100% right up to that part. I think a lot of the posters in this thread are a little too caught up in the military side of things, and are assuming that might not only makes "right" but makes for stable Empires. I think history shows quite the opposite, as you are pointing out. The American Empire has prevailed so far not because it is necessarily "mightier" in a "chop off their heads and rape their children in front of them" sort of way. ICBMs and SSBMs were a necessary part of the foreign policy mixture that led to "winning" the Cold War, but they were not sufficient to win it. Perhaps proxy wars were also a necessary but insufficient part of the winning strategy. However despite losses and stalemates at several proxy wars the West "won" the Cold War. This is true becuse winning it ultimately was mediated more by sociocultural, political, and economic "competition" than military competition. I believe that this has _always_ been the case. Military power is only useful to help establish Empires, it cannot maintain them, and it certainly does not perpetuate them nor make them successful. Most people most of the time _LIKE_ what they get from American-style Imperialism = Britney Spears videos on YouTube and free-trade (like Matrix Games download area), and 5-day holiday weekends where you can get in your car and drive all the way across the continent without Big Brother stopping you to check your papers, _AND_ if you get pulled over on the way the cop is more likely to be fair and uncorrupt as not _AND_ the currency you use will be functional all the way across that geographic area, _AND_ you can get the same kind of chips and soda in thousands of convenience stores along the way, etc. This is why I disagree with your cynical sides inclination to blame the allies. Had the Soviets "liberated" France, we would see the same stagnation and abuses to human rights and the standard of living as we saw in Eastern Europe. Might does not make right, but it is useful to make it. What makes right is good civilizations. Japans whining was unwarranted for the simple reason that the path they were embarking on was far from being a path toward establishing a good civilized Empire, but rather a path toward establishing an oppressive, inhumane, and atrocious Empire.

IronWarrior -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 1:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GB68 I'm interested in this notion of "free trade" that occured with China, In reality, it did not exist. It was a typical colonial enterprise. As it mainly used British and French interests to be the middle man. In other words, the European powers pillaged the resources and sold them to the US via the open Chinese ports. Eh? sounds exactly like the modern practice of "free trade" to me (perhaps minus the middle man). Maybe you're thinking of "fair trade"? Example of free trade vs fair trade: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blackgold/film.html http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blackgold/economics.html

canuck64 -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 3:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid quote: I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps. I agreed with you 100% right up to that part. The American Empire has prevailed so far not because it is necessarily "mightier" in a "chop off their heads and rape their children in front of them" sort of way. ICBMs and SSBMs were a necessary part of the foreign policy mixture that led to "winning" the Cold War, but they were not sufficient to win it. Perhaps proxy wars were also a necessary but insufficient part of the winning strategy. However despite losses and stalemates at several proxy wars the West "won" the Cold War. This is true becuse winning it ultimately was mediated more by sociocultural, political, and economic "competition" than military competition. I believe that this has _always_ been the case. Military power is only useful to help establish Empires, it cannot maintain them, and it certainly does not perpetuate them nor make them successful. Most people most of the time _LIKE_ what they get from American-style Imperialism = Britney Spears videos on YouTube and free-trade (like Matrix Games download area), and 5-day holiday weekends where you can get in your car and drive all the way across the continent without Big Brother stopping you to check your papers, _AND_ if you get pulled over on the way the cop is more likely to be fair and uncorrupt as not _AND_ the currency you use will be functional all the way across that geographic area, _AND_ you can get the same kind of chips and soda in thousands of convenience stores along the way, etc. This is why I disagree with your cynical sides inclination to blame the allies. Had the Soviets "liberated" France, we would see the same stagnation and abuses to human rights and the standard of living as we saw in Eastern Europe. Might does not make right, but it is useful to make it. What makes right is good civilizations. Agreed. And well stated. It was what I was struggling to make a case for, with a cautionary and cynical tone thrown in. It's a lofty point to aim to make in a two paragraph box on a gamesite. Older societies with longer histories inevitably fall prey to "being lost" at times in their development. I think that's to be expected. We in the "West" must be very careful about looking around through lens of moral superiority. Men are men, and are equally capable of insanity. Sadly, I cannot subscribe NECESSARILY to your argument that what makes RIGHT is (morally)good civilizations. I want to. Consider: -Until the principles of, say, the United States' Imperialism (in 'enjoyable' form as you put it) last as long as those of Rome, we're arguing about an 8 year struggle between nations where, very obviously, the totalitarian nations ended up corroding from within as fast as without. Thankfully. I'd not wish to live under communism or national socialism, of course. Those were awfully extreme examples of moral carelessness, mind you. What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope.[;)] Winners write history. A hope I share, incidentally. I'm not that much of a cynic. [:D]

jwilkerson -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 3:23:38 PM)
This thread started on thin ice - and has skirted the "edge" of being more political than historical - and at least one post has stepped across the line - so if this thread can refocus on WWII history or the WITP/AE game it might survive, otherwise not. I cannot move threads to the Garabge Dump (er - I mean the General Discussion forum) so my choice is just to lock it down or not lock it down.

Anthropoid -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 3:27:44 PM)
quote: What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope. Winners write history When I hear this sort of argument I am reminded of that quote of Lincoln's. "Whenever I hear someone arguing for the merits of slavery I have a strong wish to see it tried on him." In my opinion, "right" is just as simple as that. The system of rules must be fair, else-=-from simple socioecological standpoint-=-a society has no hope to persist in the long haul. Societies that are more fair and/or exhibit a longer-running and more clear trajectory toward more fairness are superior to those that are less fair, and no society can evade this socioecological principle. Arguments by less-fair societies that the more-fair societies were in the past also less-fair are not good reasons to justify unfairness. Indeed, societies that are more-fair have no reason not to merge with others that are comparably fair, and as such, the whole idea of Empires should eventually become null and void, as the history of Western Europe has shown. The argument at the heart of the Japanese sentiment expressed in the OP is contrary to this long-term trajetory toward greater human unity.

jwilkerson -> RE: USA, Japan and China (11/27/2009 3:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anthropoid quote: What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope. Winners write history When I hear this sort of argument I am reminded of that quote of Lincoln's. "Whenever I hear someone arguing for the merits of slavery I have a strong wish to see it tried on him." In my opinion, "right" is just as simple as that. The system of rules must be fair, else-=-from simple socioecological standpoint-=-a society has no hope to persist in the long haul. Societies that are more fair and/or exhibit a longer-running and more clear trajectory toward more fairness are superior to those that are less fair, and no society can evade this socioecological principle. Arguments by less-fair societies that the more-fair societies were in the past also less-fair are not good reasons to justify unfairness. Indeed, societies that are more-fair have no reason not to merge with others that are comparably fair, and as such, the whole idea of Empires should eventually become null and void, as the history of Western Europe has shown. The argument at the heart of the Japanese sentiment expressed in the OP is contrary to this long-term trajetory toward greater human unity. Ok, enough. I can't claim to understand what these words mean, but they do not sound like a dicussion of WWII history or WITP, hence locking up.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125