Slitherine

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

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

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

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.

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.

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.

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

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.