Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?

On 12/10/2009 10:03 AM, mtfester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Stuart McGraw <smcg4191@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/08/2009 11:13 PM, mtfester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
What part of "military and government structures, diplomatic ties, etc."
is unclear?

I have no idea why you think I found your statements unclear.
I can only conclude you did not understand what I wrote.

[...]
Again, not at all obvious to me. That she had adopted western
technology and many other form of westernization doesn't
necessarily mean that the deeper world view of Japanese leaders
was somehow morphed to that of Europeans.
So they didn't value resources, as did the Europeans? Territory? Prestige?
International currencies? Large corporations? "Lebensraum"?
What, precisely, was particularly Japanese about their world view?

Given your connection to and knowledge of Japan I can't help
but think you are being deliberately obtuse.
I'm talking about things like uchi-soto, a greater emphasis
on duty and less on individuality, an ethic from Buddhism and
the laws of karma rather than Christian one-life, one-reward
(or punishment), the importance of life vs honor, importance
of "face", etc.

How did any of this affect the Japanese view of the west?
I have no idea. But I don't think it far fetched that it
had *some* effect. I don't see why it might not color
the Japanese view of the things you mention or their
interpretation of foreigners' behavior.

[...]
Perhaps you should live there. Like it or not, most of the world is
moving towards "Westernization", and Japan was one of the first non-white
nations to do so.

Yes, when forced to by the aggression of the US. (Hey, if
we're going to use value-loaded terms, let's apply them equally.)

[...]
Except that what you think of is certainly wrong, in this case; it was
definetly NOT a dead animal, as the Boxer Rebellion, Sun Yat-Sen, etc.,
would show, and the West (and Japan, in cooperation) were very careful
NOT to push for too much in China, and in fact rising Chinese nationalism,
not the Japanese, would force them out.

Please focus on the image of the crows picking it
apart not the detail of whether it was alive of dead.

What's your point? That because China and Chinese
culture wasn't destroyed (as Europeans did to Native
Americans in America), there was nothing wrong with
western colonialism in China? That China is now on
its way to becoming world power and thus western
colonization was a necessary and good being a step
on that path?

Japan had joined in quite
enthusiastically, and had outright annexed another Asian country.

Right, they understood it is eat or be eaten.

Not really; Japan was in no danger of being eaten.

I just don't believe that. And I don't see how
the Japanese could believe that. From the 1600's
the Japanese people had seem more and more Europeans
showing up, felt more and more pressure, heard more
and more horror stories of Europeans in Asia. They
saw Americans spread from colonized North America
to Hawaii and then the Philippines. The had been
threatened by America and bombarded by the British.
They knew what was happening in China and the brutal
repression of the Independence movement of Philippino
people. They had seen the racism in the west and how
the west was perfectly happy to work together to
deprive them of war spoils obtained the same way
those same powers had obtained their spoils.
And watching this course of history play out, they
would not feel endangered? A new League of Nations
and promises of "we're done with that colonial
stuff" (after watching the European nations massacre
each other) would negate all that?

However, you are now claiming that Japan was adopting a Western world-view,
despite claiming that they hadn't?
[...]
And these breaks came well after Japan had demonstrated her understanding
of how the West worked, not before.

As above, I can't help feeling you are seeing things in
a very dichotomous way: they must understand (fully) or
they don't understand (at all). That they demonstrated
an "understanding of the west works" does not say anything
at all about how well they understood or that they might
have understood some things better than others.

Even in the west there were plenty of instances of major
disasters caused by opposing powers mis-understanding
each other. So it does not seem improbable that Japan,
being a latecomer in world politics, would be at a
disadvantage in this game.

This is a rather similar situation today when
many developed counties, who got that way using cheap hydrocarbon
energy, say to developing countries, "you can't do what we did.
because we decided it's bad". Is it any wonder the reaction
is similar?

To put this poor analogy to rest, continuing along proven bad course
of action creates a worse situation, not a better one, even for the
developing countries.

"proven"? How was it "proven" before it played out?

Sorry, are you claiming it has NOT been proven that emitting large amounts of
fossil fuels contributes to a bad situation? Or are you claiming that it was
not KNOWN at the time (even to the Japanese) that colonial expansionism was
costly and cubersome?

This is not the place to get into a global warming disscussion.
So I will just point out many people assume that because
it is likely that hydrocarbon burning is causing warming,
that we know with the same degree of confidence what the
results of that warming will be (we don't, those predictions
are much more speculative), or what the social and political
results of policy decisions to deal with it will be (this is
completely in make-a-wish land). Further, anyone with even
a basic knowledge of human nature understands that in any
times of change, many people will work for change that will
benefit them. So it is absolutely rational for any country
to be suspicious when someone else asks them to accept
limits on their growth and finance for the benefit of "the
world".

The same line of thinking would apply to early 20th century
Japan.

And she kept Formosa and other possessions, and would later take other
things from Russia, and within a framework of alliances similar to those
forged between European powers. And she would appeal to the US to mediate
a treaty between her and another European power.

Life goes on.

And Japan seems to have learned from them, yes?

Yes, she learned the western nations were a rapacious,
lying bunch.

[...]
This reference to Perry is often brought up by people who haven't
really studied the period. In fact both pro and anti shogunate forces
saw the benefit in opening to the west prior to the arrival of Perry,
but internal politics precluded them from expressing that openly. The
faction most opposed would be, of course, the Dutch.

I'm sorry. I consider that a pretty abhorrent rationalization.

Then take it up with the Japanese; that is, in fact, the way Monbusho teaches
it. Of course, they didn't bother to check with you.

Why do you think they would check with me? They do not
even know I exist.

Wikipedia is a little more specific about how the Japanese wanted
to "open" Japan:
+ Most Japanese were familiar with the subjugation of Chinese trade
+ by the British after the Opium War of 1840, but they were divided
+ on how and when they would inevitably open their ports. Both camps
+ did agree that trade should be handled by Japanese going overseas
+ instead of foreigners coming into Japan and violating the country's
+ seclusion laws.

Another thing that occurs to me is that Monbusho is part of a
government forged by the US during the occupation so one should
not be surprised if they teach views favorable to the victors.

If you are going to mention the textbook wording controversies
as proof that they are not overly influenced by US desires,
please don't -- those and what I wrote above are both consistent
with a organization forged by the US slowly moving towards
independence from the desires of the US. Maybe in another
50 years, they will teach about Perry differently (assuming
they actually teach it as you describe rather than as Wikipedia
describes).

[...]
Rather like that of the rapist: "Yes, judge, I heard her
crying, 'no!', but I knew that down inside, she really wanted it."

I see; but in "defending" Imperial Japan ca. 1937, you claim that "Your
honor, I saw all these other guys doing something decades ago, and so I
thought it OK to do it today" is somehow a valid rationalization for
her actions in China.

I am not "defending" imperial Japan nor did I say (or believe)
it was a "valid" rationalization. I am trying to understand
Japan's behavior without resorting to considering it inexplicable,
or even worse, that there is some innate predisposition of
Japanese people to aggressiveness and wanton cruelty which
is the implication of some of the criticisms I see of Imperial
Japan.

My theory is that most "irrational" behavior is irrational
only from the point of view of an external observer. From
the point of view of the actor, with their understanding and
picture of the way the world works and how they see others
as likely to behave, the "irrational" behavior may be
reasonable, even if only the best of several bad options.

Related is that history is written by victors and it is
perfectly natural to expect that that history will tend to
justify the actions of the victors while condemning the
actions of the vanquished.

Given the racism of the time, the imperialist history
of the western powers, and the subjugation of most of
the non-European world by those powers, it seems to me
that Japan had good reasons to be frightened for her
future. And it seems like the west should accept
responsibility for their part in the results rather
than just saying it is all the fault of those wacko
Japanese.

In "Guns, Germs, and Steel", the author (forgot who)
tries to explain (in a PC way) how people from western
Europe came to dominate a large part of the world. It
may simply be there was no way out for Japan and she would
end up dominated by the west no matter what she did.

It would be interesting to know how Chinese leaders view
the world. Do they hold your view, that the normal give and
take of peaceful foreign policy will allow all countries to
share the world fairly, or what I guess was the Japanese view,
that western Europeans will eventually try to dominate and
subsume every nation and culture they can unless resisted
by force?

.

Relevant Pages