So, do you think Bush will use the Iranian navy incident as a reason to start bombing Iran?
(I really thought that this was what the topic I'm dobieing was going to be about!)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
No.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bush makes many horrible decisions, but he isn't anywhere near messed up enough to make that horrible a decision. Even if he were to start bombing Iran, it would not be because some ships had a minor standoff.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Bush makes many horrible decisions, but he isn't anywhere near messed up enough to make that horrible a decision. Even if he were to start bombing Iran, it would not be because some ships had a minor standoff.
Of course not. He can make up far better reasons than that.
(For those who don't know, I'm kidding! Or, at least, I hope I'm kidding. )
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If they actually attacked the navy? He'd at least reduce their little boats to rubble. But posturing? No.
Besides, his legacy machine is hard at work in Israel and Palestine. I don't think it can churn out anything there, let alone with Iran. It's pretty tired from Iraq.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The latest evidence shows that this event didn't even actually occur. The pentagon made it up, including dubbing things into the video they released. Latest story!
Two things about this have me really worried. First, the original "faked" story got reported by CNN and other major news organizations, now that the truth is out its only being mentioned by the little guys.
Second, and most important, it shows exactly how corrupt our govenment and Bush administration officials have become. How can a democracy possibly function when the people who control access to important information through secrecy and classification are people who are proven liars, who have a track record of manipulating and even fabricating reports to back their militarist agendas?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Where are you seeing this evidence, Rabbit?
From the beginning of this, the Navy has been very clear about the fact that they spliced the audio and video together, saying that they did so to illustrate how the situation was perceived by the seamen involved rather than as an official record of what had happened.
The latest I've seen on this is the story coming out of The Navy Times claiming that the transmissions were made by a ham radio heckler known as "Filipino Monkey" who has been harassing ships in the Persian Gulf for years. Now, I see some holes in this explanation and wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be incorrect*, but if it's been conclusively shown to be false I haven't read about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Noeman, I gave the link to the story above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Moreover, I read at least two mainstream articles early this week quoting pentagon officials explicitly saying that they didn't know where the radio transmission came from.
Every single reference to the video I have seen has mentioned that it was spliced and that the origin of the radio transmission was unknown.
The press has been reporting the possible identity of the prankster for 3 days now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Noeman, I gave the link to the story above.
Rabbat, that's weird; I completely missed the link.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Remember the Maine !
And don't forget the Turner Joy and the Maddox!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
We do have a long and inglorious tradition of using alleged attacks against US ships as a causus belli, it's true.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
And don't forget the USS Cole!
Oh wait...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Real ones, too. Still...
And looked at another way, "Remember the Maine" was as much about selling newspapers as about the government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think this is less Yellow Journalism and more LAZY journalism. Journalists these days want stories handfed to them, I don't think they're lying, I just don't think they care so much about double checking things they are told by the government anymore. The third estate has become the government's bitch. I thought they might get their act together after getting burned by Iraq, but I guess not.
I'm surprised this hasn't hit the major news outlets harder, and for that matter, I can't believe Democrats aren't railing against this one, especially with how hard Bush is pushing this on his Middle East trip.
[ January 17, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm surprised that a lot of things haven't hit the major news outlets harder, and that the Democrats aren't making hay out of them. This story is the latest one I've felt that way about. While it's possible that a big deal will be made of it, I don't think that it's likely that it will.
[ January 17, 2008, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I saw that one on CNN yesterday, but only as a short blurb. When I saw it, I shook my head, though "yeah that sounds about right," and moved on.
I'm desensitized. This must be a rather pacified version of what it feels like to live in Russia or China. My government lies and is corrupt, I can't do anything about it for another 10 months or so, and no one is able to stop them, even the other party stays quiet now, either because they are impotent or they fear, for whatever dumb reason, that it might shake what hold on power that they have, so I go on about my day and hope for a better tomorrow.
What can you do anymore?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Bush legacy Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Remember the Maine !
And don't forget the Turner Joy and the Maddox!
And be sure to add "The Gulf of Tonkin" to the list. Recently declassified documents from the Vietnam era revealed a lot of interesting things among them, the data proved that the Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.
quote:The author of the report “demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was ‘unimpeachable,’ but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that ‘no attack happened that night,’” FAS said in a statement.
It makes on wonder whether the US has ever entered a war that wasn't shrouded in lies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(The Turner Joy and the Maddox were the destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Weren't the Turner Joy and the Maddox the ships supposedly attacked in The Gulf of Tonkin?
[Edit--or, you know, what Kate said. Curse you and your speedy fingers, Kate!]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh, and just to pre-empt the "Pearl Harbor" arguments. It is now well established that
quote:President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
What FDR knew is not really the question here. I think we would have gone to war in response to a Japanese attack even if it hadn't been a surprise.
And there were other reasons than the Lusitania for entering WWI.
But I do think that reasons (sometimes valid, sometimes not) for war are often "foggy" and more complicated then the slogans used to get the country riled up.
[ January 17, 2008, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Hey! Some people enjoy my speedy fingers.
::waggles eyebrows::
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Moreover, I read at least two mainstream articles early this week quoting pentagon officials explicitly saying that they didn't know where the radio transmission came from.
Every single reference to the video I have seen has mentioned that it was spliced and that the origin of the radio transmission was unknown.
The press has been reporting the possible identity of the prankster for 3 days now.
The specific part of the story that seems to be missing in the mainstream media is the growing body of evidence cited in the article I linked that the pentagon and Bush appointees planted the story.
How many times will Americans put up with this adminstration playing the "we were just victims of bad intelligence" game before they catch on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What FDR knew is not really the question here. I think we would have gone to war in response to a Japanese attack even if it hadn't been a surprise.
What about the evidence that FDR deliberately provoked the attack and the evidence that they deliberately failed to warn the Hawaiian commanders. Without those two deceptions, Pearl Harbor might not have even occurred and certainly would not have been as deadly. If the attack had gone differently the US would like have at least waited longer before entering the war in Europe. Remember that following Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US (not visa versa).
But here is the really important question. In retrospect, even I, an avowed pacifist, will agree that the US needed to oppose facism and that by 1941, entering the war was the only effective way to do that. With that as a given, why did FDR need to lie to get the Americans to support the war?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I imagine until there's a draft, to be perfectly honest. There's supposed to be one official and one unofficial bulwark between the BS from the White House and the people. The official one is Congress, who are asleep at the wheel, and the unofficial are the press, who aren't asleep at the wheel, they're at the wheel but taking directions from www.mapquest/whitehouse.gov. Barring both those filters, we either believe it, or we don't believe it but don't do anything about it.
But I think the real problem is elections. Elections are the way we stop them from pulling this stuff off. Congress has zero fear right now that if they screw up they'll be punished in November, so they keep it going. Hell, Democrats are probably pissed but maybe 10% giddy every time this happens because it puffs up their chances for bigger wins. Can't say I blame them, it's what FDR was probably thinking when Pearl Harbor happened. It's pragmatic.
We're worried about ourselves. If the economy is good then we're spending big and living high, if it's bad then we're agitated and concerned for our personal well being, but by and large, other than a lot of lip service (and don't get me wrong, that's an important step, up there with protesting, which we've done too), sufficient numbers of Americans haven't taken that concern with them to the voting booth to make a change. If Democrats had sufficient numbers in Congress I really think they would be slapping down a lot of this. But with a razor thin majority, they might as well not be in charge at all. At least we're starting to see some more oversight from them (or any at all), but they feel defeated (and they should). Until enough people, more than just a slim majority of those who cared to actually vote (!), stand up and say "Enough!" it'll keep going, and I think that will last until we get ourselves into such deep hot water that it takes a draft to get us out. Then we'll wonder how in the world it ever got so bad so fast.
Rabbit, while it's probably neither here nor there, I don't really think Pearl Harbor fits in the same category as what's been described to far. What's been mentioned so far were all trumped up fake stories. Pearl Harbor WAS attacked. How it happened and how we didn't turn it from a surprise attack to an actual battle is debateable and certainly a point of contention, but there's no denying it was attacked, and I think it would've led to war regardless.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
FDR was not above manipulation or blatant suppression. And I hold his administration responsible for not taking enough action against the death camps.
But I can't believe he believed there was an impending attack against Pearl Harbor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because there were an awful lot of German and Italian immigrants. WWI was a hard sell, too.
Germany declared war on us when we declared war on Japan because of their treaty. We still waited a long time before actually entering the European war.
I think (pessimistically) that we will keep accepting poor reasons to go to war as long as we need that sense of identity that comes with defining someone else as "other". Patriotism feels good. As long as we want to succumb to that feeling the PTB will be able to exploit it in the service of corporations.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I can accept that Roosevelt knew that cutting off all petroleum to Japan would goad them into attacking the US out of sheer desperation, and I think he was right to get us to oppose fascism.
I don't believe he knew all the pivotal details about the Pearl Harbor attack and actively made sure it happened.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
From the PBS specials I remember watching, the Japanese government actually intended to announce that it was attacking beforehand. The diplomat whose job it was to give the information was waylaid and came late - then was surprised at the extremely icy reception he got.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Remember the Maine !
Grrrrr . . .
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: From the beginning of this, the Navy has been very clear about the fact that they spliced the audio and video together, saying that they did so to illustrate how the situation was perceived by the seamen involved rather than as an official record of what had happened.
Thanks, Navy. I didn't know they were so concerned about making sure people watching T.V. at home could experience " how the situation was perceived by the seamen involved " instead of just releasing an " official record of what had happened. "
Seriously no one needs the Navy add film editing to their list of duties.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Must be evidence that the thought process of their Commander in Chief is trickling down.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: FDR was not above manipulation or blatant suppression. And I hold his administration responsible for not taking enough action against the death camps.
What should he have done, exactly - bombed the camps?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What about the evidence that FDR deliberately provoked the attack and the evidence that they deliberately failed to warn the Hawaiian commanders.
How did he go about that, exactly? I'm not arguing that he didn't know about it in advance and let it happen, since I am uncertain (though I tend more towards he did not know it would happen myself), but I wonder what fits the bill for 'provocation' in your book here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously no one needs the Navy add film editing to their list of duties.
Seriously, we need to leave this important job to our serious, dedicated, and competent media organizations.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What about the evidence that FDR deliberately provoked the attack and the evidence that they deliberately failed to warn the Hawaiian commanders.
How did he go about that, exactly? I'm not arguing that he didn't know about it in advance and let it happen, since I am uncertain (though I tend more towards he did not know it would happen myself), but I wonder what fits the bill for 'provocation' in your book here.
Embargoing Japan certainly doesn't qualify as 'nice'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Embargoing Japan certainly doesn't qualify as 'nice'.
I see. And we should have continued selling them materials desperately needed for their war efforts, right?
You remember who Japan was using those materials on shortly before our embargo, don't you Blayne?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM -
Bomb the rail lines. Bomb the camps and you might hit the people you're trying to save, bomb the rail lines and they have no way to bring in more people or supplies to the camp. That's what was discussed when they found out about the camps, but it was dismissed.
Blayne -
Seriously? We're under no obligation to supply our enemies and their war efforts against our allies. That's insane. It's not our fault they abused our trade relationship and decided to use those materials to play at Empire. Besides, I can't believe they were demented enough to believe that they could really invade mainland America. Alaska in the 50's fine, but Los Angeles? No way. They hoped that a quick attack would stifle us and reopen trade, and even that was a stupid assumption. Attacking us was the dumbest thing they did in the first half the century, and it's not our fault they did it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Bomb the rail lines. Bomb the camps and you might hit the people you're trying to save, bomb the rail lines and they have no way to bring in more people or supplies to the camp. That's what was discussed when they found out about the camps, but it was dismissed.
And then the people in the camp, deprived of supplies, die more quickly. Or even when they're blown up in a cattle car on the way to a camp.
Why not focus bombing on the war effort, to end the war more quickly, and stop people from being sent to the camps altogether?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, it is possible those in the camps would have died more quickly -- but unlikely, given the camps' primary purpose was to kill them.
Most of the survivors I know say that the single thing the Allies could have done to reduce camp deaths was to bomb the rail lines. Killing Jews and other undesirables in the cities and the ghettos tended to disturb the local populace and result in sanitary problems. That's why they developed the camps.
Now, had the rail lines been disrupted, would they have come up with an alternative? Given enough time, likely so. But there's a good chance they would not have had enough time. The rail lines were easy targets, and disrupting would have done several things to bollix the German war machine. But first of all, with a very small investment of firepower, many lives could have been saved.
However, for the US government to make that investment, they had to believe that the reports about those caps were true. And too many were unable to do that until presented with undeniable photographic evidence. Some not even then.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, it is possible those in the camps would have died more quickly -- but unlikely, given the camps' primary purpose was to kill them.
Unlikely, I agree. But that was a *comparison*, not a decision made in a vaccuum; compared to the total certainty that, for example, bombing a factory that produced ball bearings would seriously harm the war effort.
quote:Now, had the rail lines been disrupted, would they have come up with an alternative? Given enough time, likely so. But there's a good chance they would not have had enough time. The rail lines were easy targets, and disrupting would have done several things to bollix the German war machine. But first of all, with a very small investment of firepower, many lives could have been saved.
I was speaking of the people already in the camps, not future victims. They, once it became clear what was happening, would probably have all been murdered very quickly.
We unfortunately did not have a limitless air force. Every bombing on exclusively camp targets would not just have been measured by the tangible cost of those missions, but in other missions not done. And all the costs of not doing those missions.
quote:However, for the US government to make that investment, they had to believe that the reports about those caps were true. And too many were unable to do that until presented with undeniable photographic evidence. Some not even then.
This is true, except for the 'small' part re: investment. But then again, if I had lived in a pre-Holocaust world (and I mean me as I am otherwise in 2008), I'm not sure I would have believed it without really damning evidence, just because it's such a horrifying event.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There was some pretty damning evidence. I hate throwing around accusations of anti-semitism, but there is some indication that was a factor for some who chose to ignore the evidence.
The investment in bombing rail lines, since it did not have to be nearly as accurate as bombing factories (yet missing nearby buildings), would not have been that large. And as I mentioned, would have done much more than prevent movement to the camps.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was just watching "The Jewish Americans" on PBS, and they had some interesting information on this. Apparently one of FDR's close advisors started trying to help European Jews once it became clear to him what was going on-- and found himself blocked by a clearly anti-semitic head honcho in the State Dept. It took preparing a detailed, irrefutable report on the death camps and the harm America's inaction was doing before FDR acted-- and then it was too little, too late. But at least in part, FDR really was underinformed because there were at least some anti-semitic officials around him. He obviously had some willful disbelief going on, too, but much of America did at the time. Who wants to believe that humans are capable of doing that to other humans? I know it has happened, and so have other atrocities, and still I don't want to believe it-- I just have to because I know it's true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... and their war efforts against our allies. That's insane. It's not our fault they abused our trade relationship and decided to use those materials to play at Empire.
In a weird way, it *was* your (the United States') fault. Arguably, it was the American Commodore Perry that forced Japan to open up to Western trade and started Japan on its strange emulation of the Western colonial powers. Japan wouldn't even have *had* a trade relationship with the United States if he had not threatened to blow up their stuff.
The lesson here is: Don't force someone to trade with you through military force. They might just very well learn the lesson you're teaching and use their newly acquired military arms (that you traded to them) to force you to trade with them when you don't want to
Also, Japan's war efforts against allies before Pearl Harbour? Plural even? Who are you referring to? I was under the impression that Japan attacked British and other allied forces in the Pacific after Pearl Harbour, not before. If you're referring to China, China under the Nationalists didn't even ally with the United States until after Pearl Harbour and I don't think the Communists ever allied with the States for the obvious reason. ex:
quote: On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into the war. China officially declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It refused to declare war earlier because receiving military aid while officially at war would break the neutrality of the donor nation.
quote:Also, Japan's war efforts against allies before Pearl Harbour? Plural even? Who are you referring to? I was under the impression that Japan attacked British and other allied forces in the Pacific after Pearl Harbour, not before. If you're referring to China, China under the Nationalists didn't even ally with the United States until after Pearl Harbour and I don't think the Communists ever allied with the States for the obvious reason.
Since when do we have to be officially an ally with someone for them to be our allies?
quote:The lesson here is: Don't force someone to trade with you through military force. They might just very well learn the lesson you're teaching and use their newly acquired military arms (that you traded to them) to force you to trade with them when you don't want to
While it's a pithy lesson you're offering, it's not a very good one. In Japanese warfare, the sudden surprise attack has a long history for one thing. And they had tried before they'd ever met an American to conquer China.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since when do we have to be officially an ally with someone for them to be our allies?
?
quote: And they had tried before they'd ever met an American to conquer China.
I have no idea what you're referring to. The only things that I can think of that come close would be a Mongol attempt to invade Japan and a short-lived Japanese attempt to invade Korea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have no idea what you're referring to. The only things that I can think of that come close would be a Mongol attempt to invade Japan and a short-lived Japanese attempt to invade Korea.
What do you mean, 'come close'? What, they weren't trying to conquer China? Did they just go and meet up and play a bunch of wargames?
Japan did not need the USA to do what it did. It had tried to conquer China before, and it had staged sneak attacks before as well. Your point, that in 'some' way it was the USA's fault, is not very well considered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I think he is referring to Japan's invasion of China preceding Pearl Harbor. But even then, Japan had no history of ambition at that magnitude. It was a new Japan nobody had seen before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: ?
1) Korea != China
2) Japan did need the US to do what it did, both materially and technologically.
The US recognised this and that was why much later they tried to slow Japan down by cutting off trade and starting the embargos in the first place after Japan invaded China, albeit too late to actually help the Chinese much.
Japan recognised this and that is why they attacked the US in the first place, to get access to the resources that the US was now with-holding from them and to pre-emptively stop any American attempt to stop their empire building.
Without Commodore Perry forcing the Japanese to trade with the Americans, Japan would likely have progressed technologically at a similar to the Chinese, rather then the startlingly fast rate that they did advance in making any surprise attack on the US or any invasion of China impossible.
BB: That doesn't make sense. Japan's invasion of China took place in 1937. Commodore Perry "opened" Japan in 1853 (or so).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: the first sino-japanese war was after Perry. I think there might have been some pretty major wars between China and Japan before that, but they were hundreds of years in the past.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's right fugu, but Japan didn't change as much in that interval as many other countries did, since it was locked down for so long.
quote:2) Japan did need the US to do what it did, both materially and technologically.
I wasn't referring to materials, I was referring to a desire to invade China. Japan had that; it was a part of their history.
quote:Without Commodore Perry forcing the Japanese to trade with the Americans, Japan would likely have progressed technologically at a similar to the Chinese, rather then the startlingly fast rate that they did advance in making any surprise attack on the US or any invasion of China impossible.
Discussions of 'fault' based on these sorts of foundations are pretty useless. If Perry hadn't done what he did, then nearly a century later Japan wouldn't have attacked us? Pretty silly, man.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While many things about Japan had not changed greatly, the entire nature of government had changed drastically at least twice, as had policies towards outsiders.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Quite true. It would seem, though, that their attitude towards China had not changed very much, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They didn't have much of an attitude towards China (beyond foreigners they didn't like who happened to be nearby) until the first sino-japanese war, which was really over Korea. After that, there was real animosity towards China among the Japanese ruling classes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
When did Japanese try to conquer China prior to the 1800s? That doesn't jibe with what I know of the history, which is by no means comprehensive. From what I know of Japanese/Chinese history, for the most part Japan would have been unable and often unwilling to attempt such a conquest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well we weren't exactly a major power then either. No matter what it was about, it still is some indication that Japan wasn't this idyllic, peaceful place until we came along an ruined it.
I don't think that this can be blamed entirely on us.
I am generally pretty quick to acknowledge where the United States has failed, but you can't trace every war in history back to failed US foreign policy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the last major wars were back in the period that started around AD 250 (they were centered around the Korean peninsula, but that was about as much China as any kingdom actually in modern China was).
So I amend my statement: the entire nature of Japanese gov't and society had changed several times since they last were involved in major wars on the mainland. Not to mention over a thousand years passing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, definitely, Japan had (has) serious problems with xenophobia. But it is accurate to say that they would not likely have invaded China (or Korea) if we had not brought the classes we did bring into power, into power. And make no mistake, western powers intentionally gave those classes support (because they were the ones who felt most western), and advised them that Korea was a substantial threat (which was probably accurate, btw).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There were the Japanese pirate raids for centuries and a late 16th century warlord, Hideyoshi, who invaded Korea and had plans to conquer China.
edit - found his name.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There were Chinese pirate raids during those centuries as well. I'm not going to put normal activities of seafaring nations as a sign of particular animosity.
Yeah, there's a lot more history between Korea and Japan than between China and Japan. At that point, I would count Korea as a separate entity from what we think of as China, though I would not have the thousand years before when the whole area was a mishmash of warring states.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well we weren't exactly a major power then either. No matter what it was about, it still is some indication that Japan wasn't this idyllic, peaceful place until we came along an ruined it.
I don't think that this can be blamed entirely on us.
I am generally pretty quick to acknowledge where the United States has failed, but you can't trace every war in history back to failed US foreign policy.
Of course I never said anything about *every* war. In my original words I said the US was at fault "in a weird way", which is hardly a formal way of stating a proper cause and effect relationship.
I'm thinking more of well...ironic karma.
The way I would characterize Japan right before Perry would be similar to what Fugu is implying, a rather xenophobic and militarily incapable nation with no real hopes of grandeur. This drastically changed.
I think you're underestimating the aggressive degree to which Japan emulated the Western powers to the extremes of copying their constitutions, wearing military costumes patterned on Western designs, copying Western technology, and even taking up ballroom dancing.
Their foreign policy was very much based on the painful lessons that China had received when dealing with foreign incursions and aimed at stopping a repeat of the same things happening in Japan.
Here is another take on the issue:
quote: The United States forcibly opened Japan to the outside world in 1853. Soon thereafter, Japan was pressured by the imperialist powers to sign "unequal treaties," which granted foreigners in Japan extraterritoriality in legal cases and which imposed on Japan low tariff rates for which the imperialist countries did not grant corresponding concessions in their rates. The leaders of the Meiji government, formed in 1868 after the downfall of the Tokugawa Shogunate, considered national security and defense to be the top priority in order to prevent subjugation by the Western powers. The nationalistic policy of fukoku kyōhei (rich country, strong military) emphasized Japan's goals to develop the country economically to catch up with the Western powers and to increase its military strength to ensure its existence as an independent country. Japan fought the later wars against China and Russia in 1894-5 and 1904-5, respectively, to ensure that Korea would not be used by another imperialist power to threaten Japan's security.
Japan emulated the imperialistic behaviors of the Western powers. From the beginning of the Meiji Period in 1868, Japan's leaders sought to make the country an industrial and military power on par with the Western imperialist powers. When Japan emerged from its isolation and took steps to industrialize and modernize, the international environment was one of intense competition between powers that tried to maximize their political and economic positions relative to other powers and less developed countries. ...
I think it is relatively certain that Japanese foreign policy would have been hugely different without Perry. The only way I could see an invasion of China and (then) an attack on the US happening without him (or rather, without US intervention) would be if another Western power took over the US role in Japan and in that time window between 1853 and 1894 or so and was even more successful at modernizing Japan with greater speed to make up for the loss of time.
[ January 21, 2008, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you want to keep moving back to assign blame to someone, let's blame Britain. If they hadn't colonized America a couple hundred years before Perry forced Japan open, there never would have been a Perry to do it. Or let's blame the French, without whose help there arguably would never have been an America to do it.
Blame is tricky to assign in the way you're trying to do it. You can go back and find the roots of things, the genesis of how we got to where we are today, but blame is trickier, because there are ALWAYS more roots, until you get back to 10,000 BC, where blaming a Mastodon just looks silly.
Is it our FAULT that they chose to become imperialistic and wanted a Pacific rim empire? No, it was their choice, and they have to own the consequences. Did our actions contribute to their decision? I'd say that's probably indisputable. Did our actions lead to them attacking Pearl Harbor (the question at hand)? Probably, but like I said, we're under no obligation to be the source of their war machine, especially when that war machine (obviously we know from history) poses a very real threat to us. But it's not our fault. It might look like semantics and degrees, but this is the stuff historians argue about all the time, and a lot of historical questions come down to semantics and degrees, so here I am arguing it. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Did our actions contribute to their decision? I'd say that's probably indisputable. Did our actions lead to them attacking Pearl Harbor (the question at hand)? Probably ...
To be honest, by about this juncture I think you're right and the argument has largely changed to a debate about semantics rather than one about events and probable outcomes.
The main notion that I am trying to counter is that that the American fleet on that day was not just some completely random bystander that happened to be in the neighbourhood and was sneak attacked while defending the American mainland.
In fact, that American fleet was there because the US had *already* built its empire in the Pacific and was attempting to prevent the Japanese to gain one of their own in the Pacific. The American embargo policy in the Pacific was largely about its own self-interest rather than any magnanimous desire to stop "their war efforts against our allies." Furthermore, I found extremely curious the following sentence, "it's not our fault they abused our trade relationship and decided to use those materials to play at Empire."
While we can play the semantic game about fault, the Americans started the trade relationship VIA force of arms/abuse and in the name of playing Empire. If the Japanese take that ball and run with it, one can hardly call that completely unforeseeable.
So where does that probability of forseeability (? let's make a new word) lie in the spectrum of unintended consequences? Well, thats more interesting. I'd roughly say that the chain of events is *much* closer to the statement "German aggression in WWII was a result of the harsh terms imposed on it after WWI" than "American empire building in the Pacific was a result of British colonization in N. America"
Does that mean I intend on making a case that would be suitable for something like the ICC or Nuremburg? Hardly. On the other hand, does that mean I'm going to start giving points to the US for protecting its "allies" in the Pacific via the embargo policy? Hardly. I'm more thinking something like "You break it, you fix it."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:BB: That doesn't make sense. Japan's invasion of China took place in 1937. Commodore Perry "opened" Japan in 1853 (or so).
You got me wrong. I was saying the only time I could think he might be referring to is Japan's invasion of China JUST before WWII. China didn't declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbor.
quote:Discussions of 'fault' based on these sorts of foundations are pretty useless. If Perry hadn't done what he did, then nearly a century later Japan wouldn't have attacked us? Pretty silly, man.
The most important lesson Commodore Perry taught the Japanese was, technology = power and power = sovereignty. China failed to learn this lesson and insisted it's ways were always better and that foreigners were all moronic barbarians. China ended up becoming Europe and the US's shared whore for many years and that set the stage for the rise of Communism which only made the situation worse by orders of magnitude. China has only in the last 30-40 years started emerging from that. Japan consolidated its resources, unified it's politics under a symbolic emperor and accomplished a technological miracle in about 100 years. They are still the 2nd largest economy in the world.
They saw their invasion of China as exactly the same thing as Britain's invasion of India and South East Asia, or America's capturing of Hawaii. They could not understand why the West opposed their invasion of China and concluded that the West opposed their invasion because we were all a bunch of sinophobes. I think the Japanese were right.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think we need to blame the Berbers.
If they wouldn't have gone all religious and invaded Spain then the whole "Reunification of Spain" wars would not have happened, Queen Isabella would not have been Queen so she wouldn't have been there to finance Columbus. Further, without a long war to re-Christianize Spain, there wouldn't have been a bunch of Post Traumatic Stressed soldiers running around Madrid looking for a continent to rape and pillage.
Without them, while there would be no America to cause anything.
So it all comes back to those @#$@# Islamic Berbers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You got me wrong. I was saying the only time I could think he might be referring to is Japan's invasion of China JUST before WWII.
Yeah, I think I got that. When I said that it didn't make sense, I just meant that the event did not remotely jibe with Rakeesh's description of "before they'd ever met an American"
quote: They saw their invasion of China as exactly the same thing as Britain's invasion of India and South East Asia, or America's capturing of Hawaii. They could not understand why the West opposed their invasion of China and concluded that the West opposed their invasion because we were all a bunch of sinophobes. I think the Japanese were right.
Quoted for sheer unfortunate truth. (thanks for making the point)
Actually, the racism angle flashed through my mind for a second or two during my last post before I discarded it and soley pursued the "US doesn't want another strong empire in its backyard" angle.
I figured I was going to get mockery/heat for even remotely suggesting that the United States should bear some measure of responsibility for their actions in Japan. Thus, I guessed that adding an angle of racism to the mix was just going to break "the camel's back" and get me labelled as some Chinese version of Irami and avoided it.
That said, I think you're right and that the truth includes a mix of both angles.
*prepares to get labelled* Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus, If it helps, I get what you are saying and largely agree, you lousy racist pinko.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Completely understand, I must admit that being a white man and growing up in Hong Kong gives me a unique position on being able simultaneously love and criticize both sides of this issue.
Though I hate to say that with the rise of China as a super power I think we are going to see Japan once again take it's place as second fiddle to China.
I just hope China does not get an aggressive big head once it becomes such a power.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's a mostly futile hope, BB. Unless the Chinese do not possessed any of that Human Nature.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mucus -
quote:The main notion that I am trying to counter is that that the American fleet on that day was not just some completely random bystander that happened to be in the neighbourhood and was sneak attacked while defending the American mainland.
Talk about curious statements, what are you talking about? The fleet wasn't attacked sitting off Honshu, it was attacked sitting in port within United States territory. I guess I'm wonder what your point there was.
quote:In fact, that American fleet was there because the US had *already* built its empire in the Pacific and was attempting to prevent the Japanese to gain one of their own in the Pacific
Empire is strong, but I'll let it go. Hawaii okay, and the Phillipines CERTAINLY. But what else? Japan invaded China, would've taken Korea and Australia if we hadn't stopped them, and went after the Aleutians. Other than the Phillipines we had a couple tiny islands in the middle of nowhere, and in terms of real military assets in the area, it was rather paltry compared to REAL empires. Look at what Britain had in India and Australia. Japan had already started their empire in China. Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific, it's not part of Oceana where most of the fighting was really taking place. That's like saying Manifest Destiny's taking of the western American shore was part of our drive towards a Pacific Empire as a stepping stone to Hawaii. I don't know, I just think you're being a little melodramatic in terminology there.
quote:The American embargo policy in the Pacific was largely about its own self-interest rather than any magnanimous desire to stop "their war efforts against our allies."
Who said anything about being magnanimous? Helping our allies IS in our own self-interest. We didn't help liberate France just to be nice guys.
quote:Furthermore, I found extremely curious the following sentence, "it's not our fault they abused our trade relationship and decided to use those materials to play at Empire."
Because...?
quote:While we can play the semantic game about fault, the Americans started the trade relationship VIA force of arms/abuse and in the name of playing Empire. If the Japanese take that ball and run with it, one can hardly call that completely unforeseeable.
Well that's fine. My point is, we're not under any obligation to help them. You seriously think that because a hundred years previously we forced them to trade with the world, that a hundred years later when they decided to start conquering their neighbors and posing a threat to us (a claim that's obviously justified) we're actually obligated to keep selling them weapons? That's totally ludicrous.
quote:I'd roughly say that the chain of events is *much* closer to the statement "German aggression in WWII was a result of the harsh terms imposed on it after WWI" than "American empire building in the Pacific was a result of British colonization in N. America"
I agree that the first claim is far more direct and fast than the second one, but I don't really see what you're going for there. The first doesn't make the second less true, and they aren't related at all.
quote:I'm more thinking something like "You break it, you fix it."
Well, I disagree with that specific sentiment, and if you really want to get into it, I'm sure I could come up with a dozen examples of things nations did and a hundred years later dire consequences came as a result that I don't think that nation should have had to personally fix. You're taking away personal responsibility from nations and assigning it to others. When I shoot someone in the head because I want his stuff, other factors might matter, but it's still MY fault, you're saying it's someone else's fault for putting the gun in his hand. That's crap.
And it's neither here nor there but, "you break it, you fix it"? We did. And it cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Re: Japanese attacks on China in the past.
I spoke incorrectly earlier, fugu and others are right, Japan did go for Korea, not China. It's just that I doubt that Korea was the ultimate goal. Japan didn't fear and revere Korea like it did China, after all. But that's speculation on my part, so my bad.
---------
Re: 'Fault', too. Well, OK, if you mean fault that way, I dig.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, in one of the wars they were out to conquer Korea, China, India, and some other places. Needless to say that was perhaps a bit overstated Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's a mostly futile hope, BB. Unless the Chinese do not possessed any of that Human Nature.
In the past China has been very introverted and has not seriously entertained any desire to expand.
It is quite possible they won't give that tradition up lightly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn:
quote:Empire is strong, but I'll let it go. Hawaii okay, and the Phillipines CERTAINLY. But what else? Japan invaded China, would've taken Korea and Australia if we hadn't stopped them, and went after the Aleutians. Other than the Phillipines we had a couple tiny islands in the middle of nowhere, and in terms of real military assets in the area, it was rather paltry compared to REAL empires ... I don't know, I just think you're being a little melodramatic in terminology there.
(what is this "would've taken Korea"? Japan *did* take Korea, for roughly 35 years too. Way to stop them?)
I'll give you the fact that the United States empire in terms of just its colonies was relatively small compared to the others. Unfortunately, I don't really have a mental category handy for oh, I dunno dwarf empires or wimpy imperialism if it would make you feel better about terminology.
As in practise, US actions in the Pacific are commonly referred to as imperialistic (as in empire building) with an example here US Imperialism in the Pacific.
As for actions beyond Hawaii and the Philippines , I can quickly give a couple more:
A) We've already mentioned Japan and Perry. B) The US military expedition as part of the Boxer Rebellion into China C) US participation in the treaty of Tianjin after the second Opium War, eventually leading to other US treaty ports in China D) A US military expedition to Korea link and even interestingly for this conversation (albeit minor) a understanding between the Japanese and the US to divide up Korea and the Phillipines between them:
quote: The strategic rivalry between Russia and Japan exploded in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, won by Japan. Under the peace treaty signed in September 1905, Russia acknowledged Japan's "paramount political, military, and economic interest" in Korea. A separate agreement signed in secret between the United States and Japan at this time subsequently aroused anti-American sentiment among Koreans. The Taft-Katsura Agreement was cynical by modern standards, exchanging what amounted to a lack of interest and military capability in Korea on the part of the United States (Japan was given a free hand in Korea) for a lack of interest or capability in the Philippines on the part of Japan (Japanese imperialism was diverted from the Philippines).
Granted, this is small potato stuff compared to the others. But it is certainly enough to get at the much more important point that I would like to end at.
From the perspective of China and the Japanese, the United States was certainly an imperial power interfering in the Pacific and building up its own empire, just like the British Empire or the Japanese Empire and *that* is what factors into the Japanese decision to counter the Americans at Pearl Harbour.
Does that make it right? No. Does that make it anything more than two empires clashing over resources and territory? Meh, not particularly.
quote:Who said anything about being magnanimous? Helping our allies IS in our own self-interest. We didn't help liberate France just to be nice guys.
Good, we're agreed.
quote:
quote:Furthermore, I found extremely curious the following sentence, "it's not our fault they abused our trade relationship and decided to use those materials to play at Empire."
Because...?
You can read the next two sentences as well as I can
quote:
quote:While we can play the semantic game about fault, the Americans started the trade relationship VIA force of arms/abuse and in the name of playing Empire. If the Japanese take that ball and run with it, one can hardly call that completely unforeseeable.
Well that's fine. My point is, we're not under any obligation to help them. You seriously think that because a hundred years previously we forced them to trade with the world, that a hundred years later when they decided to start conquering their neighbours and posing a threat to us (a claim that's obviously justified) we're actually obligated to keep selling them weapons? That's totally ludicrous.
Maybe not.
Were did you remotely read that I said the United States should have continued selling them weapons?
What I said was that contrary to your earlier characterization, the Japanese were not abusing their trade relationship. As BlackBlade pointed out, they used it exactly in the spirit that it was offered. Does that mean you should have continued selling them weapons? Heavens, no! I've been consistently saying that the US should never have even started selling them weapons in the first place, and certainly not by forcing them to.
quote: When I shoot someone in the head because I want his stuff, other factors might matter, but it's still MY fault, you're saying it's someone else's fault for putting the gun in his hand. That's crap.
Well, let's run with that analogy. You go to a dangerously introverted guy (see fugu "serious problems with xenophobia"), give them a pistol whipping, and then say "Hey, want to buy this pistol? It can help you stop me from pistol whipping you!" (see BB "Commodore Perry taught the Japanese was, technology = power and power = sovereignty")
Then you physically invite them to help you shoot a guy. (See Boxer Rebellion
quote: The Imperial Japanese Navy further intervened in China in 1900, by participating together with Western Powers to the suppression of the Chinese Boxer Rebellion. .. The conflict allowed Japan to combat together with Western nations, and to acquire first hand understanding of their fighting methods.
Then when they start to shoot other people in the neighbourhood on their own you give protest but don't actually do anything aside from not selling him more pistols and telling him that he shouldn't pistol whip others when you're not interested. (see BB "They could not understand why the West opposed their invasion of China") But hey, why actually stop them or anything, they're not whipping your *good* friends.
Then when they finally snap out of frustration and *shoot* you, then you claim that you had no idea why it was almost inevitable that they would turn on you and that you have no responsibility for them turning on you.
quote: And it's neither here nor there but, "you break it, you fix it"? We did. And it cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
Good for you. Thats a good statement I can agree to. I'll give out a B-. At least you stopped them when they personally started to threaten you. 100 points for style, -50 points for starting much too late to actually help Korea or China much during oh, 1910 till 1941.
[ January 21, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"In the past China has been very introverted and has not seriously entertained any desire to expand.
It is quite possible they won't give that tradition up lightly."
ummm...Tibet? Mongolia? Not that the Chinese would extend it to anything that doesn't border them directly. I doubt they would, although it's possible.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mongolia is an independent country, the only time it was a part of a Chinese empire was when it was ruled by foreigners.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "In the past China has been very introverted and has not seriously entertained any desire to expand.
It is quite possible they won't give that tradition up lightly."
ummm...Tibet? Mongolia? Not that the Chinese would extend it to anything that doesn't border them directly. I doubt they would, although it's possible.
Han Chinese did not invade Mongolia, heck they did not even invade the Manchurian empire, Korea, or Vietnam. They contented themselves with making their neighbors vassals, and as long as they paid tribute, China was happy. Ironically the emperor often sent gifts back that far out valued any tribute sent.
Traditionally Tibet used to be part of China, and they had representatives at court. They were similar to say Manchuria in that they were vassals to the empire for a very long time. When the communists took over and Tibet declared that they were not following suit they were invaded.
China invaded Japan when the Khans of Mongolia were at the helm, ditto for Vietnam. Once Han and the Manchus took over it was back to introversion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's a mostly futile hope, BB. Unless the Chinese do not possessed any of that Human Nature.
The Chinese have learned the oh most important Ferengi Rule of Acquisition: Peace is good for busieness.
Chinese trade agreements in the last 30 years have been mutually benefitial for all parties involved, have signed numerous partnership and friendship treaties with their neighbours and have taken considerable efforts to lead by example in East Asia forming the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and taking very constructive positions during east asian summits. They have a huge industrial and economic base and like the british in the 1800's are investing in the economic destinies of east asia funding and investing in the growing developing economies of the pacific rim and using dividends and profits to develope their poorer rural areas, tibet, inner mongolia and manchuria, abolishing anachronistic agricultural taxes and modernizing their military power projection capabilities. It is estimated that with the recent purchase of 4 aircraft launch and recovery systems from russia china will field 3 Admiral Kuznetsov class carriers so that operationally 1 carrier can always be at sea at anyone one time and have a set for ground based carrier take off and landing training for pilots.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
BB, you are not completely correct, while the Qing's were assimilated far more successfully then say the Khans were, China's modern borders of today are largely thanks to their expansion into modern day Sinkiang and negotiations with Russia and England over their souzereignty over tibet, it was the Qing's who conquered Ming China, who enforced their rule over Tibet and pacified the Mongols and Muslems once and forall.
Oh and kicked the Dutch off of Formosa.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mucus -
I'm going to be brief, because I don't want to get into a lengthy (well, lengthier) point counterpoint with you, and I'm going to take a swing at brevity, which isn't something I'm known for here.
Alright, change weapons to war materiel, which is what steel and oil was. We were under no obligation to power their war machine. I think you're parsing semantics when you try and draw a difference, but you seemed to be suggesting before that by withdrawing oil and steel shipments, we were provoking action. Oil and steel, to a nation that doesn't have their own, ARE weapons.
And I'm sorry, but we'll never agree on responsibility. Nation states are responsible for their own actions. Trying to make it look like it was all our fault, and our mess to clean up I think is unfair to the extreme, and makes Japan look like a clueless child just imitating what their big brothers do.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyr:
Well, I think you're still making assumptions about what I'm saying. (I still have no idea how you're getting to an idea of "obligation" to sell) Let's try to make this brief.
They didn't want to trade, you forced them to and sold them weapons. At this juncture (1853), you should have stopped even before attempting to force them to trade. After 50-odd years in 1904, the Japanese invade Korea. (or depending on your POV, you can start from 1894) At this juncture, you had a responsibility to stop them. Afterall, they're using the weapons you sold them and the Koreans even *asked* you to intervene and clean up your mess. You do not, instead you keep selling weapons. After 40-odd more years it is 1941, when they finally threaten you then you start the embargo in July 1941. They attack you in December 1941. At this juncture, the karma returns.
Should you have embargoed them? Damn straight. Should you have embargoed them as early as 1894? Yes, again. Was it your own fault that they turned on you? Almost certainly yes.
As for the rest, I think reading over BlackBlade's last post has highlighted what I see as a big problem. In brief, you're treating nation states as if they are individuals in a individualised Western world. Individuals are responsible for themselves. If one of your relatives makes a mistake, well, in the words of Douglas Adams, thats "Somebody Else's Problem." Sure, you try to help out when you can but in the end you bear no real responsibility except for your own actions in the immediate present.
The problem is that Asian nations are big on collectivism. Let's not knee-jerk here, I'm not just talking about Communism. We're talking about a culture of responsibility for relatives and a culture of social relationships in China, Japan, Korea, and beyond that predates the current discussion. As an example that BlackBlade hinted, the relationship between China and its surrounding states has traditionally been one of tributary states or in the mindset of the times, "big brothers" and "little brothers."
Despite all the Westernization, elements of this still persisted in the mindset that Japan still had and is why it established the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" idea alongside its empire.
You can view foreign policy in a Western individualistic framework and be continually puzzled or draw superficial conclusions as to why Asian nations act as they do/did. Or you can try to understand how they viewed it (understand, and quite possibly respectfully disagree).
And...I think that is most likely what we will need to do. Agree to disagree. (well, that was sort of brief)
MrSquicky: Sorry, missed that. Thanks...I think.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wait wait wait alot of that is valid but we are forgetting a wider view of international politics here, Great Britain was very much an ally of Japan during that period, and to a lesser degree france and many nations had cosniderable investment in Japan once they were well on the path to modernization, the United States directly meddling in Japan's affairs could have started a international incident the likes of which the US leadership at the time would not want.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: BB, you are not completely correct, while the Qing's were assimilated far more successfully then say the Khans were, China's modern borders of today are largely thanks to their expansion into modern day Sinkiang and negotiations with Russia and England over their souzereignty over tibet, it was the Qing's who conquered Ming China, who enforced their rule over Tibet and pacified the Mongols and Muslems once and forall.
Oh and kicked the Dutch off of Formosa.
If by pacified you mean officially declared control, and pretty much left them alone, you are right. Not to mention that after the Nationalists overthrew the Qing emperess Ci Xi they did not even bother to send representatives to Tibet and simply let the Tibetans take care of governing their own land. 40-50 years later the communists suddenly decided to be very hands on with Tibet.
But you are right, and I was wrong in regards to the Qing definately having agreements with other countries about their control of Tibet.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Not to mention that after the Nationalists overthrew the Qing emperess Ci Xi they did not even bother to send representatives to Tibet ... 40-50 years later the communists suddenly decided to be very hands on with Tibet.
*dryly* I suspect that they were quite busy.
(Seriously, for the rest of the audience since BB is well aware, for better or for worse the period between 1911 and 1949 is one of the most turbulent and chaotic periods in Chinese history and given the length of Chinese history, thats *damn* turbulent)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Not to mention that after the Nationalists overthrew the Qing emperess Ci Xi they did not even bother to send representatives to Tibet ... 40-50 years later the communists suddenly decided to be very hands on with Tibet.
*dryly* I suspect that they were quite busy.
(Seriously, for the rest of the audience since BB is well aware, for better or for worse the period between 1911 and 1949 is one of the most turbulent and chaotic periods in Chinese history and given the length of Chinese history, thats *damn* turbulent)
Oh I dunno about that. Shifting from millenia old despotism to democracy, to Japanese imperialism, back to democracy for a few months, and then a shift to communism.
And all that followed by 15 years of complete agricultural, economic, and social reorganization.
Still for the most part, China's claims on Tibet were all talk and little action. Little surprise that when it became action the Tibetans in essence said, "Oh My Buddha what are you doing?!" Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: BB, you are not completely correct, while the Qing's were assimilated far more successfully then say the Khans were, China's modern borders of today are largely thanks to their expansion into modern day Sinkiang and negotiations with Russia and England over their souzereignty over tibet, it was the Qing's who conquered Ming China, who enforced their rule over Tibet and pacified the Mongols and Muslems once and forall.
Oh and kicked the Dutch off of Formosa.
If by pacified you mean officially declared control, and pretty much left them alone, you are right. Not to mention that after the Nationalists overthrew the Qing emperess Ci Xi they did not even bother to send representatives to Tibet and simply let the Tibetans take care of governing their own land. 40-50 years later the communists suddenly decided to be very hands on with Tibet.
But you are right, and I was wrong in regards to the Qing definately having agreements with other countries about their control of Tibet.
Woah woah in that time the Nationalist government never renounced it claims over tibet all maps of China in that period included tibet and they continued to maintain border stones.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Not to mention that after the Nationalists overthrew the Qing emperess Ci Xi they did not even bother to send representatives to Tibet ... 40-50 years later the communists suddenly decided to be very hands on with Tibet.
*dryly* I suspect that they were quite busy.
(Seriously, for the rest of the audience since BB is well aware, for better or for worse the period between 1911 and 1949 is one of the most turbulent and chaotic periods in Chinese history and given the length of Chinese history, thats *damn* turbulent)
Oh I dunno about that. Shifting from millenia old despotism to democracy, to Japanese imperialism, back to democracy for a few months, and then a shift to communism.
And all that followed by 15 years of complete agricultural, economic, and social reorganization.
Still for the most part, China's claims on Tibet were all talk and little action. Little surprise that when it became action the Tibetans in essence said, "Oh My Buddha what are you doing?!"
woah woah china was never a democracy as we know it between 1911-1949 under the nationalists they never controled more then a quarter of the entire country, never held elections and quashed any attempt at reconcilation with the communists and acted in oppressive and undemocratic in the entire time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: Indeed.
Mostly, I just wanted to highlight that the 40-50 years bit may have been (mis)read by someone else as though Tibet was left alone due to a conscious decision. Rather, I suspect that it was left alone due to lack of opportunity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Between your last two posts you seem to be objecting both to points I was not making and to points I was. It's like some sort of weird double post.
Never controlled over a quarter of the entire country? How are you defining control? No they did not have troops at the ready garrisoned at every village but this flag flew over all of China at one point, and it was the Nationalist party that was given admittance to the UN. Their platform was democracy.
edit: As for oppressing communists that did not happen until Sun Yat Sen's death and Chiang Kai Shek's ascension into power. Before then communists were invited to be an integral part of the government body.
Also just so you don't get the sniffles for your patriotic red comrades in 1930's China, remember the Guo Min Tang organized the official army of China during WWII and I'm sure they appreciated communists pretending they did none of the bleeding fighting against the Japanese and the assertion that Nationalists deserved to be run out of the country by communists supported by ignorant peasants.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)