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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite true. It would seem, though, that their attitude towards China had not changed very much, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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* Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a mostly futile hope, BB. Unless the Chinese do not possessed any of that Human Nature.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Mongolia is an independent country, the only time it was a part of a Chinese empire was when it was ruled by foreigners.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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)
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?!" Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
