Ermm... somehow I totally missed that comment until now. Allow me to provide the counter-counter arguments :P
"I don't buy the argument that because many years ago a Japanese government that has not existed in over half a century did some bad things, that the modern Japanese government has no right to create a system of self defense that does not rely on allied powers (notably, the United States)"
I personally do not hold the Japanese people accountable for the crimes of their forebears. I do however hold the Japanese government accountable for failing to educate their citizens about their relatively recent history. "did some bad things" is one helluva understatement. Furthermore, you would be naive to believe that the modern Japanese political system and politicians have nothing to do with the militarist regime prior to 1945.
Do you know that the Japanese Imperial family escaped all punishment despite proven association with war crimes? It was the one Japanese condition of their "unconditional surrender". Japanese politicians who in Germany would be prosecuted for Holocaust Denial hold offices of power in government, indeed one of them is currently the Prime Minister!
Shinzo Abe has repeatedly visited the Yakasuni Shrine which commemorates Japanese war dead, including over 1,000 convicted (by the US!) war criminals, 14 of whom are Class A war criminals!
Imagine if Angela Merkel regularly visited a shrine in Berlin that commemorated Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring and 1,000 other convicted Nazi war criminals? Imagine if Angela Merkel occasionally says that "The Holocaust was exaggerated and Germany acted in self-defense". Do you think the Jews, Russians and other victims of Nazi atrocities would be "okay" with that?
Well for the victims of Japanese aggression, the above theory is not fantasy, but reality. I chose a few western media sources to back up my points. This is not "Communist Party Propaganda", this is sad reality.
It is too late to seek justice/revenge for the millions of victims of Japanese aggression in WW2, because the vast majority of victims and perpetrators are already dead, but it is difficult to forgive Japan when there is no genuine acknowledgement or repentance. Yes some Japanese leaders have issued statements of apology, but such words ring hollow when the above is also true.
"There are atrocities in the past of virtually every nation. If you are going to compare Japan with China, then in recent history you'd see that China has been far, far, far more aggressive than Japan."
Japan has been effectively under the military control/protection of the United States since WW2. Naturally it has not had the freedom to be aggressive in a military sense since WW2. As for how aggressive China has been since WW2... that depends on perspective. What you might call Chinese expansionism the Chinese call "reunifying the motherland and defending our territorial integrity".
"It was not Japan who backed North Korea to invade the South in 1950. The Chinese government, along with the Soviets, did and created a political catastrophe that even today divides a nation in half and allowed one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history to take power for multiple generations."
North Korea is a tragedy. But the above statement is one sided and simplistic. I have written about the Korean War in a number of comments before, so I won't repeat them again.
"The Chinese government is also a very big threat to self determination. Historians agree that denying self-rule to populations was one of the primary causes of both World Wars, yet the Chinese government shows absolutely zero regard for calls by Taiwanese and Tibetan peoples for independence. In fact they are so opposed to the Taiwanese determining their own fate that the NPC has passed Anti-Secession Laws that threaten military action if Taiwan was even to formally vote for independence."
Again these are complicated issues that I do not have enough time to write about just now, but if you (or other people) are interested, I will in due course.
"Honestly, I think it is nothing short of fear-mongering for the Chinese government, who controls the largest standing army in terms of man power, the world's third greatest navy and a nuclear arsenal to insinuate that somehow its people should fear a nation whose military has not been allowed to leave its borders since 1948. Japan has no nuclear weapons. They have the smallest navy of any economic superpower. Their Self Defense Force has only been deployed abroad as part of peace-keeping missions at the behest of the United Nations."
China greatly outnumbered Japan in 1937 as well, it did not prevent a technologically superior, better organised and united Japan from invading a weak and divided China, and inflicting untold suffering and misery upon the Chinese people. Manpower was relatively unimportant in the age of industrialized warfare. It is even less significant now.
Japan's "Self Defense Force" is one of the most advanced and powerful militaries in the world. The Japanese Navy is larger and more powerful than the British Royal Navy! Your conception of Japan as some sort of harmless and intrinsically peaceful nation is wholely misguided and naive.
Hey @Heindrich a bit pressed for time, but I sped read you response and just wanna add a couple things before I get back to work (will add more later)
Shinzo Abe has repeatedly visited the Yakasuni Shrine which commemorates Japanese war dead, including over 1,000 convicted (by the US!) war criminals, 14 of whom are Class A war criminals!
Imagine if Angela Merkel regularly visited a shrine in Berlin that commemorated Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring and 1,000 other convicted Nazi war criminals? Imagine if Angela Merkel occasionally says that "The Holocaust was exaggerated and Germany acted in self-defense". Do you think the Jews, Russians and other victims of Nazi atrocities would be "okay" with that?
Custer's Last Stand is one of the most famous pieces of Americana around today, and the treatment of the Natives by the US government wasn't much better than Japan's treatment of the Chinese. Same can be said of the US celebrating aggressive wars, "Remember the Alamo!" being possibly the most famous. Also, how many pro-imperialist writers are studied in the UK these days? Rudyard Kipling is studied around the world, and celebrated in his home nation. How many anti-colonial writers are as celebrated as much in England? Even Joseph Conrad wrote about Belgian and French colonies, not British ones!
I don't think the Japanese predicament is all that unique. In fact, how many Chinese leaders speak fondly of the Great Leap Forward? Again, even by the most conservative estimate it stands at 12,000 casualties a day. That has to be one of the greatest atrocities mankind has ever seen. All nations have done horrible things.
As for how aggressive China has been since WW2... that depends on perspective. What you might call Chinese expansionism the Chinese call "reunifying the motherland and defending our territorial integrity".
Damn... this is the perfect time to Godwin a conversation.
Must resist, must resist!
Saving throw failed: I can think of another time a world power said it was "reunifying the motherland and defending our territorial integrity". It didn't end well for many people!
The pretexts given for these sort of policies are almost never what they seem. Just think Operation "Iraqi Freedom"!
As far as Tibet and Taiwan are concerned, I would actually like to hear your take. I personally don't see the value in keeping control over regions that desire independence. It is Realpolitik at its finest: The People's Republic simply doesn't want to lose face by letting go of these territories. It is understandable, and all governments behave in a similar fashion, but this does not make it right. Japan does not have such a situation in its recent history, so I do not understand why they must be sanctioned while other nations behave far more aggressively.
Same can be said of the US celebrating aggressive wars, "Remember the Alamo!" being possibly the most famous.
Objection.
In 1830 Presidente Anastasio Bustamante repealed certain property tax exemptions which had been granted to settlers from the United States into Coahuila y Tejas *and* increased the tariffs on goods imported from the United States; these two things sparked the beginnings of dissension and, later, full rebellion. Full disclosure of Texas history: Presidente Bustamante's administration also demanded an end to the practice of slavery but some settlers did not wish to comply. Fortunately for me, as far back as my grandmother's and, later on, my fathers's research into our family history can uncover there is no record or hint of slave ownership; even if such history did exist it wouldn't negatively reflect on me today--I wasn't the one who did it. Anyway....Texas' rebellion and independence from Mexico was not a war of aggression but a revolt over unfair taxation practices. Bustamante's mistake was letting too many settlers in--he should have restricted the amount of immigration but he was banking on the fact that by the time property taxes were allowed to be collected his government would have a rapid influx of money (Mexico was still struggling from its near-bankruptcy after gaining independence from Spain).
Same can be said of the US celebrating aggressive wars, "Remember the Alamo!" being possibly the most famous.
Objection.
In 1830 Presidente Anastasio Bustamante repealed certain property tax exemptions which had been granted to settlers from the United States into Coahuila y Tejas *and* increased the tariffs on goods imported from the United States; these two things sparked the beginnings of dissension and, later, full rebellion. Full disclosure of Texas history: Presidente Bustamante's administration also demanded an end to the practice of slavery but some settlers did not wish to comply. Fortunately for me, as far back as my grandmother's and, later on, my fathers's research into our family history can uncover there is no record or hint of slave ownership; even if such history did exist it wouldn't negatively reflect on me today--I wasn't the one who did it. Anyway....Texas' rebellion and independence from Mexico was not a war of aggression but a revolt over unfair taxation practices. Bustamante's mistake was letting too many settlers in--he should have restricted the amount of immigration but he was banking on the fact that by the time property taxes were allowed to be collected his government would have a rapid influx of money (Mexico was still struggling from its near-bankruptcy after gaining independence from Spain).
To be fair, there was also the small matter of slavery - which Mexico wished to abolish but Texas wished to retain. That said, people today often forget that the United States and Mexico were much closer to being equals and rivals before Texan independence, and our wars against them were not, as popular history seems to have transformed them into, imperial wars of aggression against an utterly helpless foe.
More or less I abhor revisionism that attempts to minimize the role of slavery or demonize the United States equally. Maybe we need a dedicated history thread...
Sorry, but a tax dispute between the Mexican government and American immigrants living in a region of Mexico doesn't mean that the American government was justified in annexing that territory.
@booinyoureyes - Rudyard Kipling's a complex one. Has been for decades. Born in India before moving to Britain as a child, he lived there for a number of years as an adult as well. For all the divisive nature of Empire his best remembered hero is still Mowgli, an Indian character treated without the patronising tone of most of his literary contemporaries. For all his jingoistic militarism, after the death of his son in WWI he blamed himself and his attitudes. He pulled strings to get his son (who had poor eyesight) declared fit for service, and later wrote, "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied". I actually wish I'd studied him at school, because he is an interesting character as well as a great writer. The Jungle Books are genuinely great, and the Disney adaptation saps them of much of the violence and tension. Mowgli was a total badass.
As an Englishman favorite writer of "Imperial" fiction is George MacDonald Fraser and his most brilliant and appalling creation, Harry Flashman. He took the villain from "Tom Brown's Schooldays" and made him a fantastic antihero. Written as Flashman's memoirs it includes a lot of racial slurs that made me uneasy, but you would expect from the writing of an actual Victorian Englishman. Flashman is a coward, drunk and womaniser who somehow manages through chance and good PR to appear a hero. The books chronicle British military and imperial "adventures" without any veneer of respectability. Each book is well researched (I did online fact checking after reading each one) and if the author thinks that a plan or event was brutal, pointless or idiotic then the narrator says so. They're also exciting, informative and great fun if you can get past the hero.
*Edit* @Heindrich - The figures for Navies that you linked are a little misleading. The Royal Navy tends to have 3 aircraft carriers, and while only one is in service at present there are two more under construction. The UK government has also recently commissioned replacements for the ageing nuclear submarine fleet. The Royal Navy is apparently one of the few "Blue Water" navies in the world, capable of operating continuously to support distant military operations. Japan definitely have more ships in absolute numbers though. Why the UK needs this capability as a mid-sized nation with no ongoing wars is another matter entirely. (Seriously, I have no idea. It's a bit silly)
Sorry, but a tax dispute between the Mexican government and American immigrants living in a region of Mexico does means that the American government was justified in annexing that territory.
This. In fact, the real "reason" was manifest destiny.
Something about Britain just produces great writers who are also utterly fascinating people, like George Orwell and Douglas Adams.
Orwell is a great example. I've never managed to finish Nineteen-Eighty Four (shameful confession), but his autobiographical books are better. Homage to Catalonia, in which he fought against the fascists during the Spanish Civil War and was shot through the neck (!) is a good read. As is Down and Out in Paris and London, about his experiences living at both minimum wage in Paris and as a Tramp/Hobo back in Britain. That is some bloody commitment to primary research right there. Animal Farm and 1984 are just fiction.
Something about Britain just produces great writers who are also utterly fascinating people, like George Orwell and Douglas Adams.
Orwell is a great example. I've never managed to finish Nineteen-Eighty Four (shameful confession), but his autobiographical books are better. Homage to Catalonia, in which he fought against the fascists during the Spanish Civil War and was shot through the neck (!) is a good read. As is Down and Out in Paris and London, about his experiences living at both minimum wage in Paris and as a Tramp/Hobo back in Britain. That is some bloody commitment to primary research right there. Animal Farm and 1984 are just fiction.
I'm the opposite - 1984 is my favorite of his (and I read it long before the present crisises over privacy and surveillance, thank you much :P), but I do mean to read the two books you mentioned as well. He was a truly independent-minded man, not just going along with the trends of his day (which saw Stalin as a benevolent, harmless authority figure!) but calling out evil for what it was, whether it was on the mainstream's "side" or not.
For all his jingoistic militarism, after the death of his son in WWI he blamed himself and his attitudes. He pulled strings to get his son (who had poor eyesight) declared fit for service, and later wrote, "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied".
I never read the play, but I saw the ITV movie with the Harry Potter kid. It was sad.
Don't get me wrong, I love Twain too. But the US seems to produce authors of his caliber at a more infrequent clip than the UK does. I see our greatest cultural gift to the world as being pioneers in cinema and, well, video games - the very reason all of us are here, after all!
This is not a competition. Orwell and Steinbeck distilled the zeitgeist until I ran out of cliches. They belong to all of us. It is possible that the UK (and Scotland at present) produces a relatively high number of sci-fi/fantasy authors, but I'm going to attribute that to nothing actually interesting happening here in the real world. To quote Johnny Storm - "Flame on!".
It is possible that the UK (and Scotland at present) produces a relatively high number of sci-fi/fantasy authors, but I'm going to attribute that to nothing actually interesting happening here in the real world.
More American authors: F. Scott Fitzgerald William Faulkner Hunter S. Thompson Ernest Hemingway Ray Bradbury Edgar Allen Poe Truman Capote Kurt Vonnegut Edith Wharton Henry David Thoreau T.S. Eliot Henry James Cormac McCarthy Dashiell Hammett Herman Melville Theodore Dreiser Sinclair Lewis Thomas Pynchon
Hahaha bloody hell I step away for two minutes to fill out 700 pages of paperwork and the thread explodes!
@Heindrich I for one would love to hear more in depth on anything you have to. The Chinese perspective, at least for us here in Australia is incredibly one sided and often ignored or portrayed in the old pro-soviet style.
With regards to Japan, your not the only one who is concerned. We seemed to have totally forgotten what happened last time the Japanese were an international military power. We've also forgotten the tens of thousands of Australian's and New Zealander's who died fighting them. Both on the battlefield and in prisons and insane forced death marches. As you say, the way they play it down, understate it and just tend to consider it 'not a big deal' is also incredibly concerned.
Japan was the aggressor, Japan committed these crimes. Admit it, own it, deal with it. Germany did. At least that's the way I see it. In my narrow field of vision.
I hear from some friends who are still in the Military that our real desire is to get our hands on their miltech. They have submarines we want, they have missiles we want, they have prefab and design techniques we want. We're looking to drastically improve our navy and Japan offers us the best chance, so we conveniently ignore everything else, at least for the time being, that's how the game is played.
That being said, we are working on tightening ties with China. We've worked very closely with the Chinese in the search for MH370 and I hear the Chinese PLA has requested to serve under Australian command during our next joint exercise. Which is a good sign. I've also heard the PLA:N is working on massively expanding it's capability and size. Including a fleet of Aircraft Carriers, most likely to counterbalance the Japanese.
I'm also not rightly sure about the North Korean statement. . . Yes China backed NK, along with the Soviet Union, which was probably the wrong thing to do, although it was in their best interests at the time. But that didn't lead to the largest war in the Pacific in history and the United States entry into world war 2. Granted we are now stuck with that idiot Kim Jong-un for the foreseeable future. Which kinda sucks. . .
Anyway, what's your take on Tibet/Taiwan/Hong Kong?
I remain neutral in most of these debates, I've yet to make up my mind. Although I learn towards the Chinese point of view more then any others.
With regards to Japan, your not the only one who is concerned. We seemed to have totally forgotten what happened last time the Japanese were an international military power. We've also forgotten the tens of thousands of Australian's and New Zealander's who died fighting them. Both on the battlefield and in prisons and insane forced death marches. As you say, the way they play it down, understate it and just tend to consider it 'not a big deal' is also incredibly concerned.
The last time Greece was an international military power, they conquered half the known world. They have statues and mosaics of the guy in every museum. Sure, Japan's leaders who have done horrible things may not have been completely disowned, but how many of them were portrayed by ruggedly handsome Irish lead actors?!
I seriously don't understand the insistence of holding people responsible for things that somebody, somewhere in their nation did three to four generations ago.
Honestly saying Japan thinks its "not a big deal" or were never punished for just sounds insane to me. The allies did a lot of not so nice things too. The burning of Dresden would cause outrage to those with more modern sensibilities.
But that pales in comparison to this
Most would agree that dropping the two of them was a necessary evil, but to say that Japan's aggression went unpunished to me is just crazy talk!
Your conception of Japan as some sort of harmless and intrinsically peaceful nation is wholely misguided and naive.
I'd like to see where I ever implied that they were harmless or intrinsically peaceful. I just said they were no more belligerent than China or the US (and probably a LOT less so)
@booinyoureyes Oh to true. We did flatten most of Europe. The fire bombings of Tokyo were far more destructive and left a lot more dead then the nuclear weapons but the nukes had something of the 'shock and awe baby' quality for them the Americans are fond of.
Above all, it concerns me that it may be the beginning of another arms race. The last thing we need is more war. Not so much on a political level, you'll never see a politician doing the dirty work. But on a personal level, the soldiers who fight are left mentally scared, physically disabled in many cases and with memories and nightmares you cannot imagine. Civilians going about their life get caught in the middle and chewed up by the meat grinder like everyone else. I grow more and more cynical with each passing day. :P Tell me how we can continue in this way?
This goes for everyone involved in war, and I can tell you when you take a life, a little part of you goes with it, you loose a little bit of your humanity and you can NEVER get it back. You'll never forget their faces, did they have a family? Did they have children? Are they so different from us? All these things occur to you. Not usually at the time, but later. Even though logically, it was them or you, you KNOW that, you did what you had to do but that doesn't change the facts.
This goes for everyone involved in war, and I can tell you when you take a life, a little part of you goes with it, you loose a little bit of your humanity and you can NEVER get it back. You'll never forget their faces, did they have a family? Did they have children? Are they so different from us? All these things occur to you. Not usually at the time, but later. Even though logically, it was them or you, you KNOW that, you did what you had to do but that doesn't change the facts.
I hate this world sometimes.
This is precisely why I'm nearly a complete pacifist. My mother is the manager of the programs at a VA hospital that deal with veterans coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. She has dealt with kids who have watched their friends be blown apart, men who have had complete breakdowns and can barely function in society, and several who simply lost any connection to reality. To make it worse, funding is a constant struggle, and many of the veterans are alienated by people who have no conception of how violence fundamentally changes them.
War is simply horrific, and though I doubt we'll ever eliminate it from this world, I certainly don't feel like most conflicts can be justified. Even in cases like World War II, I see it as the lesser of evils, not as a positive action.
I'm Tony Abbott. Prepare for mindless bigoted comments and anti-gay comments. Possibly racism as well. :P Oh dear Tony would be banhammered on this forum in ten minutes. What does tell you about his leading a country?
I'm Tony Abbott. Prepare for mindless bigoted comments and anti-gay comments. Possibly racism as well. :P Oh dear Tony would be banhammered on this forum in ten minutes. What does tell you about his leading a country?
It tells me that he's a lot like other politicians, though not all of them.
I actually have a theory about how wars can be avoided. It's pretty simple, really.
Step 1: All senior elected politicians; the Prime Minister/President, Deputy/Vice Prime Minister/President, Foreign Secretary/Secretary of Defense etc must serve as part of the national military reserve while in office. So during peacetime they spend one weekend a month off training, running around in a field with a gun and a bunch of other people. It's a pretty common thing to do, really. Sound reasonable so far?
Step 2: In the event of any military conflict (apart from peacekeeping/aid operations directly requested by the UN) all senior politicians are immediately called up to frontline service as infantry NCOs. This way if they think a war is morally worth fighting, then it's worth *them* fighting personally.
More or less I abhor revisionism that attempts to minimize the role of slavery or demonize the United States equally. Maybe we need a dedicated history thread...
On the other hand, there is a tendency these days to try and overstate the importance of slavery, as if that issue amounted to the only reason people did, or did not do, something. There is one history professor--he is at one of the universities here in Texas but I will have to go find the article again to verify--who claims that the American Revolution was fought *only* so that slaveowners in the colonies could continue to own slaves. He is attempting to downplay the rest of the valid and historically-proven reasons, presumably because he has an axe to grind or he wishes to make a name for himself by being "controversial".
You are correct, though, when you state that we should always learn all the facts when studying history because there is no better way to avoid the mistakes of the past. If you don't know what your predecessors did that was wrong then how can you possibly make better choices than they did?
@Covino I concur. If politicians had to back up their decisions with their own money and/or lives then they would put more thought into the things they legislate and/or mandate for the rest of us.
Comments
Game over, man. Game over!
Ermm... somehow I totally missed that comment until now. Allow me to provide the counter-counter arguments :P
"I don't buy the argument that because many years ago a Japanese government that has not existed in over half a century did some bad things, that the modern Japanese government has no right to create a system of self defense that does not rely on allied powers (notably, the United States)"
I personally do not hold the Japanese people accountable for the crimes of their forebears. I do however hold the Japanese government accountable for failing to educate their citizens about their relatively recent history. "did some bad things" is one helluva understatement. Furthermore, you would be naive to believe that the modern Japanese political system and politicians have nothing to do with the militarist regime prior to 1945.
Do you know that the Japanese Imperial family escaped all punishment despite proven association with war crimes? It was the one Japanese condition of their "unconditional surrender". Japanese politicians who in Germany would be prosecuted for Holocaust Denial hold offices of power in government, indeed one of them is currently the Prime Minister!
Shinzo Abe has repeatedly visited the Yakasuni Shrine which commemorates Japanese war dead, including over 1,000 convicted (by the US!) war criminals, 14 of whom are Class A war criminals!
Imagine if Angela Merkel regularly visited a shrine in Berlin that commemorated Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring and 1,000 other convicted Nazi war criminals? Imagine if Angela Merkel occasionally says that "The Holocaust was exaggerated and Germany acted in self-defense". Do you think the Jews, Russians and other victims of Nazi atrocities would be "okay" with that?
Well for the victims of Japanese aggression, the above theory is not fantasy, but reality. I chose a few western media sources to back up my points. This is not "Communist Party Propaganda", this is sad reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301640.html?sub=new
It is too late to seek justice/revenge for the millions of victims of Japanese aggression in WW2, because the vast majority of victims and perpetrators are already dead, but it is difficult to forgive Japan when there is no genuine acknowledgement or repentance. Yes some Japanese leaders have issued statements of apology, but such words ring hollow when the above is also true.
"There are atrocities in the past of virtually every nation. If you are going to compare Japan with China, then in recent history you'd see that China has been far, far, far more aggressive than Japan."
Japan has been effectively under the military control/protection of the United States since WW2. Naturally it has not had the freedom to be aggressive in a military sense since WW2. As for how aggressive China has been since WW2... that depends on perspective. What you might call Chinese expansionism the Chinese call "reunifying the motherland and defending our territorial integrity".
"It was not Japan who backed North Korea to invade the South in 1950. The Chinese government, along with the Soviets, did and created a political catastrophe that even today divides a nation in half and allowed one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history to take power for multiple generations."
North Korea is a tragedy. But the above statement is one sided and simplistic. I have written about the Korean War in a number of comments before, so I won't repeat them again.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/474778/#Comment_474778
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/470685/#Comment_470685
"The Chinese government is also a very big threat to self determination. Historians agree that denying self-rule to populations was one of the primary causes of both World Wars, yet the Chinese government shows absolutely zero regard for calls by Taiwanese and Tibetan peoples for independence. In fact they are so opposed to the Taiwanese determining their own fate that the NPC has passed Anti-Secession Laws that threaten military action if Taiwan was even to formally vote for independence."
Again these are complicated issues that I do not have enough time to write about just now, but if you (or other people) are interested, I will in due course.
"Honestly, I think it is nothing short of fear-mongering for the Chinese government, who controls the largest standing army in terms of man power, the world's third greatest navy and a nuclear arsenal to insinuate that somehow its people should fear a nation whose military has not been allowed to leave its borders since 1948. Japan has no nuclear weapons. They have the smallest navy of any economic superpower. Their Self Defense Force has only been deployed abroad as part of peace-keeping missions at the behest of the United Nations."
China greatly outnumbered Japan in 1937 as well, it did not prevent a technologically superior, better organised and united Japan from invading a weak and divided China, and inflicting untold suffering and misery upon the Chinese people. Manpower was relatively unimportant in the age of industrialized warfare. It is even less significant now.
Japan's "Self Defense Force" is one of the most advanced and powerful militaries in the world. The Japanese Navy is larger and more powerful than the British Royal Navy! Your conception of Japan as some sort of harmless and intrinsically peaceful nation is wholely misguided and naive.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-kingdom&country2=japan&Submit=Compare+Countries
Same can be said of the US celebrating aggressive wars, "Remember the Alamo!" being possibly the most famous.
Also, how many pro-imperialist writers are studied in the UK these days? Rudyard Kipling is studied around the world, and celebrated in his home nation. How many anti-colonial writers are as celebrated as much in England? Even Joseph Conrad wrote about Belgian and French colonies, not British ones!
I don't think the Japanese predicament is all that unique. In fact, how many Chinese leaders speak fondly of the Great Leap Forward? Again, even by the most conservative estimate it stands at 12,000 casualties a day. That has to be one of the greatest atrocities mankind has ever seen. All nations have done horrible things. Damn... this is the perfect time to Godwin a conversation.
Must resist, must resist!
Saving throw failed: I can think of another time a world power said it was "reunifying the motherland and defending our territorial integrity". It didn't end well for many people!
The pretexts given for these sort of policies are almost never what they seem. Just think Operation "Iraqi Freedom"!
As far as Tibet and Taiwan are concerned, I would actually like to hear your take. I personally don't see the value in keeping control over regions that desire independence. It is Realpolitik at its finest: The People's Republic simply doesn't want to lose face by letting go of these territories. It is understandable, and all governments behave in a similar fashion, but this does not make it right. Japan does not have such a situation in its recent history, so I do not understand why they must be sanctioned while other nations behave far more aggressively.
In 1830 Presidente Anastasio Bustamante repealed certain property tax exemptions which had been granted to settlers from the United States into Coahuila y Tejas *and* increased the tariffs on goods imported from the United States; these two things sparked the beginnings of dissension and, later, full rebellion. Full disclosure of Texas history: Presidente Bustamante's administration also demanded an end to the practice of slavery but some settlers did not wish to comply. Fortunately for me, as far back as my grandmother's and, later on, my fathers's research into our family history can uncover there is no record or hint of slave ownership; even if such history did exist it wouldn't negatively reflect on me today--I wasn't the one who did it.
Anyway....Texas' rebellion and independence from Mexico was not a war of aggression but a revolt over unfair taxation practices. Bustamante's mistake was letting too many settlers in--he should have restricted the amount of immigration but he was banking on the fact that by the time property taxes were allowed to be collected his government would have a rapid influx of money (Mexico was still struggling from its near-bankruptcy after gaining independence from Spain).
More or less I abhor revisionism that attempts to minimize the role of slavery or demonize the United States equally.
edit: wow my phone garbled this sentence
As an Englishman favorite writer of "Imperial" fiction is George MacDonald Fraser and his most brilliant and appalling creation, Harry Flashman. He took the villain from "Tom Brown's Schooldays" and made him a fantastic antihero. Written as Flashman's memoirs it includes a lot of racial slurs that made me uneasy, but you would expect from the writing of an actual Victorian Englishman. Flashman is a coward, drunk and womaniser who somehow manages through chance and good PR to appear a hero. The books chronicle British military and imperial "adventures" without any veneer of respectability. Each book is well researched (I did online fact checking after reading each one) and if the author thinks that a plan or event was brutal, pointless or idiotic then the narrator says so. They're also exciting, informative and great fun if you can get past the hero.
*Edit* @Heindrich - The figures for Navies that you linked are a little misleading. The Royal Navy tends to have 3 aircraft carriers, and while only one is in service at present there are two more under construction. The UK government has also recently commissioned replacements for the ageing nuclear submarine fleet. The Royal Navy is apparently one of the few "Blue Water" navies in the world, capable of operating continuously to support distant military operations. Japan definitely have more ships in absolute numbers though. Why the UK needs this capability as a mid-sized nation with no ongoing wars is another matter entirely. (Seriously, I have no idea. It's a bit silly)
pppfffft. Gimme Steinbeck and Twain any day! 'murica
case closed
F. Scott Fitzgerald
William Faulkner
Hunter S. Thompson
Ernest Hemingway
Ray Bradbury
Edgar Allen Poe
Truman Capote
Kurt Vonnegut
Edith Wharton
Henry David Thoreau
T.S. Eliot
Henry James
Cormac McCarthy
Dashiell Hammett
Herman Melville
Theodore Dreiser
Sinclair Lewis
Thomas Pynchon
/debate
@Heindrich I for one would love to hear more in depth on anything you have to. The Chinese perspective, at least for us here in Australia is incredibly one sided and often ignored or portrayed in the old pro-soviet style.
With regards to Japan, your not the only one who is concerned. We seemed to have totally forgotten what happened last time the Japanese were an international military power. We've also forgotten the tens of thousands of Australian's and New Zealander's who died fighting them. Both on the battlefield and in prisons and insane forced death marches. As you say, the way they play it down, understate it and just tend to consider it 'not a big deal' is also incredibly concerned.
Japan was the aggressor, Japan committed these crimes. Admit it, own it, deal with it. Germany did. At least that's the way I see it. In my narrow field of vision.
I hear from some friends who are still in the Military that our real desire is to get our hands on their miltech. They have submarines we want, they have missiles we want, they have prefab and design techniques we want. We're looking to drastically improve our navy and Japan offers us the best chance, so we conveniently ignore everything else, at least for the time being, that's how the game is played.
That being said, we are working on tightening ties with China. We've worked very closely with the Chinese in the search for MH370 and I hear the Chinese PLA has requested to serve under Australian command during our next joint exercise. Which is a good sign. I've also heard the PLA:N is working on massively expanding it's capability and size. Including a fleet of Aircraft Carriers, most likely to counterbalance the Japanese.
I'm also not rightly sure about the North Korean statement. . . Yes China backed NK, along with the Soviet Union, which was probably the wrong thing to do, although it was in their best interests at the time. But that didn't lead to the largest war in the Pacific in history and the United States entry into world war 2. Granted we are now stuck with that idiot Kim Jong-un for the foreseeable future. Which kinda sucks. . .
Anyway, what's your take on Tibet/Taiwan/Hong Kong?
I remain neutral in most of these debates, I've yet to make up my mind. Although I learn towards the Chinese point of view more then any others.
I seriously don't understand the insistence of holding people responsible for things that somebody, somewhere in their nation did three to four generations ago.
Honestly saying Japan thinks its "not a big deal" or were never punished for just sounds insane to me. The allies did a lot of not so nice things too. The burning of Dresden would cause outrage to those with more modern sensibilities.
But that pales in comparison to this
Most would agree that dropping the two of them was a necessary evil, but to say that Japan's aggression went unpunished to me is just crazy talk!
Above all, it concerns me that it may be the beginning of another arms race. The last thing we need is more war. Not so much on a political level, you'll never see a politician doing the dirty work. But on a personal level, the soldiers who fight are left mentally scared, physically disabled in many cases and with memories and nightmares you cannot imagine. Civilians going about their life get caught in the middle and chewed up by the meat grinder like everyone else. I grow more and more cynical with each passing day. :P Tell me how we can continue in this way?
This goes for everyone involved in war, and I can tell you when you take a life, a little part of you goes with it, you loose a little bit of your humanity and you can NEVER get it back. You'll never forget their faces, did they have a family? Did they have children? Are they so different from us? All these things occur to you. Not usually at the time, but later. Even though logically, it was them or you, you KNOW that, you did what you had to do but that doesn't change the facts.
I hate this world sometimes.
War is simply horrific, and though I doubt we'll ever eliminate it from this world, I certainly don't feel like most conflicts can be justified. Even in cases like World War II, I see it as the lesser of evils, not as a positive action.
I recognize Berlusconi and Obama, but I'm failing on Calo's.
I did Boolusconi because I find his inappropriate sexual antics hilarious
Step 1: All senior elected politicians; the Prime Minister/President, Deputy/Vice Prime Minister/President, Foreign Secretary/Secretary of Defense etc must serve as part of the national military reserve while in office. So during peacetime they spend one weekend a month off training, running around in a field with a gun and a bunch of other people. It's a pretty common thing to do, really. Sound reasonable so far?
Step 2: In the event of any military conflict (apart from peacekeeping/aid operations directly requested by the UN) all senior politicians are immediately called up to frontline service as infantry NCOs. This way if they think a war is morally worth fighting, then it's worth *them* fighting personally.
But then I'm a cranky peacenik.
You are correct, though, when you state that we should always learn all the facts when studying history because there is no better way to avoid the mistakes of the past. If you don't know what your predecessors did that was wrong then how can you possibly make better choices than they did?
@Covino I concur. If politicians had to back up their decisions with their own money and/or lives then they would put more thought into the things they legislate and/or mandate for the rest of us.