PDA

View Full Version : Japan and WWII : Asian hegemony



Maciamo
May 4, 2004, 00:23
Why did Japan invade other Asian countries ?

To answer this question, we have to start from the Meiji restoration in the late 1800's. Japan, forced to open its trade to the United States then other Western powers, realized that its technology and political system were lagging far behind, and a group of revolutionary samurai from Choshu, Satsuma and Tosa (all in South-Western Japan) toppled the Shogunate and created a new Westernized government. All the society followed, and soon Japan had launched its industrial revolution. As the first and only Asian country to do so, Japan became quickly much richer and militarily more powerful than its neigbours.

In 1895, it proved its strength to the international community by defeating China quite easily - and annexed Taiwan. Russia and Japan then started to fight over the control of the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria. In 1905, The Russo-Japanese war started, but proved much harder for the Japanese. Although they officially won (and annexed Southern Manchuria and the Karafuto/Sakhalin peninsula, North of Hokkaido), loss were similar on both sides. But Japan became confident that it could rival Western powers for the first time. Japanese people began to feel a duty to protect their Asian neighbours from Western colonial imperialism. Korea was officially annexed in 1910, while Japanese troops continued to extend their control over Manchuria.

Japanese politics became increasingly dominated by the military, eventhough no military party ever gained any influence in the Diet (parliament). The cabinet of ministers was made mostly of nonparty politicians, supported by violent ultra-nationalist military factions such as the Imperial Way, who assassinated numerous politicians or opponent in the army itlself.

Those militarists pushed to take control of China. Economic and social upheaval in the 1920's led many Japanese farmers to move to Manchuria to release tensions inside Japan, and in 1931 the nominally independent puppet state of Manchukuo was created. From 1937, the Japanese army invade and took Peking, Shanghai, Nanjing and most of North-East China, although the countryside remained uncontrolable due to local guerillas and the low proportion of Japanese to Chinese (600.000 Japanese soldiers vs 300 millions Chinese in occupied land).

How did Japan and Germany become allies ?

In 1936, Hitler and Japanese prime minister Hiranuma signed the Anti-Comintern Pact against the Soviet Union, by which they pledged to help each other in case of Russian attack. Italy joined in 1937.

However, in August 1939 Hitler violated the pact by signing a non-agression treaty with the USSR in order to invade Poland in September. Himanuma felt betrayed and resigned as prime minister. But Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite pact in September 1940 to support each other against the United States.

After the Nazi had entered France and set up the collaborationist Vichy regime, Japan was able to negotiate the occupation of French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) through the Tripartite pact.

But when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Japan decided not to follow Germany.

South-East Asia and Pearl Harbor

The situation between Japan, Britain and the USA had been tensed since 1922 when a treaty was signed to limit the naval warships of each nation to a respective ration of 6:10:10. Japan tried to raise its ratio to 7 in 1930, but only obtained it for some kind of ships. Inceasingly frustrated and under pressure from expansionist military at home, Japan renounced to the treaty in December 1934.

The US had been supporting China against Japan by selling them cheap equipment, and broke the Japanese-American commericial treaty to enable them to place an embargo on exports to Japan if necessary. When Japan occupied the whole of Indochina in June 1941, Roosevelt immediately called for an international embargo to cut off all foreign oil supplies to Japan. This way, Japan would not be able to support its army and economy and would have to cede to American pressure to withdraw completely from China and Indochina.

But the Japanese government was resolved to stay. It tried to find a diplomatic agreements on a partial withdrawal from China, but the US were intransigent. When it became obvious that no agreement would be reached, the Japanese planned an attack on the oil-rich British and Dutch South-East Asian colonies (Malaysia, Indonesia...), as well as the American Philippines, while preparing a pre-emptive attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese knew very well that they couldn't wage a prolongated war against the poweful industry of the United States, but they also didn't expect them to be so determined to pursue a war and mobilize tens of thousand of men to such a distant land. That is why on 7/8 December 1941, they attacked Hawaii, pulling the United States into WWII, which resulted in the collapse of the Japanese Empire.

Some historians argue that the USA pushed Japan into declaring war on them. But could the Japanese military expansionism have stopped had the US taken conciliatory measures ? That is probably interesting to discuss in the context of the war in Iraq and against terrorism undertaken by the US at the moment. Did the Bush administration provoke the Muslim world to incite them to attack the US on September 11 ? Is history repeating itslef ? Are American leaders playing with fire or are they really acting in the name of democracy and freedom ? Nice debate in perspective.

sabro
May 4, 2004, 04:18
Informative, accurate and well balanced.

Good background for debates on other threads.

I believe that most of the high command in Japan during WWII was hoping that some how the US would trade security for most of Asia. That the US would allow Japan to keep indonisia, malaysia, part of china, korea, and indo-china in return for a settled peace and security for american interests.

kara
May 4, 2004, 09:06
off topic sorry. but for history lovers who can read/understand Japanese very well.


ところで、Maciamoさんは下記のサイトをご存知ですか? 日本語サイトですが(Engl ish Versionもあるにはあるんですが、日本語版ほど充実していない気がします)、貴方ぐらいの知性・教養 と日本語能力のある方ならきっと楽しめると思います。戦前の日本(と世界)について、相当深く、かつ偏りの 少ない知識が得られると思います(Maciamoさんの知識が浅いとか、偏っていると主張している訳ではあ りません。念のため)。


第1次大戦
http://www3.kiwi-us.com/~ingle/index.html


それから、そのサイトの掲示板の方はWWⅠに限らず、より広い話題が楽しめます。今現在だとGaleazz o Cianoの日記の話やイギリスのMosquitoとドイツのTa154との比較など、ヨーロッパ人の方が 詳しそうな話題も出ています。何かおかしな事が書いてあったら、是非訂正のresponseを入れてみてく ださい。webmasterの別宮暖朗氏も「訂正大歓迎。もし記載に事実相違があれば是非ご指摘ください。 」と仰っていますので。

というか、本音は知識人対知識人のバトルを野次馬として観戦してみたいのです。:evil:
http://www3.kiwi-us.com/~ingle/trees/trees.cgi?log=&mc=t

mad pierrot
May 4, 2004, 15:59
Wow. Great post.

Maciamo, have you ever heard of a Japanese peace activist called Arou Sei? (spelling?)
I know he was remotely involved with support for a free China early on, and I think he even worked with Chiang Kai-Shek...(?)

Anyways, if you have any info on him, please pass it along.

digicross
Jul 16, 2004, 10:25
We do know that it's not a very good tactical move at all to attack Pearl Harbour, considering that it only do little damages at all (like most/all of the new and good ships were already evacuated out of Pearl Harbour), a waste of resources (Japan was already quite low in resources at that time), and gives the U.S.A. a legitimate reason to attack Japan.

If Japan really has a grudge on the U.S.A., the good tactical decision would be to gather enough resources and allies, then make the U.S.A. surrender without any fight at all.

IF Japan didn't attack the U.S.A. , what reason do the U.S.A. got to participate in the Pacific War? Let alone participate in the European war, since the U.S.A. got involved in the European war because German and Italy vow to protect their Japanese ally.

It as if the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour was to create a REASON for the U.S.A. to go into war, in both Europe and the Pacific.


And the interesting thing is that, the Japanese government did indeed was trying to make the South East Asian areas to be independent countries.

While this can be argued as the Japanese government trying to make puppet countries, this too makes no sense. Considering the amount of work and resources put into these effort. This is like when the U.S.A. invade Iraq and then make a new independent country, instead of just making it its 51th state (which actually would be better that way).

Why did they do that? It's a waste of resources, it's a waste of time, it's a waste of effort. Why bother to do that?

Then also, why use battles at all?

Those who know on how to do battles (or at least read Sun Tzu's Art of War) knows that it's better to gain a territory not through battles, but through cunning and diplomacy. Make them give their territory to you without any battle at all.

One of those people that do exactly just that in recent time is the former Indonesian president Suharto, when he devise the creation of A.S.E.A.N. (Association of South East Asian Nations), which is essentially can be considered as Indonesia+. He as a military general is quite well versed in the art of war, his prefered method of conquering other countries is actually more into as corporate merger or corporate take over (a.k.a. A.S.E.A.N.) instead of military of invasion (makes no mistake though, he has no qualm of using military forces if needed). If he indeed make a military invasion, chances are that he was ORDERED to do so, and not his own personal actions. For example, the invasion to East Timor (that was done exactly after he met with Henry Kissinger) doesn't has his signature moves, even if he participated in it. Some says that Kissinger give his approval, what if it's more like an order?


As things unravel. It seems that the so called Japanese invasion of other countries during World War II seems isn't actually 'Japanese' at all, but more like a foreign invasion done under the name of the Japanese and using Japanese.

9/11 had many the same signatures as Pearl Harbour (both are non life threatning slaps intended to make people mad and angry), chances are... the people responsible for both events seems to be the same people. While some people argued on how the U.S.A. is behind all of these, it's very unlikely that it was really the U.S.A., it's more likely that in the end, the U.S.A. too is just another mere 'tool'. This thing seems to go so far as the Roman empire, and even way beyond that.

The question, who is the 'tool user'?

Once people know that, I'm sure that the conflicts around the world will end, and what's left are only low level conflicts.

bossel
Jul 16, 2004, 10:55
Yeah, it seems you know who the tool user is. Now would you please tell us?

Golgo_13
Jul 16, 2004, 11:53
9/11 had many the same signatures as Pearl Harbour (both are non life threatning slaps intended to make people mad and angry), chances are... the people responsible for both events seems to be the same people.

Yes, both were non-life threatenening. I'll ignore it since I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not utterly so stupid.

One huge difference. The raid on Pearl Harbor was a military maneuver and did not target innocent civilians, whereas Al Quaida's sole purpose in attacking WTC was to kill innocent civilians. If the Japanese military wanted to kill innocent civilians they could've attacked downtown Honolulu.

It is so moronic to equate 9/11 to Pearl harbor. I have a friend who has a kindergarten-age half white-half Japanese daughter. One day she went to kindergarten and some dumb kid started shouting it was the Japanese who blew up the WTC and pointed at her.

canadian_kor
Jul 17, 2004, 03:10
If Japan really has a grudge on the U.S.A., the good tactical decision would be to gather enough resources and allies, then make the U.S.A. surrender without any fight at all.

IF Japan didn't attack the U.S.A. , what reason do the U.S.A. got to participate in the Pacific War? Let alone participate in the European war, since the U.S.A. got involved in the European war because German and Italy vow to protect their Japanese ally.

It as if the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour was to create a REASON for the U.S.A. to go into war, in both Europe and the Pacific.

This is where all the conspiracy buffs are correct. There have been reports that the United States government under Roosevelt knew about a possible attack on the islands. That the United States government made sure all the circumstances were right so that the attack would be carried out fully. Remember, before this, the United States had supposedly an isolationist view towards the war. It seems reasonably clear that they were secretly setting themselves up for this one.


It is so moronic to equate 9/11 to Pearl harbor. I have a friend who has a kindergarten-age half white-half Japanese daughter. One day she went to kindergarten and some dumb kid started shouting it was the Japanese who blew up the WTC and pointed at her.

True. I think both events are different and should not be synonymized.

Golgo_13
Jul 17, 2004, 10:55
The sole purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to damage the main aircraft carriers of the U.S.N. Pacific Fleet that were supposed to be there. The Japanese couldn't care less about sinking old battleships.

Somehow the carriers snuck out before the attack.

4321go
Jul 20, 2004, 11:07
It is surely that the Japanese navy was able to sink the American aircraft carrier,if it does, the Japanese would won,somehow,they didn't find the carriers,this is the key that the Japanese lose the war!

I think that the Japanese governor is too stupid to start a war.Why they start the war is they are too arrogant,think that they are the best nation of the world!

Aaron Tan
Apr 26, 2005, 09:01
Anyway,most of the civilians from which countries Japan invaded suffered a lot

Sukotto
Oct 24, 2005, 11:51
Then also, why use battles at all?

Those who know on how to do battles (or at least read Sun Tzu's Art of War) knows that it's better to gain a territory not through battles, but through cunning and diplomacy. Make them give their territory to you without any battle at all.

One of those people that do exactly just that in recent time is the former Indonesian president Suharto, when he devise the creation of A.S.E.A.N. (Association of South East Asian Nations), which is essentially can be considered as Indonesia+. He as a military general is quite well versed in the art of war, his prefered method of conquering other countries is actually more into as corporate merger or corporate take over (a.k.a. A.S.E.A.N.) instead of military of invasion (makes no mistake though, he has no qualm of using military forces if needed). If he indeed make a military invasion, chances are that he was ORDERED to do so, and not his own personal actions. For example, the invasion to East Timor (that was done exactly after he met with Henry Kissinger) doesn't has his signature moves, even if he participated in it. Some says that Kissinger give his approval, what if it's more like an order?


I would have to disagree with you on the matter of Suharto invading East Timor. True, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and then US president
Gerald Ford were in Indonesia the day before the invasion took place. But instead of them ordering Suharto to invade, it was a "green light" giving an o.k. to go ahead with an invasion.

Declassified US gov't documents published by the
National Security Archive are none the less still
damning to all parties involved in the conversation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
Ford was unambiguous: gWe will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.h

as Kissinger told Suharto: gWe would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens happens after we return. . . If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home.h


This sounds quite in line with what Suharto would do given his taking
power resulted in the massacre of over 700,000 Indonesians.
And I don't blame this on Suharto alone either. The CIA provided lists
of known and suspected communists and communist sympathizers.


Then there's the whole take over of West Irian/West Papua as well.
In what was called the "Act of Free Choice" has been sarcastically
called the "Act of No Choice". Indonesia was to help conduct an
election on self-determination under the UN, but "quickly moved to repress
political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory."
The only ones allowed to vote were 1022 Papuans hand picked by Indonesian authorities.

Again, relevent US documents surrounding this issue:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm


But I don't mean to sit here and slam your government - only.
As noted I've ripped on US officials too.


_____
It is interesting you note ASEAN as a sort of corporate take over
of other countries.

Then compared with the US invasion of Iraq to make it an indepedent country
rather than the 51st state. Also I'd like to throw the trade agreement NAFTA
(North American Free Trade Agreement) between Mexico, Canada, & the US, as well as IMF, World Bank, & WTO into the mix.

Some people consider NAFTA to be an annexation of Mexico of sorts similar
to your comparison for ASEAN.
"Annexation of Mexico : From the Aztecs to the IMF"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567511309/102-3770470-4182559?v=glance

With the IMF, WTO, & World Bank, being from Indonesia I suspect
you might be more familiar with the international monetary institutions
treatment of countries not of the G7/G8 ("the North"), again inline
with your ASEAN comparison, and for those not familiar with such a point
of view...
My understanding is that those 3 institutions act as a sort of global
governance system. IMF & World Bank (I forget which does what)
give out loans to countries under the guise of development or
poverty reduction or in a financial crisis. As conditional to get these
loans countries are forced reorganize their economy and gov't services
including cutting schooling funds sometimes down to grade school.
Privatize gov't held industries. Reorganize tax structures to treat foreign
corporations as if they were local businesses and even allow for investments
to be taken out of the country 100% on a whim. WTO threatens lawsuits
if such things as environmental or worker protections are ruled a "barrier
to trade" by an unelected 3 judge tribunal.

And with US invasion of Iraq, it is rather setting up a puppet gov't.
It would be very bad public relations and even their biggest supporters
would not support them if the US gov't set up a 51st state.
Instead they invade by telling lies to their own population about "weapons
of mass destruction" and hint at connections with 9/11 terrorist attacks.
(never outright claim there are connections,
but hint at them and prominant non-governmental supporters can tell out right lies).
When the US had its viceroy in power before handing over to the Iraqi
interm government, Paul Bremer signed into law, that for Iraqis, was
really bad economic policies. Foreign companies could own 100% of
companies and withdraw 100% of all assets at any time. Also no foreign
company could be held responsible for anything. At first they were going
to privatize all the state owned oil companies, but they decided it was better
for profits if they kept it state owned. Also imposed a flat tax system.
Its all about economics. They don't have to steal the oil and send it home,
just control of the oil so they can profit from where ever it goes.

Basically control the heads of state enough to deal economically in favor of
you instead of their own people. Which is a major reason the US didn't
say anything when Saddam Hussein was massacring the Kurds back
in the 80's.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

So that too fits in with your ASEAN corporate take over scheme.
I actually believe more of the ones that I listed, but its the first
I've heard of the example you gave, so I'll try to keep an open mind.
Thus far I've been thinking ASEAN was more like the European Union
before it became political, it was mainly economic.

caster51
May 27, 2006, 12:00
Sun Yat Sen's(j speech on Pan-Asianism in Kobe 1924
all japanese was his believer at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat_Sen's_speech_on_Pan-Asianism

bengaren
Aug 11, 2006, 22:28
[U][B]Did the Bush administration provoke the Muslim world to incite them to attack the US on September 11 ? Is history repeating itslef ? Are American leaders playing with fire or are they really acting in the name of democracy and freedom ? Nice debate in perspective.

It is well known that the Bushes have long-standing relations with the Bin-Laden family. Speculation and conspiracy theories about regarding these ties, and the Sept. 11th attacks. It seems a bit convenient that such an attack on American soil would provide just the impetus the Bush administration needed to once again start up the wheels of America's military-industrial complex for the sake "perpetual war," let alone the opportunities the region holds for oil speculation and development.

Speculation aside on what the "big plans" are, these plans are nothing until they are acted on by the masses within the organizational heirarchy. I think it is interesting to compare the motivating forces that compel those within both the Imperialist Japanese organizational structures, and those currently motivating troops in Bush's Army. (I use the term "Bush's Army" because I was a soldier in the Clinton/Gore Army, and I can tell you, it was a very different Army than the one we see in America today.)

In the case of Japanese Imperial Forces, elements of the Bushido code, as well as a pervading sense of the devine lineage of the Emporor gave them a sense of a deeper connection with a "higher purpose." This sense of "higher purpose" included improving the lives of the people of Japan through the attainment of resources they needed to survive, and that would keep the nation's "wheels of industry" in motion. Some, no doubt, felt a sense of responsibility for the subjugated peoples as part of the human family, to help educate them to become a productive part of the "natural heirarchy" that led all the way up to the Emperor and the sun. Unfortunately, this mind-set was often superceded by nationalist leanings that held that all non-Japanese were lesser humans, if even human at all. (Earliest elements of this sentiment can be found in some accounts of the Nihon-Shoki that tell of a deformed child, the result of Izanami speaking before Izanagi, who was sent away in a reed boat, thereby explaining the existence of foreign peoples.)

In America's Army today, it goes without saying that the vast majority are driven by a sense of duty, honor, and country. But, beyond this lies an appreciation for Bush and his fundamentalist Christian leanings. In their mind, they are engaged in a modern-day "Crusade."

Bush, on the other hand, seems intent on exploiting this Christian element in the American cultural ethos, for the purpose of 1.) Funelling vast amounts of money into war-based industries, e.g. Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.; and 2.) securing vast amounts of oil for additional wealth-creation.

If it were really a war on "terror," then we would have stayed focussed on finding Bin-Laden and rooting out Al-Q'aida. Instead, Bush has successfully diverted attention away from Bin-Laden... to catch him too early would put a too-early end to the "perpetual war" upon which his economic master-plan depends.

Playing with fire? Yes. Democracy? I think in Bush's mind, that is not even an issue. In fact, Bush seems to see himself as a modern-day Emperor with "devine rights" above the petty laws of man. Witness the way he stormed through the U.N., blatantly disregarding the stipulations in the U.N. Charter to which the U.S. agreed to abide some 50 years before. Witness the way he thumbs his nose at the Geneva Conventions by sanctioning the torture of prisoners of war.

In 1.5 years, Bush will be gone, the negative karma he's generated will continue to ripple throughout the world, but Bush himself will fade away, his legacy becoming an embarassing chapter on "America's Modern Dark Age" in history books... a dark age where intelligent, ethical leadership gave way to arrogance, belligerence, and ignorance... an age when Democracy came very close to being supplanted by Fundamentalist Christian Fascism.

Fascism under any guise is abhorrent. And it is often perpetuated by ancient myths of human creation. We must learn from the lessons of the past, look upon the world with clarity, being vigilant against allowing ilusion and delusion to influence our thoughts actions. Hopefully, there will evolve a way for the tribe of humankind to find a peaceful way to coexist.

I believe it is time for an age of the "Peaceful Warrior," guided by the "higher purpose" of universal love, rather than the pursuit of money and power. Every person has within them a beating heart... It is up to our minds to learn what it is we need to know to ensure that all our hearts can go on beating together as one heart in the "Corpus Gaia."

Ben Garen

Tonysoong
Aug 16, 2006, 00:47
Long time no see, buddies.

August 15 again.

Japan is still Japan as it was decades/cenuries ago -- a dwarf nation with a giant's ambition (deformed, right?), a barbarian country equipped with modern technology. Shinto, Yasukuni... Oh, everything Japanese is still so helplessly Japanese.

Trying to justify Japanese being so Japanese? Oh, futile, Maciamo, especially when the majority of this nation remain ignorant of well-established values of the civilised world. I in some way appreciate your efforts, though, because you are one of the few Japs who mind to dialogue with the civilised world.

Tonysoong
Aug 16, 2006, 03:23
Long time no see, buddies.

August 15 again.

Japan is still Japan as it was decades/cenuries ago -- a dwarf nation with a giant's ambition (deformed, right?), a barbarian country equipped with modern technology. Shinto, Yasukuni... Oh, everything Japanese is still so helplessly Japanese.

Trying to justify Japanese being so Japanese? Oh, futile, Maciamo, especially when the majority of this nation remain ignorant of well-established values of the civilised world. I in some way appreciate your efforts, though, because you are one of the few Japs who mind to dialogue with the civilised world.

nurizeko
Aug 16, 2006, 03:42
He's not Japanese.

I'm trying to read your post but its covered in tons of slimey hate-bashing weed.

Tonysoong
Aug 16, 2006, 23:03
Help quench what you find to be hatred in me. Do it.

gaijinalways
Aug 19, 2006, 00:44
Hmm, yes babarism is in the eye of the beholder. The Japanese hardly thought they were improving Aisa to lead it, they were just simply colonizing with the hope of getting the resources they needed for their own citizens.

As to comparing the current US president's 'crusade' to Japan's rampaging in their conquests of Korea, China and other parts of Asia, the comparison is not that far off. But a major difference would be having other nations involved, whereas Japan went it alone (exception being they recruited some Koreans to do fighting, but they were hardly volunteers).

Bush's damage, a little off thread, has been great to any efforts that the US hopes to make in their foreign diplomatic endeavors.

caster51
Aug 19, 2006, 11:34
exception being they recruited some Koreans to do fighting, but they were hardly volunteers
why do you tell a lie?.
:blush:

What is your purpose?

ricecake
Aug 19, 2006, 13:51
[QUOTE=caster51]

(1) why do you tell a lie ?

(2) What is your purpose ?

************************************************** *******

(1) What was there to lied for it was the historic truth,many Korean males were conscripted NOT volunteered force as someone here probably tried to lie.

(2) Informed this forum with facts,unlike someone addictively litters Jref with propagandized-posts.

ricecake
Aug 19, 2006, 13:55
Sun Yat Sen's(孫文) speech on Pan-Asianism in Kobe 1924

all japanese was his believer at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat_Sen's_speech_on_Pan-Asianism



This is a far-fetched dead propaganda :lol:

Dr Sun Yat Sen was immediately expelled by Japan.

Where's " osias ",his old post purposely falsely claimed Dr Sun Yat Sen was educated in Japan as the fact was he only had brief stay in Japan.

caster51
Aug 19, 2006, 14:05
At first, the korean as the japanese were drafted since 1944 Sep
in 1944 , 55,000 korean were drafted
in 1945 , 46,000 korean were drafted.

most of them were escorts in korea against enemy
so the korean' victim in the war who was drafted was a little.
so japanese were discriminated...:souka:

caster51
Aug 19, 2006, 14:07
Dr Sun Yat Sen was immediately expelled by Japan.
Where's " osias ",his old post purposedly falsely claimed Dr Sun Yat Sen was educated in Japan as the fact was he only had brief stay in Japan.
so were Ӊ, ?

Ӊ΁@was studying at RmwZ

caster51
Aug 19, 2006, 14:18
think he is a real hero in korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paik_Sun_Yup
However he was labeled as pro-japan
http://www.geocities.jp/whis_shosin/koreanwar1950english.html
http://www.geocities.jp/whis_shosin/koreanwar1951english.html

caster51
Aug 19, 2006, 14:30
This is a far-fetched dead propaganda

Yeah link is dead...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sun_Yat_Sen's_speech_on_Pan-Asianism


Gentlemen: I highly appreciate this cordial reception with which you are honoring me today. The topic of the day is "Pan-Asianism," but before we touch upon the subject, we must first have a clear conception of Asia's place in the world. Asia, in my opinion, is the cradle of the world's oldest civilization. Several thousand years ago, its peoples had already attained an advanced civilization; even the ancient civilizations of the West, of Greece and Rome, had their origins on Asiatic soil. In Ancient Asia we had a philosophic, religious, logical and industrial civilization. The origins of the various civilizations of the modern world can be traced back to Asia's ancient civilization. It is only during the last few centuries that the countries and races of Asia have gradually degenerated and become weak, while the European countries have gradually developed their resources and become powerful. After the latter had fully developed their strength, they turned their attention to, and penetrated into, East Asia, where they either destroyed or pressed hard upon each and every one of the Asiatic nations, so that thirty years ago there existed, so to speak, no independent country in the whole of Asia. With this, we may say, the low water mark had been reached..........

yamada
Aug 25, 2006, 23:21
As one point of view, to solve the serious depression in the United State, President Roosevelt decided to stop exporting oil to Japan. After staring the war, the economy in the United States went up.

caster51
Aug 29, 2006, 13:19
http://zeroempty000.blogspot.com/2006/04/mirror-for-ameriacans-another.html

Mirror for AmeriacansFjapan

nice to read

funster
Aug 2, 2009, 14:17
Why did Japan invade other Asian countries ?

To answer this question, we have to start from the Meiji restoration in the late 1800's. Japan, forced to open its trade to the United States then other Western powers, realized that its technology and political system were lagging far behind, and a group of revolutionary samurai from Choshu, Satsuma and Tosa (all in South-Western Japan) toppled the Shogunate and created a new Westernized government. All the society followed, and soon Japan had launched its industrial revolution. As the first and only Asian country to do so, Japan became quickly much richer and militarily more powerful than its neigbours.

In 1895, it proved its strength to the international community by defeating China quite easily - and annexed Taiwan. Russia and Japan then started to fight over the control of the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria. In 1905, The Russo-Japanese war started, but proved much harder for the Japanese. Although they officially won (and annexed Southern Manchuria and the Karafuto/Sakhalin peninsula, North of Hokkaido), loss were similar on both sides. But Japan became confident that it could rival Western powers for the first time. Japanese people began to feel a duty to protect their Asian neighbours from Western colonial imperialism. Korea was officially annexed in 1910, while Japanese troops continued to extend their control over Manchuria.

Japanese politics became increasingly dominated by the military, eventhough no military party ever gained any influence in the Diet (parliament). The cabinet of ministers was made mostly of nonparty politicians, supported by violent ultra-nationalist military factions such as the Imperial Way, who assassinated numerous politicians or opponent in the army itlself.

Those militarists pushed to take control of China. Economic and social upheaval in the 1920's led many Japanese farmers to move to Manchuria to release tensions inside Japan, and in 1931 the nominally independent puppet state of Manchukuo was created. From 1937, the Japanese army invade and took Peking, Shanghai, Nanjing and most of North-East China, although the countryside remained uncontrolable due to local guerillas and the low proportion of Japanese to Chinese (600.000 Japanese soldiers vs 300 millions Chinese in occupied land).

How did Japan and Germany become allies ?

In 1936, Hitler and Japanese prime minister Hiranuma signed the Anti-Comintern Pact against the Soviet Union, by which they pledged to help each other in case of Russian attack. Italy joined in 1937.

However, in August 1939 Hitler violated the pact by signing a non-agression treaty with the USSR in order to invade Poland in September. Himanuma felt betrayed and resigned as prime minister. But Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite pact in September 1940 to support each other against the United States.

After the Nazi had entered France and set up the collaborationist Vichy regime, Japan was able to negotiate the occupation of French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) through the Tripartite pact.

But when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Japan decided not to follow Germany.

South-East Asia and Pearl Harbor

The situation between Japan, Britain and the USA had been tensed since 1922 when a treaty was signed to limit the naval warships of each nation to a respective ration of 6:10:10. Japan tried to raise its ratio to 7 in 1930, but only obtained it for some kind of ships. Inceasingly frustrated and under pressure from expansionist military at home, Japan renounced to the treaty in December 1934.

The US had been supporting China against Japan by selling them cheap equipment, and broke the Japanese-American commericial treaty to enable them to place an embargo on exports to Japan if necessary. When Japan occupied the whole of Indochina in June 1941, Roosevelt immediately called for an international embargo to cut off all foreign oil supplies to Japan. This way, Japan would not be able to support its army and economy and would have to cede to American pressure to withdraw completely from China and Indochina.

But the Japanese government was resolved to stay. It tried to find a diplomatic agreements on a partial withdrawal from China, but the US were intransigent. When it became obvious that no agreement would be reached, the Japanese planned an attack on the oil-rich British and Dutch South-East Asian colonies (Malaysia, Indonesia...), as well as the American Philippines, while preparing a pre-emptive attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese knew very well that they couldn't wage a prolongated war against the poweful industry of the United States, but they also didn't expect them to be so determined to pursue a war and mobilize tens of thousand of men to such a distant land. That is why on 7/8 December 1941, they attacked Hawaii, pulling the United States into WWII, which resulted in the collapse of the Japanese Empire.

Some historians argue that the USA pushed Japan into declaring war on them. But could the Japanese military expansionism have stopped had the US taken conciliatory measures ? That is probably interesting to discuss in the context of the war in Iraq and against terrorism undertaken by the US at the moment. Did the Bush administration provoke the Muslim world to incite them to attack the US on September 11 ? Is history repeating itslef ? Are American leaders playing with fire or are they really acting in the name of democracy and freedom ? Nice debate in perspective.
Hello,
I was wondering if you could help me, I was wondering what ur views are on Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism. I see good in it BUT, as with all religion, I don't belive it is all good and has alot of power play and ego involved and was wondering what negative stories u have heard about them

Thank you

ikkoikki
Nov 12, 2009, 23:14
Like most established religions, Nichirenshu Buddhism from its inception had a political streak. Nichirenshu however was overtly political in its stance upon such issues as accepting donations from non-believers, marriage between its adherents and followers of other sects. During the crises created by the Mongol invasions, Nichiren refused the pleas of the Kamakura Bakufu to offer prayers for national security, since Nichiren saw the nation-state as corrupt and the Mongol invasion attempts as a manifestation of divine retribution. To the Bakufu, predominantly Zen adherents, such opinions were intolerable and Nichiren was exiled twice (and was to be executed but his chosen executioner refused after an alleged epiphany).
Entering the 14th and 15th Centuries, Nichirenshu had spread to Kyoto and gained a strong foothold centred on 21 temple complexes, and in 1532 gained control of the city (a time, chroniclers report, that was dominated by religious intolerance and summary justice), although they were virtually wiped out in 1536 when the population turned away from them and offered no support when Enryakuji attacked. In the latter half of the 16th Century, Oda Nobunaga turned upon them again (the so-called Azuchi Persecution), and although they regained toeholds in the capital under Hideyoshi then Ieyasu, they remained vociferous and somewhat troublesome in their strict adherence to core beliefs.
However, for all their opponents, they were rarely a united sect and this weakened them, divided between staunch nationalist adherents and those who were accomodating with other sects and the Bakufu.
In the 1930s its nationalist elements suited the militaristic section of society and politics who gained the ascendancy, and by 1940 its popularity had exploded and allegedly had 10,000,000 adherents.
Today it's much more mainstream, Soka Gakkai its widely known image (and if I remember rightly, its followers include such figures as Roberto Biaggio and Orlando Bloom!).

Hiroyuki Nagashima
Nov 14, 2009, 19:17
I revise some mistakes about the Sokagakkai.
Because the executive officer of the Sokagakkai criticized Shinto shrine Shinto in wartime, they are arrested by Japanese Government.
And he died in prison.
The Sokagakkai is done expulsion of by Nichiren Shoshu.

ikkoikki
Nov 14, 2009, 19:42
Are you saying that the Nichirenshu expelled Soka Gakkai? Just clarifying.

The Sokai Gakkai International still follow Nichiren Buddhism though;
"The 12 million members of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) around the world embrace Nichiren Buddhism, a dynamic philosophy grounded in the realities of daily life." (from http://www.sgi.org/), but of course the situation for both is very much different now to how it was in the 1920s.

Hiroyuki Nagashima
Nov 14, 2009, 20:41
Process of the expulsion of the Sokagakkai is written in the homepage of Nichiren Shoshu.
http://www.nichirenshoshu.or.jp/page/jpn/link/sokagakkai/soka_1j.htm

They are expelled in 1997 by the Nichiren denomination.
They are cult groups.

ikkoikki
Nov 14, 2009, 20:54
As late as 1997. Thanks for the link, I'll give it some time later.