Far eastern perspective on WWII

Fiddleback

Fiddleback

Knifemaker
Moderator
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
19,742
I began this post in DIJ's polishing thread, but moved it here since the whole rant was OT.

A couple of years ago there was a Japaneese speaker who was supposed to speak at a high school in Marietta. He sent his ajenda to the principal, and it portrayed the Americans as the aggressors in the war. The principal refused to allow the presentation. It was a pretty big story locally. The speaker complained about free speach to the reporters and to the school system to no avail. I, personally, was glad. There is a lot of different perspectives on the war in the far east. My boss is Chinese and old enough to remember fleeing to Tiawan on a smuggling ship to escape the communists. He says that China and Russia won WWII and that the Americans had little to do with it. It has, as you may have guessed, been a contentious point between us. His point is that the Russians and Chinese lost more people, and so their sacrifices were the greatest/had the most effect. I do not swallow this well, nor do I swallow the Japanese perspective. We almost came to blows once when he said my grandfather and his brothers weren't heroes for their actions in WWII. He backed down when I stood up and challenged him on it. How have I not been fired? Dunno, I was pretty personally insulting with him during that argument. And got right in his face too. You just can't account for perspective, but you do have to set boundaries.
 
It may be a simplification to speak of "a" far eastern perspective on WWII. Chinese and Japanese obviously see things quite differently, as evidenced by recent political events between the two countries, and the demonstrations in Beijing concerning Japanese textbook accounts of the war.

Even within one of the cultures you will find individuals with different viewpoints.

I've been talking this over with Red Flower, who was born, raised, and educated in Beijing. She says she was taught that the Japanese made a big mistake by bombing Pearl Harbor and getting themselves into a war in the Pacific as well as the Asiatic war. She also says the Chinese textbooks acknowledged the alliance with the US and its effect. It sounds pretty familiar and not too biased.

It is hard to predict what would have happened if the US had not become involved in the war. The Japanese would have been more difficult to defeat in Asia. However, it may be imagined that Russia and China could have done it.
 
Certainly see that the different perspectives are vastly individual. That is the point of the thread. Thank you for posting Red Flower's views. I think, and always have, that my boss' perspectives are his alone. I think trying to imagine what would have happened had we not been attacked is a waste of time. We were attacked. We did respond. It was, and this cannot be debated, our resources that allowed the other allied powers to defeat the axis. Our boys played a major part too. My boss diminishes that part to his own disservice. The Japanese consider themselves victims to their disservice. That was my point.
 
Here's a homework assignment for anyone interested: what events and policies influenced Japan to take on the US in the first place?

Yes, they were the aggressors, but in my opinion they weren't entirely unprovoked. I could see how someone could spin this to "prove" that they had no choice but to go to war.

In any event, I don't see the issue quite as black and white as some portray it to be.
 
It is probably unwise to think of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor as their entry into World War 2.
The Japanese started making war on anyone and everyone pretty much from the beginning of the Meiji period.
I think they started or got involved in 8 wars total.
Most people have no idea that the Japanese were sending spies, saboteurs and assassins into China, non-stop, from way back up until 1945.
Most people have no idea that the United States caught and deported a number of Japanese spies during the late 20s and 30's. (thats more than ten years before the start of WW2)
Provoked?
Not by any stretch of the imagination.
They got into the war because they felt diminished and insecure about the fact that there was a world war going on and THEY werent invited.
They hated the fact that they werent involved, werent important enough to be attacked by someone.
 
Danny's pretty close. I don't know that I'd describe it as necessarily making war on everybody after the Meiji Restoration began, but at least, they were ready.

During the Meiji Restoration, as Samurai were outlawed finally, their ideals were used as propaganda to indoctrinate the populace. (How's THAT for irony?) In truth, the population as a whole probably accepted an exaggerated view of Budo more extreme in many ways than the ancient warriors had actually behaved. There is a fixation with death, especially, and this came to be accepted as a culture.
The Japanese fought (IIRC) first war with China, then Russian. They won both times, and really gained recognition in the Ruso-Japanese war. Even then, their future could be seen: they blew the hell out of the Russian fleet, but were already running out of resources very quickly. Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for mediating a peace that both sides were surely happy to make.
The US began making plans for war with Japan after WWI, at least by 1922. They described Japan as "Orange" in their war plans. It was known that Japan would effect a surprise attack, that Pacific holdings would be endangered, and that the way to win the war would be through restricting resources available to Japan.

As has been noted, probably the greatest US contribution to the war effort was our manufacturing capability and millions of troops. Success may have come more readily because of other factors, too, but ultimately, WWII was a war of attrition, as WWI was before it.

It should be noted that Japan would have been able to concentrate on China if the US hadn't eventually kicked the crap out of the Japanese fleet. Luck, fate, god, skilled commanders, whatever- the US fleet was outclassed by some of the Japanese fleet. Eventually, we probably would have won anyway, but it could have been much worse.

John
 
Parallel to the topic ...

Teddy Roosevelt is a kind of patron saint of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. There is a small exhibit on his life on the first floor, but the main exhibit begins out front, with a gigantic equestrian statue of him flanked by an African and an American Indian. In the great hall, quotes of his are written in giant brass letters high on the walls, and at one end of the hall are murals of the participants in the signing of the treaty ending the Russo-Japanese War.

We return you to the War in the Pacific ... :)
 
Dave Rishar said:
Here's a homework assignment for anyone interested: what events and policies influenced Japan to take on the US in the first place?

Yes, they were the aggressors, but in my opinion they weren't entirely unprovoked. I could see how someone could spin this to "prove" that they had no choice but to go to war.

In any event, I don't see the issue quite as black and white as some portray it to be.
Click to expand...

Dave,

Are you referring to the embargo of strategic goods? Or something else.

I'm sure most of you know that WWII was fought, like most wars, for resources. Kinda makes you wonder about the reports that the news media was making about Iraq being the first war for resources...

In any case I believe that all nations, like people have choices. Japan was embargoed after they had started their conquests in the East, they had a choice. They threw the dice and paid a terrible price for their decision.

(More was added and deleted to prevent this from being a slugfest). I love these conversations, and I know that it isn't required for me to ask for cool heads among us all.
 
DannyinJapan said:
They got into the war because they felt diminished and insecure about the fact that there was a world war going on and THEY werent invited.
They hated the fact that they werent involved, werent important enough to be attacked by someone.
Click to expand...

I believe that their attempts at empire building were what got them involved.

Look at it from their point of view: they wanted to be a world power and felt that they were entitled to it. America and several of the european powers were taking (or had taken, fairly recently) territories for their own, sometimes on very flimsy reasoning. When Japan attempted the same in Manchuria they received a fairly painful oil embargo, compliments of America.

As if that wasn't enough, consider the American "volunteers" actively fighting against the Japanese prior to America's entry into the war. Volunteers? We're talking about former servicemen acting as mercenaries, utilizing American training and equipment, with the option to return to regular service after their time in China was over.

I would consider either one of these actions as provocative in nature. Taken together, one could make a point that America was picking a fight with Japan.

Also, they were invited to the party on the basis of their mutual defense agreement with Germany, but they had other reasons to get involved as well.

I'm specifically not addressing the question of who was right and who was wrong. The point that I'm trying to make here is that there are two sides to every story and the issue is not as black and white as some make it out to be.
 
Japan began the conquest of China well before WWll- decades. Records found after the war confirm their plans for eventual control of entire region, including many island groups and even Austrailia if I remember correctly. Anyway, what I'm getting to, is that the embargo argument- we made them go to war, doesn't hold water when you think of the rape of Nanking (?) and Manchuria. If they weren't busy trying to take over that part of Asia, they would not have needed oil for their war machine.

We need more oil because we have huge armies on mainland China and we're pushing forward? Does that sound like a reasonable argument to anyone? Because their conquest was spread out over decades, people forget that it was none the less military expansion, hostile attack.


munk
 
munk said:
Japan began the conquest of China well before WWll- decades. Records found after the war confirm their plans for eventual control of entire region, including many island groups and even Austrailia if I remember correctly. Anyway, what I'm getting to, is that the embargo argument- we made them go to war, doesn't hold water when you think of the rape of Nanking (?) and Manchuria. If they weren't busy trying to take over that part of Asia, they would not have needed oil for their war machine.

We need more oil because we have huge armies on mainland China and we're pushing forward? Does that sound like a reasonable argument to anyone? Because their conquest was spread out over decades, people forget that it was none the less military expansion, hostile attack.
Click to expand...

And we had plans to go to war with Japan as early as 1922. How does that figure into things?

And their conquest? Disregarding the conduct of their forces, others were doing the same thing...except that in America, it was known as "Manifest Destiny," not armed conquest. (Of course, no one ever slapped us with an oil embargo for it.)

Put yourself in Japan's shoes for a moment. They wanted more territory. The very same nations that condemned them for it were largely guilty of the same thing, and one in particular made some very aggressive politcal manuevering. How should a government interpret something this?
 
The Meiji restoration is the idea of having their citizens adopt to the western ideas and technolgies. At the same time they know that small islands like England can achieve great powers through technolgies and politics (armies). The fastest way to obtain great power is to take what is not yours. They drooled over other nations' colonies. If England could govern India of vase population they bet they could do that too.

They had achieved great military power. Geologically they had the advantage. The prospect of ruling the whole S.E Asia and the Australia was too much a price to past up. Resources, land,population ,trade routes..... That was a big hunk of the planet!

Who were there to stop them ? the Russians? they clashed and the Japanese won easily so they didn't think much of the Russians. Chinese ? They were like ruped grapes ready for picking. The Chinese had been ruled by Manchurians (not consided as their own race) for over 200+ years and the Japanese must thought of them as great colonists.

That left somebody on the other side of the ocean. The attack on pearl harbor had the purpose of eliminating some sea power of the U.S. and to force a peace treaty somehow between them. That in effect will let the Japanese have a free hand at conquesting the Asia.

Japanese flag at WWII. Expanding sun-rays.
 
The Meiji restoration is the idea of having their citizens adopt to the western ideas and technolgies.
Click to expand...

Not really "adapt."
They forced them to change at the point of a rifle.

some of it was good, some of it was bad, some of it was hideous.

It was just an unfortunate time to try and copy the west. We were at the peak of ignorance, having just started to really cross over the starting line of many sciences, notably political science, anthropology, medicine and psychology.
It was a bad time for social science during the 1860 to 1930's.
Many sciences were so young that their findings were easily twisted and bent for sinister purposes, such as racial typing, determining criminal proclivities by body features, that kind of stupidity that one sometimes still hears about today.

Well, once Japan takes on a shape, they are damn hard to change because they revere tradition as something almost holy.

You guys, unless you've lived here, just wouldnt believe the kind of racism that exists.
you'll hear people talking about regrets or hopes concerning "Japanese people" not "people" in general.

I cant explain this proerly, so I probably shouldnt try.
Here is an example:
They sometimes like to talk about the camps Japanese americans were sent to during WW2. they love to imagine what horrors those poor Japanese americans were subjected to and how they are all victims.
Can you imagine:
A. an American-Japanese? (not gonna happen, never has, never will)
B. Camps for said persons with food and beds and medical facilities?

IF any such persons had existed before the war in Japan, they would have been raped and decapitated and the whole thing photographed for the scrapbook back home.

you can argue about noone really being at fault all you like, until you live here and smell the toilets, you wont know, really, what this shit is all about.
Lets just say the good guys won WW2 and even the bad guys are happy about that.
 
The PM of japan still insists to visit the shrine of the war deceased.

He must be under a lot of pressure. Pressure from other nations that he shouldn't go. And pressure from within his own cabinet and politicians that he should go.
 
The Prime Minister of Japan is a man of considerable ability and ambition, or he wouldn't be in the position he is. Why would you think his actions are determined by external pressures rather than by his own understanding of his personal obligation to honor his country's war dead?

Of course he knows people will be offended on both sides of the debate. You know what happens to those who try to satisfy everyone, rather than following their own beliefs?
 
the japanese "people" dont give a damn really.
Koizumi is courting a conservative right-wing party/voting base, just like Ishihara (the mayor of Tokyo)
Ishihara is probably worse, having called all foreigners "sneaky thieves", supporting "japanese only" signs in front of some businesses, and commending japanese rapists for having more courage than the average Japanese.....
 
Howard Wallace said:
It may be a simplification to speak of "a" far eastern perspective on WWII.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct. My father was a teenager in the Philippines during WWII. I would say the Filipino perspective on WWII closely matches that of most Americans, for multiple reasons. Those who lives through WWII obviously feel those feelings more strongly. I know of some contemporaries of my father who still have a "negative reaction" (to put it mildly) to Japanese people.
 
DannyinJapan said:
Not really "adapt."
You guys, unless you've lived here, just wouldnt believe the kind of racism that exists.
Click to expand...

I believe you!

I find it ironic how "Americans" are pilloried (often by other Americans) by how horribly racist we are. The truth is, racism is far worse in almost every other place in the world. The difference is that we acknowledge it here. The practical people just deal with it and the whiners make it worse by dwelling on it and blaming all problems on it. Racism (as well as other forms of prejudice) is an inevitable part of the human condition as long as there exists noticable differences in appearance, culture, and behavior. Good people try not to let those feeling affect their behavior and decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top