From: Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:43 GMT


From Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>

In article <Bx5Csp.IuF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> writes:
>
>From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>

>>>On the contrary, the Japanese like the Koreans and the Chinese distrusted
>>>the Europeans from the start or at least within a few months of close
>>>aquaintance. As for Japan's 'insaitable desire' for land, where did you
>>>get this one from? Exactly what indication do you have of Japan's desire
>>>fro anything?
>
>>You mean other than Japan's "acquisition" of Korea? Japan's "acquisition" of
>>Manchuria? Their expansion of the war? Their attack on Soviet positions in
>>Mongolia (there at the request of the Mongolians, apparantly). What other
>>indications do you need? Their land grabs exceeded the sum of the western
>>powers' "spheres of influence" of the previous 200+ years!
>
>In the 30+ years between 1870 and 1904 France added 3.5 million square miles
>to its Empire (about 1.2 times the size of the US) Britain added 3 million,
>the US gained a mere 700,000 square miles. Japan between 1870 and 1930 managed
>to grab Korea, Manchuria, Taiwan, Liaotung and a few islands. Are you trying
>to tell me that these pieces of land added up to more than 7 million square
>miles? I rest my case about land grabs. (Also before you mention the neglect
>of China in the Japanese portion, I hope you note that I didn't include any
>of it in the European portion either and most of China was part of someones
>sphere of influence) Perfectly normal business at the time for large powers.
>Not pleasant but no different from what other countries were doing. So lets
>see where we are at, the Japanese appartently learned all about insatible
>desires for land, actually I might buy that. So why did the US go to war

So the French, British, and Americans grabbed 7 million square miles of Asia?
I quite frankly doubt that. And that IS the discussion at hand.

And actually, all of the Japanese conquests were claimed as Japanese territory,
rather different (again) from the European forces.

>with the Sorceror's Apprentice when it fought side by side with the Sorcerors?

If your time frame is late 1800's, then the US sided with Japan (your 
"Sorceror's Apprentice). If your time frame is post WWI, the only Sorceror
left was Japan. It would appear that by your analogy, we sided against 
the Sorceror in each case.

>Not to mention the fact it didn't go to war with itself. Plainly Japan's
>desire for an Empire played no part in starting the War as it was just a
>toddler and the US didn't get upset about Britain, France etc etc etc

And the US and British and French were on the same side as the Japanese in 
WWI and the Russo-Japanese war, etc, etc.

>>And no, Japan did NOT exhibit such a "open distrust" of the west for quite a
>>while after meiji. Again, read _Japanese Things_ by BH Chamberlain for an
>>account from someone who was THERE during the early events of Meiji.
>
>Did I *ever* say after the Meiji? When I reread what I said I am sure I
>said 'From the start or a few months of close aquaintance'. That would
>put it well before Meiji, like about 200 years before. Perhaps you might
>like to think about the reasons the Japanese confind the Dutch to Nagasaki
>and threw out the other powers. Or why the Japanese killed the Russians

Including the Chinese.

>who 'inadvertently' landed or why they refused to talk to the US prior to

They also killed Chinese, in addition to any Japanese who tried to leave.

>Perry's arrival or why they confind the US consol to an obscure fishing
>port afterwards. Any of these might do.

Which "obscure" fishing port? Yokohama? Rather large, actually. Hakodate? 
Again, rather large.

If you were referring to pre-Meiji, then you are less correct than had you been
referring to post-Meiji. The same source cited above applies. From the time
time of the first Portuguese landing to the time of expulsion of ALL foreigners
(not just Westerners) was about 80 years. Oda Nobunaga openly embraced many
of new technologies of the Portuguese, including firearms, architecture (he
remodelled castle design, and in fact placed a crucifix on his castle), 
food, martial strategies, etc. Nobunaga was in fact quite an open friend of
the Portuguese missionaries. The Taikou (Hideyoshi) was very anti-Catholic.
His successor, Tokugawa, while an enemy of the catholics, made a foreigner,
William Adams, hatamoto (he is in fact the only foreigner of any race ever made
samurai) and followed his advice very closely in dealing with the Portuguese.
Adams was in charge of the Japanese navy and completely remodelled it. the
Tokugawa shogunate also offered the British far greater concessions in trade
than they offered the Dutch, INCLUDING several ports and open travel; it
was the British who decided to turn this down, figuring trade with Japan would
not be profitable enough. When the expulsion of foreigners came, the Japanese
expelled Chinese, Thais, Indians, etc, in addition to afore mentioned Western
powers, retaining relations only with the Koreans, and trade relations with 
the Dutch. For references, see _The Needle Watcher_ and _Tokugawa Ieyasu: Shaper
of Modern Japan_. 

In short, there is far less evidence of the sort of anti-Western xenophobia
in the early stages of contact in the 1500's than late 1800's.

>>Excuse me, but Nanking and Shanghai were NOT "late in the War"; they were
>>BEFORE Pearl Harbor.
>
>Nanking was not part of a 'systematic "liquidation" of the native population'.
>It probably was soldiers getting out of hand. Although it may have been ordered
>I see no obvious reason for it to have been so. The 3 All's policy was launched
>after the CCP's 100 regiments offensive. Very late in the War. (and I actually
>do know the relative timing of the Japanese invasion and conquest)

Again, I am not aware that Nanjing and Shanghai were "very late in the war".
I have them placed around 1937. And if Nanjing can be passed off as "soldiers
getting out of hand", then surely most civilian massacres by soldiers could
could be so classified. As I recall, those soldiers were under the titular
control of one of the Royal family's princes.

>>??? The active acquisition of Chinese territory by the ended after WWI. The
>>major activities of Japan in China came after this. Russia had ceased to be
>>a 'player' in China since about 1904.

>I am not quite sure what you mean by this but I'll assume you mean that no
>more territory was taken by European powers after WW1. It should be noted
>that Japan was given part of China at Versailles. Fine, I have no problem
>with this. After all most of China had been split between the major powers
>long before the end of the First World War. If you look at a map there was
>very little left to be divided. It also should be noted that the three powers
>excluded from the 19th century split were opposed to the scheme - Japan, US
>and Russia - each in their own way. Nor had Russia ceased to be a major player
>as the USSR was for many years the main source of aid, equipment and advisors
>to the KMT government (well, roughly 1937 to 1942)

Actually, the USSR was a source of aid to the Communists during that time;
it is difficult to swallow that they were simultaneously aiding the Kuomin
tang in their fight against the communists and to the communists themselves.
And I am not aware of the Nationalist Chinese using Soviet weapons at the
time (though the communists did). Further, the Soviets and Japanese signed
an agreement in 1940 to not interfere in each others' affairs, after the 
Japanese had taken a beating against Russian border forces.

And as you admit that the European powers ceased taking territory by this time
(nad in fact had actually lost territory), I fail to see what significance
there is in the fact that the US opposed division of China in the 19th
century to your assertion that the US forced Japan to attack it.

>>Again, sorry, but the chronology of events here is wrong. Europe was NOT
>>expanding its influence at this time in Asia; to the contrary, as a result ot
>>the aftermath of the war, and domestic economic problems, China ceased to be
>>attractive to anyone other than Japan.
>
>The Europeans powers did face problems at home. But they had also taken so
>much there was very little left to divide between them. So? It was still
>very attractive to the US and Russia as well. This doesn't detract from
>the fact that the European powers had no scruples in extorting money from
>China as well as taking pieces of it and invading it when they felt like.
>I won't even mention the forcilbe defense of their drug business. If it
>is good enough for the British why do people complain about the Japanese?
>(not to mention the French, the Germans, the US and even Italy)

Again, the chronology is horribly confused here. Russia had lost all of its
territory in China by the time Japan set itself on a collision course with
the Western powers. Germany had been eliminated as a force in the Pacific, 
much less in China. And what part of China did the US and Italy hold at this
time?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 

Newsgroups: sci.military