Thursday, March 26, 2015

Japanese Imperialism Homework

How does the documentary "Horrors in the East" explain the transition of the Japanese military from being relatively humane in Taiwan and WWI to committing horrific atrocities in the 1930s and WWII?

The Japanese were originally told to treat onto others the way they'll want others to treat them. This policy with foriegners was evident during WWI, when the Japanese soldiers treated German prisoners of war as guests- so much to the point where the Germans were enjoying themselves. This policy changed when Japan decided to practice imperialism upon surrounding Asian nations in response to the domincancy and threat presented by the Western imperial nations. When Japan's invasions were condemned by the League of Nations, a hypocritical move as viewed by the Japanese, Japan withdrew and took drastic measures towards expansion.

The Japanese were educated so that they believed in the full power of the emperor (literally a god), making the populace fully loyal to the goals of developing and expanding power. The advocates of anti-expansion were assassinated. The military strickened and harshened the training, creating brutalized soldiers. The average Japanese soldier soon became fiercely loyal to the emperor's glorious cause, seeing themselves as a superior race serving under a god. This also caused them to view other races, especially the Chinese, as below human. Many felt no guilt in the atrocities they later committed due to this de-humanization. Such atrocities during the invasion on China included massacres with machineguns and bayonet practices, bombings, and mass rape of women.

In light of the historical record of Japan's actions in East Asia in 1931-45, how likely is it that the claims made by Japanese historians about "comfort women" is true? Why or why not?

It is very difficult to tell the truth without more credible sources. What the Japanese claimed recently wasn't the denial of the atrocities, but a "toned down" depiction of their actions. There's not enough resources for me to determine the credibility of having only 20,000 confort women, but a quick Internet search showed that different estimates from different historians ranged as much as from more than 300,000 to 20,00, but of course without the lack of bias. The true number remains inconclusive with these resources, but what most controversy should around would be the "toning down". Numbers aren't all that important when the actions of brutal rapes and killings in mass numbers were asked to be toned down to equality of "other" actions suggesting rape. The Japanese justified such by stating how the comfort women were merely "prostitutes" and how prostitutes have already existed throughout history. If the article stating this was true and if I read that properly, then I would have to strongly disagree. Prostitutes are not the same as war victims and prisoners. They are not forced at gunpoint or killed. Other Japanese actions don't contribute much to their cause, such as conservatives wanting for Japan to take back the apology for its atrocities and professors stating the high amount of errors in textbooks when there was only paragraph about the "comfort women".

How appropriate do you judge the actions of the "revisionist" Japanese professors (and the Japanese government which allegedly support them) to be? Why?

As stated before, I don't find the cause attractive or "appropriate". However, I do find their (the professors) methods highly appropriate, with them clearly making it clear that their intent was to display the truth for academic purposes. No matter what cause that hides behind the mask, it was enough for me not to mentally berate them with passion.

Read the document on Google Drive (under "Assignments") entitled "East Asia Co-Prosperity Document." Summarize its content and answer the two questions at the end of the document.

Japan has been expanding its imperial ambition in Asia ever since the Meiji Restoration, and part of the obstacles that they faced was the lack of natural resources in their homeland, especially compared to large land masses like China. This obstacle however would've been solved by dominating Asia, making it a win-win situation for Japan. Japan obtained Taiwan, Korea, and parts of China through military actions, benefitting Japan with economic concessions- even more land and resources. The new imperial state gained more colonies from Germany during WWI, and eventually decided to turn on China for real once again. Japan sent the "Twenty-one Demands" that would've made China Japan's colonies, which was resisted by the Chinese. However, they continued to gain economic benefits. In 1931, Japan's aggressiveness greatly increased as it conquered Manchuria and devastated China.

Japan's imperial ambitions have been left unexplained until after their defeat in WWII, in which documents of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" have been discovered. These are a set of goals that defined Japan's ambitions and culture. It sought to unite nearly all of Asia into one union led by Japan. One of its promising effects included the removal of Western imperialism and influence from Asia. Its overall plan involved war against the Western nations, in which they would no longer hold colonies in East Asia. It will then unite the nations of Japan, Manchuria, China, and even parts of Russia. Other regions including India, Australia, South Seas, Indo-China, and parts of Sibaria would be emancipated from Western imperialism. The sphere would put Japan at the top of the hierarchy with the obvious bias of race superiority. The sphere would supposely have increased stabilization, defence, and prosperity over time. The economic development would target a few countries, unite them, then result in a central industry. This is of course all under Japan's military control.

Question 1: What is Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is a Japanese envisioned union of the entire East Asia led under Japan's imperialism. It would be a unification of the nations, which would eventually result in economic development and a greater power in Asia to remove all Western control. This would be reached by a series of wars to conquer the subject nations and fight off Western imperialists.

Question 2: Were Japanese goals different from the goals of nineteenth century European imperialism? If so, how are they different?

While it may seem that the practice of imperialism in general may seem based off the same principles of racial superiority, racial burden, nationalism, and economic exploitation, Japan's goals had an even deeper meaning- they had based their concept of imperialism on something exclusive to their culture. It follows not just their idea of the "imperial way", but is also an act of "counter-imperialism". They sought to remove Western imperialism with their own, hoping for their future subjects to revere "their imperialism" instead. Instead of exploitating, the plan followed the Japanese "morality", in which the union were to cooperate and prosper together. This itself feels quite hypocritical with Japan's imperialism imposed on others, but is actually somewhat similar to Marxism's "elite authoritarian".
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Russian Revolution Tweets

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 6, 2015

Germany Deserves some Blame for the Cause World War I?


I'm not going to go as far as to say that Germany deserved most of the blame for WWI. I'm not a historian with decades of in-depth research sufficient enough to know all knowledge required for determining the cause of WWI, and the historians themselves don't stand confirmed either. My opinion won't be an opinion- it would be an assumption based on what I can find out, meaning that I can't ally myself with any interpretations by any historians' logic.
 
World War I was obviously the first world war, a major type of war that involves the most influential and powerful nations within multiple continents. I'm going to place a little more blame on Germany, solely based on my knowledge of prior events. Germany's creation was a glorious one involving military strength and skillful alliances maintained by Otto von Bismarck. With Germany as a fairly young state, the national pride (nationalism) became a driving force and a result of its increase in military strength, imperialistic endeavors, and industrialization. Such sudden increase in strength and position gave it enemies, such as France after the Franco-Prussian War. Its self-sense of duty to compete in imperialistic endeavors also made it rivals with other nations, and Bismarck created quite a few alliances to ensure the balance of power in Europe largely in fear of a two front war encircling Germany. Of course, Wilhelm II removed Bismarck and drastically changed the policies. Germany was soon to be an aggressive imperialist nation in the spotlight, which would potentially be a drive for their paranoia. And by paranoia, it should be noted that Germany even had plans to defeat France and Russia right at the beginning of war. Why would one be so agressive in subduing mere "potential" enemies if it was only about an assassination while knowing that it would escalate fast? Bismarck isn't entirely without fault either, as the Triple Alliance was truly unnecessary. It has to be noted how Italy joined the alliance in anger at the French and for competition to seize foreign colonies. This ambition can sum up the motives of Bismarck, fueled by a salvageable conceived rivalry in Europe. It was because of this alliance that the Triple Entente was created, and the absence of Bismarck's policies left high tensions inevitable.

The beginning of conflict itself would still be manageable if Germany wasn't so aggressive in supporting its ally. To allow Austria-Hungary to start the conflict while knowing very well Russia's alliances was difficult for me to understand, but Germany's declaration of war against both France and Russia was no longer surprising. Even if Germany miscalculated Russia's reaction, the absence of Bismarck made WWI inevitable at this point. With whatever glory or national pride the Germans had, they definitely triggered the patriotism of other nations. As I stated before, a world war also involves other continents. If the European war wasn't to be considered a world war yet, Germany certainly did drag Britain in with the blatant attack on the neutral country Belgium. With Britain being the most important overseas colonizer, the conflict amongst German and British/French colonies would make the war multi-continental. Another blatant plan to attack the USA with Mexico dragged the major power from another continent into war. Even Japan entered to oppose Germany's colonies. Without Germany, the war wouldn't have escalated to the entire Europe, and again without Germany, the entire world.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

"My Daily Journal" Journal of Pvt. Donald Fraser (1915-1916)


This is excerpt of a Canadian soldier serving in WWI, whose name was Donald Fraser. The text recounts his experiences of heading into the Western Front, including a high amount of detail ranging from various tasks and equipment to the notable deaths of each comrade beside him. Trench warfare was a stalemate, only that most individuals only felt loss. The trenches were where the soldiers resided between the intervals of charging across “No Man’s Land”. Despite it being their only place of half decent security, the overall environment was nothing short of a hole dug in a war zone terraformed by bombs, steel, and chemicals. If there were any other species, it had to be mice. Other than how loud the artilleries and explosions were, how unsanitary the holes were, and how there were limited food rations, it was either all this or a chance at death just a head away from the trenches. Now assuming that one was a survivor for at least a month, he would be help carrying sandbags and digging trenches the majority of the time. If the trenches weren’t enough to break a man’s soul, the charges across “No Man’s Land” ought to. If knowing that you were to die any second while charge straight forward to increase that probability wasn’t terrible, very little else would be. The fact that the opposition were usually already firing at the beginning of the trenches told how low the survival rate was. The collection of dead, torn-apart bodies in the cold, humid atmosphere became the icing on the cake. The transition from life to death was brief. But all of these, according to Fraser, applied to the majority that died early off in the frontlines. There were a minority, often safe within the trenches that were even rewarded with medals due to their survival rate.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)