Tuesday, May 19, 2015

To what extent does America's view of itself as a “defender of free people” match the reality of its actions in global affairs?

       Free people are often referred to as anyone who’s not Communist, Fascist, or any ideology considered extreme by Capitalist standards. It means that they live in a more unrestricted system when compared to totalitarian governments for chances of improved lives through competition. It also means that free people are granted some rights such as freedom of speech. The universal human rights weren’t defined until the adopting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the United Nations. As the sole Capitalist Superpower after World War II, the United States took on the responsibility as the “defender of the free people” in opposition to the rise and spread of Communism during the Cold War. It shouldn’t be surprising, as it was their main theme and foundation of the republic ever since their revolution against Britain centuries ago. A defender of free people would maintain the rights of people regardless of nationality due to the fact that the question never specified such. The definition of free people can also mean people under the Capitalist system or the people living under basic rights, although the two aren’t mutually exclusive. The United States, while aggressively trying to contain Communism to defend free people, also took away the freedom and rights of the people of other countries and even their own citizens in the process, shattering the image of itself as the defender of free people even if such was their intention. Due to the two interpretations of free people, it would be better to split this analysis into two sections, with the first explaining the maintenance of basic rights and the second explaining the maintenance of Capitalism. Due to the fact that the United States greatly increased efforts to preserve Capitalism in the Cold War, it can be seen as a counterarguement.

        The American Revolution was based upon the idea of freedom. Even now is the whole nation associated with the topic of freedom. The nation was founded under the idea that a government should place the people’s wills and rights as top priority, going as far as to saying how the people should be allowed to overthrow a government when necessary. The image as the defender of free people appeared quite early on, but situations changed after the breaking of isolation during the World Wars. Due to lack of participation in European events beforehand, the American public generally had no interest in foreign matters. The United States was developing as a major economic power and contender in the practice of Imperialism especially in Asia, and there certainly wasn’t a concern for Europe’s wellbeing. However, notice how “Imperialism” was already a practice of the nation even before the Cold War. That practice greatly benefited the “free” people of the dominant nation in a Capitalist matter, but limited the freedom of the victims. In human rights, the United States was already hypocritical from the beginning, especially with their excessive use of slavery which also benefited Capitalism. Other examples included a war with Mexico, the control of Cuba, and the conquering of Hawaii. With the context aside, some of the first few major and notable limitations imposed on all of its citizens appeared during the World Wars, just before the Cold War. It was limitation on the freedom of speech in form of war propaganda. These efforts went so far as to eliminate any anti-war propaganda. One notable example was during World War II when the Smith Act was passed in 1940, which banned any support of violent overthrows of the government. While this was also a limitation on freedom and a downright removal of one of the fundamental ideas the foundation of the nation was based upon, the concept of this act was later expanded upon during the Cold War to oppose any form of Socialism or Communism. Known as the “Red Scare”, which was the promotion of anti-Communism or leftist extremism, it greatly endangered anyone even thinking about those ideals. This was a great limitation on the freedom of speech and thought.

        The United States as the defender of Capitalism is a decent counterargument when talking about defending free people. Capitalism was generally referred to as the free system, therefore comprised of free people. This is commonly used in the Capitalist versus Communist struggle as the good against bad, freedom against totalitarian. If the United States was to defend their free people, they would have to contain Communism. On the long term, this seemed to negate all stated on the first argument above. People would lose even more rights and freedoms under a Communist system when compared to a Capitalism system. It should also be noted that all the human rights abuses stated above benefited Capitalism within the United States. However, remember how the topic is about the image compared to the reality? The Cold War consisted of excessive paranoia that would make one question the validity of the actions of the United States to oppose Communism. The numerous human rights abuses stated above would all be valid if these efforts brought no real positive effect, and even if it did, it was still an act against free people. If one was to treat the United States’ good intentions as the image, then the reality would still shatter that image. Generalization aside, some specific actions by the nation may have benefited its Capitalism and its free people, but were plagued by fundamental flaws of Capitalism: not everyone benefits. As stated before, acts of Imperialism benefited one at the cost of another. The United States took up the mantle as the defender of people for not just its own citizens, but also the world. The acts of foreign intervention in Latin America for the sake of containing Communism were simply outright attacks on national sovereignty and human rights. A famous example would be a US backed 1973 overthrow of the Chilean government, putting the infamous Augusto Pinochet in power. Many other examples in the Latin Americas like that greatly limited the foreign people’s rights and yet Chile was just as democratic as the United States before the overthrow. While that was for containing Capitalism which ultimately limited freedom, an earlier example in 1954 in Guatemala would be also for Capitalist benefits. After a long revolution to put a democratic government in place, the United States staged an overthrow due to the nationalization of land that harmed the United Fruit Company. Another dictatorship was put in place while human rights were violated and genocide was attempted. The only moment where the protection of Capitalism also benefited most of the free people was the Berlin Airlift. The Korean War was only perceived as an immediate threat while the both that and the Vietnam War had the United States supporting corrupt governments that violated human rights.

        It can be ultimately stated that the goal of the United States was to defend free people- or Capitalists that is. One appeal of Capitalism however was the freedom and the lack of restriction. This was the only major part of Capitalism that actually was aligned with the definition of free people, while the rest were all about competition. The efforts of the destruction of human rights for the sake of preserving and enhancing Capitalism were directly contradictory to the simple term of freedom. Only a segment of Capitalism was about freedom, and taking that away just to benefit the elite would mean that the United States no longer supported freedom. Their intentions were to boost the economy and preserve Capitalism, but the immediate threat of Communism easily twisted perception and left out a fundamental ideal. The simple idea of freedom and rights were absolutely violated by the United States during the Cold War.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Korean War: Continuity or Change?

The Korean War was one of the first major conflicts between the two superpowers of US and USSR. It happened just half a decade after the end of WWII and was present with many themes that would apply to the rest of the Cold War. Now here's the question of whether these themes were new at the time or simply repeating. Did the Korean War represent the pattern of change or continuity?

The Korean War from June 25th, 1950 to July 27th, 1953 was an armed conflict fought between North Korea and South Korea. However, it was fought primarily between the major actors of the Cold War, including the United States, China, and the USSR. Communist North Korea, led by Kim Il-sung and backed by the USSR, attacked South Korea, led by Syngman Rhee and backed by the United States. Both leaders of each Korea wanted to unify the peninsula, but the USSR heavily supported North Korea with equipment while the US appeared to loosen their grip on South Korea by not giving as much support. This was apparent when North Korea had a highly organized government and was more successful financially and militarily compared to South Korea. It seemed like a sign for no US intervention should the north attack, and so with the support of Stalin and Mao of People's Republic of China, Kim Il-sung invaded across the 38th Parallel and swept past the inferior South Korean forces. The US proposed and managed to pass Resolution 82 in the Security Council due to the USSR's boycotting of the UN meetings, and gained the support of the UN to defend South Korea. The South Koreans have already lost most of the land to North Korea, although UN (mostly US) intervention quickly pushed back the 38th Parallel and reversed the situation to overwhelming most of North Korea. China saw the intervention as a threat to their security and with the support of USSR air force, helped North Korea push back to the 38th Parallel. After repelling another major North Korean offensive that swept across most of South Korea, the US began attempting peace talks with North Korea. The talks resulted in an armistice in 1953 that created a demilitarized zone to separate each country.

To summarize the events, both Koreas wanted to unify the peninsula. Stalin supported Kim Il-sung to invade South Korea as a part of the policy to expand Communism. The US continued their policy of containing Communism as originally part of the Truman Doctrine, although it wasn't until the beginning of the war when they realized the threat of North Korea. They sought to rebuild and unify all of Korea in their ideal, democratic methods. Mao Zedong of People's Republic of China agreed to support North Korea under the promise that the USSR would help rebuild and strengthen China alongside a Communist-unified Korea, although they were hesitant at first. It wasn't until the UN intervention when Mao viewed it as a direct threat from the US to control land directly bordering China. While the USSR supported North Korea, they were unwilling to send troops against the US to avoid direct confrontations between the two superpowers. The question of continuity or change comes with whether these themes were present here in the Cold War for the first time.

It's difficult to deny the fact that it wasn't the first time the USSR tried to expand its influence or the first time the US tried to contain any sign of Communism. It's also difficult to deny that it wasn't the first time that each tried their best to avoid direct confrontations. After WWII, Germany became a major symbol of the Cold War for a reason, while the Korean War was often known as the "forgotten war" due to the infamy of WWII and the Vietnam War before and after. Germany was split between the four victors of WWII, although it eventually was split primarily into east and west. This split was much like the Capitalist and Communist split present later in Korea's situation. Both superpowers wanted to rebuild all of Germany the way they envisioned, with the US focused on free trade while the USSR focused on establishing Communism. North Korea requested help from the USSR just like how west Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany was heavily reliant on the US and its allies.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Cold War Timeline (1945-1962)


Yalta Conference (February 4-11, 1945)

The “Big Three” gathered in Russia to discuss the USSR’s participation in the Pacific War and the fate of Eastern European nations. The US and UK agreed for the USSR to create non-hostile states in the region to prevent another invasion. The USSR was promised control of Manchuria if they helped invaded Japan while they pledged to hold free elections for the later elections of the Eastern European Nations. France was also agreed to be another permanent member of the UN.

 

VE Day (May 8, 1945)

Germany officially surrendered to the Soviets after the suicide of the Adolf Hitler.

 

Potsdam Conference (July, 1945)

Berlin was split into four zones of occupation between the “Big Three” and France. The death of President Roosevelt brought changes to policy with Truman, who disagreed with the solutions of the USSR. They opposed the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe and tried to reduce the punishment on Germany to prevent a reoccurrence of extremist ideologies. Germany was to be demilitarized and a declaration to destroy Japan was created, although the USSR was left out of it. President Truman first mentioned to US development of atomic bombs to Stalin, who already knew about them.

 

The Dropping of Atomic Bombs (August 6/9, 1945)

The US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate the strength of their arsenal to the USSR. They also hoped for the atomic bombings to get Japan to surrender before the Soviet invasion to prevent the increase of their territory.

 

Soviet Invasion on Manchukuo (August 8, 1945)

The USSR invaded Japanese territory as planned, right before the second atomic bombing.

 

VJ Day (August 15, 1945)

Japan surrendered due to the participation of Soviets in August 14. The emperor officially made the speech the next day.

 

Soviet Spying Discovered (September 5, 1945)

It was revealed how the Soviets had spies in both US and Canada, with the primary target being information on the atomic bombs.

 

The Division of Korea (September 8, 1945)

The US occupied what is now South Korea while the Soviets occupied what is now North Korea.

 

Ratification of the UN Charter (October, 1945)

The US contributed to the creation of an improved League of Nations, this time with the inclusion of important states and a revised system.

Stalin’s Speech (February 9, 1946)

Joseph Stalin makes a considerably hostile speech in the national radio, stating how another war was inevitable due to how Communism and Capitalism are incompatible.

 

Ho Chi Minh elected president of North Vietnam (March 2, 1946)

 

Churchill’s Speech (March 5, 1946)

Winston Churchill, no longer prime minister of Britain, makes a speech in the US opposing Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. This influences the perspective of the US and its allies.

 

Truman Doctrine (March 12, 1947)

This doctrine shaped much of the US policy during the Cold War, with the priority of “containing” Communism.

 

Communist Take-Over in Czechoslovakia (February 25, 1948)

Backed by the Soviets, the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia gained power and began a dictatorship lasting for decades. This was the last republic in Eastern Europe that was defeated by Soviet expansion.

 

Marshall Plan (April 3, 1948)

The US planned to help rebuild Europe after the war, and the Marshall Plan came into effect in 1948. The economic aiding lasted four years.

 

Berlin Blockade Begins (June 24, 1948)

The Soviets begin blocking Western ground transportation into Berlin. The US and its allies began the Berlin Airlift during the blockade’s duration to maintain the supply of resources for the Germans.

 

NATO Ratified (April 4, 1949)

This coalition was created as opposition to the Soviet Union, consisting of the US and many of its Western allies.

 

Berlin Blockade Ends (May 12, 1949)

The Soviets gave up their blocking efforts due to the success of the airlift operations.

 

Soviet’s First Atomic Bombs (August 26, 1949)

The USSR tested their first atomic bomb.

 

Creation of PROC (October 1, 1949)

Communist Mao Zedong took control of China and established the People’s Republic of China. Chiang Kai-shek moved to Taiwan in December to continue the Republic of China.

 

US Begins H-Bomb Development (January 30, 1950)

Truman approved the development of the hydrogen bomb in response to the Soviet’s growing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The NSC-68 document was also created, stating how competition against Communism was of highest priority.

 

Korean War Begins (June 24, 1950)

The USSR supported North Korea with equipment to attack South Korea. This would be one of the first major conflicts between the two superpowers throughout the Cold War.

 

Korean War Ends (July 27, 1953)

Both sides of the war stopped fighting when an armistice was signed.

 

Vietnam Split into North and South (July, 1954)

 

Creation of the Warsaw Pact (May, 1955)

The Soviets gathered all its communist allies to support against NATO. These become the two main sides of the Cold War led by each superpower.

 

The Initial Space Race (1957-1958)

The US and USSR began competing into sending crafts into space over these two years. The competition didn’t end there, as more developed spacecraft were later made.

 

Cuba Taken Over by Fidel Castro (January, 1959)

Fidel Castro took over Cuba from the puppet government set by the US.

 

Cuba Allies with USSR and its Policies (December 19, 1960)

 

Construction of Berlin Wall Begins (August 17, 1961)

 

US Involvement in Vietnam (1962)

The US got more involved in the Vietnamese conflict with more troops and air support for South Vietnam.

 

Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

The world nearly got destroyed in a nuclear conflict. The USSR was sending nuclear missiles to Cuba in response to the US missiles in strategic locations like Turkey. The US discovered the transporting and set up a blockade. The tensions escalated quickly until an agreement of the removal of missiles for both sides.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Were the two atomic bombings of Japan justified?

For decades have the American children been taught that the two atomic bombings of Japan were needed for reasons such as preventing a potential major loss of more American troops. They would say that it won the war- that it ended World War II. The United States being the first nation to drop a weapon of mass destruction wasn’t agreed by many, as it had potential to ruin the public image of the nation. The amount of deaths and destructions caused by the two atomic bombs weren’t leagues above other mass murders, but their justification was heavily debated upon due to the threat those posed to world peace in the near future. The most popular and perhaps the only justification for the use of these weapons was to prevent a potential high-casualty invasion that was required to end the war. The calculated numbers varied from a quarter to one whole million. If this reason was to be challenged, then the only atomic bombings on a foreign nation may have been one of the biggest celebrated crimes in American history. Based on evidence that took decades to be declassified for the public, the justification for the two atomic bombings of Japan became moot, as it the actions were actually unnecessary for ending the war. After looking over the effects of the atomic bombings, it would be necessary to view both historical perspectives to determine whether those were justified.

Many can already visualize a bright, eye-burning light, and then followed by a colossal mushroom cloud with an expanding ring from either an aerial view or from a distance. These can be present in war films, usually shown briefly before the celebration of VJ Day. Those documentaries would’ve also done a great service had they shown pictures not just of ruined buildings, but also ruined people. There wouldn’t be much to see from ashes within the radius of the impact zone, as the people were granted a quicker, inevitable death from burning. The rest of the victims’ statuses are in a hierarchy based on the distance from the impact zone. Basically the closer you are, the less likely you are to survive. Some can face severe burning but still survive. They’ll then be greeted by radiation. Others can be spared from burning but still face physical injuries like all before. Some that were affected weren’t even born yet, although they may not have been given birth either. The last victims would be the unfortunate ones that came back too early, therefore also affected by radiation. The radiation would cause a wide diversity of mental and physical illnesses or simply death within weeks. The physical injuries add disabilities or mutilations of the body. The deformed victims would either die soon or live long enough to suffer discrimination while trying to lead life ordinarily. These events were terrible for the victims, and at least ten of them suffered both bombings. For Japan as a whole, the nation lost two cities and many lives. The effects of radiation poisoning had long-term effects that killed more and created more birth defects over the decades.
 
The United States President Harry S. Truman justified the bombings with an estimate of the amount of lives it would take for a land invasion on Japan. The results of the estimates were merely given, and rose from 400,000 casualties all the way to a whole million towards the end of the 1940s. That was of course right when an advocate must defend his or her actions- right when the controversies rise. The bombs, their capabilities, and psychological effects were seen as necessary to make the honor-bound Japan surrender. The Japanese acts of bravery and brutality were present in their policies of no surrendering, and the American public was well aware of that. It was supposed that Japan wouldn’t surrender easily, and they indeed lived up to their honor with the first atomic bomb. The second one sealed the deal. All seemed well, as the sacrifice of a few hundred thousand people in the dense area of just two cities seemed a better option than the sacrifice of a “so-called million” American lives and added Japanese defenders across their island.
 
All would be well after VJ day, except when the Cold War began with the threat of a nuclear war actually being a thing to worry about. So the introduction of the weapon of mass destruction actually did bring consequences that the public was allowed to know about. This conflict between the US and the USSR would not begin after WWII, but before the end of it- including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The justification for the atomic bombs was the threat of the loss of more American lives. The only way to challenge that argument would be to show an alternative. It should already be a widely accepted consensus that no one would use an atomic bomb if he or she doesn’t need to. And not surprisingly, an alternative does exist… although unfortunately in form of the USSR. This shaky relationship of mistrust between the Allies existed all the way from the beginning, and there was apparently no reason for the Americans to break the “cold” barrier now. (Hehe, get it?) As the Germans were already defeated, the Soviets would be able to direct a large portion of the army into Asia, and they were perhaps the biggest force to be reckoned with. Let battle-hardened Russians fight the battle-hardened Japanese, and Stalin would achieve victory with sheer number, resources, and force. That’s not to say that much effort was required, as the US were already able to drop napalms all the way to Japan. Indiscriminate bombing were common throughout WWII and generally frowned upon. Those alone easily killed more than the two atomic bombs, but the mighty nukes were no exceptions to indiscriminate bombing. Back to the USSR, some evidence revealed that Japan would absolutely surrender if the Soviets joined the fight. It should be understood that all their glorious sacrifices were made for their emperor, and they would definitely not want to lose him now. Perhaps the Americans might spare him, but the Russians had a good record with killing Tsars (or at least one). Japan actually may have wanted to surrender already, as many sane people would also choose the same. However, the US wanted an unconditional surrender. They may not have mentioned it, but the Japanese took no risks in preserving the emperor. The Russians would drive them to an unconditional surrender, and perhaps the emperor would still have a chance. The USSR was also promised Manchuria if they helped fight Japan. To please their anti-Communist meter, the Americans decided to end the war as soon as possible without the help of Russians. As they were already dropping napalms over Japan, it was time to select the biggest, baddest bombs. Noting that Japan would surrender either with an invasion from the Soviets or a condition for preserving the emperor, the US went ahead and dropped the first one anyways. The US in fact tried their best to keep the Soviets away from this. After the first drop, Japan did not surrender due to their zealous love towards the emperor. However, evidence revealed that it was possible that they weren’t all that bothered by the atomic bomb. With all their worry of Russians, there was not one single talk of that mushroom cloud over the horizon. If the lives of thousands didn’t matter to the Japanese strength determination, then it was probably unnecessary for the bomb to be dropped. They went ahead and dropped the second one. The Soviets then invaded Manchuria and Japan surrendered. Stalin also displayed interest in these cool, new bombs that the Americans had…
 
So perhaps things could’ve been worse. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of American lives would’ve been lost, but it was difficult to put trust in the unexplained estimates of the casualties. President Truman defended such with a few hundred thousand possible casualties all the way to a million by the end of the decade, in what seemed like a desperate attempt to save face. Recent documents then showed that the Americans developed the bombs only to intimidate and oppose the Russians. The Russians then went ahead and built more for mighty Stalin. But even if the costs of an invasion may be high, the rivalry between the Americans and Russians blocked a perfect alternative. Had the Americans allowed Russia to invade, causing Japan to surrender, they would’ve saved two atomic bombs. They might even be able to keep the development of those weapons in secret, giving them leverage later in the Cold War. Being a victim of an atomic bomb was terrible. These actions displayed some of the US’s first cruelties in other nations for another “greater” cause, usually against Communism. From a moral standpoint, no war or actions of war is justified. From the same standpoint, choosing to drop two atomic bombs over a more passive alternative is also wrong. The calculations given by Truman were difficult to trust. The nukes were not necessary to end the war. Terrible deaths and generations of defects could’ve been prevented. The two atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Was WWII preventable through diplomacy during the 1938 Munich Crisis?

(Irrelevant Prologue)
Another interesting question would be whether if WWII was even preventable through force during the same crisis. According to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, no- not possible. Even if the military was prepared (in which he said wasn't), the people weren't prepared, or rather, unwilling to act. It was simply impossible to overthrow Germany before the war expand globally. No matter how naive he may seem in proclaiming "peace for our time" after the Munich Crisis, his actions were understandable; not everyone is a genious "know-it-all" that knew the perfect, unbiased solution- not even Winston Churchill. But even if Chamberlain failed, was diplomacy a plausible solution for the crisis? Winston Churchill made a statement where war was inevitable after the nations failed to act at the first sign of Hitler's aggression, which was nearly a decade ago. Now, with us knowing how Hitler already decided for war from early on, appeasement, the policy of concession used by Chamberlain, was agreed universally not to work in this situation. Hitler wouldn't stop until Germany was redeemed- an all or nothing future with unknown boundaries, confirmed to at least include conquering the USSR and much of Europe. To be clear, Chamberlain was naive on believing he achieved peace, but the reason for diplomacy wasn't.

Diplomacy is the action of negotation between states which would avoid aggression. The Munich Crisis took place in 1938- WWII started a year later. Diplomacy appeared to have failed in this case, but would direct opposition have prevented the war? The Allies, especially Britain, were passionate about keeping the peace for their own nations. WWII was not preventable through any rational action in diplomacy, due to the fact that Hitler was already bent on a war. In fact, it's unknown if WWII was even preventable by 1938. A direct opposition at the Munich Crisis would merely start the war much earlier, with no plausible means for either the Allies or Axis to win before escalation. It's important to understand a Chamberlain's reasons, opposition, and Hitler's intentions. However, it should also be clear how such topic involves "alternate history", and until we were shown a simulation, we would know not of the infinite possibilities.

Chamberlain defended his actions at Munich with the support of public opinion and military ability of Britain. He made it clear how the people of Britain feared another war. Many historians and Winston Churchill himself stated how war was no longer preventable by 1938, as the Western nations failed to act at Hitler's first grab for power. Hitler secretly declared how he was going full on in a glorious all-or-nothing conflict. However, as the topic is about preventing WWII, Churchill's means of direct action would be irrelevant, as it would only kick start the war earlier. Hitler had plans to attack, and as made clear in one of his speeches that it was to be carried out as soon as possible. If appeasement and direct opposition wasn't going to work, then there would be one last way it would work. The point is that there was no rational, diplomatic way to respond, and that's why the only way to prevent any war would absolute concession. One would have to lose the war before it began, therefore preventing WWII. It's absolutely irrational and unrealistic to just surrender and end a state just like that, but it answers the EQ. As stated before, there was no rational way for diplomacy by the time of 1938, especially after Hitler's Germany already militarized. Of course, one can read a few of Hitler's works and understand things a little better before the assumption of "peace for our time".

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".

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Russian Revolution Tweets