Darren's Grade 9 Honors World History Blog
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?
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Korean War: Continuity or Change?
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)
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Were the two atomic bombings of Japan justified?
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Was WWII preventable through diplomacy during the 1938 Munich Crisis?
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
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
Russia at the beginning of the 1900s remained a poor, under-industrialized nation heavily influenced by serfdom. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Tsar Nicholas II, while promising reforms, intended ignore them and continue the autocracy. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The Russo-Japanese War in 1904 exposed Russia’s industrial and military weakness to the world. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
An attempt by working people to petition the czar resulted in the “Bloody Sunday” massacre that caused the revolution of 1905. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
A new constitution and parliament called the “Duma” was created, although Russia remained an autocracy. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Russia entered WWI in 1914 with poor results following. It lost land and millions of lives due to their under developed equipment. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The tsar took control of the army in 1915 with Grigori Rasputin secretly in control of Russia, foreshadowing the end of the reign. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The Russian Revolution of 1917 ended the tsar’s regime after the inability of the government was clear. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The Provisional Government of Duma Liberals not only failed to bring reforms and stop chaos, but kept Russia in War. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Germany sent Lenin, an exiled leader of the Bolsheviks, to overtake Russia and bring it out of war. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Western Allied forces of WWI tried to keep Russia within war, clearly opposing Marxism and the Bolsheviks. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Lenin led the Bolsheviks to the Second Revolution of 1917 in promise of withdrawal from war. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Lenin created a communist state where banks and industries were nationalized while private land ownership was banned. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The Bolsheviks faced the White Guard, an anti-communist movement, and the economic crisis set by war. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Lenin established the secret police and strove to put down all opposition, setting a basis for the future of the nation. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Lenin crushed most internal opposition against communist rule and began the New Economic Policy, allowing some capitalism. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Russia officially became the USSR in 1922. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Lenin died in 1924 with some regret of the creation of an autocratic party. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Stalin gained control in 1927 and started a ruthless approach to industrialize the USSR. The party became a dictatorship. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
Many older Bolsheviks were killed or exiled under the orders of Stalin as he strengthened his rule. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015
The already existing forms of government failed to bring reforms to a society years behind others. #RusRevHW
— Darren Chiang (@gnaihcnerrad1) March 17, 2015