ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey The Basket,
I may be wrong, but I do not think that anyone here is blaming the US for Japan's actions in China or other East Asian areas. I, myself, have simply been trying to point out the many of often attributed reasons for Japan going to war are incorrect. The Japanese government and military were not irrational/insane Samurai warmongers, with no knowledge of industrial power or military tactics. Nor were they ignorant of their chances agains the US. Yes, they had the intent of expanding their empire and becoming more-or-less as powerful as the US or the UK, primarily with the intent of becoming secure from outside military or economic threat, though there was a lot of business/economic opportunism as well. These intents were no different than what the US acted on during it's early period of (imperialist) military and economic expansion during the 1800's and early-1900s, under the auspices of "Manifest Destiny" (i.e. "God is on our side and it is therefor our divine right to invade and rape, loot, and pillage other nations if we want". The Japanese government pointed out repeatedly, both to the US directly and in front of the League of Nations assembly, the hypocrisy shown by the US (and other nations with military and economic designs on the Far East) when the US demanded that Japan stop doing what the US had done in its dealings with the populations of other nations during this period (I would list the cases of such US behavior but it would take at least a couple hundred pages to do so. There are many books on the subject.)
There are many myths attributed by the US, to the US and it's opponents in the many wars the US has been involved in. Some originated before or at the start of the wars, in order to enrage the public and spur action, others were created and perpetuated during and after the wars in order to warp history so that the actions of the US could be deemed more acceptable in the eyes of the public, or the actions of the enemy less acceptable. Some were intended to demean the enemy in the eyes of the soldier or public, others were used to hide hypocrisy. I am not saying that only the US has behaved this way, most if not all nations do so, especially the ones that end up in the driver's seat.
One of my favorite stories about this type of thinking happened to me back in the late-1990s. I and a group of wargamer friends of mine were discussing the end of WWII and its effects on societies in the social-psychological sense.
One of my friends made the comment that the Japanese were savages and deserved what they got (ie fire bombing, nuking, etc.). He mentioned the book "The Rape of Nanking" as an example, thinking that it was mostly about the Japanese army raping all the women of Nanking (he had not read the book, but was inferring from the title). I pointed out that he should inform his wife that it was much more moral to be blown to bits by a bomb dropped from 20,000 ft, burned to death by incendiaries dropped from 10,000-20,000 ft, or incinerated/vaporized by an atom bomb, than to be raped. He (understandably) became angry and continued to run down the Japanese native intelligence, social and individual morality, and ending up by pointing out the irrationality of the idea that the soldiers would fight to the point of death rather than surrender, citing the mass bayonet charges of some Japanese units. (He attributed this to the Samurai ethos, but again he actually had almost no idea of what he was talking about.) I responded by saying that I did not realize that the US Army Ranger regiment employed Japanese mercenaries (I confess I was being snarky, but I had had enough display of racist ignorance for the day). He did not understand what I meant so I pointed out that the Rangers trapped in the building in Mogadishu had decided that they would fight to the death rather than surrender, therefore they must be Japanese followers of the Samurai ethos, since they had to be savages to be willing to fight to the death and could not therefor be Americans. I then said that I had not realized that American born Rangers would surrender when they realized that it was unlikely they would win, particularly if they thought a last desperate attempt might win the battle and save the nation. He owned the cafe we were in and ordered me to leave. I found it interesting that he did not throw me out when I said what I did about rape vs et alia, but did so when I said what I did about the Mogadishu Rangers attitude. (He had been a member of the 2nd battalion of the 75th infantry regiment, the Ranger regiment, in the early-1980s.
)
I may be wrong, but I do not think that anyone here is blaming the US for Japan's actions in China or other East Asian areas. I, myself, have simply been trying to point out the many of often attributed reasons for Japan going to war are incorrect. The Japanese government and military were not irrational/insane Samurai warmongers, with no knowledge of industrial power or military tactics. Nor were they ignorant of their chances agains the US. Yes, they had the intent of expanding their empire and becoming more-or-less as powerful as the US or the UK, primarily with the intent of becoming secure from outside military or economic threat, though there was a lot of business/economic opportunism as well. These intents were no different than what the US acted on during it's early period of (imperialist) military and economic expansion during the 1800's and early-1900s, under the auspices of "Manifest Destiny" (i.e. "God is on our side and it is therefor our divine right to invade and rape, loot, and pillage other nations if we want". The Japanese government pointed out repeatedly, both to the US directly and in front of the League of Nations assembly, the hypocrisy shown by the US (and other nations with military and economic designs on the Far East) when the US demanded that Japan stop doing what the US had done in its dealings with the populations of other nations during this period (I would list the cases of such US behavior but it would take at least a couple hundred pages to do so. There are many books on the subject.)
There are many myths attributed by the US, to the US and it's opponents in the many wars the US has been involved in. Some originated before or at the start of the wars, in order to enrage the public and spur action, others were created and perpetuated during and after the wars in order to warp history so that the actions of the US could be deemed more acceptable in the eyes of the public, or the actions of the enemy less acceptable. Some were intended to demean the enemy in the eyes of the soldier or public, others were used to hide hypocrisy. I am not saying that only the US has behaved this way, most if not all nations do so, especially the ones that end up in the driver's seat.
One of my favorite stories about this type of thinking happened to me back in the late-1990s. I and a group of wargamer friends of mine were discussing the end of WWII and its effects on societies in the social-psychological sense.
One of my friends made the comment that the Japanese were savages and deserved what they got (ie fire bombing, nuking, etc.). He mentioned the book "The Rape of Nanking" as an example, thinking that it was mostly about the Japanese army raping all the women of Nanking (he had not read the book, but was inferring from the title). I pointed out that he should inform his wife that it was much more moral to be blown to bits by a bomb dropped from 20,000 ft, burned to death by incendiaries dropped from 10,000-20,000 ft, or incinerated/vaporized by an atom bomb, than to be raped. He (understandably) became angry and continued to run down the Japanese native intelligence, social and individual morality, and ending up by pointing out the irrationality of the idea that the soldiers would fight to the point of death rather than surrender, citing the mass bayonet charges of some Japanese units. (He attributed this to the Samurai ethos, but again he actually had almost no idea of what he was talking about.) I responded by saying that I did not realize that the US Army Ranger regiment employed Japanese mercenaries (I confess I was being snarky, but I had had enough display of racist ignorance for the day). He did not understand what I meant so I pointed out that the Rangers trapped in the building in Mogadishu had decided that they would fight to the death rather than surrender, therefore they must be Japanese followers of the Samurai ethos, since they had to be savages to be willing to fight to the death and could not therefor be Americans. I then said that I had not realized that American born Rangers would surrender when they realized that it was unlikely they would win, particularly if they thought a last desperate attempt might win the battle and save the nation. He owned the cafe we were in and ordered me to leave. I found it interesting that he did not throw me out when I said what I did about rape vs et alia, but did so when I said what I did about the Mogadishu Rangers attitude. (He had been a member of the 2nd battalion of the 75th infantry regiment, the Ranger regiment, in the early-1980s.
Last edited: