USA, Japan and China

[Menser]

It is ever just a question of what the current leadership wants or believes or is obligated for....nothing more.
We need to go into here because they have weapons of mass destruction, we need to go into here becasue they have the resources we need, we need to go into here because our treaties and agreements say we must.
It has always been that simple to throw away millions of lives.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: stuman

Well I think it is safe to say that the Chinese did not want the Japanese in their country.

Well I guess they didn't want anyone in their country. Remember Boxer Rebellion, where 7 western nation and Japan united against chinese. Or Opium wars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

No they didn't, and who can blame them.

[canuck64]

Intelligent discussion, though I see little ground for much debate, except perhaps the subtleties of which shade of lipstick to put on the pig....


-winners write history.
Expansionist undertakings (successful ones-think here of Teddy Roosevelt's "talk soft and carry a big stick" gunboat diplomacy) seldom work. Thus did we see the death of Fascism.....but only AFTER Poland (in limited fashion), France (little less limited fashion) and finally Soviet Union were attacked.

Healthier points of view allow nations to "expand" without making that their purpose. There's an immense risk in pure militarism-because the militarists begin inevitably to demand more action, more expansion and argue for more defense of the gains made.

The argument in ww2 as I see it was not between the Japanese people and the American people and points of view. It was fuelled by Japan's militarism, which was operating under a full head of steam. That, coupled with Japan's emerging importance as SE Asia power, it's radical emergence into modern industrial competition, and a much too healthy respect for pure authority, made her course rather inevitable. Lots of radical 'change' in Japan for the 100 years leading up to their 1906 tussle with Russia.....

Drop in a splash of celebrated racism: (Japanese/Chinese, Japanese/West, West/Japanese) and you've got a fine elixir for war and atrocity. The calculated attack on Pearl Harbor to wipe out the US Pacific fleet was seen entirely as "unfair" by a United States that itself has a somewhat difficult history with relative morality.

It's a sad truth that Germany, Italy and Japan's 1930's approach to the world are entirely too human, and heavy in hubris.

And I believe the lessons learned form the basis for objection to modern military adventuring. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Japanese understood this. We arguably sometimes forget.[:(]

I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps.

Once ahead in the arms race, it's easy to negotiate a SALT or arms limitation treaty. It guarantees the pecking order.

Soviet Union was feared by the west post ww2, likely with good reason-but the world seen from their point of view was one of "gaining buffer states"-precisely to avoid losing 40-60 million people again. I believe we saw it in the west as expansion by "godless commies"........dehumanize your enemy being the first rule of thumb.
How could the West relate to any of those points of view, really?

morality is not absolute....though perhaps the concepts are.

[Anthropoid]

I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps.

I agreed with you 100% right up to that part.

I think a lot of the posters in this thread are a little too caught up in the military side of things, and are assuming that might not only makes "right" but makes for stable Empires. I think history shows quite the opposite, as you are pointing out.

The American Empire has prevailed so far not because it is necessarily "mightier" in a "chop off their heads and rape their children in front of them" sort of way. ICBMs and SSBMs were a necessary part of the foreign policy mixture that led to "winning" the Cold War, but they were not sufficient to win it. Perhaps proxy wars were also a necessary but insufficient part of the winning strategy. However despite losses and stalemates at several proxy wars the West "won" the Cold War. This is true becuse winning it ultimately was mediated more by sociocultural, political, and economic "competition" than military competition. I believe that this has _always_ been the case. Military power is only useful to help establish Empires, it cannot maintain them, and it certainly does not perpetuate them nor make them successful.

Most people most of the time _LIKE_ what they get from American-style Imperialism = Britney Spears videos on YouTube and free-trade (like Matrix Games download area), and 5-day holiday weekends where you can get in your car and drive all the way across the continent without Big Brother stopping you to check your papers, _AND_ if you get pulled over on the way the cop is more likely to be fair and uncorrupt as not _AND_ the currency you use will be functional all the way across that geographic area, _AND_ you can get the same kind of chips and soda in thousands of convenience stores along the way, etc.

This is why I disagree with your cynical sides inclination to blame the allies. Had the Soviets "liberated" France, we would see the same stagnation and abuses to human rights and the standard of living as we saw in Eastern Europe.

Might does not make right, but it is useful to make it. What makes right is good civilizations.

Japans whining was unwarranted for the simple reason that the path they were embarking on was far from being a path toward establishing a good civilized Empire, but rather a path toward establishing an oppressive, inhumane, and atrocious Empire.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: GB68
I'm interested in this notion of "free trade" that occured with China, In reality, it did not exist. It was a typical colonial enterprise. As it mainly used British and French interests to be the middle man. In other words, the European powers pillaged the resources and sold them to the US via the open Chinese ports.

Eh? sounds exactly like the modern practice of "free trade" to me (perhaps minus the middle man). Maybe you're thinking of "fair trade"?

Example of free trade vs fair trade:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blackgold/film.html

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blac ... omics.html

[canuck64]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think the cynic in me sees the Allies' advance from Normandy, liberation of Peenemunde and absorption of the vast majority of Nazi Germany's atomic/rocket work to be the root cause of why the world is now shaped the way it is. With more atomic weapons, the West makes the convoluted morality that we now see in the world. Might makes right, ultimately. But easily justified by Nanking and the concentration camps.

I agreed with you 100% right up to that part.

The American Empire has prevailed so far not because it is necessarily "mightier" in a "chop off their heads and rape their children in front of them" sort of way. ICBMs and SSBMs were a necessary part of the foreign policy mixture that led to "winning" the Cold War, but they were not sufficient to win it. Perhaps proxy wars were also a necessary but insufficient part of the winning strategy. However despite losses and stalemates at several proxy wars the West "won" the Cold War. This is true becuse winning it ultimately was mediated more by sociocultural, political, and economic "competition" than military competition. I believe that this has _always_ been the case. Military power is only useful to help establish Empires, it cannot maintain them, and it certainly does not perpetuate them nor make them successful.

Most people most of the time _LIKE_ what they get from American-style Imperialism = Britney Spears videos on YouTube and free-trade (like Matrix Games download area), and 5-day holiday weekends where you can get in your car and drive all the way across the continent without Big Brother stopping you to check your papers, _AND_ if you get pulled over on the way the cop is more likely to be fair and uncorrupt as not _AND_ the currency you use will be functional all the way across that geographic area, _AND_ you can get the same kind of chips and soda in thousands of convenience stores along the way, etc.

This is why I disagree with your cynical sides inclination to blame the allies. Had the Soviets "liberated" France, we would see the same stagnation and abuses to human rights and the standard of living as we saw in Eastern Europe.

Might does not make right, but it is useful to make it. What makes right is good civilizations.

Agreed. And well stated. It was what I was struggling to make a case for, with a cautionary and cynical tone thrown in. It's a lofty point to aim to make in a two paragraph box on a gamesite.

Older societies with longer histories inevitably fall prey to "being lost" at times in their development. I think that's to be expected. We in the "West" must be very careful about looking around through lens of moral superiority. Men are men, and are equally capable of insanity.

Sadly, I cannot subscribe NECESSARILY to your argument that what makes RIGHT is (morally)good civilizations. I want to.

Consider: -Until the principles of, say, the United States' Imperialism (in 'enjoyable' form as you put it) last as long as those of Rome, we're arguing about an 8 year struggle between nations where, very obviously, the totalitarian nations ended up corroding from within as fast as without. Thankfully. I'd not wish to live under communism or national socialism, of course. Those were awfully extreme examples of moral carelessness, mind you.

What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope.[;)] Winners write history.

A hope I share, incidentally. I'm not that much of a cynic. [:D]

[jwilkerson]

This thread started on thin ice - and has skirted the "edge" of being more political than historical - and at least one post has stepped across the line - so if this thread can refocus on WWII history or the WITP/AE game it might survive, otherwise not.

I cannot move threads to the Garabge Dump (er - I mean the General Discussion forum) so my choice is just to lock it down or not lock it down.

[Anthropoid]

What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope. Winners write history

When I hear this sort of argument I am reminded of that quote of Lincoln's.

"Whenever I hear someone arguing for the merits of slavery I have a strong wish to see it tried on him."

In my opinion, "right" is just as simple as that. The system of rules must be fair, else-=-from simple socioecological standpoint-=-a society has no hope to persist in the long haul.

Societies that are more fair and/or exhibit a longer-running and more clear trajectory toward more fairness are superior to those that are less fair, and no society can evade this socioecological principle. Arguments by less-fair societies that the more-fair societies were in the past also less-fair are not good reasons to justify unfairness.

Indeed, societies that are more-fair have no reason not to merge with others that are comparably fair, and as such, the whole idea of Empires should eventually become null and void, as the history of Western Europe has shown. The argument at the heart of the Japanese sentiment expressed in the OP is contrary to this long-term trajetory toward greater human unity.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

What I was trying to say is that our version of history in the west is drafted on the back of a highly successful, ridiculously militaristic, and pagan, expansionistic, society. The Romans. Till we find an example that trumps that longevity, any and all "moral arguments" about the inevitability of right societies' triumphs-is merely arguing from hope. Winners write history

When I hear this sort of argument I am reminded of that quote of Lincoln's.

"Whenever I hear someone arguing for the merits of slavery I have a strong wish to see it tried on him."

In my opinion, "right" is just as simple as that. The system of rules must be fair, else-=-from simple socioecological standpoint-=-a society has no hope to persist in the long haul.

Societies that are more fair and/or exhibit a longer-running and more clear trajectory toward more fairness are superior to those that are less fair, and no society can evade this socioecological principle. Arguments by less-fair societies that the more-fair societies were in the past also less-fair are not good reasons to justify unfairness.

Indeed, societies that are more-fair have no reason not to merge with others that are comparably fair, and as such, the whole idea of Empires should eventually become null and void, as the history of Western Europe has shown. The argument at the heart of the Japanese sentiment expressed in the OP is contrary to this long-term trajetory toward greater human unity.

Ok, enough. I can't claim to understand what these words mean, but they do not sound like a dicussion of WWII history or WITP, hence locking up.