Matrix Games Forums

Oh, not at all.

My post wasn't about justifying German or Japanese expansions during the WWII based on that "somebody else did before". But I'm not sure if you are not justifying the existence of such British, French, American or Spanish Empires, before, during or after WWII. Imperialism is wrong in my opinion, all of them. It seemed to me that you felt that some countries expansions were basically evil, while some other are fairy understandable…

CountryA military expansion? Evil, evil. CountryB military expansion? Well, that's just real life, after all.

Maybe I have misunderstood your point. My apologies if this is the case.

I was trying to prove (maybe I didn't) that your argumentation could be used to prove basically the opposite to someone without a western-centric view (not that I'm saying that you have it).

Would you agree with these sentence?

"Regardless of what Chinese politicians did or didn't believe in the 60's, the fact was, by 2015, it was clear to everyone on the planet what appeasement of the USA power achieved. Why on earth would the China continue down that path with USA?"

Should China start a WWWIII?

PS. No I don't think USA or UK started WWII in either Europe or Pacific. But USA has started wars for much less than an oil embargo, and they would do again. Declaration of war? No. Aggressive action? Definitely.

Thanks for your response and I comment as follow:

But I'm not sure if you are not justifying the existence of such British, French, American or Spanish Empires, before, during or after WWII.

Not justifying them, and I agree with you that, by today's standards, the existence of colonial empires was wrong - but of course we cannot judge the actions taken in times past by today's standards.

Were some empires worse than others? Yes, but that does not justify their existence. Fact is, they were created and, over time, they have dissolved - either through the intervention of others or more recently in particular, because of a realisation that they were wrong.

The fact that most right minded people agree nowadays that imperialism is wrong, makes the fact that some blame the US for starting the Pacific War puzzling to say the least. After all if they had not embargoed Japan, the US would have simply been guilty of allowing a Japanese imperialist policy. Not only that, they would have stood aside and allowed an imperialist policy by a nation that - with her Axis partners - threatened the existence of the free world - including the US herself. Why would she do that?

I was trying to prove (maybe I didn't) that your argumentation could be used to prove basically the opposite to someone without a western-centric view (not that I'm saying that you have it).

Sure, and for the avoidance of doubt I do not have that view - although naturally I may be more inclined to see things from 'our' point of view. To be objective about situations we have to see things from all sides.

As for China and modern politics, this is only going to get the thread locked so will decline to answer that.

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism. Also do not confuse "Imperialist intent" with Colonialism or Imperialism.



Websters definition of Colonialism:
a : control by one power over a dependent area or people.
b : a policy advocating or based on such control.

Example of modern Colonialism:
Europe's colonization period (15th century to 20th century).



Websters definition of Imperialism:

A policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

The effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

Examples of modern Imperialism:

The Commonwealth of Nations (led by the United Kingdom), the European Union, and the United Nations.



Examples of modern Imperialist intent (the designation of other countries as enemies to be conquered):
Russia and the Crimea (2014).
The United States of America and the Middle East (planned in 1940).



Your words mean something use the right words.

Websters:
circumlocution
noun cir·cum·lo·cu·tion \ˌsər-kəm-lō-ˈkyü-shən\

: the use of many words to say something that could be said more clearly and directly by using fewer words

Full Definition of CIRCUMLOCUTION
1: the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
2: evasion in speech

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism. Also do not confuse "Imperialist intent" with Colonialism or Imperialism.



Websters definition of Colonialism:
a : control by one power over a dependent area or people

Websters definition of Imperialism

A policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

The effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

warspite1

And the difference is?.....

Examples of modern Imperialism:

The Commonwealth of Nations (led by the United Kingdom), the European Union, and the United Nations.

Really!!!???

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism.

I am not sure I understand your point. I've read that that imperialism is the idea while colonialism is the practice.

Oxford Dictionary of English have the following definition of colonialism:
The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically:
‘the state apparatus that was dominant under colonialism’

Oxford Dictionary of English have the following definition of imperialism:
A policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means:
‘the struggle against imperialism’

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

I am feeling confused and befuddled since the two words seem pretty interchangeable to me. [:(][&:]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism.

I am not sure I understand your point. I've read that that imperialism is the idea while colonialism is the practice.

Oxford Dictionary of English have the following definition of colonialism:
The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically:
‘the state apparatus that was dominant under colonialism’

Oxford Dictionary of English have the following definition of imperialism:
A policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means:
‘the struggle against imperialism’

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

I am feeling confused and befuddled since the two words seem pretty interchangeable to me. [:(][&:]

warspite1

I think its Websters that are confused and befuddled......

I have a problem with Websters definition as well...esp: "poorer countries" (the effect was also vs rich and powerful countries) and "the way people live" (too broad a definition and not entirely accurate).

There may be some subtle differences between colonialism and imperialism, but the core seems pretty much the same to me.

So, modern Cuba & Mexico were part of the Spanish Empire because they were considered integral part of Spain (they were all spanish).

India was considered a colony of the… should I say "British Empire"? "Colonial power"? (seems the same to me, anyway) because they were not considered british citizens? (not sure about this).

Still, for a mexican/indian peasant the difference between imperialism and colonialism wasn't that important, right? The empire/colonial power occupies another territory to some extent to get profit of their natural resources (most of the time), manpower, market… If locals disagree with that (which is most of the times) then there is violence from the colonial power/empire to maintain its status quo in the region. Nowadays collaboration with local puppet governments seem the preferred option to keep the flow of natural resources to big powers. If that flow stops for any reason, if a country get some "nationalistic feelings" that opposed the submission to the power, then a military action/coup/murder results. For instance, Iran got into trouble with the West when they decided that the 80% share to British Petroleum, 20% share to Iran wasn't fair. I believe if Nigeria or Saudi Arabia decide they don´t want to export oil to some country, they will be declared part of axis of evil, non respecting human rights, and would get their own "in trouble".

No good willing person can justify Nanking killings or Auswitz and, thank god that the allies won the WWII. But, at least in Asia, the start point of the war (European colonial powers ruling the region) wasn't that of fairness. I live in Bali now, and I don't think they saw the conflict as a war between the friendly dutch colonizer and the evil japanese (actually, the japanese look much more alike them). It was the dutch who had been oppressing them before the WWII (and will after). European power didn't stand from a moral ground, but the way they behaved during the war made the biggest difference with the Axis powers.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism. Also do not confuse "Imperialist intent" with Colonialism or Imperialism.



Websters definition of Colonialism:
a : control by one power over a dependent area or people

Websters definition of Imperialism

A policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

The effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

warspite1

1. And the difference is?.....

Examples of modern Imperialism:

2. The Commonwealth of Nations (led by the United Kingdom), the European Union, and the United Nations.

Really!!!???

1. The difference is "control" (economic, military, political or etc.) verses "policy" (plans, strategy, stratagem, approach, code, system, guidelines, theory, line, position, stance, attitude, practice, custom, idea, procedure, conduct, and convention).

2. Yes, really. The Commonwealth of nations was the example in Webster's. The E.U. and U.N. are both "groups of countries changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries".


I see you had no problems with "Imperialist intent".

China comes under the definition of "Economic Imperialism".

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Websters:
circumlocution
noun cir·cum·lo·cu·tion \ˌsər-kəm-lô-ˈkyü-shən\

: the use of many words to say something that could be said more clearly and directly by using fewer words

Full Definition of CIRCUMLOCUTION
1: the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
2: evasion in speech

Please try and stay on topic.

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I can understand someone being against Colonialism. But Colonialism is not Imperialism. Also do not confuse "Imperialist intent" with Colonialism or Imperialism.



Websters definition of Colonialism:
a : control by one power over a dependent area or people

Websters definition of Imperialism

A policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world

The effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.

warspite1

1. And the difference is?.....

Examples of modern Imperialism:

2. The Commonwealth of Nations (led by the United Kingdom), the European Union, and the United Nations.

Really!!!???

1. The difference is "control" (economic, military, political or etc.) verses "policy" (plans, strategy, stratagem, approach, code, system, guidelines, theory, line, position, stance, attitude, practice, custom, idea, procedure, conduct, and convention).

2. Yes, really. The Commonwealth of nations was the example in Webster's. The E.U. and U.N. are both "groups of countries changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries".


I see you had no problems with "Imperialist intent".

China comes under the definition of "Economic Imperialism".

warspite1

Well each to their own I guess. I will continue using the Oxford definition and use these interchangeably.

The United Kingdom's empire was not made up just of colonies; the UK had colonies, dominions, mandated territories, protectorates and other territories she administered. So, as per Oxford, the UK was an imperial power and used colonisation for part of the empire. One can call the UK an imperial or colonial power - both are correct.

As for Japan. I am less certain of the status of Korea (I believe annexed as part of Japan eventually - but originally a colony) or Manchukuo (I believe a colony as what happened there - and the Oxford definition - seems to fit). Furthermore I have no idea what delights the Japanese had in store for the rest of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and what the various 'liberated' countries would be classed as. But Japan was an imperial power as per post 62.

Also do not confuse "Imperialist intent" with Colonialism or Imperialism.

I didn't know I was [;)]


But anyhoo, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the definitions (I think we have been here before [;)]) and that's fine.

The United Kingdom's empire was not made up just of colonies; the UK had colonies, dominions, mandated territories, protectorates and other territories she administered. So, as per Oxford, the UK was an imperial power and used colonisation for part of the empire. One can call the UK an imperial or colonial power - both are correct.

As for Japan. I am less certain of the status of Korea (I believe annexed as part of Japan eventually - but originally a colony) or Manchukuo (I believe a colony as what happened there - and the Oxford definition - seems to fit). Furthermore I have no idea what delights the Japanese had in store for the rest of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and what the various 'liberated' countries would be classed as. But Japan was an imperial power as per post 62.

+1

I would say "Empire Wannabe"

I suggest that Japan was a Colonial Empire.

It is my understanding that Japan called itself an empire. And Japan had colonies.

Taiwan must, in my humble opinion, be described as a Japanese colony. I think that there were other areas controlled by Japan that were colonies as well. But one is enough for Japan to be considered a colonial power and Taiwan fits the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonial_empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_un ... anese_rule

ORIGINAL: Orm

I suggest that Japan was a Colonial Empire.

It is my understanding that Japan called itself an empire. And Japan had colonies.

Taiwan must, in my humble opinion, be described as a Japanese colony. I think that there were other areas controlled by Japan that were colonies as well. But one is enough for Japan to be considered a colonial power and Taiwan fits the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonial_empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_un ... anese_rule

warspite

I think the annexation of Korea makes her more of an Imperial power (based on the Oxford definition). But either works for me, as I say, I think they are interchangeable unless one is speaking about something specific e.g.

- The British adopted colonial rule over Kenya.
- The British were an imperial power; Queen Victoria ruled over a huge empire that projected to all corners of the globe.

Just as UK, Japan was both. As for their colonies...at the very least: Manchuria was a colony, and Japan assumed control of most of Germany's colonies in the Pacific/China.

So I've been thinking about this thread some while I run a chainsaw all day. I think a lot of it has been just circling around the questions purely on semantic issues. Are Empires colonial Imperialist systems or Imperial colonial systems? Defining the three terms is irrelevant - we all know one when we read about one.

Did the USA's decision to Embargo oil headed to Japan start the Pacific War? You could argue that, semantically, either way. Perhaps it is best to think the American Embargo started the USA's participation in Japan's expansionist war - but a country can't expand it's territory via war on accident. So Japan started it's war of expansion in 1931 or so but the Americans didn't decide to get involved until 1940 or so.

I do recommend to anyone interested in the question in the thread topic to delve into the topic some more, though that is generally difficult. Western histories of WWII will cover the Mukden Incident, the Rape of Nanking, and then it will be the fall of Singapore and then the campaign in Burma in great detail. What happened in China is the most mysterious part of WWII to every student of the war even today. The histories written on the Chinese side are greatly colored by whether they were written by the Communist Party on the mainland or by the remains of the Kuomintang on Taiwan. I would be interested to read anything recent produced in Japan and then translated to English however...

ORIGINAL: brian brian

So I've been thinking about this thread some while I run a chainsaw all day. I think a lot of it has been just circling around the questions purely on semantic issues. Are Empires colonial Imperialist systems or Imperial colonial systems? Defining the three terms is irrelevant - we all know one when we read about one.

Did the USA's decision to Embargo oil headed to Japan start the Pacific War? You could argue that, semantically, either way. Perhaps it is best to think the American Embargo started the USA's participation in Japan's expansionist war - but a country can't expand it's territory via war on accident. So Japan started it's war of expansion in 1931 or so but the Americans didn't decide to get involved until 1940 or so.

I do recommend to anyone interested in the question in the thread topic to delve into the topic some more, though that is generally difficult. Western histories of WWII will cover the Mukden Incident, the Rape of Nanking, and then it will be the fall of Singapore and then the campaign in Burma in great detail. What happened in China is the most mysterious part of WWII to every student of the war even today. The histories written on the Chinese side are greatly colored by whether they were written by the Communist Party on the mainland or by the remains of the Kuomintang on Taiwan. I would be interested to read anything recent produced in Japan and then translated to English however...

You might check out Wosung's bibliography on page 230 of volume 2 of the Players Manual. However, he reads Chinese, so some of those references might be in Chinese.