In fact a little known fact is not all Nisei/Issei were interned. Only hawaiian and west coast, eastern seaboard and midwest were unaffected
I do appreciate any chance to increase my knowledge, so thank you for that. It is very difficult to unravel sometimes hundreds of years of complicated relationships between countries. Nothing starts in a vacuum and something innocuous can rise up to bite one decades later.A lot of stuff.
Well, out of Mao, Chaing Kai-shek, and Wang, I do wonder if Wang might have been the best.thats a bit like saying Hitler wasn’t a bad bloke because he didn’t approve of cruelty to animals and didn’t like hunting.
The Cairo Declaration in November 1943 really set the tone I would say.I do appreciate any chance to increase my knowledge, so thank you for that. It is very difficult to unravel sometimes hundreds of years of complicated relationships between countries. Nothing starts in a vacuum and something innocuous can rise up to bite one decades later.
However, Japan is a completely different kettle of rice to other combatants in WW2. I seem to recall reading that there were hundreds of thousands of surrendered Germans, yet only dozens of surrendered Japanese.
They fought with an unmatched ferocity and treated their POWs and conquered people the same. I watched a program years ago, may've been World At War, where on an island, hiding Japanese women smothered their babies who were making noise. This was to avoid the predations of the invading US marines.
I cannot understand that mindset. That they were willing to kill their own children to avoid detection.
For what it's worth, I don't differentiate between Mengele or Unit 731. I know about the counter-argument, that the allies also had their fair share of wrongful experimentation, but as far as I know, the allies didn't amputate POWs arms, just to see what happened.
Think of Hiroo Onoda, a WW2 soldier who finally surrendered in 1974, 29 years after it ended. He could only be persuaded to do so by his former CO, as he thought that previous attempts to talk him down was enemy subterfuge.
The only way they were ever going to stop fighting was if it became very clear that they risked total annihilation, every man, woman and child in the Japanese Empire.
The atomic weapons were the only thing that could bring them to heel.
It's a shame that the meaning of Concentration Camp became so twisted out of reality between 1900 and 1945. From becoming a place where prisoners were contained together within one area it became the byword for horror camps of mass extermination. Just sayin'...I read somewhere that Hitler thought he would get away with the concertation camps because in the U.S in some states you could apply to have disabled mentally ill etc euthanised.
Also as we all know Britain used them in South Africa
Early on even under that Nazi's you needed a reason for someone to be euthanised and a doctor to recommend it then another to sign it off.
This was early on before they went full on tonto and started just killing everyone.
For what it's worth, I don't differentiate between Mengele or Unit 731.
Reading your posts strengthens my belief that the Allies did the Japanese nation a huge favour in 1945 by saving them from themselves.The Cairo Declaration in November 1943 really set the tone I would say.
"The several military missions have agreed upon future military operations against Japan. The Three Great Allies expressed their resolve to bring unrelenting pressure against their brutal enemies by sea, land, and air. This pressure is already rising."
"The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent."
"With these objects in view the three Allies, in harmony with those of the United Nations at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan."
If the Cairo Declaration was not such a message of death to Japan's independent capacity to carry out its own defense in its own region for decades to come, maybe they would not have fought so "fanatically".
A temple in Taiwan enshrined a Japanese WW2 fighter pilot.
Survey about views towards colonial history of Taiwan.
Against the background of renewed interest in Taiwan’s history, I surveyed 1054 high school and college students in Tainan from January to March this year and asked them their views on the periods of Dutch rule (1624-1662) and Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) family rule (1662-1683). In order to have a measure of comparison, the students were also asked to give their opinion on the Qing Dynasty rule (1683-1895) and Japanese colonial rule (1895-1945).
Overall, the percentage of those who didn’t know enough about a particular period of history to say whether it had or had not been good for Taiwan varied around 25 percent for the Dutch, Koxinga and Qing Dynasty periods, and dropped to 15.5 percent for the Japanese period.
These numbers (25 percent “don’t know”) still indicate a significant lack of knowledge about the earlier periods. This is probably due to the still minimal amount of time spent on these periods in the current history curriculum. Several students complained about the lack of sufficient time spent on history as compared to Chinese history and classical Chinese texts which have little relevance to present-day Taiwan.
ABORIGINES, TAIWANESE AND OTHERS
One of the key characteristics of the survey is the relatively high percentage of students who consider themselves Aboriginal (177 out of 1054, or 16.8 percent). This enables us to compare the views of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students.
For the period of Dutch rule (1624-1662) both the Aboriginal respondents and those who identified themselves as “Ethnic Taiwanese” consider it to have been good for Taiwan, 54.2 percent and 56.4 percent respectively.
For the “Others” category — (those who identified themselves as Hakka, Mainlander and others) — it drops to slightly below 50 percent, but this is probably due to the fact that this group included a number of foreign students who had had no exposure to Taiwan’s history, and responded “I don’t know.” For all three groups, the respondents who had a negative perception of the Dutch period hovered around 22 percent.
For the period of Koxinga family rule (1662-1683) we see a very different picture. Among Aboriginal respondents, his rule is disliked by 43.4 percent while 32.6 percent agreed that his rule was good for Taiwan. Twenty-four percent say they don’t know. However, 67.6 percent of Ethnic Taiwanese had a positive view of him, with 9.6 percent disagreeing. Among the Others category, the positions are somewhere in between: a slight majority (53.0 percent) is positive while 12.5 percent is negative, with a relatively high percentage (34.5 percent) saying they don’t know.
The period of Qing Dynasty rule is worst off. Aboriginal respondents are overwhelmingly (58.5 percent) critical, with 18.8 percent having a positive image of the period. For Ethnic Taiwanese respondents the picture is slightly better, with 42.9 percent positive and 33.9 percent negative. For the Others category of respondents, the pictures is quite similar: 38.3 percent positive and 27.3 percent negative.
The period of Japanese rule (1895-1945) is generally considered most positive by all three groups of respondents, but again the Aboriginal students are most critical with 44.6 percent positive and 39.0 percent negative. The Ethnic Taiwanese group is overwhelmingly positive, with 70.5 percent agreeing it was good for Taiwan, and only 16.8 percent disagreeing. The Others category again come down somewhere in between, with 54.9 percent agreeing it was good for Taiwan, and 23.9 percent disagreeing.
DIFFERENT PERIODS, DIFFERENT TAKES
Why are the different periods of Taiwan’s history valued so differently? In their responses to “Give a reason why,” the students wrote in a large number of opinions.
On the Dutch period, the positive comments included “improving the lives of the Aboriginal people,” “bringing in new agricultural products,” and “introducing water buffaloes to improve agriculture.” Others stated that the Dutch “brought Taiwan into the world trading system,” and also provided schooling and developed a written language for the Siraya Aborigines in an area northeast of present-day Tainan. On the negative side, respondents criticized the Dutch for their colonial exploitation, and for trade practices that led to the extinction of the Formosan sika deer.
The period of Koxinga family rule was seen positively by those who felt that he had brought new immigrants from Fukien province to Taiwan to develop agriculture, laid the foundation of a new Han Chinese society and for introducing a preliminary schooling system at the site of the Confucius Temple in Tainan. Those who viewed the Cheng period negatively emphasized that Koxinga and his family had killed many Aborigines. They also felt he exploited them, destroyed their culture and stole their women and land. A number also criticized Koxinga for using Taiwan as a base to regain control of China.
The period of Qing Dynasty rule was seen negatively by Aboriginal respondents because they oppressed Aboriginal people, taking away their land and forcing them to accept Han culture. Other students stated that the Qing marginalized Taiwan by restricting development and impairing contacts between Taiwan and the outside world. Many respondents also mentioned widespread corruption among Qing government officials, starting with Shih Lang (施琅) — the first official to rule Taiwan on behalf of the Qing. The only positive comments about Qing Dynasty rule related to the efforts of governor Liu Ming-chuan (劉銘傳) in the late 1880s, who started to develop railways and a telegraph system.
The period of Japanese rule was overwhelmingly considered positive because they initiated a major expansion of modern infrastructure, such as roads, railroads and other public works. The Japanese were also credited for starting a public health system, an education system up to university level, irrigation systems and tap water. A number of people also mentioned that the Japanese introduced the Western system of keeping time, and “taught Taiwan to be law-abiding and punctual with time.”
The detractors of the Japanese period mentioned racial discrimination against both Taiwanese and Aborigines, and a number also mentioned the killings that took place during the “pacification campaigns” in the early years of the era.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR TODAY
These early events in Taiwan’s history laid the foundation of present-day Taiwan: a multi-cultural society with many different historic roots.
The fact that the social origins are clearly rooted in the Aboriginal population is finding increasing recognition, as seen in President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) inauguration ceremony and apology to Aborigines last year.
But this new multi-cultural Taiwanese identity also cherishes the Hoklo-speaking part of the population (70 percent), the Hakka-speaking population (15 percent) and the descendents of the Chinese mainlanders, who came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) after 1945.
One point of broad agreement among all these groups is that they would like to see an end to the political and diplomatic isolation into which Taiwan has been pushed by its recent history, and broadly support Taiwan playing a more prominent role internationally.
The fact that at several points in its long history Taiwan was already connected to the world, both to the Pacific Islanders through cultural links as long as 3,500 years ago as well as to Japan and Southeast Asia through the Dutch trading system in the 17th century is supportive of the broader narrative that Taiwan has long been an “Ocean nation” that survived and thrived.
Thus, as Taiwan prepares to play a fuller and more integral role in the international community and be a part of globalization in the 21st century, it can look back at — and make use of — a long history with strong connections to the outside world.
Taiwan’s history: student edition - Taipei Times
This is an interesting postNo, it isn’t. They really were every bit as bad as they’re made out, if not more so.
Wang Jingwei’s faction was one reason that the Nationalists were not able to form a consensus in favour of fighting repeated Japanese encroachments before 1937. He was in favour of an armistice while China built up its strength in order to resist more effectively, and was in direct opposition to those who believed resistance had to start before there was no China left to resist from.
I’ll wager repeated Japanese expansions and annexations, coupled with the intense brutality of the occupation, had just a teensy bit to do with the Chinese side resolving to resist Japan.
By force of Japanese arms and entirely under the control of Japanese ‘advisors’. Here’s one for you: if the Japanese really weren’t that bad, how is it that they didn’t allow the Reformed Government to have its own army or foreign policy under the Treaty Concerning Basic Relations (1940)?
They weren’t initially (see above) and when they did they were prevented from having enough heavy weapons to form more than an infantry force. They mutinied repeatedly and part of the reason Wang’s regime collapsed immediately on the Japanese defeat was the mass defection of his troops.
Well, I guess that excuses 50-odd years of invasion, occupation and predation by the Japanese…
Not being required to immediately suffer the attentions of the IJA may have made it an appealing prospect to a 16-year old boy, but reality of life in the RG Army encouraged high levels of desertion.
Wait, so we should just have let Japan continue its rampage through Asia on the grounds that since they’d smashed the pre-existing government structures in conquered territories there would be a power vacuum?
Actually, no. To celebrate defeating a brutal and voracious enemy is something we should be proud of and ought to celebrate. There’s a reason why so many countries have their own versions of VJ Day and it isn’t because they long for the halcyon days of rule from Tokyo.
The very first post-war elections in the Republic of China were held in Taiwan in 1947 and local non-KMT candidates largely swept the board. Chiang believed the levels of education and civic engagement were higher on the island, and that the harsh anti-Communist measures enacted by Japan throughout its empire meant Taiwan was largely free from Communist infiltration.
The implication that we should have tolerated Imperial Japan’s shenanigans on the grounds that it might have encouraged them to be less of a bunch of shits isn’t really one I’d agree with.
Well in some way, I agree. The Japanese got a break in doing the military arm of geopolitics in the region. So it was young American men that had to fight in Korea and had to fight in Vietnam instead. And it is now them that need to continue the presence in the region. If the US is always willing to take that role, then sure. But I'm not so sure the US is going to be fully interested in the role, such as the appeasement the PRC got with gains in the South China Sea.Reading your posts strengthens my belief that the Allies did the Japanese nation a huge favour in 1945 by saving them from themselves.
I think the simple answer is yes. Nice try at whataboutery though.Well, was the US really any better?
I see you only joined to post in this thread and have only posted here.This is an interesting post
Well with so many sub-points to counter, I'm going to just counter with a single thought addressing to your points by number.
1st point. Sounds like an active desire to smear without giving more information.
Your 2nd point is funny to blame Wang instead of the Chinese communists. Chiang Kai-shek took the approach of eliminating the communist first, then face Japan. So with that fundamental strategy, Chiang would not have been trying to muster up a fight with Japan before removing the communists. It was the Xi'an incident that changed that. Besides, Japanese activities were just in the north areas near Manchuria. So Japan wasn't the major threat yet anyway.
On your 3rd point about ager, well part of the whole "Japanese aggression" is taking towards Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor. But actually Japan tried to get a meeting between FDR and Konye and it was the US side that would not enable such a meeting. Also if looking at Japan's colonial regard, there was Taiwan and Korea. And both of those did quite well as colonies, with a GDP per capita about 50% of Japan main islands. As colonies in those days, that's quite good actually.
On the fourth, I'm looking for the text of the treaty that you state but can't find it yet.
On the 5th and 6th, well year, things did happen fairly quickly. The economy of the Wang regime went bad approaching 1944 because of the worsening war situation. Had the war ended in 1940, then the result of Taiwan and Korea would serve as better transactions as to what could have resulted. But of course you are right to point out about desertion. Loyalty was not at a high rate. Although the number size of the army itself did get big very fast, reaching about 500,000 even. So it's sort of reasonable to figure that such a quick increase in size would see high rates of desertion. The core was of course loyal, at about 40,000.
On your 3rd from the bottom, well yeah, Chinese communists, DPRK, Korean War, Soviet Union still keeping outer Manchuria, CKS dictatorship in Taiwan, and now a CCP China with a worse record than Imperial Japan being 2nd top power.. I really am not sure what's to celebrate. The US was naive to push so hard and now got itself stuck in having to keep a presense in the region. Of course for anyone that would be Pro-CCP China such as perhaps yourself(?) that too would not be a bad result.
Your second from the bottom, so an "election" when there was a massacre at the same time and subsequent white terror? Whose white washing here now?
February 28 incident - Wikipedia
On the last one, I think the underlying point that is forgotten was that it ultimately goes back to competition for power in the region for influence between Japan and Russia. That's what that the annexation of Korea was really about. If Russia had won the Russo-Japanese war, then it would be Russia in Korea. Just like how Russia built the rail lines through Manchuria beforehand, took the outer Manchuria areas. Sure today, it's fine to criticize the expansion of Japan. But to single out Japan makes no sense when in that era, Russia and others were making empires and maintaining empires at the same time.
Well in the end, yeah, unit 731 was worse.I think the simple answer is yes. Nice try at whataboutery though.
Whatever the Americans did was not sanctioned by the state, it was not the result of an antipathy to foreigners deeply rooted in Japanese culture and the perpetrators were generally reviled and often punished rather than feted and celebrated.
Japan at the time was deeply historically xenophobic and treated the occupants of its conquered nations as animals, or even inanimate objects, calling them "planks".
Fortunately the country seems to have grown up. Mostly.
Edit: Any duplication is my fault.
Frame me as however you like. The mods can observe my posts and make their own conclusions and decisions.I see you only joined to post in this thread and have only posted here.
If you are a troll from the Bushido Troll Academy you have got your work cut out.
Apologia for Japanese crimes is a very hard sell in this forum.
You might want to have a word with the Soviet trolls to check out the warm reception they receive here and how much we love their contributions and welcome them with open arms.
Perhaps I should just have said, “Ibid” since it’s common knowledge outside of Japan. You could try looking up the records of the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East if you’re hungry for detail and don’t mind losing your appetite for food.1st point. Sounds like an active desire to smear without giving more information.
Wang and Chiang were both Chinese Nationalists and their ultimate aim was removing all manifestations of foreign rule. They even agreed that the Japanese were the most pressingly urgent to defenestrate, but disagreed vehemently on how to sequence that and in particular who should be in charge of it.Your 2nd point is funny to blame Wang instead of the Chinese communists. Chiang Kai-shek took the approach of eliminating the communist first, then face Japan. So with that fundamental strategy, Chiang would not have been trying to muster up a fight with Japan before removing the communists. It was the Xi'an incident that changed that. Besides, Japanese activities were just in the north areas near Manchuria. So Japan wasn't the major threat yet anyway.
Actually, my whole point about Japanese aggression is built on their aggressively expanding into the Asian mainland since the 1870s – the first instance being the Treaty of Ganghwa Island in 1876, when Japan unilaterally assumed the right to define Korean international relations without reference to the Korean government.On your 3rd point about ager, well part of the whole "Japanese aggression" is taking towards Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor.
That’s alright, take your time.On the fourth, I'm looking for the text of the treaty that you state but can't find it yet.
Reasonable if those impressed into it saw no particular reason to stay loyal to it. It’s worth noting that the Nationalist NRA saw far larger growths with lower desertion rates – which by your reasoning would mean that the NRA was a lot more popular than the RG’s Army.So it's sort of reasonable to figure that such a quick increase in size would see high rates of desertion. The core was of course loyal, at about 40,000.
Defeating Imperial Japan is to celebrate. That’s all the justification needed, all on its own – because of how utterly awful they were.I really am not sure what's to celebrate. The US was naive to push so hard and now got itself stuck in having to keep a presense in the region.
An election in which opponents of the regime overwhelmingly defeat the representatives of the regime can reasonably be assumed to be free and fair, don’t you think?
We didn’t. We singled Japan out for the widespread atrocities that accompanied their Empire-building wherever they went.But to single out Japan makes no sense when in that era, Russia and others were making empires and maintaining empires at the same time.
If you are a mod, then your sarcasm doesn't bode well for that role.
1. The military tribunal in the far east was all part of victor's rewriting of history. For example, it ruled 200,000 killed in the Nanking massacre. How in the world do they do a proper review of that event when there was a civil war going on at the time? They didn't. They just made up numbers.1.Perhaps I should just have said, “Ibid” since it’s common knowledge outside of Japan. You could try looking up the records of the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East if you’re hungry for detail and don’t mind losing your appetite for food.
So yes, they really were that bad.
2.Wang and Chiang were both Chinese Nationalists and their ultimate aim was removing all manifestations of foreign rule. They even agreed that the Japanese were the most pressingly urgent to defenestrate, but disagreed vehemently on how to sequence that and in particular who should be in charge of it.
3.Wang led a minority clique within the KMT while Chiang headed both the majority faction plus a coalition government which could accurately claim to represent Chinese majority opinion. His strategy of beating the Communists and recalcitrant warlords then confronting the Japanese at the earliest opportunity different from Wang’s in that Wang believed once the Communists and warlords had been eliminated there should be a period of holding the line while Chinese economic and industrial might was built up before the Japanese were turfed out.
4.How well the Tokyo government would have tolerated a revitalised China when their previous 50 years of policy had been aimed at quite the opposite I’ll leave you to guess. My wager is against the involvement of cake and party-hats.
5.Actually, my whole point about Japanese aggression is built on their aggressively expanding into the Asian mainland since the 1870s – the first instance being the Treaty of Ganghwa Island in 1876, when Japan unilaterally assumed the right to define Korean international relations without reference to the Korean government.
6.That’s alright, take your time.
7.Reasonable if those impressed into it saw no particular reason to stay loyal to it. It’s worth noting that the Nationalist NRA saw far larger growths with lower desertion rates – which by your reasoning would mean that the NRA was a lot more popular than the RG’s Army.
8.Defeating Imperial Japan is to celebrate. That’s all the justification needed, all on its own – because of how utterly awful they were.
9.An election in which opponents of the regime overwhelmingly defeat the representatives of the regime can reasonably be assumed to be free and fair, don’t you think?
That’s what happened in Taiwan in 1947, so no whitewashing is needed. Chiang not only allowed but ordered those elections to take place. That’s not the act of an anti-democrat.
10.We didn’t. We singled Japan out for the widespread atrocities that accompanied their Empire-building wherever they went.