|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
korean war reached the breaking point with the mass invasion of NK on the south. China was objecting to the push to the north after american intervention rolled the NK forces back. it was a pretty charged, war time decision and from china's perspective it would be silly to trust that americans would stop at the borders, or even return the north to communist control in a post-war deal. it would also be silly for americans to simply push back the NK to the border. they could claim to eradicate the NK regime and still return the territory after the war but obviously neither side would accept this particular outcome. would NK have stopped aggression after a 'soft' punishment of merely returning to the prior borders? there was no reason for them to stop, or for the americans to trust that this kind of thing would stop. the DMZ is there for a reason.
neither side was non-aggressive, but the communists probably had more blame here just by invading and invading with international support. the conflict was escalated to a point of no return by the invasion. it would be a pretty horrifying development if that conflict escalated into nuclear war but thankfully that did not happen.
the success of intervention and legacy thereof certainly reflect lack of foresight pretty much always. the focus was too much on what is being destroyed/stopped rather than what is being propped up or the replacement regime. intervention also places the american supported regime in a war-time situation and the heightened conflict isn't a good environment to develop a functional government with civil rights. but we have to look at the region's development now vs what the communist sphere guys are doing. south korea and taiwan are doing pretty well.
that's a lesson to be learned for the future, and i don't think it's necessarily the case that intervention would fail. just gotta identify not only what you are fighting against, but also what sort of government you are putting into place/propping up.
|
korean war reached the breaking point with the mass invasion of NK on the south. China was objecting to the push to the north after american intervention rolled the NK forces back. it was a pretty charged, war time decision and from china's perspective it would be silly to trust that americans would stop at the borders, or even return the north to communist control in a post-war deal. neither side was non-aggressive, but the communists probably had more blame here.
Yes, I know. I've studied the Korean War extensively, and my grandfather fought in it (as part of the PVA). Nonetheless, the issue was that the repeated warnings the PRC gave for a continued advance northwards was unheeded, or even considered credible. The point of this is that Chinese intervention was not considered credible, and a forceful reunification of the peninsula was unwise, and ultimately humiliating for the US/UN force (I still hear people incredulous about the Chinese phase of the war).
the success of intervention and legacy thereof certainly reflect lack of foresight pretty much always. the focus was too much on what is being destroyed/stopped rather than what is being propped up or the replacement regime. intervention also places the american supported regime in a war-time situation and the heightened conflict isn't a good environment to develop a functional government with civil rights. but we have to look at the region's development now vs what the communist sphere guys are doing. south korea and taiwan are doing pretty well.
And Vietnam is doing well too, and neither South Korea nor Taiwan predominantly developed under the auspices of a representative, liberal democracy.
Beyond which, this is rather inane, as many of the communist states were bereft of strong economic support, while countries like Taiwan were innundated in endless flows of US aid, and had pretty much unfettered access to Bretton-Wood institutions and the world market. Meanwhile countries like Vietnam was bombed to hell.
that's a lesson to be learned for the future, and i don't think it's necessarily the case that intervention would fail. just gotta identify not only what you are fighting against, but also what sort of government you are putting into place/propping up.
I'm very much an interventionist, so duh.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
vietnam didn't start to do well until they gave up on communism. cambodia and laos still have not recovered.
the credibility of chinese intervention doesn't really matter. the conflict was heightened and you can't expect macarthur to limit his operations to the NK/SK border when the other side is obviously not respecting that line. maybe the un forces should have settled for a less than total victory, but escalation was done by both sides, with the north committing the first and biggest step.
|
On March 28 2015 23:46 oneofthem wrote:
vietnam didn't start to do well until they gave up on communism.
And yet the authoritarian system remains. Similar story throughout East Asia in all the Asian Tigers etc. really.
the credibility of chinese intervention doesn't really matter. the conflict was heightened and you can't expect macarthur to limit his operations to the NK/SK border when the other side is obviously not respecting that line. maybe the un forces should have settled for a less than total victory, but escalation was done by both sides, with the north committing the first and biggest step.
MacArthur...oh man. There's alot you can say about a man who was full on advocating the use of nuclear weapons against China when he failed to consider and prepare for a Chinese military intervention.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 28 2015 23:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 23:46 oneofthem wrote:
vietnam didn't start to do well until they gave up on communism. And yet the authoritarian system remains. Similar story throughout East Asia in all the Asian Tigers etc. really.
it's certainly not perfect, but still better than whatever the communists did. would china have abandoned communism in practice without the cost paid by the prior generations? very much doubt it. so it's not like the communist states could have adopted a market economy while keepign the party in power in the 60's and 70's. they had to learn that lesson at a price.
macarthur certainly didn't behave, but there was credible threat of guerrilla warfare from the north if he just stopped at the borders. incapacitating the north and then redrawing the map seemed like the goal there.
|
United States44174 Posts
On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West?
The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted.
|
If we go by the Bush defense, that "you can only make policy on the basis of what you know at the time," then indeed the Korean intervention might have been justified on broad strategic grounds, but even in 1950, there was a lot of "sexing up" of what the State Department chose to know or not know. Acheson selectively absorbed the views of Nitze and Dulles, that there existed a monolithic Moscow-directed effort to undermine the non-Communist world. The men who knew the Soviet Union best, Kennan and Bohlen, thought differently, were sidelined by Acheson in the late-Truman period.
The real American problem evident not in 1950 but in 1945 with the entry of the Hodges mission into Korea was a lack of local knowledge, and that old American tendency to think of the world in terms of ideological categories. As Tocqueville once wrote: "General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect." And that is really the rub behind today's interventionism: an excessively narcissistic attachment to moralism applied to tabluae rasae. The exclusive claim by the nation of the uprooted to liberate all rooted peoples.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure how the particular species of revolutionary communism was a 'rooted' thing. seems that anti-colonialism was hijacked by a rather foreign cultural entity.
|
On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted.
The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects.
And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb.
|
On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb.
I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable.
Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq.
|
On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq.
Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized".
|
On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq.
i agree with your first point. germany and japan were powerhouses before teh war so when they lost and were occupied, it really wasnt that hard for them to rebuild into successful countries. i am not sure about the second point because i dont know much about iraq's culture.
|
On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized".
I made both.
Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities.
|
On March 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized". I made both. Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities.
Industrialized means Western now...?
And apparently 1% (about 1 million) Japanese are Christians today. Which not only is a hilariously small number to consider their entire culture to be Westernized, it's also not mutually exclusive with following Japanese culture and customs.
|
On March 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized". I made both. Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities.
so that we dont talk around each other, can you quantify many?
edit: wolf ninja'd me =(
|
On March 29 2015 02:30 oneofthem wrote:
not sure how the particular species of revolutionary communism was a 'rooted' thing. seems that anti-colonialism was hijacked by a rather foreign cultural entity.
Modern anti-imperialist nationalism is itself a foreign concept in the Asian context, but "revolutionary communism" was not what the United States was dealing with in Korea in the late-40's. The KDR was identified as a problem because of the way its inherent nationalism clashed with the establishment of American authority in the early period, but the KDR itself was a hodgepodge of irreconcilable nationalist movements whose main claim to leadership was its role in the struggle against Japan. Similarly, Kim Il Sung was selected by the Russians on the basis of his prestige as a guerrilla fighter, rather than his ideological credentials.
The problem that the Americans faced in '45 was that Korea was a completely alien entity; culturally, politically, linguistically. The Korean mission upon arrival did not have a single staff member who spoke sufficient Korean to handle political negotiations. This meant that the Americans by default relied upon the Japanese civil bureaucracy, and after they were repatriated, the Korean "collaborators" in the ex-Japanese bureaucracy, and Western "exiles" like Syngman Rhee, whose installation, if anything, was even more high-handed than the Russian man in the north.
|
On March 29 2015 05:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US.
Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized". I made both. Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities. so that we dont talk around each other, can you quantify many? edit: wolf ninja'd me =(
I can't really quantify it, the numbers don't seem to exist. It must've been a good number though, because in 1940, Christianity was declared an official religion of Japan.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christianity_in_Japan#World_War_II
For a more general look at the westernization of Japan, you should look into the Meiji Restoration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
|
On March 29 2015 07:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 05:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized". I made both. Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities. so that we dont talk around each other, can you quantify many? edit: wolf ninja'd me =( I can't really quantify it, the numbers don't seem to exist. It must've been a good number though, because in 1940, Christianity was declared an official religion of Japan. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christianity_in_Japan#World_War_IIFor a more general look at the westernization of Japan, you should look into the Meiji Restoration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
From your source (right below what your referring to)
Since World War II, the number of Japanese Christians has remained relatively stable[20]. Japanese Christians are a religious minority, constituting about 1 million[21][22] to 3 million persons.[23]
|
i actually was looking to find out what you meant by many, not an actual number.
i am very familiar with the Meiji Restoration. i don't need to read wiki on it.
|
On March 29 2015 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2015 07:15 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 05:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 03:24 Millitron wrote:On March 29 2015 02:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 29 2015 00:35 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2015 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together. are you honestly arguing that WW2 Japan was culturally similar to the West? The experience of losing WW2 and being occupied triggered a huge cultural shift in Japan against traditionalism and towards westernization. There have been countless studies on why this happened, that it happened isn't debatable. The appearance of Japanese people in the media for example, changed hugely. People were shown wearing western clothes, ideals of beauty shifted towards rounder eyes, travelling etc. The Japanese traditional wedding was replaced within a generation by the American one. There is absolutely no argument to be made that Japan's culture survived WW2 unscathed. Japan has its own culture but it is not the culture that it had going into the Second World War. Japan was fundamentally changed by the experience of losing the war and the occupation, traditional "Japanese" cultural traits were discredited while modern culture, which was a byword for western culture, was promoted. The argument was that the American occupation of Japan only worked because Japan was already a homogeneous western nation before it happened. Not that the occupation had lasting effects. And again, the whole argument is rather stupid. No, Japan was not very close to Western nations culturally. It also wasn't an unstable political region, so using it (or Germany for that matter) as an example of foreign occupation that reforms an entire nation is rather dumb. I think you misunderstand. My point was that Japan and Germany were able to be reformed specifically BECAUSE they weren't unstable. Japan was also much closer to the west culturally than Iraq. Well, maybe you should have made that argument instead of some convoluted talk about how Japan was "westernized". I made both. Japan was much more western than you give them credit though. They were industrialized, many were christian, and many of the leaders had studied in western universities. so that we dont talk around each other, can you quantify many? edit: wolf ninja'd me =( I can't really quantify it, the numbers don't seem to exist. It must've been a good number though, because in 1940, Christianity was declared an official religion of Japan. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christianity_in_Japan#World_War_IIFor a more general look at the westernization of Japan, you should look into the Meiji Restoration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration From your source (right below what your referring to) Show nested quote +Since World War II, the number of Japanese Christians has remained relatively stable[20]. Japanese Christians are a religious minority, constituting about 1 million[21][22] to 3 million persons.[23]
That doesn't really say there were only 1 million before WW2. I know they lost a great deal to emigration from outrage about other religious laws in the 1930's and early 40's.
On March 29 2015 07:19 dAPhREAk wrote:
i actually was looking to find out what you meant by many, not an actual number.
i am very familiar with the Meiji Restoration. i don't need to read wiki on it.
Well, millions seems like "many" to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
