I meant Yamamoto rather than Yamagata…Ooops. Not hugely important to the point I was trying to make. Tsuji can go burn in hell. Togo Shigenori is really ambivelent.

Though Adm. Yamamoto was against the Manchurian Invasion and the Second Sino-Japanese war, that was more because he was conforming to the Imperial Navy’s “Strike South” strategy of colonial conquest by centering it on conquering territories in Southeast Asia with its oil and other natural resources the Navy felt would be critical to itself as a military force and Japan as an island nation. Though Yamamoto was against a war with the US for strategic reasons, the main envisioned enemies of the IJN was the US and British.

This was in opposition to the Imperial Army’s “strike north” strategy which emphasized colonization of nations on the Asian continent such as China and Mongolia in order to defend against the Soviet threat to their colonial interests in Asia. This policy was emphasized due to strong Army dominance of Japanese politics of the 1930′s and early 40′s as seen from the 1931 invasion of Manchuria onwards. The overconfident Imperial army units such as the Manchurian-based Kwantung army group did get their asses handed to them by the Soviet army during two battles in 1938-39.

As for Togo Shingenori, I am not as sympathetic as he was a key bureaucrat in Japan’s colonization campaign known as “The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Considering how many Asians throughout the continent suffered as a result of this colonization which he played a key part, he can rot with the other Japanese militarists as far as I’m concerned.

If you think about German militerism, there is a pretty similar kind of play–Teutonic Knights invasion of Russia waaay back in the mists of time. Frederick the Great’s almost misadventure with Russia, and the constant awareness of the Bolshevik threat in WWI–but one of the central drivers in Hitler’s mind, and probably *the* central driver is the American economic threat given the resources and the people she had command of.

The Soviets/Russians sure remembered the Teutonic Knights in the 1939 film about Alexander Nevsky. If you ever have a chance to borrow the DVD from a library, you should especially check out the eerie historical foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s invasion of Russia.

More interestingly, I recalled reading in a couple of books about the history of East Germany’s Reunification process that Russia and Prussia/Germany had a sort of love-hate relationship with reach other from Peter the Great onwards. Bismark made it a policy to maintain good relations with the Russians until Wilhelm II effectively forced him into retirement in the 1890s.

Some similarities existed between Korea and Japan in the past, especially with compelling evidence that the Japanese people had ancestral links to the Koreans in the past. Despite the Heisei Emperor making a public announcement conceding such a link along with support from many scholars, this association is still controversial among those in the Japanese right wing and among some nationalist Koreans who have such mutual disgust for each other that any such suggestion could prompt a loud angry temper tantrum and even a violent attack in some extreme cases.

Such similarities also existed between China and Japan as the Japanese modeled their government, cultural institutions, and even their first written language along Tang Chinese lines around the 700s CE.

I’m not so sure about the centrality of being worried by the US as a factor in Hitler’s plans to conquer Europe and to create his Eastern European based “lebensraum”. While I agree it might have played a factor, I am wary of placing too much emphasis on American factors…especially when seems like a means of arranging World history in an excessively US-centric context.

Germany already had plenty of indigenously driven motives for its actions such as revenge for the humiliation of defeat and the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty, deep historical hatred of France both for the WWI defeat and various previous invasions carried out by Napoleon and previous French rulers, deeply embedded antisemitism and racism, desire to remake Europe along Nazi German lines, and other reasons I cannot remember off the top of my head.

Thanks for the pointers about Satsuma.
Don’t mind Hollywood movies. Too easy to get mad.

Regarding the pointers, you’re welcome. As for the Hollywood movies, I usually try to view them as comedies….preferably through borrowing it from a library branch or downloading it so I am not adding to Hollywood’s/MPAA’s overwhelming coffers. ;)

I have read The Yamato Dynasty by the Seagraves, which is pretty rotten, I know, and I have read Toland’s Rising Sun, the Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, and they, as well as Embracing Defeat and Alex Kerr’s Dogs and Demons, the Decline and Fall of Modern Japan. Yes, I am aware that Seagrave is a conpiracy nut, Toland is at least subtly compromised, and Alex Kerr is a crank. They form the rough basis for my knowleged picked up on the internet though.

I meant Yamamoto rather than Yamagata…Ooops. Not hugely important to the point I was trying to make. Tsuji can go burn in hell. Togo Shigenori is really ambivelent.

Anways, really, I accept much of your point, but a couple of things. If you think about German militerism, there is a pretty similar kind of play–Teutonic Knights invasion of Russia waaay back in the mists of time. Frederick the Great’s almost misadventure with Russia, and the constant awareness of the Bolshevik threat in WWI–but one of the central drivers in Hitler’s mind, and probably *the* central driver is the American economic threat given the resources and the people she had command of. Moreover, Hitler, along with many germans then and now, admired the whole Cowboys and Indians schtick. He very much wanted to emulate that dynamic of ethnic cleansing with the Russians, and kill one, two, three, however many birds with one stone. Lots of bad history between Germany and Russia, but the anxieties and pressings of post industrial revolution was pushing it hard. One of the few reasons that Japan and Germans had for alliance *was* this whole nebulous idea about Americans as the threat and Russia as a solution.

The dynamics between reactionaries with the bloated samurai ethics and conservative politics have had very resolution to this day. Agree with you there. Thanks for the pointers about Satsuma.

Don’t mind Hollywood movies. Too easy to get mad.

a term of endearment…Think Popeye and that can of spinach.

The few times I’ve seen such a term used, it was by a bunch of ignorant White frosh fratboys who intended to be derogatory towards several of their Korean classmates at several campus parties on a Boston area campus where I was an invited guest. What each different group of fratboys didn’t know until it was too late was that many of the first year Korean male students had just finished their mandated 2 years of military service. Those Korean students had no hesitation in picking those fratboys up and cleaning out their clocks. The fact everyone else thought those fratboys had it coming due to their comments meant no sympathy was extended in their direction afterwards.

I still think the two are *very* different. Tojo is to Hideyoshi as Pitt the Elder was to Henry V.

Though I agree there was a difference, I would argue it was really a difference between imperialism inspired and implemented by an egotistical strongman….and one inspired and implemented by a systematic imperialistic bureaucratic oligarchy that cannot easily be personified by one figure. Though the US government and postwar US teaching of Japanese history has tended to center Japanese militarism around the figure of Hideki Tojo, Japanese militarism and its roots long predated him. One can arguably trace the roots of Japanese militarism back to the very beginnings of the Meiji regime as many of its key leaders not only desired a strong military to strengthen the Japanese state and for future imperialistic goals, but also because they inherited and adapted the militaristic aspects of the privileged samurai class. The last point is understandable as most of the Pro-Meiji leaders and future key officials and military leaders were samurai mainly from the Choshu and Satsuma clans.

In fact, the degree of dominance and some degree of rivalry even affected the armed forces as the Army leadership tended to be dominated by the Choshu like Aritomo Yamagata whereas the Navy leadership tended to be dominated by the Satsuma…including Admiral Togo…Naval hero of the Russo-Japanese war.

Speaking of Aritomo Yamagata, he was one of the key founders of the Imperial Japanese Army and was one of the architects of Japanese colonialism that was rationalized through his doctrine of “Pre-emptive self-defense”…..notice any modern day parallels… ;) For that reason, he is not only a militarist…but arguably the father of Japanese militarism not only for advocating for the strong role of the army and advocating militarism in Japanese politics, but also starting the dangerous precedent by passing a law in which only active-duty general officers can serve as Army or Navy minister which gave the military unlimited leverage in the formation and dissolution of cabinets. In effect, this gave the military nearly unlimited power to influence not only military policies, but all other matters of state. For this reason, the only reason why I would agree that Yamagata cannot be equated with subsequent Japanese militarists like Tojo was that they were latter-day followers who gained much inspiration from his own actions in further expanding the role of the military in Japanese politics.

Moreover, one big reason why there is some historical inheritance from the Imjin wars on Japanese imperialism was the fact that Japanese senior leaders had been advocating for the colonization of the Korean peninsula as early as the 1870′s…culminating into a bitter dispute between senior oligarchs such as Saigo Takamori in 1873-4 who favored immediate invasion and others who demurred more because they felt the Japanese state was not militarily and financially prepared for the undertaking than any sense of nobility. This dispute was one of the reasons why Saigo Takamori eventually resigned from the Japanese government and later led the 1877 Satsuma rebellion against the Imperial government which was portrayed quite inaccurately in Tom Cruise’s and Ken Watanabe’s “The Last Samurai”.

The early desires for Korea, the Satsuma led 1874 punitive expedition against Taiwan, and the 1878 annexation of the independent Ryukuan Kingdom…including Okinawa makes me wonder whether the historical roots of Japanese imperialism go much further back than the influences of 19th century imperialism. I’m not trying to deny those influences, but am also trying make a nuanced argument that the historical roots also go back much further than that.

Moreover, unless I am grossly mistaken, Japanese industrialization was not really a force unto itself until the late 1880s.

The “rice and oil” motivations for Japanese colonialism really became serious considerations only starting in the 1890s when there was a substantial Japanese industrial complex to support.

If you have time, one book I would highly recommend is Herbert Bix’s “Hirohito And the Making of Modern Japan”. This book is one of the more recent publications which argues that Hirohito had much more awareness and influence over political events than the US-Japanese establishment’s depiction of him as an innocent helpless figurehead who was completely under the thumb of the militarists.

This was a convenient politically motivated historical fiction used by both the US and Japanese governments to justify keeping Hirohito on the throne due to Cold War considerations…and the lobbying by pro-Japanese politicians within the US government such as Ambassador Joseph Grew. Despite their efforts, however, many skeptical Japanese, especially those on the left were questioning and protesting this as early as the late 1940′s. Moreover, I have yet to meet any Chinese and Koreans of my parents’ generation who believed that fiction either.

The roots of imperialism is always going to be your nearest, richest neighbor. I wouldn’t be surprised if those guys walking around the Zhongenai *still* have a strong awareness and concern about Outer Mongolia…

True. What’s more interesting is that the occupation of Mongolia by China really started when the Manchu leaders compelled the submission of various Mongolian tribes before and during the first several decades of Qing rule. Moreover, until the Qing’s overthrow in 1911, the Mongols along with the Manchus were officially more favored in the allocation of top official positions than their Han counterparts….though this became less practiced as time went on, especially after the Taiping rebellion in the mid-19th century when performance and/or having a lot of money to aid the dynasty became more important in determining allocation of high official posts.

As for modern Chinese leaders wanting Mongolia, that’s really a mixture of wanting to restore what China lost before the coming of Western/Japanese imperialism along with some geopolitical security considerations as Mongolia has been used by the Soviets and now, the US as a springboard for intelligence gathering and as a means to irritate the Chinese state on its northern border.

With the discrediting of Marxist/Maoist ideology as the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party’s political legitimacy, the CCP has had to replace that with Chinese nationalism. This means, however, that renunciation of any territories deemed “Chinese” whether it is Tibet, Inner Mongolia, or especially Taiwan would be political suicide for the CCP…especially when the losses of territories of Mongolia, and Taiwan were caused by the effects of Western/Japanese Imperialism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Most of those Zhongnanhai leaders know enough Chinese history to want to avoid being compared to the Warlord dominated Beiyang government who agreed to ratify the Versailles Treaty which granted Shandong province as Japan’s sphere of influence along with Japan’s 21 demands in 1919 which sparked the student-led demonstrations which became known as the May Fourth movement.

Any comparisons of current Zhongnanhai leaders should they renounce any territories to the Beiyang government in 1919 would not only be disastrous from a nationalistic standpoint, but also supremely ironic considering those very leaders often play up that movement as an inspiration for the CCP’s founding in 1921.

I’ve had my ass chewed on by korean friends enough to know that they very much have their own unique brand of feistiness…and yes, they’ve heard “the POWER of Kimchee” from me…It is a comment unto itself about korean tempers and not about korean attitudes about the japanese. I still think the two are *very* different. Tojo is to Hideyoshi as Pitt the Elder was to Henry V. Completely different eras, different motives beyond the big splash of me-want-more-power. The why and the hows and the rationales were different, leading to different paths towards domination, and it’s probably important, while not understating past invasions and conflict contained entirely within East Asia, to recognize the impact of Western influences in dictating how the japanese percieved their own security. Processes like industrialization is almost entirely dependent on having colonies to provide ghost land and calories for the cities undergoing industrialization. Expansions overseas for loot and glory is quite different from expansion overseas for rice and oil.

Next, I very much completely agree with you about japanese attitudes. I think Koreans (not so much Koreans outside the country) can be very racist and xenophobic and lineage obsessed, but the japanese can be truly irritating about their obsession about being nuked, when push comes to shove, they come as close as anyone, including the Nazis, to actually deserving to get nuked. No real regret or much answers for the chinese, burmese, indians, viets, indonesians, koreans, british, phillipines, and americans who died because of their outright barbarousness. They’ve never really had to ask themselves the way Germans have, just what was wrong with their characters, and those men had no business being buried at yasukuni shrine. We aren’t talking about the Yamagatas here, but the fat-faced militarist politicians and evil as fuck soldiers. I’ve read my Embracing Defeat, and I hope to read War Without Mercy at some point.

The neat part of the imjin war was how the japanese leadership scared itself shitless about how lethal to a nobleman a peasant can be with firearms. Ban ‘em, chase away foreigers! Soon enough, the isolation begins…

Interestingly enough, this also ties in with the freezing of social status mobility, especially after the Tokugawa clan gained power in their 1603 victory at the Battle of Sekigahara.

Before Hideyoshi imposed various restrictions on social mobility, including the restriction of weapons ownership to those of the samurai class, peasants had some possibility of rising into the lower ranks of the samurai warrior class including Hideyoshi who rose from peasant to strongman status during Japan’s Warring States period from the mid 15th-beginning 17th century.

To me, there is very little comparison between the japanese invasions of the sixteenth century in terms of motivations and goals and the later day invasions.

Considering Hideyoshi’s main objective was to use the conquest of the Korean peninsula as a springboard to conquer Ming China and to go as far as India, I must respectfully disagree. That sure fits the definition of imperialism as far as I understand it.

Now whether that was ultimately feasible or a delusional pipe dream of an egotistical strongman full of himself is debatable…but those were his goals and they had the same damaging effects on the Korean peninsula such as wanton mass killings of every living person and animal in many areas, widespread destruction of land and property, and the kidnapping of many Korean skilled civilians and POWs back into Japan to be used as slaves.

While Japan’s imperialism was partially inspired by influences from 19th century Western Imperialism, I am in agreement with historians who argue that the roots of Japanese imperialism predated the 19th century.

kimchee fueled Korean tempers

C’mon. Are you going to reduce legitimate Korean anger at past invasions and colonialist occupation to a mere punchline to a joke?

Considering the catastrophic damage and serious brutalities and oppression that were carried out by Japanese forces during both the Imjin war and the various underhanded political machinations and assassinations which culminated in Korea being placed under 4 decades of Japanese colonial occupation with more brutality and oppression, it is my considered opinion that much of this anger is justified.

Especially when the Japanese government has with US support, attempted to downplay and discourage any serious discussion of Japan’s colonial legacy until the early 1990s when the end of the Cold War combined with lawsuits from Korean and other Asian victims who were forced by Japanese authorities into sexual slavery, forced labor in Japanese factories, biological and chemical warfare experimental facilities as guinea pigs for Japanese military scientists, etc forced the Japanese government and the larger international community to take notice.

What’s more irritating is not only hearing continued right-wing Japanese politicians and pseudo-scholars attempt to downplay and deny the unsavory aspects of Japan’s colonial legacy, but also some ignorant Westerners who wonder why Asian victims of Japan’s colonial legacy cannot “just get over it and move on”.

These Westerners often forget that the US abetted Japan’s downplaying and suppression of the discussion of Japan’s Colonial legacy and war crimes due to Cold War considerations and the need to make rebuild Japan into America’s most dependable ally. This was underscored when as early as the late 1950′s Nobusake Kishi a formerly indicted Class A war criminal was elected Prime Minister of Japan.

Furthermore, unless what little I remember from European history is mistaken, I don’t think any former Nazis, much less indicted war criminals were ever elected Chancellor in either of the Germanies.

The neat part of the imjin war was how the japanese leadership scared itself shitless about how lethal to a nobleman a peasant can be with firearms. Ban ‘em, chase away foreigers! Soon enough, the isolation begins…

the ability for the later Mongols and europeans to claim the entire area would have been much more limited.

My impressions are that if China was not unified and were instead a series of independent states, that would at a minimum, not make much of a difference as the Mongols in this period not only invaded China and Korea and attempted to invade Vietnam and Burma but also many states/societies within Central Asia, the Middle East, and Eurasia to the point they were on the doorsteps of Europe. Only the sudden death of the then reigning Khan stopped the Mongols from further conquests as that meant all the commanders who were in the direct royal line had to go back to compete for successorship. The Mongols even attempted two seaborne invasions of the Japanese islands…only to be stopped both times by powerful storms that were termed “Kamikaze” or divine wind and possibly shoddy construction of invasion fleet vessels by shipwrights discontent with Mongol rule.

Same with the Western Imperialists as one of their most effective tactics was the old divide and conquer playbook…whether playing off of internal divisions within a given state/society or one independent state against another.

As for the Zheng fleet, that dominance was very short-lived as internal imperial politics within the Ming, suspicions against commerce and trade by the rising dominant conservative wing of the scholar gentry elite, suspicions of Zheng’s status as a eunuch (Eunuchs were blamed for the decline of many dynasties…most notably the Han in 220 CE), etc. In fact, due to these factors, the Ming instituted a policy of isolationism in the late 1400s which imposed severe restrictions on ship size and types to those for domestic-oriented coastal and river-based vessels. Depredations of both Chinese and foreign pirates, most notably those from Japan caused authorities to add further restrictions which reinforced this isolationism such as forcing coastal communities to move far inland. As for the increase in number of ships and trading after the Qing, that was mainly because the isolationism, depredations from piracy and war, and the increasing social chaos and problems which come with increasing corruption and rebellions drove such activities to extremely low levels.

In fact, one of the factors that is often cited for the Ming dynasty’s* decline other than its brutal tyrannical rule and increasing corruption, was the expense incurred not only to fend of those pirates, but also to aid their Korean allies in fending off two Japanese invasions of the Korean peninsula during the 1590′s instigated by Japanese strongman Toyatomi Hideyoshi. This event is one reason many Koreans I know tend to be exasperated and in some cases, infuriated by Western derived arguments that Japanese imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries was largely inspired by Western imperialism and Western mistreatment of Japanese during the 19th century.

My personal gist is simply that if there had been a Sichuan Empire and a Jin Empire and a Yan(g) whatever empire all duking it out, the ability for the later Mongols and europeans to claim the entire area would have been much more limited. Japan, Java, and Vietnam were able to do so some or all of that. Also, an international society would have sprung up, and there would have been as much or more coherent/diverse approaches to the arts and sciences, because any repressive region would lose talent to less repressive region, and there wouldn’t have been the general attitude of hey, let’s kill that engineer or soldier or poet just because we’re pissed off. Lastly, the empire state has often been way too effective in creating monopolies and monopsonies. For example, the Zheng fleet dominated trade in SE Asia in its time, with many ships and sailors and military folks. However, after they were eventually defeated by the Qing, there was an INCREASE in the number of ships and trading that happened. Zheng He’s fleet would not have been quite so abrupt in it’s start and stop had it been several countries competing to capture markets and scarce resources.

So forth and so on…