Menu
close
Anonymous.
AnonymousThis was very interesting and more than a little convoluted. It serves to illustrate the fact that history is not a simple cause and effect relationship. The mix of political elements within Japan after the Russo-Japanese War and leading into the decade before World War II almost guarantee that conflict will be an inevitable part of the Japanese experience. It's not difficult to understand when you consider that the government model that was employed to help bring the nation into modern age was based upon post-unification Germany. Its heavy orientation to an Imperial dominated government is easily seen having a similar effect on Japan.
Their attempts to modernize the economy ran afoul of problems also experienced by western powers. Inflation, devaluation of the currency, financial downturns and eventually a great depression were significant in helping create the idea of a failed civilian government. Add to this the earthquake of 1923 and the economic chaos that it engendered and you have some idea of the problems faced by the average citizen and the nation as a whole.
AnonymousI had not known before this that Korea had an Emperor of its own. The manner in which Japan was able to manipulate foreign opinion in regards to their relationship with Korea is interesting and reflects a greater understand of the western mindset, particularly that of the imperialist powers of western Europe, than I had been aware of. It is more than a little ironic that the Japanese government was able to use the concept of an uncivilized nation in order to justify its domination of Korea. Additionally it highlights how the Treaty of Portsmouth did not take into account the needs of the Korean people. As far as they were concerned, it did not so much end a war as open a door of opportunity for the Japanese to establish a legal means by which they would initially dominate, then conquer and colonize the peninsula as a part of their own growing empire. That the west accepted the claim that Korea was a protectorate rather than a fully independent nation reflects a political laisseez-faire attitude that was more interested in accepting Japan as an equal, in Asia at least, to the western nations.
AnonymousProfessor Yamashita had a big job covering Japan’s history from late 1800’s until now all in a three hour class. My favorite part of the talk was about what led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. He suggests there are four problems that led to the attack.
First, Constitutional Issues. Their military was privileged. They had a huge budget, the favor of the Emperor, and they were placed in places of governmental power. They had already invaded China and were feeling very powerful at this time. The military had had much success.
Second, There were diplomatic issues. There was the decline of Washington Conference system. There was multilateral diplomacy going on. The Japanese government also refused to get behind the Chinese reconstruction aid. There were also unequal treaties that had been place since the 1840’s. Japan along with the French were dragging their feet to get them revised.
Third, Japan had foreign policy decision-making issues. The military used diplomacy, but mostly force to obtain what they needed or wanted. There were several incidents which led to the demise of the Liberal left. They began to eliminate the officials in acts that were overkill. They would send 100 men to kill one official. They were trying to send a message.
Fourth and lastly, there were geopolitical issues with three countries; China, U.S.S.R, and the U.S. With China they had negotiations going, assassinations taking place, firefights happening, and all this was taking place independently from each other within Japan. The U.S.S.R was really there main concern because of the threat posed. They signed a Anti-Comintern Pact aimed towards the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R signed the Sino-Russian non-aggression treaty aimed at Japan. Japan then signed the Tripartite Pact and the Russo-Japanese Neutrality Pact both aimed at the U.S.S.R. The US became an issue when they began to stand against Japan for their military actions. The US broke trade treaties,stopped the export of steel and oil. They froze their assets and demanded they leave China. The US moved their fleet of ships from San Diego to Hawaii. After negotiations failed all of this led Japan to attack the US.
I never knew the background to this interesting time in history. Fascinating discussion.
edited by cgao on 10/28/2016
AnonymousCannibalism is something I know exists or has existed. That doesn’t diminish the fact that it is extremely disturbing. I wonder what it would take to actually be willing to eat human flesh. In my recent class discussion I was able to bring this topic up as well to show that certain people devalue life so much they are able to destroy it, but then go so far as to eat that person. I was very surprised that the Japanese practiced this barbaric act. Not everyone, but certain groups of people. Professor Yamashita shared a personal story of being on a plane to or from Japan. He encountered a group of former military and quietly asked them if it was true and they confirmed that it was practiced. I learned yet another piece of Japanese history.
AnonymousIn reading Nakane Mihoko’s diary, I was struck not by what was in it as much as I was struck by what was not. I believe diaries provide amazing insight when they serve as personal records. Academically, they help gage a student’s understanding of a lesson or a topic. Personally, they serve as private memoires to express emotions, struggles and/or serve a sounding board for our most private and intimate thoughts or fears. What I found eerie about Nakane’s diary is that although it detailed a personal daily record of her experiences, it was not – in my opinion – honestly her experiences. Not that it told untruths but I felt Nakane wrote to please her teacher. I felt her teacher’s feedback to be a bit imposing and intrusive. Nakane went through a very stressful time separated from her family under harsh conditions during a time of war, losing weight with very little food and there was not one mention of her fears, desires or concerns mixed amid her extreme self criticism and a glaringly apparent need for her words to be pleasing to her Sensai. My impression of Nakane is that she was a very sweet little girl and I was hoping somewhere in the diary she would get tired of her polite correctness and show some indication that she was tired of being hungry and separated from her family and tired of the war. There were only subtle moments where she hinted at being hungry when she ate her meals or that she lost weight or how dirty her hair would get. But when she called her gruel tasty, I wished for more realism to better understand what life was really like for her during this time. I wished to see the world truly from her point of view.
edited by rcharles on 10/31/2016
AnonymousOverall, the reading for this section was accurate in the basic details but I have to disagree with at least one element of the timeline. It states that the American offensive in the Southwest Pacific started in July of 1943. This is incorrect. The first offensive action occurred in August, 1942 with the American invasion of Guadalcanal. The Battle of Midway was the fulcrum which changed the course of the war, but Guadalcanal was the lever for future offensive operations. The six month battle that followed was a campaign of tremendous effort on both sides. The Japanese, having lost the initiative at Midway were attempting to prevent the first allied offensive operation from gaining much ground. The United States was struggling with limited resources to maintain pressure on the Imperial Fleet, forcing them to commit valuable military resources to the battle. Ironically, Japan never fully realized the weakness of the United States and thus never attacked with the overwhelming force they could have applied. Instead, they committed their ships, aircraft and land forces piecemeal, repeatedly underestimating the amount of force needed to drive American forces off of Guadalcanal. This is undoubtedly due, in part, to the extensive size of the Pacific War and the need to meet military needs across a very wide front. The factor that perhaps most helped the U.S. forces when they were at their weakness was the pure aggressiveness of their commander, Admiral Halsey. His continuous offensive push, despite lack of resources, helped convince the Japanese that we were much stronger than our Order of Battle would indicate. In point of fact, there was a period of four months, between November, 1942 and February, 1943 when the United States had only one operational aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, in the entire Pacific Theatre.
In parallel with this was the slow advance of General MacArthur and his troops along the Northern coast of New Guinea. Offensive operations there started early in September and October, 1942 with a push by Australian troops following a Japanese attack on Milne Bay. It was during this campaign that MacArthur coined the phrase "Hit them where they ain't," as a means of describing the island-hopping tactics used by the United States during the war.
AnonymousThe article leaves me with the impression that the experiences of Japan from 1931 to 1964 was not dissimilar to a vast, shuddering national catharsis, reminiscent of a major earthquake. The rise of militarism and its ingrained nature with the social structure was like the initial shock. Many Japanese people didn't quite know how to deal with it and thus were paralyzed into inaction, unable to do much more than try to adapt to circumstances. The war period itself can be compared to the rolling of the earth, destabilizing the social and economic order as the needs of the military situation dominated everyone's life. The post-war period was one of initial confusion and a willingness to surrender to an organized authority, (SCAP), in the hopes that basic needs would be restored and the people would be able to plan the steps necessary for recovery. One might compare General MacArthur to a 20th century Shogun ruler as his rule had several similarities to the Tokugawa Shogunate. Granted, behind the desire to rebuild Japan was America's own Cold War interests to limit the spread of communism. Japan did though benefit from the effort to make it an allied nation during this period as their economic conditions slowly were rebuilt.
AnonymousI know how you feel. I was not as fully aware of the diplomatic element and role played by the military in Manchuria and the initial march into war. The details offered here clarified how it was possible that a government, any government, could have it's armed force carry out operations in contradiction to normal policy. It lends credence to the principle of civilian control of military systems as outlined in our own constitution. It is not surprising this happened since the model they used was based upon pre-World War I Imperial Germany.
edited by jhayden on 10/31/2016
AnonymousIt appears through this reading that Japan in the 1960s reflected much of the student unrest that existed throughout the western world. Protests against the American war effort in Vietnam as well as protests, not always including students, against pollution and government policies that hurt farmers and working people were just a prevalent here as in the United States. As a kid, I understood the nature of the protests here in the United States, but similar protests I saw on the news that took place in Japan always confused me a bit.
It is interesting that the OPEC oil shortage of the early seventies spurred Japan to invest heavily in nuclear power as an alternative to oil. When you consider attitudes today, thanks in no small part to the disaster at Fukashima, one has to wonder which way Japan will go having already made a massive investment in nuclear technology. Can they back track and introduce new ideas such as renewables in as timely a fashion? It also should be explored how much the rapid growth of nuclear power contributed to the attitudes and procedures that exacerbated the disaster.
AnonymousRape of Nanking
Dr. Yamashita made a point of comparing the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Nanking to that of Germany in WWII. He explained that the Germans were motivated by anti-Semitism, which made their atrocities worse than those the Japanese committed against the Chinese. He went on to say that author Iris Chang’s claim in her book The Rape of Nanking, that the atrocities committed by the Japanese was a holocaust is an exaggeration and bad history. Although I found this a bit of a shock—both events seemed equally brutal to me—but I am inclined to agree that Germany’s systematic extermination of 6 million people based on their religion and notions of racial “impurity” somewhat outweighs what happened in Nanking. Nanking was genocidal, ruthless, and unconscionable, but the Japanese did not build factories of death to annihilate an entire people. Although The Rape of Nanking may not be good history, I do believe that Chang did a service to us all by bringing this terrible chapter in history to our attention. The Jewish people will never let us forget the Holocaust, whereas the memory of Japan’s aggression against the Chinese was diminished by Cold War politics.
AnonymousAgreed. My focus is often centered upon immediate cause and effect, and then the events surrounding the actual battles themselves. I think this is because the individual's participation in history is more clearly seen. That, and having a father and two uncles fighting in World War II gave it a personal connection to events. Seeing the connections behind the attack and the motivations that led to it was an eye-opener.
AnonymousIn some ways this was an overwhelming amount of materials, but I must say I appreciate being a student again. The lectures, the readings have all brought up issues of serious thoughts about historiography. When teaching World History, should I call it the War of the Pacific, instead of WWII? When should I start WWII, with European aggression, or Japanese aggression? Quite honestly, as someone who specialized in Late Antiquity in Europe, a recent historical re-interpretation of the Fall of Rome and the movements which developed into the Middle Ages in Europe, I have a strong desire to find ways for students to re-interprete and challenge the interpretations of Historians. Unfortunately, I simply was not knowledgeable about East Asia. These readings and lectures have given me thoughts about re-interpreting my lectures, to offer students both a "traditional" American and euro-centric narrative and an "Asian-centric" narrative (as much as is possible). It would be the Pacific War, instead of WWII. We would look at colonization and imperialism as fundamental factors leading to War, as opposed to the Treaty of Versailles and WWI. What I would like, would be a set of textbook chapters translated into English from Japan, China, Korea, and the Philippines.
Lesson Ideas:
Dual Lectures: WWII (Euro-Centric Dates, Terms, motivations) and The Pacific War (Asia-Centric dates, terms, motivations)
Essay: Compare and Contrast Japanese atrocities with German atrocities.
Close Reading: Comparing Journals of British Children, the Journals from Prof. Yamashita, and the traditional Middle School requirement of Diary of Ann Frank. Students might find this interesting.
AnonymousI started looking up the re-sources to help create a lectures where I could Compare US vs. East Asian Approaches to WWII. The following book looked interesting
History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray US History
https://books.google.com/books?id=TFVGFV4QZ40C&lpg=PP1&dq=World%20Textbooks&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=World%20Textbooks&f=false
I also found, concerning Children's Diary's
Children in the Holocaust and World War II
https://books.google.com/books?id=LFVeCtNkq6QC&lpg=PP1&dq=Children's%20Journals%20during%20war&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Children's%20Journals%20during%20war&f=false
I haven't been able to find the Journals of evacuated British Children. Perhaps a Japanese internment journal would be helpful in the US, to discuss the differences between forced hiding, evacuation, and forced relocation...
AnonymousA lot of the history we are learning is new to me. I found a video online to watch called "Before the Bombs Fell" which was a 40 minute historical video from a series called "The Vault". the narrator compared the Japanese from the period before and during WW2 to Nazi Germany and Modern day ISIS. He explained some of the experiments that the Japanese committed on the Chinese in Unit 731 including how long it would take to bleed out with one arm cut off, with both arms cut off, etc. Also they studied how long it would take to die in cold water. I had never heard of Unit 731 until this class--it was interesting to learn more about it.
This is a whole side of Japanese history that I was unaware of and is something I can use in the classroom when studying literature from that time period. We have a poem in our literature book called "Internment" by Juliet S. Kono. I could use some of my historical knowledge to help students understand why the Japanese were feared. Of course internment camps were wrong--I am not rationalizing what was done. However, historical perspective could help students see why some people had fear. This generation is so far removed and has no reference to Japan currently that would help them understand why there would have been an issue Japan.
AnonymousAnother interesting thing I learned from the show called "Before the Bombs Fell" was about the fact that the US dropped 5 million leaflets--in Japanese--warning the families to get out of the cities before we dropped the bombs. The narrator read from a primary source--written by one of the navigators by the call sign "Dutch". He wrote, "Earlier we dropped millions of leaflets which were largely ignored." The narrator showed a picture on which he wrote his statement and signed it. I found this interesting because even though I have heard about the dropping of the bombs--I hadn't heard that we had tried to warn the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This makes sense after what we learned in the China Institute class. We learned that the people were being lied to by the Japanese government--they were being told that they were winning. It is no wonder that they ignored the warnings.