Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Victor Davis Hanson commentary: China behaving as Japan did in 1930s
dispatch ^

Posted on 01/09/2014 8:12:34 PM PST by traumer

In the 1920s, Japan began to translate its growing economic might — after a prior 50-year crash course in Western capitalism and industrialization — into formidable military power.

At first, few of its possible rivals seemed to care. America and European colonials did not quite believe that any Asian power could ever dare to threaten their own Pacific interests.

Japan had been a British ally and a partner of the democracies in World War I. Most of its engineering talent was trained in Britain and France. The West even declared Japan to be one of the “Big Five” world economic powers that shared common interests in peace, prosperity and global security.

Occasional parliamentary reforms had convinced many in the West that Japan’s growing standard of living would ensure cultural and political liberality.

That was a comforting dream, given that by the 1930s, Americans were disillusioned over the cost of their recent intervention in the Great War in Europe. They were weary of overseas engagement and just wanted a return to normalcy. A terrible decade-long depression at home only added to the popular American desire for isolation from the world’s problems.

(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Military/Veterans; Society
KEYWORDS: china; vdh

1 posted on 01/09/2014 8:12:34 PM PST by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traumer

The difference between Japan in the 30s and China today is that Japan didn’t have an empire while China does now. The Chicom’s foreing policy efforts are thus largely aimed at keeping their empire together which they are attempting to do by stirring up anger against outsiders such as the Japanese. But I predict that within 10 years, China will break apart in the same way that the Soviet Union did. In a world of instant communication, empires that are kept together by force of arms simply do not last very long.


2 posted on 01/09/2014 8:23:21 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

But will the Chicoms collapse without a whimper? I once read a general of their saying that, in the event of collapse, they would focus the frustrations and anger of their people “into a fist, striking outward.”


3 posted on 01/09/2014 8:39:39 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

I mean, collapse WITH a whimper*. Typo!


4 posted on 01/09/2014 8:40:03 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traumer
The biggest difference is that in the 40’s we had the greatest generation and in 2010/2020 we will have the weakest generation and the LGBT military armed with pink feather boas.
5 posted on 01/09/2014 8:57:48 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
...But I predict that within 10 years, China will break apart in the same way that the Soviet Union did. In a world of instant communication, empires that are kept together by force of arms simply do not last very long.

Quite prescient for a surfer... /g I agree with you.

6 posted on 01/09/2014 8:58:45 PM PST by SandwicheGuy (*The butter acts as a lubricant and speeds up the CPU*ou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traumer

And, the US is in the situation Russia was in in the late 80s......

Who is going to counter China?


7 posted on 01/09/2014 9:02:14 PM PST by The_Media_never_lie (The media must be defeated any way it can be done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

Think Manifest Destiny in the 1800’s. The US was around 70 years old and beat up Britian twice + Mexico + the Barbary pirates. We were big and tough. Germany and Japan became independent nations around 1870. 70 years later they got heir butt kicked after thinking they could dominate.Think Russo japanese war. USSR came about in 1917 and the wall came down in 1989-72 years later. No war. When will China turn 70?


8 posted on 01/09/2014 9:13:39 PM PST by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

What is it that VD Hanson is advocating in this column? He says the US was “humiliated” by Assad. Is he saying Obama was right and we should be at war in Syria — in order to impress China?

We’re weaker today because we’ve fought all the wars that Hanson was pushing over the past 15 years (although we stayed out of Syria so far) We can keep China at Bay quite handily without launching more Middle East wars, whether or not VD Hanson agrees.


9 posted on 01/09/2014 9:30:15 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

>The difference between Japan in the 30s and China today is that Japan didn’t have an empire while China does now.

Japan was an empire in the 1930’s. They occupied Korea, Formosa, and Manchuria, none of which were Japanese territory.

China has not yet invaded any sovereign power (save the tiff with Vietnam, which didn’t last long).


10 posted on 01/09/2014 10:44:00 PM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traumer

During the 1930’s, the Japanese formed a militaristic fanatical society based on feudal military might. The Chinese are building an economic centered society and their main means of conquest (for now) is business based. The Japanese formed their fanatical devotion around the Emperor and the worship was so extreme that there was suicides in front of the Imperial Palace after the Emperor made his speech about no longer wishing to be considered a divine being.

Right now the Chinese don’t have an Emperor or national living symbol to bow to, to butcher entire nations for, so so far we don’t have that factor motivating them. With luck, chances are they’ll become a fairly benign economic superpower and maintain fierce nationalism, but fierce nationalism has certainly always been a facet of the Chinese psyche.

They are building their military like crazy, but that is a simple reaction to prevent colonialism like in the 1800’s. I hope that they remain fairly like this and don’t get the chance to test their military might. They have fiercely trained soldiers (check out their training courses on YouTube) and are well equipped, but certainly, at the moment they aren’t likely sure of how to realistically get their military around the world and they aren’t tested in actual warfare in any area.

I sincerely hope they are never tested since they might know their strengths and weaknesses and then decide how to invade the US or any other country that can give them what they want (or they’ll just take it more likely).


11 posted on 01/09/2014 10:51:12 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Chances are the Chinese won’t invade us unless some serious diplomatic mess occurs. I might be wrong, but they don’t have too malicious of a view of us. They might view us as a variety of things, but they don’t likely view us as a legitimate threat to their interests or their country.


12 posted on 01/09/2014 10:53:42 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

I’m optimistic that the Chinese won’t invade us or anyone else. Chances are they’re leery about war since they might in fact commit a blunder in formal warfare and then lose face.


13 posted on 01/09/2014 10:54:38 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

It all depends on who China views as an enemy at any given time during one or another given situation. As for countering China, it’s best to leave well enough alone and be thankful China isn’t interested in world conquest by military means.


14 posted on 01/09/2014 10:57:08 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
He says the US was “humiliated” by Assad. Is he saying Obama was right and we should be at war in Syria — in order to impress China?

That's not he's saying at all.

We were , in fact, humiliated in Syria, thanks to Obama's artless foreign policy. Assad played Obama and Kerry for fools and Putin collected the chips.

That was inarguably a diplomatic humiliation -- resulting in a loss of respect for America. Our influence is diminished because of it.

15 posted on 01/09/2014 11:06:59 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: traumer

Bookmark


16 posted on 01/10/2014 4:19:53 AM PST by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandwicheGuy
But usually they select someone on the outside as the villain to deflect their problem. Check the Japanese in 1941.
17 posted on 01/10/2014 6:15:04 AM PST by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
I should have said at the beginning of the 1930s. At that time, Japan only occupied Korea.

In comparison, China occupies many areas that would instantly break away if PLA troops were withdrawn. For example, the autonomous regions would all break away if Chicom political power imploded tomorrow. This includes Tibet, Inner Mongolia and the Uyghur region where there is a Muslin insurgency underway. Additionally, most of the provinces in the south, where they don't speak the Mandarin dialect, would also break away. And Taiwan goes without saying.

Here is a standard definition of an empire: Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

Under that definition the Union of Soviet Socialist States and the People's Republic of China both qualify as empires.

18 posted on 01/10/2014 7:08:26 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
What is it that VD Hanson is advocating in this column? He says the US was “humiliated” by Assad. Is he saying Obama was right and we should be at war in Syria — in order to impress China?

He is saying that Obama has weakened the military to the point where we are unable to effectively respond to a situation in Syria. Syria revolution which was initiated by Obama's misguided meddling is now beyond our control. As are most of the "Arab Spring" countries.
Iraq which was a victory has been turned into a huge disaster, again by Obama's misguided foreign policy. Afghanistan, "Obama's war" is moving in the same direction. The middle east contagion is now spreading into north Africa.

The wars of the last fifteen years do not compare with the eight trillion dollars in national debt that Obama's incoherent domestic and foreign policies have cost this country.

19 posted on 01/10/2014 7:40:39 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
I have previous posts on freerepublic stating my opposition to the wars (when they first broke out). I am not an isolationist, but thought we would lose the wars because of the lack of unity in our country, we have an active 5th column in this country in the Democratic Party and Media.

That said, I am not that concerned about the rise of China, but more by her decline. The demographics of China just don't work. She will be increasingly dangerous in multiple ways as her decline accelerates in the 20s and 30s of this century.

20 posted on 01/10/2014 8:13:45 AM PST by fatez ("If you're going through Hell, keep going." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Syria revolution which was initiated by Obama’s misguided meddling is now beyond our control. As are most of the “Arab Spring” countries.

Yes, yes, but it was George Bush who said he was launching a democracy revolution in the middle east, by invading Iraq. Obama is just carrying on what Bush started.


21 posted on 01/10/2014 9:16:49 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

The wars of the last fifteen years do not compare with the eight trillion dollars in national debt

How much have the wars of the last 15 years cost? I’ve seen estimates of $3 trillion. What estimates have you seen?


22 posted on 01/10/2014 9:18:05 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Assad played Obama and Kerry for fools and Putin collected the chips.

So do you think we should have bombed Syria? If not, then how have we been “humiliated”? By not getting into another stupid war? I think China would have been glad to see us tied down fighting in Syria. They’re also probably glad we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. Because all those wars have weakened us, easing the obstacles to China’s rise. Hanson supported all those wars, and a reasonable unbiased reader of his column would have to infer he’s upset that we haven’t gone to war against Assad as well.


23 posted on 01/10/2014 9:21:45 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
When will China turn 70?

I dunno. A couple thousand years ago or so? According to Wiki, the Chin dynasty was from 221 to 206 BC.

24 posted on 01/10/2014 9:35:34 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
The biggest difference is that in the 40’s we had the greatest generation and in 2010/2020 we will have the weakest generation and the LGBT military armed with pink feather boas.

You mean PajamaBoy's haughty raised eyebrows won't be enough of a deterrence against the ChiComms?


25 posted on 01/10/2014 9:37:05 AM PST by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Yes, yes, but it was George Bush who said he was launching a democracy revolution in the middle east, by invading Iraq. Obama is just carrying on what Bush started.

That is the whole point. Bush successfully prosecuted a war in Iraq. He also used a small group of specialists to disrupt terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

Obama has reversed everything that Bush did and turned the rest of the middle east into a chaotic bloodbath.

26 posted on 01/10/2014 9:45:06 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: traumer

The 800 lb. gorilla nobody has addressed so far is that, unlike Japan, China has over a billion young men who, because of the one-child policy and infanticide of girl babies have little chance of ever getting laid, let alone finding a woman to marry and settle down with. Tends to make a country rather militaristic.


27 posted on 01/10/2014 10:28:48 AM PST by Hoffer Rand (If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. *Asterisk.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Bush successfully prosecuted a war in Iraq.

Bush’s invasion led to chaos in Iraq, a resurgency of shiite extremists (who Saddam had kept down through brutal means) - and the establishment of a shiite government that today is Iran’s closest ally, and whose constitution says Sharia is the primary source of law. Also, the near total destruction of the Christian community in Iraq. And U.S. expenditures of $1 trillion or more. That’s the legacy of Bush’s invasion. Along with the shiite risings in Arab countries - the Middle East democracy revolution that Bush advocated. Obama has carried it on.


28 posted on 01/10/2014 1:15:26 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

29 posted on 01/10/2014 1:17:48 PM PST by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Nobody gained more from our invastion of Iraq (and being tied down there for a decade) than China, because the invasion cost us so much and weakened our economy and military. Well, maybe Iran was the biggest gainer (because our invasion turned Iran’s biggest foe - Saddam Hussein’s Iraq - into its closest ally, the shiite-led Iraq government of today)


30 posted on 01/10/2014 1:18:07 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Bush’s invasion led to chaos in Iraq, a resurgency of shiite extremists............

All of this is true, but it only happened well after Bush was gone and Obama took over as "Commander in Chief".

31 posted on 01/10/2014 1:51:33 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

All of this is true, but it only happened well after Bush was gone and Obama took over as “Commander in Chief”.

Not true. Go back and look at the news articles from the mid-2000s. The surge was implemented in response to the total chaos that had been created. And the shiite government was in place before the surge. And Christian churches were being shot up as early as 2004, and continuously thereafter. The whole idea of trying to impose democracy on this country (and to liberate the shiites from Saddam’s oppression) was flawed from the get-go. One of the big reasons — though obviously not the only one (think Great Recession of 2008) — that Bush has gone down as a failed president.


32 posted on 01/10/2014 2:09:09 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
So do you think we should have bombed Syria? If not, then how have we been “humiliated”?

You're assuming that the only choices in any conflict between nations are war and no war.

Not true. We enjoined a diplomatic contest, then lost it and were, thereby, humiliated diplomatically.

It was threatening war, via Obama's "red line" statement, that started the exercise. And it was a clumsy mistake -- because we had to back off from it (and damn well should have).

So, what makes you think I (or Hanson) wanted to bomb Syria? Because neither of us so much as suggested it.

33 posted on 01/10/2014 2:34:40 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: okie01; WilliamIII

“We”??

I do not consider the actions of Obama and his ilk to represent “we”. I was not humiliated by what happened.

I was only embarrassed that my countrys President took the side of Al Qeada and the Islamic Brotherhood in such a dispute.


34 posted on 01/10/2014 2:46:06 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I was only embarrassed that my countrys President took the side of Al Qeada and the Islamic Brotherhood in such a dispute. You were embarrassed because "we" were humiliated by the outcome.

It wasn't just Obama who was humiliated. It was the United States of America. And that's "we".

35 posted on 01/10/2014 3:00:08 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I wasn’t humiliated that Obama lost, I was happy!


36 posted on 01/10/2014 3:09:29 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: okie01

So, what makes you think Hanson wanted to bomb Syria?

He’s covered his behind by writing ambiguously, but it’s a safe inference. He doesn’t say Obama humiliated himself (by drawing a red line), he says Assad humiliated Obama - which suggests Hanson is angry that Assad didn’t get a whooping by the United States. That’s not just a reasonable inference from Hanson’s sentence construction, it’s reasonable inference from Hanson’s consistent support for the US to get involved in war, war, and more war in the middle east, go back many years.


37 posted on 01/10/2014 3:27:43 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
I believe you are reading more into it than what is there. <

Hanson was, in no way, promoting the bombing of Syria. His previous columns on the subject have dwelt on the abject incompetence of the Obama administration's foreign policy.

There has been no suggestion of attacking Syria. Quite the contrary, in fact.

38 posted on 01/10/2014 3:31:55 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
though obviously not the only one (think Great Recession of 2008) — that Bush has gone down as a failed president.

there was no great recession. There was a minor downturn after a years of advances. A standard correction in the economy.

However, Obama and his cronies saw an opportunity to loot the government. Trillions of dollars were spent on "shove ready jobs". The money actually went to government labor unions to give raises and hire people that were not needed.
After that they looted the treasury once again to steal General Motors from the investors and hand it over to the auto workers unions and their lawyers. I believe Washington Mutual was destroyed by Senator Schumer starting a run on the bank by initiating false rumors. The assets of Washington mutual were then basically given to Goldman Sachs. Again cronies of the Obama administration profited and Americans lost out.
Lets not forget about the green energy scam that enriched the Obama supporters and undoubtedly Obama himself.
I could go on but I think the pattern is clear.

Even if Obama does not end up in prison, he will definitely go down in history as the worst president, the biggest liar, thief, and greatest enemy of the American people.

39 posted on 01/10/2014 5:05:26 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

“there was no Great Recession”

you’re delusional. I can’t converse with somebody who does deal in reality. good bye.


40 posted on 01/11/2014 10:29:30 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
you’re delusional. I can’t converse with somebody who does deal in reality. good bye.

That's right, I do deal in reality. Most everybody here do. Go back to DU.

41 posted on 01/11/2014 11:19:49 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson