http://partypooper.blogs.com/p.....g_usa.html

My comments are listed under Joe.

You provide quite a potpourri of allegations. (I sincerely doubt if the Imperial Japanese generals planning the attack on Nanking in 1937 had a portrait of Custer hanging on the tent wall alongside that of the Emperor; but, I admit I haven’t read Iris Chang’s book, so I can’t positively disprove this rather remarkable assertion of yours (ie Custer as the inspiration for the rape of Nanking).

However, I do think that the fundamental point of your post (alleging that “America armed Japan”) should be supported by a lot more than the simple citing of a Tom Cruise movie. Of course I haven’t seen the movie, have no real idea of the “plot”, but my guess would be that “American Samurai” was just another piece of historical fiction, made to sell movie tickets and emulate the success of something like “Dances with Wolves”.

Projecting modern political sensibilities and mores back into the past is a most useful device for movie scriptwriters, who can freely make up events to reinforce a plot line; but real life tends to be a little more complicated, especially since we can’t see into the future quite as easily as we do into the past.

It’s my impression that in spite of the famous Admiral Perry fleet visit to Japan in 1853 (was that part of the movie?), the US was not involved in the “arming” of Japan in succeeding decades (if by that phrase you mean Japan’s transition from a feudal empire (the Shogunate?) to a modern colonial empire with a western-style modern army and navy).

If I recall, this transition is generally considered to have occurred between 1860 and 1905, at which time Japan “arrived” on the world scene by defeating Imperial Russia in a series of climactic land and sea battles, in Manchuria, the Yellow Sea, and the waters around Korea — the Russo-Japanese war.

As part of this war, the Japanese Army had essentially occupied Korea in the spring of 1904. The Taft-Katsura “agreement” of 1905 didn’t really do anything but recognize the actual fact of this occupation, in return for a Japanese recognition of the American occupation and annexation of the Phillippines (which was still in a decade-long process of consolidation).

I’m sure US President Theodore Roosevelt was worried that the newly expansionist Japanese empire was a threat to the Phillippines, and wanted to avoid the large expense of building coastal fortifications there to defend them. (Not to mention that he thought Korea would be better off under a Japanese “suzertainty” which was going to happen anyway. The idea that the US should have gone to war with Japan back then over Korea is evidently a currently fashionable but rather bizarre bit of modern Korean historical revisionism).

(BTW, how good old Teddy would be hurt by your allegation of “corruption”! I thought even good liberals these days still celebrated TR’s energetic “busting” of the “trusts”, to include that mother of all trusts Standard Oil. Standard was the original “Big Oil”, headed by the devil incarnate himself, John D Rockefeller the original!

Anyway — I think I recall that the various European powers competed with each other to make arms deals with the newly ascendant Japanese empire during this period (1870s-1890’s). Not the US, which was preoccupied with its own internal expansion and domestic troubles (to include those small matters known as the US Civil War and Reconstruction).

As Osama bin Laden might have put it — the Euros recognized a “strong horse” when they saw one and they rushed to make their accomodation with Japanese empire. Poor King Kojong of Korea wasn’t able to play the game of great power politics effectively; too bad, I suppose we’re all paying for that now. And too bad that the modern Koreans haven’t shown a little more respect for his imperial descendants (as chronicled by some interesting Marmot blog posts of the last several days).

At least King Kojong was trying to keep his country independent; doesn’t he get any credit for that at all, or is he simply just despised by modern Koreans as a “loser”?

The Japanese settled on the British Navy as the model for their Navy, and Prussian/ Hohenzollern/ newly unified German empire as their model for their
Army. These countries assisted the Japanese Empire in their military buildup, and they should be the ones (IMHO) who are said to have “armed” Japan (not the US).

Indeed, the Japanese Empire and the British Empire had a formal treaty of alliance from 1901 to 1921! While, on the contrary, the US had in this period a firm policy of no “entangling” formal alliances with any overseas powers (as a matter of long-standing national policy from the farewell address of George Washington).

You don’t see modern Koreans blaming the British Empire for its undoubted approval of the process of Japanese annexation of Korea between 1904 and 1910! Of course not. Historical revisionism of this type has more to do with the current domestic politics of the ROK (to include many ROK politicians’ rather pathetic attempts to “make nice” with their intractable Northern cousins) than with what actually happened so long ago.

I recommend you spend some more time reading some “alternate” histories of the period; US foreign policy was not the central world focus of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods (hard though that may be for you to believe).

If anyone thinks Yi would have developed and grown or reformed if left alone (like that was even possible) checkout The Making of Modern Japan, by Marius B. Jensen (page 442) which talks about Japan?€™s reputation in the West back then and Korea?€™s lack of one: As Minister Horace Allen wrote to Washington about the Korean Empire ?€“

We will make a serious mistake if we allow sentimental reasons to induce us to attempt to bolster up this ?€œEmpire?€? in its independence. These people can not govern themselves?€? I am not a pro-Japanese enthusiast, as you know, but neither am I opposed to any civilized race taking over the management of these kindly Asiatics for the good of the people and the suppression of oppressive officials, the establishment of order and the development of commerce.

It continues with a quote from an American journalist ?€“

What are you going to do with a government which?€?avoids action and evades responsibility by allowing its Ministers to resign at the rate of one or two a week? The Korean Emperor has a set of twenty to thirty men who may be compared to the court cards in a whist pack?€?Every time the cards are shuffled and dealt the same old knaves turn up, but in new places.

Yi was doomed and had a resource poor neighbor eager to emulate the West.

The North Koreans are totaltarian state. They keep a large portion of thier population in gulags. They torture and do medical experiments on prisoners. So why am I not going “gung ho” for America? Well, America, Japan and Russia set the stage for North Korea and all the evil of 20th century Asia. Mr. Kang’s statements were simply recognizing this. However, he
probably did not emphasize the Russian role and might be a NK supporter. He might deny the human rights violations of NK.

Mr. Kang made a few correct statements. The United States gave Japan permission to colonize the nation in 1905. That was not very cool. It’s a fact the US has wanted to be an Asian power since the Spanish American War.

It’s first crime was arming the Japanese. Has anyone seen the “Last Samurai”? America armed Japan but did’nt help any other Asian nation. This set the stage for Japanese Imperialism. We can use the Rape of Nanking as an example of results of US - Japanese trade in the 20th century.

However, social darwinism was popular during the 19th and 20th century. I figure many Americans figured Japan was superior to other Asian nations and deserved unlimited power. Why criticize the Japanese for their savage deeds? They were just copying the European imperialist powers. The Rape of Nanking was just Japanese copying Westerners. I’m sure there were some
Japanese who thought “Were big shots now! Were just like the British.” while they were brutally raping Chinese women and girls and beheading locals. “We can massacre natives better than Custer!”

Anyways, I do agree that the US had imperialistic ambitions in Asia. Why not? Social darwinism was the trendy thing back in those days. There was no political correctness back then. If you were superior then you ruled the inferior. Is that good or bad? I think it’s bad but some people disagree. I think the human race has progressed past that point.

Anyways, I think Mc Arthur was just a soldier obeying orders. The Koreans should be angry at Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Truman. You also don’t want to leave out Stalin. These corrupt politicians divided Korea. The Koreans should have been left alone. However, that would have been an unlikely scenario because foriegn policy at the time was dictated by social darwinism. Yes it’s true. Every nation and people should be able to defend themselves. However, history has not played out that way. Your going to have your punks and your sweet boys.

Now I’m not defending the crimes of North Korea. I’m not dishonoring the veterans of the Korean War (on any side). But you have to look at the whole story.
The United States (in it’s desire for trade and power)
armed Japan. Accepting the social darwinistic trends of the time it proceeded to recognize Japanese imperialism. There was some conflict between Japan and the US over the Phillippines (an American colony) but the US solved it by recognizing Japanese rule in Korea.

Now I’m an American. I was a teacher in South Korea. I was insulted by anti-US Koreans. Yes it hurt. It was wrong for them to insult white people. Usually they would say the “f word you” (not to your face however).
These attacks were unprovoked.

Most Americans today have not read history and don’t want to hurt Koreans. I was’nt alive during either the Korean or Vietnam wars. The protestors should go to the US and try to influence public opinion there. Insulting Engish teachers will not solve the problem.

The anti-US Koreans seem to be bullies and hooligans not political activists. Would these protestors attack US troops? No, they would rather attack peaceful meek US teachers and tourists.

To sum it up, Koreans were the victims of social darwinism. In those days, there was no attempt to balance the power in Asia. Guns and weapons were simply given to the highest bidder. In this case it was Japan.

Does anyone agree or disagree with my opinions?

If electricity were sent and and industry did start moving again, then a sudden discontinuation could create strains. But I believe that a stoppage of electricity would mean nothing because the elite will always have ways of generating electricity, and that is all that matters for the regime’s survival.

I also agree with others who say that any revisinism in the future as a result of opening more archives will always be tinged by nationalism

Some of you here, previously unacquainted with the history, might find the following as interesting as I did when I first read it (a year or so back, but the essence of it managed to lodge in my brain, not an easy task these days).

Especially interesting given the current (ie last 15 years or so, since the fall of the USSR) importance of petroleum products and electrical power to North Korea.

First quote (”punch” lines are at the very end):

“…[In 1945] the new dividing line [ie 38th Parallel between US and Soviet zones of occupation]…The two areas, North and South Korea, complemented each other both agriculturally and industrially. South Korea was mainly a farming area, where fully two-thirds of the inhabitants worked the land. It possessed three times as much irrigated rice land as the northern area, and furnished food for the north. But North Korea furnished the fertilizer for the southern rice fields, and the largest nitrogenous fertilizer plant in the Far East was in Hungnam. Although North Korea also had a high level of agricultural production, it was deficient in some crops. The barrier imposed serious adverse effects on both zones.

South Korea had in 1940 turned out about 74 percent of Korea’s light consumer goods and processed products. Its industry consisted of some large and many small plants producing textiles, rubber products, hardware, and ceramics. Many of these plants had been built to process raw materials from North Korea.

North Korea, a largely mountainous region, held valuable mineral deposits, especially coal. Excellent hydroelectric plants, constructed during the last ten years of Japanese domination, ranked with the largest and best in the world. Because of its power resources, North Korea housed almost all of Korea’s heavy industry, including several rolling mills and a highly developed chemical industry. In 1940, North Korea produced 86 percent of Korea’s heavy manufactured goods. The only petroleum processing plant in the country, a major installation designed to serve all of Korea, was located in the north [!!!], as were seven of eight cement plants. Almost all the electrical power used by South Korea came from the north [!!!], as did iron, steel, wood pulp, and industrial chemicals needed by South Korea’s light industry.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-01.htm

Also:

According to chapter 2 of this same source, Baduk, the actual “cutoff” of electricity by the Soviet controlled North (evidently it was actually “only” a 50% reduction) took place in November 1947 (rather than 1946). It was directly connected with the “problem” (as seen by the North) of elections (at least, those elections not held under Communist control).

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/pd-c-02.htm

Note the “multilateral” attempts by the US back then to solve the problem of Korea in the UN, and to give the ROK its full independence — an independence unblemished by the corrupting boots of soldiers of the US hegemon. Well, no good deed by the US ever goes unpunished, eh Professor Kang? Ah, those Americans, no matter what they do (and did) they just can’t help but screw things up for Korea and the rest of the world.

2nd quote: “…after two years of occupation, and with no arrangement for unification and independence of Korea yet in sight, the United States placed the problem before the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23 September 1947.

In a draft resolution on 16 October 1947 the United States recommended that both zones of Korea hold elections before 31 March 1948 under observation of the United Nations. A United Nations temporary commission would view the elections and supervise the formation of a national government. When a unified Korean government had thus been established, foreign troops were to withdraw.

During consideration of this proposal in the General Assembly, the USSR representative protested that the United Nations had no jurisdiction over Korea and that foreign troops must withdraw before creation of a unified Korean government. His counterproposal was that the occupying powers immediately withdraw their troops. This was rejected. When the General Assembly, on 14 November 1947, approved a resolution supporting the United States proposal and establishing the U.N. Temporary Commission on Korea, Russia refused to take part in the U.N. commission.

The Russians did more than refuse to co-operate. The main source of hydroelectric power for South Korea was located in their zone, and in November 1947, upon the formation of the U.N. Temporary Commission, they cut in half the amount of electricity allowed South Korea.

Elections took place in South Korea on 10 May 1948. The North Koreans did not participate, nor did they recognize the results of the elections. The U.N. commission itself was barred from North Korea. But the elections brought out an estimated 80 percent of the eligible voters in the south who chose representatives for their National Assembly, and the U.N. commission reported the results to be valid…”

Junggooneun mot mallyuh.

While from the outside it may see mthat the South “has the North…” the truth is, I can quickly see the North turning it around and saying ANY decrease in supplied electricity would result in WAR!

BTW, what does it take to have the good Dr. visit your blog Marmot? Do you give him cookies?