this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
98 points (95.4% liked)

World News

32315 readers
905 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Just so it's not lost on everyone, A) Okinawa was a sovereign country that Japan occupied and annexed, B) the Supreme Court of Japan is using structural power over Okinawa to forcibly maintain and advance the interests of the USA, who nuked it twice, on the island of Okinawa, C) the USA is continuing to impose itself on the Pacific region through imperialism and it so dominates Japan that Japan's highest court is oppressing its own colonial holdings in favor of the global hegemon.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago (8 children)

A few points you missed.

Yes, the Rykuyu islands were a sovereign country... In the 16th century. It's been run by Japan - save for a brief period between 1945 and 1978 - ever since. There's a small and insignificant independence movement that pretty much everyone ignores. I remember them throwing bread rolls at our gate guards.

The US didn't nuke Okinawa. I don't think it was intentional, but your wording implied that it did.

Okinawans are split over the military issue. Some people want the US out. Others make tons of money off the Americans being there. It's not a clear cut situation as you seem to imply.

The US is responsible for Japan's defense ever since the end of WWII, just like it was for west Germany. Given that Japan didn't make many friends during their little adventure across east Asia, having the world's largest military protect them is a favorable arrangement for them.

It's been several generations since WWII. Japan is one of the US' closest allies. If they wanted to transform their self-defense force into a full-blown military and take over responsibility for their own defense, I'm sure they could do so. So far, no one has generated the political will to do that. Your buddy Kim isn't helping things by sending missiles over Japan.

And lastly, WWII wasn't a war of conquest for the US. Blame the US for interfering in Korea and Vietnam and the middle east all you like, but Japan was a different story. Calling the US' actions in Japan "Imperialism" destroys any credibility you may have otherwise had.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 33 points 1 year ago (18 children)

And lastly, WWII wasn't a war of conquest for the US... Calling the US' actions in Japan "Imperialism" destroys any credibility you may have otherwise had.

The U.S. declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not imperialism. But after the war, when the U.S. turned Japan into a vassal state and kept a ton of military bases throughout the Pacific (to supplement those from its initial phase of empire building), that is imperialism.

[–] ElHexo@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The U.S. declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not imperialism

Disagree, they shouldn't have even been in Hawaii

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Japan certainly wasn't trying to liberate Hawaii. This is not a good take.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Calling the US' actions in Japan "Imperialism" destroys any credibility you may have otherwise had.

Uh, they literally made them a protectorate by denying them the ability to field a military. Then when Japan was outcompeting them economically the USA economically undermined them pretty openly and Japan couldn't do anything about it.

Japan is an imperial junior partner to the USA. They are a protectorate and vassal.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They literally made them a protectorate after fighting a bloody four year war that Japan started. Then denied them the right to field a military so that they wouldn't start their shit up again.

What was the US supposed to do after Pearl Harbor? Shrug it off?

I find your claims of Japan being undermined by the US to be dubious at best. Japan has done very well since WWII. The US gave them their largest market (when many other Asian imports were blocked) and remains their second highest trading partner after China. They have the third largest economy in the world. That's not exactly a "vassal."

Looks, I get it, "US bad" no matter what. But out of all the examples of shitty things the US has done, picking Japan is just silly.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

LOL

What was the US supposed to do after Pearl Harbor?

You mean the attack the USA deliberately provoked by moving its naval assets to encircle and blockade Japan with the express goal of provoking an attack to create the necessary pretext to go to war? That Pearl Harbor?

How many other nations do you know of that were defeated in war that were prevented from having a standing military for nearly a century and instead was occupyied by the victor's military forces and the Supreme Court of that country ruling in favor of the military interests of the dominator?

Your lack of imagination and historical awareness is not an argument for why the USA isn't engaged in imperialism.

That's not exactly a "vassal."

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/11/washingtons-old-japan-problem-and-the-current-china-threat/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1989/05/containing-japan/376337/

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c8717/c8717.pdf

In the 1980s, Japan was the big bad. Its economy was booming — the second largest in the world — and many in the United States feared they were about to be overtaken.

Articles were published warning of the “Japanning of America” or an “economic Pearl Harbor,” as Japanese businesses bought US companies and landmarks. Lawmakers and commentators warned of a growing trade deficit between the two countries, and complained of Japanese firms stealing US intellectual property and taking advantage of unfair trade deals.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/business/us-china-trade-war-japan-intl/index.html

Again, your ignorance is not a point of view that commands respect. Japan did everything it could to work within the US rules and in doing so began to actually compete with the US economically. So the US used its outsized power to launch a trade war against Japan and ultimately forced its hand into signing lopsided trade deals, because Japan is a vassal and must comply with the will of the hegemony of the North Atlantic as expressed through the USA.

We don't need to only critique the USA for atrocities. It's important to see the world for how it works. Japan's occupation of Okinawa is still terrible and this action to put a US military base is a good example as to why. If Okinawa was fully assimilated into Japan, it wouldn't be the dumping ground for USA military bases enforced by the Japanese Supreme Court. Likewise despite people thinking Hawaii is an assimilated part of the USA, it wouldn't be the tragedy that it is.

The largest minority group in Japan are the Ryukyuan people of Okinawa and Japan won't even recognize them. Japan is a junior imperialist partner of the Western imperial block executing to advance the interests of the USA and, by proxy, the North Atlantic bourgeoisie.

The idea that this should be above reproach because it's not the worst thing the USA did is ridiculous. The idea that Japan deserved it is just bog standard liberal bloodthirst.

[–] spauldo@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You mean the attack the USA deliberately provoked by moving its naval assets to encircle and blockade Japan with the express goal of provoking an attack to create the necessary pretext to go to war? That Pearl Harbor?

Funny how almost all our battleships were in Hawaii, then. Not much of a blockade. Perhaps you mean that we stopped trading with them and they declared it an "act of war?"

In any event, the US didn't need an excuse to join the war. Germany was giving us plenty already.

How many other nations do you know of that were defeated in war that were prevented from having a standing military for nearly a century and instead was occupyied by the victor’s military forces and the Supreme Court of that country ruling in favor of the military interests of the dominator?

Germany wasn't allowed a standing military, either. They managed to convince the allies that they could contribute to NATO, and were allowed to do so again.

Japan is forbidden to have a military by their own constitution. Certain parties have tried to have it amended to allow a more active military (the SDF is almost purely self-defense), but so far the political will hasn't been there for it.

The "ruling in the interests of the dominator" bit is your words. I wonder if the Supreme Court of Japan would agree with your description of their decision. I somehow doubt it.

links I'm not going to read

Yeah, the trade balance with Japan was heavily skewed on Japan's side. The US and Japan worked out a rebalance of the system. What, exactly, is so evil about that?

We don’t need to only critique the USA for atrocities. It’s important to see the world for how it works. Japan’s occupation of Okinawa is still terrible and this action to put a US military base is a good example as to why. If Okinawa was fully assimilated into Japan, it wouldn’t be the dumping ground for USA military bases enforced by the Japanese Supreme Court. Likewise despite people thinking Hawaii is an assimilated part of the USA, it wouldn’t be the tragedy that it is.

Tell me you've never been to Okinawa without telling me you've never been to Okinawa. It's not some hick island full of yokels. It's a modern, fully-integrated Japanese prefecture. A bit more laid back than the mainland, but that's to be expected.

The bases there were built before the US decided to return Okinawa to Japan. The US has been slowly decommissioning bases and returning them to Japanese control ever since.

Did you even check what the supreme court was ruling? They're not building a new base. They're relocating MCAS Futenma, because it's smack dab in the middle of a city and can't do night operations without waking everyone up and filling the air with jet fuel fumes.

What is it with you tankies and Hawaii, anyway? Have you spent any real time there? I have. Saying it's not fully part of the United States is bizarre. It's a state. The only way it could become more a part of the United States is if you somehow towed the islands to California.

The largest minority group in Japan are the Ryukyuan people of Okinawa and Japan won’t even recognize them. Japan is a junior imperialist partner of the Western imperial block executing to advance the interests of the USA and, by proxy, the North Atlantic bourgeoisie.

They're Japanese citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities of every other Japanese citizen. You want to talk about disenfranchisement, talk about the Ainu. I'm sure you'll figure out some way to blame that on the US too.

"North Atlantic bourgeoisie" - that just cracks me up.

The idea that this should be above reproach because it’s not the worst thing the USA did is ridiculous. The idea that Japan deserved it is just bog standard liberal bloodthirst.

I never claimed anything was above reproach. I said it wasn't a good example of imperialism and that you should choose another example if you want to criticize the US.

Now tell me some unrelated nonsense (maybe bring up Hawaii again?) and that you're "not going to post anymore" because it's useless to talk to me (which it is - you're very clearly in the wrong on this one), so we can get this behind us.

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They're Japanese citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities of every other Japanese citizen. You want to talk about disenfranchisement, talk about the Ainu. I'm sure you'll figure out some way to blame that on the US too.

As if most Japanese people in general aren't politically disenfranchised with their one party political system and of course that one party has been a puppet of amerikkka since the end of the war, also includes a bunch of the very same fascists you keep using as justification for US imperialism

If the Japanese fascists are the reason US imperialism is justified in Japan than why did amerikkka let all of those fascists go with out punishment? Why hire them to continue the same work they were doing?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] robinn2@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

In any event, the US didn't need an excuse to join the war. Germany was giving us plenty already.

When the US declared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan. The U.S. was the ideological predecessor to Nazism [1] [2], and only joined the war when they were threatened.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

In any event, the US didn't need an excuse to join the war. Germany was giving us plenty already.

Pure historical revisionism. Isolationism was a strong force in the US and it's not like popular sentiment was opposed to fascism. The attack was extremely convenient for "forcing" the US to participate without the isolationists being able to complain about getting "needlessly entangled in foreign affairs".

Not that I think the US did wrong by fighting Japan. I don't know very much about the state of the US military at the time but really my biggest qualm in terms of the start of the war is that they didn't start fighting the Nazis sooner.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

Okinawans are split over the military issue. Some people want the US out. Others make tons of money off the Americans being there. It's not a clear cut situation as you seem to imply.

"Sure, it has popular opposition, but the capitalists like it, making it a divisive issue"

And lastly, WWII wasn't a war of conquest for the US. Blame the US for interfering in Korea and Vietnam and the middle east all you like, but Japan was a different story. Calling the US' actions in Japan "Imperialism" destroys any credibility you may have otherwise had.

Imperialism is not the same thing as conquest, and US handling of the aftermath of WWII featured cartoonish levels of imperialism, though the starkest example is probably Korea.

[–] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 1 year ago

Free Ryukyu! Revolution of our time!

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I remember them throwing bread rolls at our gate guards.

That must have been a horrible experience for you.

Thank you for your service.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ho_Chi_Chungus@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

japan-cool yeah just double checking we had this one

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Okinawa serves an important purpose for the Japanese state, which is that it's the place where they shove all of the troops so that the average Japanese person can live their life without thinking too hard about how they're still an occupied country with a puppet government.

Death to America

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Meh, if it wasn't for "America", they'd speak Japanese all over Korea, parts of China and Indonesia, a base in Okinawa doesn't sound too bad for an occupation following WW2.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

80% of the Japanese military was being slowly routed in China while America was hopping between islands and building genocide bombs. The American conflict with Japan is better understood as the inevitable clash of two empires expanding into the same place, rather than some kind of rescue of the Koreans, half of whom are still under American occupation.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

An oil embargo, lend-lease over the Himalayas and the Pacific war culminating in Japan's surrender helped China repel Japan a lot more than 20%, but sure "death to murica".

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago

but sure "death to murica"

Yes. Now you get it.

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be under the impression that I think America deserves 20% credit for dislodging the Japanese Empire. I'm sorry for giving you this mistaken impression, because in truth America deserves 0% credit for doing it. America did not defeat the Japanese Empire and liberate the former imperial holdings, they simply captured it for themselves instead.

Also the effectiveness of lend-lease and other actions taken by America to weaken their imperial rival economically are greatly overstated.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, ok then, you can go back to "death to murica", I'm sure it will help inform your worldview fantastically.

PS: for anyone else: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go and https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/index.html

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Ichi-Go was pretty futile tbh. It accomplished its strategic goals, but strong Communist control in the countryside led to a drawn out guerilla war that stretched Japanese supply lines to their limit.

Chaing Kai-shek was right in assessing that, by that point, the greatest threat to KMT rule was the Communists rather than the Japanese. That's why so much of his forces were tied up with the Communists rather than against the Japanese.

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Lend-lease over the Himalayas was rather futile and happened more of political reasons than for strategic value.

As for the embargo? It's a byproduct of US war profiteering given that Japan imported something like 70% of their iron, 80% of their oil, and 90% of their copper from the US in 1939.

The Pacific War is a valid point insofar as it forced Japanese industrial capacity to focus on naval strength rather than land arms, but it's a rather misguided one given that a huge chunk of Japanese forces was stuck in China locked in a stalemate, which made the Pacific Theater far less contested than it otherwise would have been (notably, this meant that Australia was safe from Japanese occupation because Japan lacked the resources to invade Australia).

[–] TheBroodian@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

I think you mean if it wasn't for the Soviet Union and the people of the Korean and Chinese resistances

[–] zephyreks@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

In what fantasy land are you living in? By 1941, Japan was locked in a stalemate and slowly getting whittled down by the sheer number of bodies China could throw at the problem. In 1944, Japan's Ichi-Go operation showcased the futility of Japanese offensives: despite Japanese strategic successes, China could fight an asymmetric guerilla war and stretch out supply lines even while the Nationalists and Communists were themselves stuck in an unsteady balance of power. By 1945, the USSR had an army large enough to rout any Japanese occupation in mainland Asia and technology that was simply superior to what was available to Japan.

Allied efforts to supply China over "The Hump" were costly and largely ineffective, delivering just 351 machine guns, 96 mountain cannon, 618 antitank rifles, 28 antitank guns, and 50 million rounds of rifle ammunition between May 1942 and September 1944 (Taylor 2009).

Did the US play a role in the Pacific Theater? Absolutely. Would the Japanese have won if the US hadn't gotten involved? I doubt it.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it wasn't for America, the mainland areas would likely be called former soviet nations.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

I'm assuming here that the US hadn't embargoed Japan and stayed out of WW2. Probably Japan+Germany would have defeated a lone overstretched USSR.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Aww is someone jealous?

It’s okay, you can play with your North Korea at home.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

They also like going there for vacations.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s Supreme Court on Monday dismissed Okinawa’s rejection of a central government plan to build U.S. Marine Corps runways on the island and ordered the prefecture to approve it despite protests by locals who oppose the American troops’ presence.

It will move forward the suspended construction at a time Okinawa’s strategic role is seen increasingly important for the Japan-U.S. military alliance in the face of growing tensions with China.

“The ruling is extremely disappointing because we had expected a fair and neutral judgement based on respect for the local government autonomy,” Tamaki told a news conference.

The Japanese and U.S. governments initially agreed in 1996 to close the Futenma air station, a year after the rape of a schoolgirl by three U.S. military personnel led to a massive anti-base movement.

The Japanese government in recent years has increasingly stepped up its own defenses to deal with China’s growing assertiveness, triggering fear among Okinawan residents that they will be the first to be embroiled in a potential conflict.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno welcomed the ruling and said the government hopes to achieve the complete reversion to Japan of the Futenma airfield and relieve Okinawa of the burden of shouldering U.S. military bases while providing a thorough explanation to the local community.


The original article contains 505 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›