The Chinese media, war, and economic machine is working because many talented people work in a concerted and devoted manner. This seems to be something that Japan and the US understand but Europe - and especially the UK voting for Brexit - fails to grasp.
China is now not only the second biggest economy of the world but also has one of the most powerful armys and it is not afraid to rely on it to put pressure on business partners and neighbours, as well as countries far from its waters.
The country's highest leadership also understands how important good PR work is and is not shy when having to spend on journalists, internet commenters, academics, diplomats, and even foreign specialists to defend its interests and emphasize a narrative which shows China in a good light.
The true face of the country's current leadership is easy to decipher: it is a hawkish, aggressive band, bent on gaining more power and territory. The current military and party leadership of China won't be a good friend of the UK just because they offer them a decent reciprocal trade pact. In fact, what the UK largely fails to admit is that is has historically played the largest role in the plundering of China during the second half of the 19th century and this isn't forgotten by the Chinese. If the British Empire hadn't forced concessions in several ports and wouldn't have highlighted the weakness of the imperial system in China, the demise of that system could have been slower and more peaceful. Also, other states like the Russian, the Americans, the French, the Dutch, the Germans and the Japanese - who all held concessions and were present with their military - would have had a much harder time in China. Not to mention that the Japanese incursions in the 1920s and 1930s would have likely been impossible.
You can read a great description of government sanctioned tabloid activity, covering the Global Times, here in the Quartz. It shows that the Chinese government keeps the public opinion in China under close control. People are forced to think what the government wants them to think because they don't have free access to impartial information, nor to any criticism of the system.
What I write is also confirmed by the Chinese government's insistence after Brexit to have an even larger access to sensitive technology and energy sectors in the UK. A good example is the Chinese ambassadors address over the Hinkley Point nuclear development. Such smaller and medium sized countries like the UK on its own will be more easily influenced and bought by China in the future. That is one of the reasons why the Brexit decision was disastrous. The UK is already home to many shadowy Russian operations. Now it might become the dwelling of characters who want to strike in the middle of Europe, but were repelled so far by the EU's common foreign policies.
Another example of how even Chinese academics - who are no doubt intelligent and very capable professional researchers - can be recruited by the government and military leadership is a paper by Dr. Xue Li and Xu Yanzhuo in the Diplomat. They warm up the misty-cloudy suggestion designed to deceive that China has been misunderstood, it is a peaceful growing giant, following Buddhist and Taoist teachings when making decisions. This is as false as it can be, as has been evidenced by China's behavior in Tibet, in north-west China, and when cracking down on thousands of protests and demonstrations. It is also obvious that this is false, when we take a look at the way Chinese diplomacy handles the South-China issue, and how the military is now trying to raise the pressure in the East-China sea.
Update in 2018 August: Now that Xi is on the top until his death China has sadly returned to a capitalist-emperor system. Trump and Putin are dreaming of the same, Erdogan has achieved the same, and Orban is dreaming of it. If the country's economy keeps growing as it is now, there won't be any stopping the military-diplomatic bulldozer.
Tuesday, 9 August 2016
Saturday, 4 June 2016
Giffard's 'Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990'
I've just finished Sydney Giffard's 'Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990'. The book offers an excellent overview of the political, social, and economic changes that took place in Japan in the century covered. It's main focus is on politics and governance, and thanks to Giffard's background as an active diplomat who has spent years in Japan, the book offers especially insightful and in-depth descriptions of the considerations informing key policies and decisions that have shaped many of the big decisions of Japan's, and Asia's, past.
Giffard is also an excellent writer: the book offers flowing prose, precise and evocative language. It has an arch, it creates a narrative, but avoids forcing the facts into a 'theory'. It has respect for the facts and the many different strands of processes that together constitute the fibers of reality.
An outstanding reading, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Japan, the history of East-Asia, the Second World War, in history in general, or in politics and international relations.
Giffard is also an excellent writer: the book offers flowing prose, precise and evocative language. It has an arch, it creates a narrative, but avoids forcing the facts into a 'theory'. It has respect for the facts and the many different strands of processes that together constitute the fibers of reality.
An outstanding reading, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who is interested in Japan, the history of East-Asia, the Second World War, in history in general, or in politics and international relations.
Friday, 3 June 2016
Michael Sandel in Oxford
Michael Sandel is a philosopher working at Harvard Uni. His specialization is in political philosophy. Sandel has been working in the last years on the connection between markets and morals. He is well known and respected for his work as a researcher among philosophers since a long time, but he became sort of a celebrity a few years ago when his lecture series on 'Justice' at Harvard went viral on the net.
Yesterday he gave a dashing talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. The event was organized by the Oxford Martin School, who have a strong programme of outstanding speakers impacting public policy.
Sandel is not only an eloquent speaker, but also holds the ability to engage his audience, fostering a debate in which people actually get to voice their arguments and positions. Sandel then masterfully summarizes these, points out their strengths and builds up a very common sense argument for a strong moral position.
In this particular talk Sandel argued against the view that it would be sensible to monetize every social issue and to always look for economic and/or financial solutions for social issues. The example of most importance he - and the audience - discussed was that of the proposed option that many countries with developed economies would like to have, that instead of reducing their carbon emission they should be able to pay to developing countries so that rather they reduce their emissions. As it emerged from the discussion, while in the short term this might be a solution for the particular problem of CO2 emission levels, in the long run it simply fosters the avoidance of problems and of assuming responsibility - political, economic, and moral - of dealing with problems caused by one's behavior. Such thinking will just lead to the same kind of structural problems re-emerging again and again, and instead of avoiding them by changing one's behavior - or economic policy - the problems will simply be put off, or 'outsourced'. The issue here is of course that moral harm is done by harming the environment to such an extent that it might become uninhabitable and lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people in the future. To mask this as an economic problem is to avoid dealing with it at face value.
You can buy Sandel's recent books here and here, the reader to the 'Justice' course here, watch a neat TED talk of his here, and download his Tanner Lectures talk here.
Yesterday he gave a dashing talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. The event was organized by the Oxford Martin School, who have a strong programme of outstanding speakers impacting public policy.
Sandel is not only an eloquent speaker, but also holds the ability to engage his audience, fostering a debate in which people actually get to voice their arguments and positions. Sandel then masterfully summarizes these, points out their strengths and builds up a very common sense argument for a strong moral position.
In this particular talk Sandel argued against the view that it would be sensible to monetize every social issue and to always look for economic and/or financial solutions for social issues. The example of most importance he - and the audience - discussed was that of the proposed option that many countries with developed economies would like to have, that instead of reducing their carbon emission they should be able to pay to developing countries so that rather they reduce their emissions. As it emerged from the discussion, while in the short term this might be a solution for the particular problem of CO2 emission levels, in the long run it simply fosters the avoidance of problems and of assuming responsibility - political, economic, and moral - of dealing with problems caused by one's behavior. Such thinking will just lead to the same kind of structural problems re-emerging again and again, and instead of avoiding them by changing one's behavior - or economic policy - the problems will simply be put off, or 'outsourced'. The issue here is of course that moral harm is done by harming the environment to such an extent that it might become uninhabitable and lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people in the future. To mask this as an economic problem is to avoid dealing with it at face value.
You can buy Sandel's recent books here and here, the reader to the 'Justice' course here, watch a neat TED talk of his here, and download his Tanner Lectures talk here.
People who will be affected by Brexit, but don't get to vote
The Guardian ran a short compilation of profiles of people from the EU currently working and living in the UK. The piece focuses on how people see and feel about the vote, and what their fears are about a possible 'Leave' win.
Monday, 30 May 2016
Why everyone should be a feminist
In my previous post I proposed that there is inequality which disadvantages all women around the globe. Anyone not wanting to change that situation seems irrational, or self-serving and hence morally blameworthy. Since this situation affects half of the Earth's population the matter is urgent, that is why it merits its own treatment.
Why should everyone accept that this is so?
Well, we know at the moment the following: We know that there is inequality that we can all agree is wrong. Namely:
- Income inequality: women doing the same job get lower salaries in many places.
- Chance inequality: often when admitting students or hiring applicants for a job male's are preferred, even if there is no other relevant differentiating detail in the applicants' CVs.
- Recognitional inequality: women get promotions and favourable performance reviews less often. This even happens - sadly - when women rate women, or for example when students rate teachers and lecturers.
- Inequalities in further gender-role based expectations: it is widely different how much work is expected from a woman to be spent raising her children, cleaning, and providing other essentials for her family. On top of this in many societies there are further unequally spread expectations such caring for the elderly and the sick, playing community roles, or being physically attractive.
To the last inequality some people object: but there is a similar expectation towards man, just look at the fact that handsome man are on TV and in ads. But this argument is wrong because it mixes up two things: it is very different that some people (among them some women) enjoy, and on men expecting women to look good. This is especially salient, because for women looks are often less important in choosing partners, whereas men sometimes 'punish' women on the basis of their looks, going even as far as to leave them, or making
employment, promotions, and so on conditional on appearances.
All the above listed are inequalities between men and women that are proven, that have been measured and observed in experiments, and can be read off from economic data. It is certainly obvious to any grownup that this situation needs to be changed.
With this, I’m not saying that woman should not care about their looks, not have children, etc. but that this
should be in their freedom to choose, and not what is expected of them to be prioritized. I’m sure many would choose to those these things, as these
activities can be very joyful, rewarding, fulfilling, etc. for some people, and there is nothing
wrong with them in themselves. What is wrong if someone chooses these activities because they are made
to believe that that’s the only right thing to do and they should choose it otherwise
something is wrong with them.
Of course as with any problem that is very large scale we
should look at the causes of the problem. As with other social-psychological large scale problems
there are social structural problems in the background. Most plausibly the factors are that:
- Girls are not
encouraged to follow certain career paths, and life-way, and to also experiment with new life paths, and
- women are given role models and feedback that prioritizes
the traditional gender behavior, plus
- there is a lack of viable role models and
alternatives, a lack of support for these, and a lot of punitive political and
social action and feedback if one tries to step out of line.
- Add on top of this that due to implicit bias even
people and organizations who are consciously and explicitly committed
to equality make sometimes biased judgments.
What we need to do is to provide choices, and a range of
role models, and to protect those who are punishing women for following their own paths. Just as a man nowadays one can aim at becoming a good father, an
astronaut (the most boring example of aiming high), a lawyer, an electrician, and a
nurse; a carer, an artist, a dancer, a bachelor, a family man, a community
fighter, a lone wolf, etc. so all options should be open and the same should be available for
any woman. And just as all these different types of men are cheered on, and there are people who reassure them that they are filling in a role that is needed, that they are making the right choices, so, women need the same kind of assurance, whatever track they choose, and whichever way they go.
There are some important mistakes that need to be avoided while giving positive feedback. One of them is essentialism, the idea that there is some element of the traditional gender role that
has to be maintained to be still a woman. This mistaken notion has had harmful effects already in many cases in the last 40 years. Just look at supposedly
‘empowering’ videos featuring woman who train hours every day and appear in the videos dancing in minimal clothing - reinforcing one of the most harmful stereotypes that being attractive sexually is what being a woman is - and perform
stereotypical male actions like handling power tools, fighting and shooting, taking revenge,
driving sports cars, and so on.
What would be needed instead would be the message that "Hey, you men – most of you –
aren’t like that either, and I don’t need to be like a man anyway. I’m happy to let go of
the traditional woman package too: I don’t have to be sexy, and I don’t
have to wield power tools or be a top business executive. I can be an okay
lawyer or counselor, or ... whatever! I can have my average business dealing in whatever I know
about, I can write books or pretty much do whatever I want. I can identify with whatever I want, and I can change. If I want to be like that I will be." Of course I'm not advocating radical individualism or that in making up one's mind about how one should live one shouldn't take into consideration one's family, loved ones, and community. But not in the way that one only thinks of the ways one could contribute to the life of others as people living in more rigid times did.
Of course in some cases there might be people who can 'max out' both the requirements of the traditional male and female stereotype. But that to me seems overly ambitious taken that most of us don’t even succeed in
either one of those two categories even when some of us try. What seems to be much saner is to treat these options as
a basket into which one puts what one can identify with – this can change as
life goes on. Of course commitments have to be taken seriously and
people should be encouraged to foster their skills, talents, work hard, help
others, raise amazing kids and so on – but not to do all these things at the
same time.
The mistake of pushing woman to pursue corporate and top-manager careers at all costs definitely has to be avoided. Liberation is not to have to be like some
of the most competitive, stressed, overworked and sometimes unscrupulous man. And it definitely isn't being like that, plus taking upon oneself to also tick the boxes of fitting the traditional women-roles. One should not be forbidden to achieve such
things, but no one should be expected to accomplish such crazy feats which are
not good for employers, persons, and kids in most cases.
So, what needs to be done? Our communities need to provide more support and give more trust to
woman whatever their goals and pursuits are. We need to provide girls with many options. Whatever they want to keep or reject from the traditional ‘woman’ package, and
whatever else they won’t to buy into, they need to be encouraged to give it their best and figure out if it fits them.
As I said, getting rid of inequality is not taking on elements of the
traditional male package or combining those elements with
traditional female elements. This also calls for work-place reform: workplaces and environments shouldn’t be built to suit mostly guys, and then claim that they
are women friendly if a woman can adjust and get along in them. That’s not
equality, that’s expecting women to take on traditional male roles.
What’
better is to offer more employment flexibility: 4 and 6 hours positions, work
from home options, opportunities to learn and stay engaged and connected
while at home with children and return later, etc. There is nothing necessary
in constantly prioritizing people in jobs who are 100% percent devoted to
their workplace. While this might be good in short term profits for bigger companies in large economies, it surely isn’t good in the
long term. Humans live in states partly to foster happiness and cooperation, not the
operations of super-wealthy individuals owning companies. And surely not, that companies can make profits
on employing unhappy, unsatisfied, and unhealthy, overstressed people.
Companies get away with these things too easily: they
focus on profits, and that is said to be okay in capitalism. Nobody seems to notice that companies only get the best of the employees and
state services and communities bear the burden of dealing with stressed, burnt
out, disillusioned individuals. Capitalism is not a higher order system when compared with a society, and its demands should not be placed higher than those of communities of humans.
This proposal is in my opinion a modest feminist proposal
with which everyone could get on board. It focuses on eradicating striking
inequalities as well as their roots. It does not propose that people of either gender should
rule or dominate the other gender, nor that one or the other gender is better. People of both genders show a striking variety of emotion,
thought, taste, and preferences in lifestyles. Why is it that men can tolerate
this in each other but not in women? Once we let go of the notion that there is
one type of women it will also be easier for men: just treat women as people,
as persons who might or might not like different things, who think this or that
way. You can ask questions, find these things out, get to know them, talk with
them and so on. Don’t stress about figuring out some supposedly existent
female mystique, or getting right 'what women want'. It is as different as what we guys want. I guess you will find that you can even have female friends, because, guess what: they have thoughts, ideas, can be fun, and are interesting.
A pitch for a feminism everyone should be able to get on board with
The version of feminism I would like to propose is not original, in fact, I think it is the most common and sensible version of it, accepted by many feminists across the globe. I write about it only because many people enjoy to misinterpret or misrepresent feminism as a silly or a radical or an incoherent position. I think it is neither of it. In fact, I don't know how anyone can not be a feminist.
In this version feminism is a political and economic position. The position claims that there is inequality in economic terms and terms of personal freedom. The position recommends to eradicate this inequality. Why is there a need for feminism besides other movements opposing all forms or particular forms of inequality (e.g. striking international and intranational income inequality, rights abuses against minorities, etc.)? Because this inequality affects half of the global population and would be very easy to overcome. Specific and quick action should and can be taken.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
Naoki Higashida's 'The Reason I Jump'
I've just finished this interesting little book by Japanese youngster Higashida Naoki, The Reason I Jump. Naoki is a person who lives with autism and the book tells about some of his experiences. He was very young when the book was born, in his early teens, and he wrote it with the help of his carer, Ms. Suzuki using a special method of pointing out hiragana on a paperboard.
The book has a surprising structure: A question is posed, and then Naoki gives an answer to it. The answer is followed by some reasons and explanation, and usually a closing thought. These question-answer sections are each 1-2 pages long, and they make up the book.
I found two aspects of the book enlightening: one is, that Naoki emphasizes and convincingly argues that many people with autism are aware of how hard it can be for others to live with them and are as 'smart' as others. Don't think Rainman-kind of genius, just think everyday-smart, understanding what others would expect and how they feel when their expectations are repeatedly frustrated. The other is useful aspect of the book was that Naoki provides many reasons why people with autism engage in certain types of behavior that can seem irrational, such as jumping up and down, moving their hands in front of their eyes, etc. The book does a good job in general in shedding light on why some such behavior is pleasant or hard to avoid for many people living with autism.
Obviously, Naoki is very high-functioning, and has sophisticated social skills. He also comes across as a considerate and polite person - this is I imagine partly how he is, and partly the result of growing up in a Japanese household.
The book is certainly worth a reading, whether one is simply interested in autism, one works on autism or with people with autism, or has relatives with autism. It can offer something to everyone. Due to my research interests I found most fascinating the parts where Naoki describes the distress caused to him when he compulsively acts on motivations that he can't identify with, that don't seem to him to belong to him. These are very complex cases of dissociation between the factors moving one to behave in a certain way, and one's evaluations and preferences of options.
The book is available in a good translation, edited further by David Mitchell. It reads easily, and is very personal. I recommend it.
The book has a surprising structure: A question is posed, and then Naoki gives an answer to it. The answer is followed by some reasons and explanation, and usually a closing thought. These question-answer sections are each 1-2 pages long, and they make up the book.
I found two aspects of the book enlightening: one is, that Naoki emphasizes and convincingly argues that many people with autism are aware of how hard it can be for others to live with them and are as 'smart' as others. Don't think Rainman-kind of genius, just think everyday-smart, understanding what others would expect and how they feel when their expectations are repeatedly frustrated. The other is useful aspect of the book was that Naoki provides many reasons why people with autism engage in certain types of behavior that can seem irrational, such as jumping up and down, moving their hands in front of their eyes, etc. The book does a good job in general in shedding light on why some such behavior is pleasant or hard to avoid for many people living with autism.
Obviously, Naoki is very high-functioning, and has sophisticated social skills. He also comes across as a considerate and polite person - this is I imagine partly how he is, and partly the result of growing up in a Japanese household.
The book is certainly worth a reading, whether one is simply interested in autism, one works on autism or with people with autism, or has relatives with autism. It can offer something to everyone. Due to my research interests I found most fascinating the parts where Naoki describes the distress caused to him when he compulsively acts on motivations that he can't identify with, that don't seem to him to belong to him. These are very complex cases of dissociation between the factors moving one to behave in a certain way, and one's evaluations and preferences of options.
The book is available in a good translation, edited further by David Mitchell. It reads easily, and is very personal. I recommend it.
On the road back to feudalism
There is a gruesome trend we can observe: economic inequality is starkly on the rise in every country on Earth and fundamentalist, radical parties are gaining more and more following.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Wednesday, 18 May 2016
An important point about homosexuality
Many people who oppose homosexuality focus on sex. They argue on the basis that sex between members of the same sex is against the Bible/not natural/doesn't lead to procreation/etc.
I find this approach absolutely misleading. The focus shouldn't be on sex. The focus should be on the fact that someone who is a homosexual wants to have a nice conversation, trust, go home to, plan their life with, laugh and do crazy fun stuff with, enjoy themselves, tinker on their cars, go for a run, listen to music, and so on, with someone of their sex. When they imagine who they want to have that very special emotional and intellectual bond, that trust, that passion, devotion, friendship, they imagine it with someone who is of their sex. Bodily sex, bodily attraction naturally comes with this tendency, but we shouldn't get stuck on it.
If anyone finds something wrong with such desires for companionship, for recognition, for love, for trust, then they have something against homosexual couples, but then they also have something against any other couple that is in love, that is together, that is going out.
I find this approach absolutely misleading. The focus shouldn't be on sex. The focus should be on the fact that someone who is a homosexual wants to have a nice conversation, trust, go home to, plan their life with, laugh and do crazy fun stuff with, enjoy themselves, tinker on their cars, go for a run, listen to music, and so on, with someone of their sex. When they imagine who they want to have that very special emotional and intellectual bond, that trust, that passion, devotion, friendship, they imagine it with someone who is of their sex. Bodily sex, bodily attraction naturally comes with this tendency, but we shouldn't get stuck on it.
If anyone finds something wrong with such desires for companionship, for recognition, for love, for trust, then they have something against homosexual couples, but then they also have something against any other couple that is in love, that is together, that is going out.
Sunday, 15 May 2016
Some misunderstandings around war, WWII, and using nuclear bombs
The Onion ran a short piece on Obama's visit to Hiroshima.
Some not too smart US citizens took it seriously. I tried to comment - and might have been too sarcastic - to shed some light of their confusions.
One of them lectured me in a very misguided way then. Obviously, he hasn't read anything about history, about war, military strategy, economy, diplomacy, or politics. This is not a problem: most people don't have time and energy to do that. They work, care for their family, spend time with their friends, and are good people.
This doesn't change the fact that someone who does not know even the basics about the topic should not lecture anyone else about it. So: please take the following discussion as an example of what popular misunderstanding not to repeat and believe, and on how to separate issues more finely to understand them better. I'm a pro, I have been trained to do this kind of thinking, this is part of my job, and I'm happy to do it. I don't want to offend you or lecture you, I want to help everyone see clearer.
Here is his message:
"Sorry Steve, but I understand WW2 and firebombing both. The Japanese were Hitlers buddies, along with Russia - going to divide the world between themselves after they killed most of us. Well - too damn bad they got nuked. Haven't you ever studied what the allies found after the war? Americans being experimented on, with body parts removed. The Japanese dissected Americans, while keeping them alive in vats. Almost all were mercy killed by Allied troops. That doesn't even cover what the Germans did. You obviously don't know much about the cultures of the time. Besides, war isn't fair.. It's kill them - before they kill you."
And here are the corrections:
"Hi YY,
You are mixing up a number of issues.
1. You are mixing up a) whether dropping the nukes were justified, and b) whether the firebombing was justified.
2. You also mix up whether a) the nukes were justified, and b) whether Japan had to be defeated,
and
3. You mix up the a) ambitions of Japan, with b) the ambitions of Germany,
and also
4. You mix up a) the goals of a very small number of extreme radical Germans (and maybe Japanese?) with b) the goals of the fairly sane but too ambitious military of b1) Japan, and what is again a separate issue of b2) Germany.
Now first of all:
I) No matter what a country's government does, and no matter what a country's military leadership does, is it justified to drop nuclear bombs.
II) By the time the US leadership decided to drop the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US leadership knew both that a) Japan would not be able to continue the war and would eventually surrender, and b) that most of the casualties would be civilians.
Next: Did either the German, or the Japanese government or military leadership plan to 'kill us all' as you say. The answer is no. The Germans had plans to eradicate masses of Jewish people, homosexual people, people with mental and bodily disabilities, and Slavic people. But that's it.
The Japanese people didn't have any such ambitions. Mixing up the German cause of eliminating Jews with the military-medical experiments that one secret and special Japanese military unit carried out is a big mistake.
Next: You say war isn't fair. Well think of it this way: It is US policy since many years ago that if any of the resource supplies of the US are threatened - meaning also: if any country doesn't want to sell something to the US - then that is to be treated as a threat to national security, and hence as a military issue.
I think that isn't a very good principle, but it is what the US follows.
The Japanese government followed the same principle when it bomber Pearl Harbor. The bombing followed years of strategic manouvering by the US government and military which aimed at cutting off the Japanese from crucial resources and supplies. If you take the US principle as the standard, the Japanese were justified in taking the US to be their enemies and attack them.
You also say the following: The Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians were going to divide the world between themselves. This is wrong again. The Germans and the Japanese were fighting against the Russians.
They both lost in the war. The world hence got divided between the US, Russia (or rather the Soviet Union) and the European powers. I don't necessarily think that this was a very bad consequence overall, although it had some horrible results in Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, etc. I do think on the other hand that what you are saying is that only evil powers divide the world between themselves.
Well, let me tell you something: all powers are trying to dominate, the US included. The US follows a very well and carefully planned policy of keeping its borders safe, and also having allies on the other side of the oceans. Hence its alliance with the EU, and with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. The US is not a benevolent, kind might. It is a well led huge power. When the interests of the US were threatened it stepped in with its military and didn't shy away from killing in other countries, from waging war, from killing civilians and from using torture to obtain military intelligence. It is not a saintly power, just as Germany and Japan weren't.
Also: You don't understand much about war. No sane politician or military leader aims solely at killing. They aim at winning a war. A war is won when the opponent sees that they can't continue. For this you don't have to kill their entire population. That would be a crime against humanity, no matter which country would do it. You aim at weakening the other country's infrastructure, its production lines, its access to natural resources (iron, oil, etc.), and its military. You don't aim at killing.
You might want to listen to the interview with Robert McNamara 'The Fog of War', you read the book on Japan by Ian Buruma titled 'Inventing Japan', and read in general more about history, politics, economy, and war."
Some not too smart US citizens took it seriously. I tried to comment - and might have been too sarcastic - to shed some light of their confusions.
One of them lectured me in a very misguided way then. Obviously, he hasn't read anything about history, about war, military strategy, economy, diplomacy, or politics. This is not a problem: most people don't have time and energy to do that. They work, care for their family, spend time with their friends, and are good people.
This doesn't change the fact that someone who does not know even the basics about the topic should not lecture anyone else about it. So: please take the following discussion as an example of what popular misunderstanding not to repeat and believe, and on how to separate issues more finely to understand them better. I'm a pro, I have been trained to do this kind of thinking, this is part of my job, and I'm happy to do it. I don't want to offend you or lecture you, I want to help everyone see clearer.
Here is his message:
"Sorry Steve, but I understand WW2 and firebombing both. The Japanese were Hitlers buddies, along with Russia - going to divide the world between themselves after they killed most of us. Well - too damn bad they got nuked. Haven't you ever studied what the allies found after the war? Americans being experimented on, with body parts removed. The Japanese dissected Americans, while keeping them alive in vats. Almost all were mercy killed by Allied troops. That doesn't even cover what the Germans did. You obviously don't know much about the cultures of the time. Besides, war isn't fair.. It's kill them - before they kill you."
And here are the corrections:
"Hi YY,
You are mixing up a number of issues.
1. You are mixing up a) whether dropping the nukes were justified, and b) whether the firebombing was justified.
2. You also mix up whether a) the nukes were justified, and b) whether Japan had to be defeated,
and
3. You mix up the a) ambitions of Japan, with b) the ambitions of Germany,
and also
4. You mix up a) the goals of a very small number of extreme radical Germans (and maybe Japanese?) with b) the goals of the fairly sane but too ambitious military of b1) Japan, and what is again a separate issue of b2) Germany.
Now first of all:
I) No matter what a country's government does, and no matter what a country's military leadership does, is it justified to drop nuclear bombs.
II) By the time the US leadership decided to drop the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US leadership knew both that a) Japan would not be able to continue the war and would eventually surrender, and b) that most of the casualties would be civilians.
Next: Did either the German, or the Japanese government or military leadership plan to 'kill us all' as you say. The answer is no. The Germans had plans to eradicate masses of Jewish people, homosexual people, people with mental and bodily disabilities, and Slavic people. But that's it.
The Japanese people didn't have any such ambitions. Mixing up the German cause of eliminating Jews with the military-medical experiments that one secret and special Japanese military unit carried out is a big mistake.
Next: You say war isn't fair. Well think of it this way: It is US policy since many years ago that if any of the resource supplies of the US are threatened - meaning also: if any country doesn't want to sell something to the US - then that is to be treated as a threat to national security, and hence as a military issue.
I think that isn't a very good principle, but it is what the US follows.
The Japanese government followed the same principle when it bomber Pearl Harbor. The bombing followed years of strategic manouvering by the US government and military which aimed at cutting off the Japanese from crucial resources and supplies. If you take the US principle as the standard, the Japanese were justified in taking the US to be their enemies and attack them.
You also say the following: The Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians were going to divide the world between themselves. This is wrong again. The Germans and the Japanese were fighting against the Russians.
They both lost in the war. The world hence got divided between the US, Russia (or rather the Soviet Union) and the European powers. I don't necessarily think that this was a very bad consequence overall, although it had some horrible results in Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, etc. I do think on the other hand that what you are saying is that only evil powers divide the world between themselves.
Well, let me tell you something: all powers are trying to dominate, the US included. The US follows a very well and carefully planned policy of keeping its borders safe, and also having allies on the other side of the oceans. Hence its alliance with the EU, and with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. The US is not a benevolent, kind might. It is a well led huge power. When the interests of the US were threatened it stepped in with its military and didn't shy away from killing in other countries, from waging war, from killing civilians and from using torture to obtain military intelligence. It is not a saintly power, just as Germany and Japan weren't.
Also: You don't understand much about war. No sane politician or military leader aims solely at killing. They aim at winning a war. A war is won when the opponent sees that they can't continue. For this you don't have to kill their entire population. That would be a crime against humanity, no matter which country would do it. You aim at weakening the other country's infrastructure, its production lines, its access to natural resources (iron, oil, etc.), and its military. You don't aim at killing.
You might want to listen to the interview with Robert McNamara 'The Fog of War', you read the book on Japan by Ian Buruma titled 'Inventing Japan', and read in general more about history, politics, economy, and war."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)