h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Eddie

I do, but you are right, that is a whole othr subject.

The problem with understanding the 20th century up to 1939 from Japanese eyes is problematical because:
1. Most official recrids were destroyed by bombing, or deliberately by the Japanese themselves - especially in the summer of 1945.
2. The official line is that WW2 was not caused by the Japanese. They were indeed the victims for daring to try to liberate the Far East from Western Colonial oppression. This is the line taught in schools.
3. Most older Japanese will not talk about it through shame (of failure, not because of the horrors their forces unleashed) and the younger ones really do not care.

From the point of view of one who has spent a lot of time in Japan I think it was the logical step in the Japanese elite's ambitions to become a Western-style power.

After they humiliated Imperial Russia at the beginning of the century they realized they had the ability to become a serious player in the Far East, and they wanted a slice of the colonial cake. China and Korea, their ancient enemies were the obvious target, and any resource rich islands along the Pacific Rim.

To the Japanese WW2 doesn't exist. They had been in a constant state of expansion since the 1920's. Their mistake was to provoke the Americans, perhaps from fear of their imminent interference. They had us and the Dutch beat.

If they had stopped at the gates of India, left the USA alone and sued for peace (including returning all POW's) they might have got away with it, or at least until Britain and Russia finished off Germany.

Unfortunatley much of the reasons going through the minds of the elite may never be truly known.

Matholwch .

> Any thoughts about Japan's build-up to WWII?<

Hi Ed,

There's an intersting bit in Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan. At the Versailles talks the Japanese delegation asked for an amendment declaring the equality of all races. President Wilson rejected it out of hand saying something like 'This is supposed to be a serious document, we can't put nonsense in it.'

Militarists use the sense of national humiliation to gain strength. Japan by the 1940s had fought for centuries against creeping European colonialism.

Hi Math,

>If they had stopped at the gates of India<

In the film 'Tojo' the more than once made the point that one of their main goals was to liberate India. The plan was remarkably like Bush's plan for Iraq. Just give the rotten government a push and the people will rise up and strew rose petals before your troops feet.

Actually...Math's take on it has some merit.

Gore Vidal's 'The Golden Age' covers similar ground. His take is that FDR provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor as a pretext for furthering American Imperial ambitions.

*However*, undeniably, Japanese expansionist militarism had a similar religious zeal to Nazism. I've also been reading up a little on their version of National Socialism. (Which, in the same way that Nazism drew on Wagner and the Bros Grimm, drew on the local, Shinto version of paganism).

I've a lot of time for Gore Vidal. But I'm quite prepared to part company with him on some issues. He was an Isolationist - and continues to justify that position.

Also...one take on Gandhi was that his pacifism was a convenient excuse to wait for the Japanese to destroy the Empire east of India.

Nehru and Gandhi both had a firm grasp of the reality of a Japanese liberation. Nehru, in particular, had been in close contact with some of the Chinese nationalist leadership.

This is why they suspended their fight for independence during hostilities. Better the devil you know methinks.

Back to Japan. As is often the case the elite utilise whatever religion or philosophy is dominant to mobilize the population. Where a convincing or sufficiently powerful religion or philosophy is not available, as in Germany in the inter-war years, the elite will use whatever comes to hand.

There the National Socialists used lies about the jew, the socialist and the slav to foment hatred and garner support. The same tactic has been used consistently by first the National Front and latterly the British Movement throughout the last forty years.

Similarly the characterization of all muslims as fanatics-in-waiting is being used by the elite of the G8 to reduce the civil liberties of the ordinary citizen and to try to make us support their wars for resources.

Do not blame religion for all man's woes. Follow the money and you will find a surer source...

Matholwch .

>>Follow the money

Yup. That's what Japanese pagans seem to have done. N'night.

Cheap shot Eddie, you can do better than that

It's a totally serious point. The fact is that religion does not provide a reliable buffer against wrongdoing. In fact, quite the opposite. Time and time again, religions have been used to give credence to political ideologies. And that's what happened in Japan. It's hard to argue that religions are 'used'. Usually, they are eager.

And one can easily see how an animistic cult which hold that the national leader is descended from the sun itself might support the idea of a Chosen People with a destiny to conquer.

Hi Ed,

>The fact is that religion does not provide a reliable buffer against wrongdoing. In fact, quite the opposite. Time and time again, religions have been used to give credence to political ideologies. And that's what happened in Japan. It's hard to argue that religions are 'used'. Usually, they are eager.<

I mostly agree with you here, I hope you don't mind if I split hairs but it should be reminded that it's not the religion that's at fault. Every nation has people who can pervert the native faith to their ends. G Bush for instance or T Blair. Both considered themselves christian

Men like these are good evidence that Jesus is dead.

nnnn...allow me to disagree. Religions simply seem to eager to give support to the insupportable - although, granted, not all adherents necessarily fall into wrongdoing. I think it's to do with their lack of emphasis on rational thought. Wrongdoing can be justified by 'My religion says...'. This means that the religious justification for rightdoing is no more sound than that for wrongdoing.

But we digress. Even allowing that there were Japanese animists and Buddhists who were as appalled by Japanese militarism as Bonhoeffer was by Nazism, it is undeniable that there were men shaking bundles of leaves and spraying rice wine in the direction of the Imperial army. But then...there were bishops blessing the allied forces also. The difference is, I think, that the Japanese religios were endorsing a return to traditional, martial values whereby everyone - themselves included - knew their place.

What I mean was that Blair was/is a Christian, by any definition. As are the no more or less sincere Christian anti-war activists.

OK I get your point and I agree with it. I think that my thinking was more along the lines of even if we could 'imagine no religion' there would still be war. That religion is used to justify war is not saying that religion is why we go to war.

For instance, in the near future the water supplies in the US will get so low that the only place they can get it is from Canada. They will start by trying to buy it and the current government will be happy to sell. The current government is not by any means supported by the majority of Canadians who don't want to give the water up. The US will be forced to do what they do best and the Canadian military would be helpless against them.

The justification problem arises because we and they are of the same religion.

Really Eddie, you are so easy sometimes.

Which nations were responsible for the most deaths and suffering in the 20th century? Let me give you a clue - both were avowedly atheist (it being the "opium of the people"), supposedly rational and utterly without any moral scruples whatsoever.

Soviet Russia and Communist China. Through the use of a political idealogy aimed at duping the poor into believing that all men are equal (except, of course, that some are more equal than others) they created monstrous states.

Is this the pinnacle of non-religious order you aspire to?

Religion can be used to encourage people to do terrible things, but so can politics and philosophy. A barely evolved beast lives in the heart of man. Yet it lives alongside the capacity to do great and wonderful things.

Decently taught rational philosophy can encourage us to be greater than we are, as can compasionate religion.

Wars are almost never started by priests, nor by the common man. They are started by, and fought for the benefit of, the elite. Until you recognise this and learn to look for their handiwork you will continue to blame us theists for all the ills of the world. It certainly suits them that you do.

Matholwch .

Btw: I am not a conspiracy theorist. It rarely takes more than one man to cause an avalanche if he able to apply his power to the right fulcrum moment. But he must have power to do so...

Hi Tumsup,

When has being the same religion prevented the powerful and greedy robbing the weak? Remember the fourth Crusade...

Matholwch .

Hi Math,

Sure they sacked Constantinople but the Greeks were no true christians.

Math:

>>Soviet Russia and Communist China. [yadda yadda]

>>Is this the pinnacle of non-religious order you aspire to?


Read my lips: Atheism is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite.

<< Read my lips: Atheism is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite.

Then what is?

It is easy to throw stones but not so easy to build with them. What is your golden alternative for social peace and order?

Well,Math, this is precisely it. I *don't* have a golden alternative. The best I can propose is that we collectively talk it out amongst ourselves. In such discussions, arguments like 'God demands...' or 'The tree spirits tell me...' are unpersuasive and counter-productive.

Of course, I offer no guarantee that this will bring about social peace and order. That's down to people.