|
Zonie63 -> RE: Those awful far-right groups (2/14/2015 10:08:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I went to watch the film American Sniper, and it was noticeable that whoever directed the film, think it was Clint Eastwood?; portrayed Americans as unwilling, but obligated out of necessity, saviours of 'freedom'.
I haven't seen that movie, although that portrayal seems to fit with the overall image that Americans might have of themselves.
quote:
I also went to watch the film about the olympic athlete who ended up in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, which I thought was a very watchable film - a nice story (can't remember what it's called now). But, it seemed to me there was an emphasis on reconciliation and the idea that the actions of the Japanese were a result of the older generation of Japanese and their values. There is some truth in this, with the obvious cultural renaissance of Japan in the mid to late 19th century, centred around Shinto and the Samurai tradition; but I also feel that the actions of people can't wholly be explained away by the actions of their elders.
One of the few movies I've seen about a Japanese POW camp was The Bridge on the River Kwai, which I saw as a kid and watched again a few times as an adult.
I think some of their actions might be explained from a practical geopolitical level too, since other powers were moving into East Asia and gaining a foothold. Japan itself was resource poor, so they were in a position where they either had to modernize and assert their national regional primacy - or be a second-rate power at the mercy of the West, just as other Asian countries had turned into. I think a strong Japan may have worked well for British interests, since they were able to be an East Asian buffer to keep the Russians from moving further south into China.
Interestingly, since the United States helped mediate the peace treaty between the Japanese and the Russians, many Japanese nationalists grew angry at America because they felt that Japan got cheated out of their spoils of war. They wanted Vladivostok and all Russian territory south of the Amur River, as well as the entire island of Sakhalin, but they didn't get all that they wanted. By the time of WW2, they wanted to end European colonialism and hegemony in Asia and replace it with Japanese hegemony, which put them in a position where they could claim to be liberating Asia for the Asians. It might have gained a greater level of support from others in their region, but it was clear that they were only wanting to replace European imperialism with Japanese imperialism. They weren't "liberating" anyone, and those under their occupation learned that rather quickly.
Perhaps some of it might be based on cultural renaissance, which is usually a prominent element in nationalism. The same could be said about German nationalism, too. But the excess of atrocity, murder, cruelty which characterized both powers during WW2 - I agree that it can't be explained away by the actions of their elders.
quote:
These things emphasise to me that whatever the faults of countries such as England and the United States, they have been relatively benign by comparison. I'd agree that we (England) can certainly do better, and comparing ourselves with other countries doesn't absolve us of blame for the worst excesses of English Imperialism; I suppose I'm saying there's a middle ground somewhere.
I don't think anyone needs to be blamed or that any of us living today needs to hang our heads in shame and guilt. But perhaps a more honest clarification of what is right and wrong for a nation to do might be in order, regardless of what may have been justified or considered legitimate in the past (and even if it had a lower body count and fewer atrocities than some of the more extreme governments which have existed). I think that we've tried to do that, such as in declaring aggressive invasion wrong with the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, a principle further confirmed with formation of the UN Charter and various declarations on human rights. There has been progress in this area on a global level, but there are no guarantees. There's always the possibility that if people are pushed far enough, they may revert to more primitive ways of thinking.
quote:
In terms of the League of Nations, it was a US invention, Woodrow Wilson made it an important part of his foreign policy. He was quite right in that WW1 was in part caused by secret and binding alliances, and power blocs; and once the ball was rolling it was difficult to get a grip on it.
True, although Wilson had trouble selling that idea to the Senate. Even if they agreed with his assessment of the world situation and causes of WW1, it was still felt that the best way to avoid war was to stay neutral and avoid any permanent alliances.
quote:
I think it would be a mistake to believe that the United States can prevent wars such as WW2. Even though the French, British and Americans were allies during WW1, they didn't trust one another. The French didn't trust the British and felt we were in it to extend our sphere of influence, likewise the British didn't trust the French who wanted to prolong the war in order to invade Germany and give themselves more bargaining power when it came to carving up the world; similarly the Americans didn't trust either, nor did the British and French trust the Americans. They were all positioning themselves to play the lead role post WW1. In this climate, where even allies can't trust one another, it is difficult to see how the United States is going to prevent countries from going to war.
I don't think anyone can prevent countries from going to war if their governments are dead set on doing so. Some arguments I've heard revolve around the fact that, after WW1, Britain, France, and the United States reduced their military forces and might have been perceived by other powers as "weakened." Germany and Japan might have seen this and might have honestly believed that they had an opportunity to strike and that they had a very real chance in winning. The implication is that if we (Britain, America, and France) had not let our forces wither and weaken, we could have formed a strong unified force which could have intimidated the Axis into backing down.
Perhaps many lulled themselves into thinking that the Germans were defeated in WW1 and that they would stay defeated, but that did not happen. I don't think very many people were all that concerned about Japan, even despite their aggression on the East Asian mainland, although once they denounced the Washington Naval Treaty - that started getting our attention. Russia was also wiped out in WW1 and torn apart by revolution, followed by a rather bloody period of collectivization and industrialization, and Hitler may have seen them as weakened too. Hitler's memory of Germany's last war with Russia had the Germans on the winning side (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), but they got "robbed" of their spoils of victory due to the Treaty of Versailles which cancelled it out.
Of course, as you say, we didn't trust each other...but at least as far as Britain, France, and America were concerned, we did know each other better and could read and understand where we each were coming from. On the other hand, we misread Germany and Japan, and they misread us.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Politically, some movements ran parallel with each other, as the English started to realize that owning an Empire was wrong around the same time that Americans started to realize that segregation and discrimination were wrong.
I'm not so sure on your view of England and the empire. The British Government would have had no problem continuing with the empire from here to eternity. The problems were that we were pretty much bankrupt after two world wars, and so it was unaffordable and couldn't be policed, and there was pressure from the Americans to start getting rid of it. The United States was a younger, hungrier and bigger dog in the fight and we weren't in a position to shout the odds. As for English people, very similar to how some Americans view themselves on this board: peace loving, introspective in terms of more concerned with what is going on at home, and not really tuned in to empire.
I think America's global perspective in the modern era was heavily influenced by the Cold War politics of the post-WW2 era, although it had its roots in some of Wilson's idea and his view that the US must take an active role in making the world "safe for democracy." The US never advocated any overt, official "empire." The standard line was that we were doing it all for "freedom" and "democracy." Even our own views of our own history were somewhat "whitewashed" in more ways than one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I think the US politician I mentioned was Alexander Haig.
Ah, yes, I should have remembered Haig. Although I'd have trouble classifying him as a liberal or even a neo-liberal. I think he's more infamously remembered for proclaiming "I'm in charge" just after the attempted assassination of Reagan, when Reagan was undergoing surgery and Bush was somewhere else. Haig was Secretary of State at the time and mistakenly believed that his position put him next in line for the Presidency after the Vice-President, in the event the President dies or is incapacitated. But in actuality, it would have gone to the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then the Secretary of State.
There's a movie called By Dawn's Early Light about a hypothetical nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union. It was set around 1990, and the war was triggered when some disgruntled Soviet military leaders launched a strike on a Soviet city but made it look like it was an attack from NATO forces. An interesting aspect was that the President actually survived but was injured and out of contact - so everyone thought he was dead. They had to find someone to succeed him as the civilian leader, but most of the cabinet was also wiped out, so all they had left was the Secretary of the Interior who was on an inspection tour in Louisiana and was still alive, although he turned out to be a bit of a nutcase. (I also just remembered that Powers Boothe was in this movie as a bomber pilot, and he also played Alexander Haig in the movie Nixon.)
|
|
|
|
