Japanese Politics Thread

[San Kalungsod Saludong]

Also, I just realized that the rest of Asia was colonized by Western Imperialists, however, believe it or not the Philippines was colonized by Eastern Imperialists, considering the route of colonization; the Philippines first colonization was from Spain, relagating the subgovernance of the Philippines to Mexico (Viceroyalty of New Spain) and then the second colonization was from the USA, both nations came to the Philippines from the Eastern side of the Pacific, so from our point of view; America, Mexico and Spain were Eastern Imperialists, not Western ones. Hahahaha.

Well please define “Asia”. Colonialism with any racial overtones pretty much never happened in three parts of Asia: core Northeast Asia due to the existence of Japan and to a less extant the Qing, core Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi lands etc) and Thailand.

Even The Middle East and South Asia as well as Southeast Asia excepting Thailand was under Western rule, the behmoth India was under the British so it's safe to say that most of continental Asia was under Western yoke.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

It’s not really “showed that they had weaknesses for once.” Instead it is that East Asians and mixed race Eurasians have always been messing with fringes of Caucasoid rule since the existence of the races (vice versa). From Huns to Turks, Avars and conquering Hungarians to Mongols to Japan, nothing has changed.

It took Japan a few months to remove the Dutch East Indies which took hundreds of years to establish and consolidate.

True, politics and war has always happened, but in this case, the underdogs were at least given a sliver of hope.

Underdogs are always given a sliver of hope when stronger powers are fighting against each other.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Well please define “Asia”. Colonialism with any racial overtones pretty much never happened in three parts of Asia: core Northeast Asia due to the existence of Japan and to a less extant the Qing, core Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi lands etc) and Thailand.

Even The Middle East and South Asia as well as Southeast Asia excepting Thailand was under Western rule, the behmoth India was under the British so it's safe to say that most of continental Asia was under Western yoke.

In what sense? Who ruled over Ottoman Empire and Qajar Persia? Emirate of Afghanistan was another independent country that even Britain recognized.

Please give me just one example of a Thai king who was/is West European. Thailand was a buffer state between British Burma and French Indochina. People did recognize that it was independent.

[San Kalungsod Saludong]

World War 1 already broke up the Ottoman Empire and the forrmer Ottoman lands fell into either French or British mandates.

[Nakena]

Social Democrats suppression ended in the late 19th Century. By 1914 the SPD was already firmly part of the establishment and support the war bonds too.

The German Empire was really actually sort of OK...domestically.

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation as hive of reaction, obscurantism and backwardness. But they were on the "right side".

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

World War 1 already broke up the Ottoman Empire and the forrmer Ottoman lands fell into either French or British mandates.

That’s already 1918 and what do you think Mandates were? They were not colonies. League of Nations Class A mandates existed with a clear view that they were supposed to become independent within a short period of time. They did in fact all become independent before 1950. There was no war fought over “decolonization” of the mandates since they were never colonies and were never supposed to be colonies.

Contrast that with colonies, let alone settler colonies like Southern Rhodesia.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

The German Empire was really actually sort of OK...domestically.

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation. But they were on the "right side".

That’s true. Other than China the worst statist place on this planet is Russia. Note that Muslim empires such as Ottomans were generally very regionalist so power was not concentrated and none of them was as bad as China and Russia.

[Diarcesia]

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation. But they were on the "right side".

That’s true. Other than China the worst statist place on this planet is Russia. Note that Muslim empires such as Ottomans were generally very regionalist so power was not concentrated and none of them was as bad as China and Russia.

Not sure about how it connects to Japan.

Anyways, regardless of how China acts as a nation, Japan's actions there during WWII does not make things right.

i.e. assuming I'm an Asian, I would accept Japanese sovereignty (i.e. see their flag as far as Midway and New Guinea) if they would give me the same rights and opportunities a full-blooded Japanese born in the Home Islands would have.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

That’s true. Other than China the worst statist place on this planet is Russia. Note that Muslim empires such as Ottomans were generally very regionalist so power was not concentrated and none of them was as bad as China and Russia.

Not sure about how it connects to Japan.

Anyways, regardless of how China acts as a nation, Japan's actions there during WWII does not make things right.

i.e. assuming I'm an Asian, I would accept Japanese sovereignty (i.e. see their flag as far as Midway and New Guinea) if they would give me the same rights and opportunities a full-blooded Japanese born in the Home Islands would have.

If Japan politically ended China once and for all it would have been right.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

World War 1 already broke up the Ottoman Empire and the forrmer Ottoman lands fell into either French or British mandates.

That’s already 1918 and what do you think Mandates were? They were not colonies. League of Nations Class A mandates existed with a clear view that they were supposed to become independent within a short period of time. They did in fact all become independent before 1950. There was no war fought over “decolonization” of the mandates since they were never colonies and were never supposed to be colonies.

Contrast that with colonies, let alone settler colonies like Southern Rhodesia.

That's just a straight up lie. The Angolan Bush War ended in 1990.

The only mandate to get "independence" before WWII was Iraq. All the other ones were treated essentially as colonies despite nominally being mandates.

The most prominent counterpoint is the South Seas mandate. Though I'm sure you'll excuse Japanese atrocities as usual.

[Salus Maior]

The German Empire was really actually sort of OK...domestically.

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation as hive of reaction, obscurantism and backwardness. But they were on the "right side".

Even Tsarist Russia wasn't as bad as it's made out to be tbh.

Still serious problems, but it certainly wasn't the worst state in the 20th century.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

That’s already 1918 and what do you think Mandates were? They were not colonies. League of Nations Class A mandates existed with a clear view that they were supposed to become independent within a short period of time. They did in fact all become independent before 1950. There was no war fought over “decolonization” of the mandates since they were never colonies and were never supposed to be colonies.

Contrast that with colonies, let alone settler colonies like Southern Rhodesia.

That's just a straight up lie. The Angolan Bush War ended in 1990.

The only mandate to get "independence" before WWII was Iraq. All the other ones were treated essentially as colonies despite nominally being mandates.

The most prominent counterpoint is the South Seas mandate. Though I'm sure you'll excuse Japanese atrocities as usual.

The Angolan Civil War was irrelevant since we were talking about the Middle East, not Africa. Class B and C mandates were different from Class A ones.

How were places such as Transjordan really colones? Emirate of Transjordan was a protectorate with...an Arab Emir. In the worst case it was at least comparable to Indian Princely States. In practice the existence of League of Nations meant it was clearly more important than states such as Hyderabad.

Was there an African leader of British Kenya or something? Yup that’s a real colony. The South Seas mandate was a Class C mandate. So Japan administering it as if it is Japan proper was consistent with the mandate.

[Nakena]

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation as hive of reaction, obscurantism and backwardness. But they were on the "right side".

Even Tsarist Russia wasn't as bad as it's made out to be tbh.

Still serious problems, but it certainly wasn't the worst state in the 20th century.

There were worse ones around that time even. However, the thing is reputation, which often means image, and that means image in the western world usually. It does not equal necessarily historical or present realities.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

That's just a straight up lie. The Angolan Bush War ended in 1990.

The only mandate to get "independence" before WWII was Iraq. All the other ones were treated essentially as colonies despite nominally being mandates.

The most prominent counterpoint is the South Seas mandate. Though I'm sure you'll excuse Japanese atrocities as usual.

The Angolan Civil War was irrelevant since we were talking about the Middle East, not Africa. Class B and C mandates were different from Class A ones.

How were places such as Transjordan really colones? Emirate of Transjordan was a protectorate with...an Arab Emir. In the worst case it was at least comparable to Indian Princely States. In practice the existence of League of Nations meant it was clearly more important than states such as Hyderabad.

Was there an African leader of British Kenya or something? Yup that’s a real colony. The South Seas mandate was a Class C mandate. So Japan administering it as if it is Japan proper was consistent with the mandate.

And the French kept the Moroccan king around. It wasn't particularly unusual for the colonial powers to keep local rulers around in nominal protectorates to make governance easier.

Also, for the South Seas, there's a difference between displacing the locals and looking to annex a mandate and how Class C mandates were supposed to be run.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

The Angolan Civil War was irrelevant since we were talking about the Middle East, not Africa. Class B and C mandates were different from Class A ones.

How were places such as Transjordan really colones? Emirate of Transjordan was a protectorate with...an Arab Emir. In the worst case it was at least comparable to Indian Princely States. In practice the existence of League of Nations meant it was clearly more important than states such as Hyderabad.

Was there an African leader of British Kenya or something? Yup that’s a real colony. The South Seas mandate was a Class C mandate. So Japan administering it as if it is Japan proper was consistent with the mandate.

And the French kept the Moroccan king around. It wasn't particularly unusual for the colonial powers to keep local rulers around in nominal protectorates to make governance easier.

Also, for the South Seas, there's a difference between displacing the locals and looking to annex a mandate and how Class C mandates were supposed to be run.

I agree. However Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan were still Class A mandates. They had self-government almost from the beginning unlike for example the “Protectorate” of Annam.

Displacing the locals? Japanese really didn’t do that even in its old colonies, let alone the mandates.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

And the French kept the Moroccan king around. It wasn't particularly unusual for the colonial powers to keep local rulers around in nominal protectorates to make governance easier.

Also, for the South Seas, there's a difference between displacing the locals and looking to annex a mandate and how Class C mandates were supposed to be run.

I agree. However Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan were still Class A mandates. They had self-government almost from the beginning unlike for example the “Protectorate” of Annam.

Displacing the locals? Japanese really didn’t do that even in its old colonies, let alone the mandates.

Displacement isn't the right word. Completely overwhelming them with Japanese settlers, rather.

The obligations of the mandate meant little in practice; France continued to regard her Middle Eastern mandates as imperial possessions... During the mandate period, France ruled Syria through French administrators and advisers as effectively as any colony; no significant decision could be taken at any level without French approval. After nearly 20 years of the mandate, Syria remained without independence, without institutions of self-government and without territorial unity (Hatay).

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I agree. However Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan were still Class A mandates. They had self-government almost from the beginning unlike for example the “Protectorate” of Annam.

Displacing the locals? Japanese really didn’t do that even in its old colonies, let alone the mandates.

Displacement isn't the right word. Completely overwhelming them with Japanese settlers, rather.

The obligations of the mandate meant little in practice; France continued to regard her Middle Eastern mandates as imperial possessions... During the mandate period, France ruled Syria through French administrators and advisers as effectively as any colony; no significant decision could be taken at any level without French approval. After nearly 20 years of the mandate, Syria remained without independence, without institutions of self-government and without territorial unity (Hatay).

Thanks for sharing the article. I will definitely learn more about it.

Hatay was fairly ethnic Turkish though and Turkey was why it is in Turkey today.

“Syrian territorial unity” does not make much sense though it is reasonable to argue that it should include a large part of what’s now Lebanon. Lebanese leaders made a crucial error in making their Lebanon too large and including several large Muslim majority cities. If they stuck to the Ottoman definition of Lebanon maybe the Lebanese Civil War could have been prevented.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Displacement isn't the right word. Completely overwhelming them with Japanese settlers, rather.

The obligations of the mandate meant little in practice; France continued to regard her Middle Eastern mandates as imperial possessions... During the mandate period, France ruled Syria through French administrators and advisers as effectively as any colony; no significant decision could be taken at any level without French approval. After nearly 20 years of the mandate, Syria remained without independence, without institutions of self-government and without territorial unity (Hatay).

Thanks for sharing the article. I will definitely learn more about it.

Hatay was fairly ethnic Turkish though. “Syrian territorial unity” does not make much sense though it is reasonable to argue that it should include a large part of what’s now Lebanon. Lebanese leaders made a crucial error in making their Lebanon too large and including several large Muslim majority cities. If they stuck to the Ottoman definition of Lebanon maybe the Lebanese Civil War could have been prevented.

Hatay had a bare Syrian majority at the time. But even setting aside ethnic considerations, it was an obvious violations of the terms of the mandate.

The authors are probably also using the notion of territorial unity to refer to the separate administrations of the various parts of Syria.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Displacement isn't the right word. Completely overwhelming them with Japanese settlers, rather.

The obligations of the mandate meant little in practice; France continued to regard her Middle Eastern mandates as imperial possessions... During the mandate period, France ruled Syria through French administrators and advisers as effectively as any colony; no significant decision could be taken at any level without French approval. After nearly 20 years of the mandate, Syria remained without independence, without institutions of self-government and without territorial unity (Hatay).

Thanks for sharing the article. I will definitely learn more about it.

Hatay was fairly ethnic Turkish though. “Syrian territorial unity” does not make much sense though it is reasonable to argue that it should include a large part of what’s now Lebanon. Lebanese leaders made a crucial error in making their Lebanon too large and including several large Muslim majority cities. If they stuck to the Ottoman definition of Lebanon maybe the Lebanese Civil War could have been prevented.

Hatay had a bare Syrian majority at the time. But even setting aside ethnic considerations, it was an obvious violations of the terms of the mandate.

The authors are probably also using the notion of territorial unity to refer to the separate administrations of the various parts of Syria.

[Nakena]

Displacement isn't the right word. Completely overwhelming them with Japanese settlers, rather.

The obligations of the mandate meant little in practice; France continued to regard her Middle Eastern mandates as imperial possessions... During the mandate period, France ruled Syria through French administrators and advisers as effectively as any colony; no significant decision could be taken at any level without French approval. After nearly 20 years of the mandate, Syria remained without independence, without institutions of self-government and without territorial unity (Hatay).

Thanks for sharing the article. I will definitely learn more about it.

Hatay was fairly ethnic Turkish though and Turkey was why it is in Turkey today.

“Syrian territorial unity” does not make much sense though it is reasonable to argue that it should include a large part of what’s now Lebanon. Lebanese leaders made a crucial error in making their Lebanon too large and including several large Muslim majority cities. If they stuck to the Ottoman definition of Lebanon maybe the Lebanese Civil War could have been prevented.

The cataclyism to the lebanese civil war was the settlement of palestinians and autonomy of the PLO under the Cairo Agreement.

Although the text of the agreement was never published, an unofficial (but probably accurate) text appeared in the Lebanese daily newspaper An-Nahar on 20 April 1970.[1] The agreement established principles under which the presence and activities of Palestinian guerrillas in southeast Lebanon would be tolerated and regulated by the Lebanese authorities.[1][3]

Under the agreement the 16 official UNRWA camps in Lebanon - home to 300,000 Palestinian refugees - were removed from the stern jurisdiction of the Lebanese army's Deuxième Bureau and placed under the authority of the Palestinian Armed Struggle Command.[4] Although the camps remained under Lebanese sovereignty the new arrangements meant that, after 1969, they became a key popular base for the guerrilla movement.[4][5]

The agreement also established the right of the Palestinian residents of Lebanon "to join the Palestinian revolution through armed struggle".[6] In addition, it allowed the Palestinians to legally control their refugee camps in Lebanon and also to launch attacks against Israel from south Lebanon.[7][8]

Subsequently, the Palestine Liberation Organization effectively established "a state within a state" in Lebanon.[9]

Here

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Thanks for sharing the article. I will definitely learn more about it.

Hatay was fairly ethnic Turkish though and Turkey was why it is in Turkey today.

“Syrian territorial unity” does not make much sense though it is reasonable to argue that it should include a large part of what’s now Lebanon. Lebanese leaders made a crucial error in making their Lebanon too large and including several large Muslim majority cities. If they stuck to the Ottoman definition of Lebanon maybe the Lebanese Civil War could have been prevented.

The cataclyism to the lebanese civil war was the settlement of palestinians and autonomy of the PLO under the Cairo Agreement.

Although the text of the agreement was never published, an unofficial (but probably accurate) text appeared in the Lebanese daily newspaper An-Nahar on 20 April 1970.[1] The agreement established principles under which the presence and activities of Palestinian guerrillas in southeast Lebanon would be tolerated and regulated by the Lebanese authorities.[1][3]

Under the agreement the 16 official UNRWA camps in Lebanon - home to 300,000 Palestinian refugees - were removed from the stern jurisdiction of the Lebanese army's Deuxième Bureau and placed under the authority of the Palestinian Armed Struggle Command.[4] Although the camps remained under Lebanese sovereignty the new arrangements meant that, after 1969, they became a key popular base for the guerrilla movement.[4][5]

The agreement also established the right of the Palestinian residents of Lebanon "to join the Palestinian revolution through armed struggle".[6] In addition, it allowed the Palestinians to legally control their refugee camps in Lebanon and also to launch attacks against Israel from south Lebanon.[7][8]

Subsequently, the Palestine Liberation Organization effectively established "a state within a state" in Lebanon.[9]

Here

Yup. However given the religious disparity in fertility rates Christian Lebanon with current borders was never sustainable.

[Senkaku]

Can any Japanese posters give their impressions of Suga's pledge a little while back to get Japan to net-zero emissions by 2050? It's a pretty big departure from Japan's previous climate policy, and the sense I've gotten from afar is that METI is probably going to resist seriously implementing it, or that it'll mostly be delegated to regional governments that have already made that commitment, but I was just wondering if someone with a more informed perspective had thoughts on the matter.

[Novus America]

The German Empire was really actually sort of OK...domestically.

By the 1900s the internal liberaliazion process towards multi-party democracy was already in full motion. Weren't it for WW1 probably by the 1920s the process would have been completed.

Much of the villification of Imperial Germany as dictatorship or evil empire is actually result of Entente propaganda's whose traces still reflect in pop-history in the anglo-sphere. Actually the one big oppressive Empire of those days was the Russian Empire which had an terribad reputation as hive of reaction, obscurantism and backwardness. But they were on the "right side".

Ironically German Empire actually had universal male suffrage during most of WWI, something the UK did not have until the last year. The UK only adopted universal male suffrage in 1918. The German Empire in 1917 was more democratic than the UK in 1917.

[Novus America]

And the French kept the Moroccan king around. It wasn't particularly unusual for the colonial powers to keep local rulers around in nominal protectorates to make governance easier.

Also, for the South Seas, there's a difference between displacing the locals and looking to annex a mandate and how Class C mandates were supposed to be run.

I agree. However Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan were still Class A mandates. They had self-government almost from the beginning unlike for example the “Protectorate” of Annam.

Displacing the locals? Japanese really didn’t do that even in its old colonies, let alone the mandates.

Sure Japan did not usually ethnically cleanse them to the degree say the Late Ottoman Empire did to the Greeks and Armenians, (although the Japanese did engage in brutal genocidal violence in many cases) but actually that was par for the course. Most UK and French imperial possessions maintained a local ethnic majority. The UK never made Africa or India majority ethnic European.

The Japanese still set up ethnic Japanese colonists as the ruling elite.

Many Asian powers including the Japanese were just as imperialist and colonialist as the European powers. Japan included. But I think we have gotten off topic.

[Diarcesia]

I agree. However Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan were still Class A mandates. They had self-government almost from the beginning unlike for example the “Protectorate” of Annam.

Displacing the locals? Japanese really didn’t do that even in its old colonies, let alone the mandates.

Sure Japan did not ethnically cleanse them to the degree say Turkey did to the Greeks and Armenians, (although the Japanese did engage in brutal genocidal violence in several cases) but actually that was par for the course. Most UK imperial possessions maintained a local ethnic majority. The UK never made Africa or India majority ethnic European.

The Japanese still set up ethnic Japanese colonists as the ruling elite.

Many Asian powers including the Japanese were just as imperialist and colonialist as the European powers. Japan included. But I think we have gotten off topic.

It's fair game if we focus on Japanese colonialism in particular. Btw, it was them that introduced baseball to Taiwan AFAIK.