Japanese Politics Thread

[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.

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.

Japanese colonies also maintained a local ethnic majority. Imperialism is not race-dependent.

[Novus America]

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.

Japanese colonies also maintained a local ethnic majority. Imperialism is not race-dependent.

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Japanese colonies also maintained a local ethnic majority. Imperialism is not race-dependent.

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

Yup so I’m not wrong in ranking Japanese colonialism something slightly higher than French colonialism but significantly lower than Anglo colonialism in terms of consequences to natives. There are of course things such as Russian colonialism and Ottoman colonialism that are really bad. One example is a graph depicting negative impact of the Ottomans on GDP per capita in former Yugoslavia.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Japanese colonies also maintained a local ethnic majority. Imperialism is not race-dependent.

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

I think in the long run it is clear that Allies have made a strategic mistake in fighting against a wrong enemy. Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE. The world will eventually realize that the problem with China can not be resolved simply by getting rid of communists and allow Tibet and East Turkestan to be independent. Instead full and permanent abolition is an absolute necessity.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Are these the takes we get treated to in 2020? Jesus H. Allah...

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Are these the takes we get treated to in 2020? Jesus H. Allah...

You can always try to whitewash China until a good old Chinese Civil War is replayed in the 21st century with warlords nuking each other, nuking neighbor countries and releasing pathogen such as Ebola. Eventually survivors in 2050 will realize that they were hit not just by a totalitarian government or even Islamist-like insurgents but instead some extremely destructive force they couldn’t even understand. Only then will abolition be attempted. Then you say “Wut? Neko was right?!”

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Are these the takes we get treated to in 2020? Jesus H. Allah...

You can always try to whitewash China until a good old Chinese Civil War is replayed in the 21st century with warlords nuking each other, nuking neighbor countries and releasing pathogen such as Ebola.

These are not sane takes worth the bytes you wasted typing them. And you know it.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

You can always try to whitewash China until a good old Chinese Civil War is replayed in the 21st century with warlords nuking each other, nuking neighbor countries and releasing pathogen such as Ebola.

These are not sane takes worth the bytes you wasted typing them. And you know it.

Well, please mark my words. We will see how crazy my predictions are. You should read some David Goldman if you think you understand China.

https://www.tabletmag.com/amp/sections/ ... ina-empire

[The Archregimancy]

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

Much of this is arrant nonsense. You're taking the official propaganda of a racist authoritarian imperialist state allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at face value.

Pu Yi, for example, had absolutely no control over Manchukuo. He was the symbolic puppet ruler of a colonial protectorate that was run on authoritarian lines in order to advantage both the Home Islands and the Japanese colonial elite. The 'country' was de facto entirely under the control of the Japanese Kwantung Army, whose commander was also the Japanese Ambassador to Manchukuo, and who had veto power over all decisions of the 'government'. Over time Han Chinese and Manchurian ministers and advisors in the government were increasingly pushed aside to be replaced by Japanese equivalents. The economy of the puppet state was directed towards serving the Home Islands.

Japanese demographic policies in Manchuria were nakedly racist; or at least bigoted. To the extent that Japanese colonists failed to replace the existing population, it was a combination of demography and time; given that Manchuria had 40 million inhabitants, it was never going to be possible to fully assert Japanese political and demographic dominance in the 14 years that Japan controlled the region. But that doesn't mean they didn't give it a red hot go. Population figures are hard to estimate given the contested counts, but Japanese settlers in Manchuria went from 100-240 thousand in c.1932 to somewhere close to 900 thousand in 1945. Japanese government plans called for the settlement of some 5 million Japanese colonists in Manchuria by the mid 1950s; and those settlers would have been both politically and culturally dominant.

Tens of millions of Han Chinese were conscripted into slave labour. Biological weapons were widely tested on the civilian population. Several ethnic minorities were almost wiped out through a combination of slave labour, active oppression, and intentional drug addiction.

I'm not going to get into the thankless game of comparing Japanese colonialism in Manchuria to European colonialism in the rest of the world - though Japanese policies in Manchukuo most closely resemble the Nazi policies in occupied Slav-majority lands in Eastern Europe - but the argument that Japanese colonialism was somehow based on racial harmony and equality, or that the use of powerless puppet rulers demonstrates the benevolence of Japanese policies in the 1930s is breathtaking revisionism.

[The Huskar Social Union]

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

Much of this is arrant nonsense. You're taking the official propaganda of a racist authoritarian imperialist state allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at face value.

Pu Yi, for example, had absolutely no control over Manchukuo. He was the symbolic puppet ruler of a colonial protectorate that was run on authoritarian lines in order to advantage both the Home Islands and the Japanese colonial elite. The 'country' was de facto entirely under the control of the Japanese Kwantung Army, whose commander was also the Japanese Ambassador to Manchukuo, and who had veto power over all decisions of the 'government'. Over time Han Chinese and Manchurian ministers and advisors in the government were increasingly pushed aside to be replaced by Japanese equivalents. The economy of the puppet state was directed towards serving the Home Islands.

Japanese demographic policies in Manchuria were nakedly racist; or at least bigoted. To the extent that Japanese colonists failed to replace the existing population, it was a combination of demography and time; given that Manchuria had 40 million inhabitants, it was never going to be possible to fully assert Japanese political and demographic dominance in the 14 years that Japan controlled the region. But that doesn't mean they didn't give it a red hot go. Population figures are hard to estimate given the contested counts, but Japanese settlers in Manchuria went from 100-240 thousand in c.1932 to somewhere close to 900 thousand in 1945. Japanese government plans called for the settlement of some 5 million Japanese colonist in Manchuria by the mid 1950s; and those settlers would have been both politically and culturally dominant.

Tens of millions of Han Chinese were conscripted into slave labour. Biological weapons were widely tested on the civilian population. Several ethnic minorities were almost wiped out through a combination of slave labour, active oppression, and intentional drug addiction.

I'm not going to get into the thankless game of comparing Japanese colonialism in Manchuria to European colonialism in the rest of the world - though Japanese policies in Manchukuo most closely resemble the Nazi policies in occupied Slav-majority lands in Eastern Europe - but the argument that Japanese colonialism was somehow based on racial harmony and equality, or that the use of power puppet rulers demonstrates the benevolence of Japanese policies in the 1930s is breathtaking revisionism.

Rekt

[Duvniask]

Japanese Imperialism was some of the worst savagery in history, yet we apparently still have to bear witness to its defense.

[East Filemeria]

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

Much of this is arrant nonsense. You're taking the official propaganda of a racist authoritarian imperialist state allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at face value.

Pu Yi, for example, had absolutely no control over Manchukuo. He was the symbolic puppet ruler of a colonial protectorate that was run on authoritarian lines in order to advantage both the Home Islands and the Japanese colonial elite. The 'country' was de facto entirely under the control of the Japanese Kwantung Army, whose commander was also the Japanese Ambassador to Manchukuo, and who had veto power over all decisions of the 'government'. Over time Han Chinese and Manchurian ministers and advisors in the government were increasingly pushed aside to be replaced by Japanese equivalents. The economy of the puppet state was directed towards serving the Home Islands.

Japanese demographic policies in Manchuria were nakedly racist; or at least bigoted. To the extent that Japanese colonists failed to replace the existing population, it was a combination of demography and time; given that Manchuria had 40 million inhabitants, it was never going to be possible to fully assert Japanese political and demographic dominance in the 14 years that Japan controlled the region. But that doesn't mean they didn't give it a red hot go. Population figures are hard to estimate given the contested counts, but Japanese settlers in Manchuria went from 100-240 thousand in c.1932 to somewhere close to 900 thousand in 1945. Japanese government plans called for the settlement of some 5 million Japanese colonist in Manchuria by the mid 1950s; and those settlers would have been both politically and culturally dominant.

Tens of millions of Han Chinese were conscripted into slave labour. Biological weapons were widely tested on the civilian population. Several ethnic minorities were almost wiped out through a combination of slave labour, active oppression, and intentional drug addiction.

I'm not going to get into the thankless game of comparing Japanese colonialism in Manchuria to European colonialism in the rest of the world - though Japanese policies in Manchukuo most closely resemble the Nazi policies in occupied Slav-majority lands in Eastern Europe - but the argument that Japanese colonialism was somehow based on racial harmony and equality, or that the use of power puppet rulers demonstrates the benevolence of Japanese policies in the 1930s is breathtaking revisionism.

Please add an upvote system for comments lord above.

[Novus America]

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokot_Autonomy
Placing a local puppet in a symbolic position to maintain control hardly demonstrates any difference.
The Nazis even had such things. (Some people in Russia even welcomed the Nazis as “liberators” at least as first before realizing the true consequences BTW.)

Even the most brutal Empires (and the Japanese in China were among them, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 ) used the protectorate model at times.

It was quite common:
“In the four protectorates, the French formally left the local rulers in power, who were the Emperors of Vietnam, Kings of Cambodia, and Kings of Luang Prabang, but in fact gathered all powers in their hands, the local rulers acting only as figureheads.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina
Politically the structure was not so different though the French did not test WMD’s on the inhabitants as much.

Much of the British Empire was on paper ruled by local monarchs, some with actual autonomy over domestic affairs vs the Japanese who micromanaged Manchuria.
Does the fact the British had local princes officially in charge of much of their Indian Empire make it less an Empire or the British not actually in control?

In fact this model of imperialism by protectorate goes back to Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire amongst others. It is thousands of years old.

This is thus complete bullshit, you take a model that pretty much all empires throughout history used, but Japan in Manchuria implemented in a manner more brutally than most, besides maybe the Nazis in that particular case, and then say it was okay because they justified it with some propaganda about brotherhood.

The motives were the same, resource extraction, military power, establishing colonies for Japanese settlers (the Japanese made claims remarkable similar to Nazi Germany on the need for more land for their race):
“The authors rationalized Japanese colonization of most of the Eastern Hemisphere including New Zealand and Australia, with projected populations by the 1950s, as "securing the living space of the Yamato race", a very clear reflection of the Nazi concept of Lebensraum.[6]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inve ... as_Nucleus

Sure the Japanese used flowery talk of brotherhood, and of a family to justify it.
Of course many families have a strict structure in which one person is clearly charge and even rapes, beats, and/or murders other members of the family who do things they dislike, so maybe that was not entirely off the mark...

Although how much this has to do with modern Japanese politics is debatable, given Japan today is radically different than it was then, albeit several contemporary Japanese politicians admittedly engage in the same same BS historical revisionism using the same “arguments” you did.

[Baltenstein]

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.

Considering the political decision-making process of the German Empire was largely in the hands of the unelected military junta that was the Oberste Heeresleitung by that point, I don't think that's quite accurate.

[Andsed]

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

I think in the long run it is clear that Allies have made a strategic mistake in fighting against a wrong enemy. Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE. The world will eventually realize that the problem with China can not be resolved simply by getting rid of communists and allow Tibet and East Turkestan to be independent. Instead full and permanent abolition is an absolute necessity.

I get you dont exactly like China, but the fact your trying to downplay the atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire because they happened to have been fighting China is disgusting.

[Novus America]

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.

Considering the political decision-making process of the German Empire was largely in the hands of the unelected military junta that was the Oberste Heeresleitung by that point, I don't think that's quite accurate.

Well true by that point the democratic structures had broken down in reality although still existing on paper. Perhaps 1914 would be better.

But the UK in 1917 was certainly no liberal democracy in the contemporary sense. Given only about the wealthiest half of male householders could vote.
So the democracy vs dictatorship thing does not really work in WWI and is pretty much propaganda.
WWI was not a clear cut case of good vs bad for the most part.

Of course this is quite far removed from contemporary Japanese politics in that although Japan actually fought with the Entente in WWI against Germany, unlike WWII which is still a major topic in Japan today, as far as I am aware WWI gets very little mention.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Yes, they did, but they also gave the ethnic Japanese minority political and economic control over the majority.
Sure imperialism is not inherently racist or race dependent. But absolutely empires can have race based policies and political structures.

They were not very different than the Europeans in many respects.

There absolutely were racial aspects to many Japanese imperial policies and structures.

But current Japanese politics is quite far removed from what they were pre 1945, even if many Japanese do still tend to not be particularly accepting of other races.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

And then they enslaved the locals or massacred them because surprise surprise, all that Asia for Asians shit was just propaganda to make them let their guard down. The imperial Japanese believed in Japanese supremacy. There was no sense of brotherhood between them and other Asians. Unless you think brotherhood equals raping and murdering people in Nanking or using innocent people as test subjects for Unit 731's evil experiments.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I think in the long run it is clear that Allies have made a strategic mistake in fighting against a wrong enemy. Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE. The world will eventually realize that the problem with China can not be resolved simply by getting rid of communists and allow Tibet and East Turkestan to be independent. Instead full and permanent abolition is an absolute necessity.

I get you dont exactly like China, but the fact your trying to downplay the atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire because they happened to have been fighting China is disgusting.

In my world this is on the same level of awful as holocaust denial.

[Picairn]

Much of this is arrant nonsense. You're taking the official propaganda of a racist authoritarian imperialist state allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at face value.

Pu Yi, for example, had absolutely no control over Manchukuo. He was the symbolic puppet ruler of a colonial protectorate that was run on authoritarian lines in order to advantage both the Home Islands and the Japanese colonial elite. The 'country' was de facto entirely under the control of the Japanese Kwantung Army, whose commander was also the Japanese Ambassador to Manchukuo, and who had veto power over all decisions of the 'government'. Over time Han Chinese and Manchurian ministers and advisors in the government were increasingly pushed aside to be replaced by Japanese equivalents. The economy of the puppet state was directed towards serving the Home Islands.

Japanese demographic policies in Manchuria were nakedly racist; or at least bigoted. To the extent that Japanese colonists failed to replace the existing population, it was a combination of demography and time; given that Manchuria had 40 million inhabitants, it was never going to be possible to fully assert Japanese political and demographic dominance in the 14 years that Japan controlled the region. But that doesn't mean they didn't give it a red hot go. Population figures are hard to estimate given the contested counts, but Japanese settlers in Manchuria went from 100-240 thousand in c.1932 to somewhere close to 900 thousand in 1945. Japanese government plans called for the settlement of some 5 million Japanese colonists in Manchuria by the mid 1950s; and those settlers would have been both politically and culturally dominant.

Tens of millions of Han Chinese were conscripted into slave labour. Biological weapons were widely tested on the civilian population. Several ethnic minorities were almost wiped out through a combination of slave labour, active oppression, and intentional drug addiction.

I'm not going to get into the thankless game of comparing Japanese colonialism in Manchuria to European colonialism in the rest of the world - though Japanese policies in Manchukuo most closely resemble the Nazi policies in occupied Slav-majority lands in Eastern Europe - but the argument that Japanese colonialism was somehow based on racial harmony and equality, or that the use of powerless puppet rulers demonstrates the benevolence of Japanese policies in the 1930s is breathtaking revisionism.

Arch, you always have some of the best takes out there. Edit: May I include this in my Collection of Quotes?

Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE.

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

You two, stop defending genocide.

[The Archregimancy]

Edit: May I include this in my Collection of Quotes?

You need neither my permission nor my approval.

[Picairn]

You need neither my permission nor my approval.

Thank you, regardless.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Nanking

I'm not gonna try to excuse the bullshit the IJA got up to while conquering their way through China here, especially not as a Chinese myself. I'm just going to say Nanking happened because of a complete breakdown in discipline, shit officers giving vague (and shit) orders and decades of brutalising its own cadre. Which makes the IJA in China possibly even worse in its absolute incompetence.

[Kubra]

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

And then they enslaved the locals or massacred them because surprise surprise, all that Asia for Asians shit was just propaganda to make them let their guard down. The imperial Japanese believed in Japanese supremacy. There was no sense of brotherhood between them and other Asians. Unless you think brotherhood equals raping and murdering people in Nanking or using innocent people as test subjects for Unit 731's evil experiments.

Hell the japanese killed off more filipinos in less than half a decade of occupation than the US did in about four.

[Bienenhalde]

It is wrong to say Japanese "colonies" were led by Japanese entirely. Look at Manchuko or Mengjiang. In Manchuko, the Qing Emperor was given official control and in Mengjiang, a native Mongol Prince was in charge.

Japan's expansion was very different than European colonization, and it had many different goals. Japanese expansion in Asia can be summed up in Hakkō ichiu. This term officially means universal brotherhood, and is meant to signify racial harmony and equality as Japan had historically pushed for. In Japan and parts of Asia, it was seen as an "Asia for Asians" doctrine and Japan seeking to liberate Asia from imperialist powers. And in some cases, Japanese forces were welcomed by local populations.

I think in the long run it is clear that Allies have made a strategic mistake in fighting against a wrong enemy. Japan is moral while China has always been amoral since its establishment in 221 BCE. The world will eventually realize that the problem with China can not be resolved simply by getting rid of communists and allow Tibet and East Turkestan to be independent. Instead full and permanent abolition is an absolute necessity.

If Japan was moral and China was not, then why was it the Japanese who made an alliance with Hitler and Nazi Germany?