NationStates

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Ellbonnia wrote:
Actually, the rapid modernization of South Korean society was a direct result of post-World War II assistance from the United States. The Korean economy actually stagnated during Japanese occupation as the Japanese exploited their natural resources and manpower to assist the mainland.

Nope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_u ... e_rule.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_u ... e_rule.svg

Post-War South Korea was a continuation of Japanese Korea. Without the Japanese era US aid may not have helped that much.

Just gonna ignore that all of the increase in industrialization and production were for Japan?

Not Korea? or did you just gloss over this part in your sources:

the industrialization plan to solely benefit Japan
the exploitation of Korean people
the marginalization of Korean history and culture
the environmental exploitation of the Korean Peninsula
the status of Japanese collaborators, subsequently dubbed Chinilpa

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Why is that true though? Because Sub-Saharan Africa was and still is generally weak.

No it's because there was no opposing bloc we needed to form a barrier against in sub-Saharan Africa lol. Literally the only reason we built up our East Asian allies so much was to oppose the USSR and then the PRC. That's it. I don't mean to be insulting but you don't understand anything about how the world works.

Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

Moreover US did fund mujahideen but clearly didn’t help develop Afghanistan much. If the issue is really just about geographic closeness to the USSR there was no reason why South Korea was more important than Afghanistan.

What’s worse than being seen as the enemy is being seen as nobody. That’s what Japan helped the region avoid.

Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
No it's because there was no opposing bloc we needed to form a barrier against in sub-Saharan Africa lol. Literally the only reason we built up our East Asian allies so much was to oppose the USSR and then the PRC. That's it. I don't mean to be insulting but you don't understand anything about how the world works.

Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

Moreover US did fund mujahideen but clearly didn’t help develop Afghanistan much. If the issue is really just about geographic closeness to the USSR there was no reason why South Korea was more important than Afghanistan.

Because the Korean peninsula is a very important geographic point for power projection and by the time of the Afghanistan conflict the USSR was already in the process of collapsing and we knew it.

Atheris wrote:Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

They even buried people alive. More Japanese and Nazi war criminals should have hanged then there actually were.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

Moreover US did fund mujahideen but clearly didn’t help develop Afghanistan much. If the issue is really just about geographic closeness to the USSR there was no reason why South Korea was more important than Afghanistan.

Because the Korean peninsula is a very important geographic point for power projection and by the time of the Afghanistan conflict the USSR was already in the process of collapsing and we knew it.

To the USSR Korea doesn’t matter much and definitely not more than East Europe. US did also agree. Merely geographically Turkey and Iran matter much more.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
No it's because there was no opposing bloc we needed to form a barrier against in sub-Saharan Africa lol. Literally the only reason we built up our East Asian allies so much was to oppose the USSR and then the PRC. That's it. I don't mean to be insulting but you don't understand anything about how the world works.

Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

America literally supported Rhodesia and South Africa.

Atheris wrote:Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

I can certainly agree with the latter statements, but given that the Nazis developed a system of industrialised genocide the likes of which the world had never before seen (and thankfully has never seen since) I would hesitate to call practically anyone worse.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Atheris wrote:Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

They even buried people alive. More Japanese and Nazi war criminals should have hanged then there actually were.

The Japanese in particular got off easy as the Americans thought they would be useful in opposing the soviets. There's a reason that a major war criminal later became Prime Minister.

Heloin wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

America literally supported Rhodesia and South Africa.

Yup. That’s because they were fairly strong and white (which mattered at least before 1960s). America didn’t support Zaire as much for example.

To US domestic politics is always more important than international politics. So Apartheid and anti Apartheid are more important than communism and anti-communism.

Heloin wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Ah there were also communist Mozambique, Angola, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. but why didn’t US care though? Since these places are not economically or militarily very important.

America literally supported Rhodesia and South Africa.

South Africa makes sense and imho should be declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, it is a hugely important place geographically.

United Chinese Communes wrote:

Atheris wrote:Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

I can certainly agree with the latter statements, but given that the Nazis developed a system of industrialised genocide the likes of which the world had never before seen (and thankfully has never seen since) I would hesitate to call practically anyone worse.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:They even buried people alive. More Japanese and Nazi war criminals should have hanged then there actually were.

The Japanese in particular got off easy as the Americans thought they would be useful in opposing the soviets. There's a reason that a major war criminal later became Prime Minister.

I'm anti-communist, and I would have hanged a bunch of them anyway. I don't know what that says about me, but I prioritize justice.

TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ind ... volunteers

You are stuck on 1945 and I am talking about 1946-1970s

Okay? Does that mean the Japanese Empire's brutal rule over the Vietnamese any less horrifying? 5,000 stranded Japanese soldiers that switched sides is not the government. The August Revolution did happen.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Heloin wrote:America literally supported Rhodesia and South Africa.

South Africa makes sense and imho should be declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, it is a hugely important place geographically.

Pre-1994 South Africa or modern South Africa? Whether South Africa is important to US does depend on its racial decomposition and power. Modern South Africa is weaker than the Boer one so all sides care about it less.

better a Japanese led Asian alliance than a Chinese led one

It was just a publicity stunt to encourage the submission of conquered subjects under some idea Japan was "liberating" European colonies and defending would-be colonies from being conquered.... by conquering them.

No amount of changing the subject to Europe or America changes the fact that the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" was bad. Really bad. Period.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Your ideology is genocidal then.

Nekostan, noted Jewish Nazi, British Empire supporter, Japanese Empire apologist, China abolitionist.

Holy, all terrible positions.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

United Chinese Communes wrote:I can certainly agree with the latter statements, but given that the Nazis developed a system of industrialised genocide the likes of which the world had never before seen (and thankfully has never seen since) I would hesitate to call practically anyone worse.


The Japanese in particular got off easy as the Americans thought they would be useful in opposing the soviets. There's a reason that a major war criminal later became Prime Minister.

I'm anti-communist, and I would have hanged a bunch of them anyway. I don't know what that says about me, but I prioritize justice.

The US never cared about justice, it's good that they fought for the allies but it was never about morals.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Heloin wrote:America literally supported Rhodesia and South Africa.

South Africa makes sense and imho should be declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, it is a hugely important place geographically.

That would have been political suicide. Could you imagine giving the soviets a more perfect propaganda opera unity then openly declaring Apartheid South Africa your friend and ally? That and swinging American support so solidly behind segregation?

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
South Africa makes sense and imho should be declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, it is a hugely important place geographically.

Pre-1994 South Africa or modern South Africa? Whether South Africa is important to US does depend on its racial decomposition and power.

Either. Nobody except racists like yourself cares about its racial composition. Its value as an ally comes from its geographic location and potential for power projection. With some economic integration and such things South Africa could become a very important factor in our global strategy.

Heloin wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
South Africa makes sense and imho should be declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, it is a hugely important place geographically.

That would have been political suicide. Could you imagine giving the soviets a more perfect propaganda opera unity then openly declaring Apartheid South Africa your friend and ally? That and swinging American support so solidly behind segregation?

No reason not to do it now. Apartheid went away a long time ago and the Soviets bit the bullet too.

Catsfern wrote:better a Japanese led Asian alliance than a Chinese led one

How about an alliance where every nation is an equal instead of colonial powers fighting over small countries?

Picairn wrote:

TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ind ... volunteers

You are stuck on 1945 and I am talking about 1946-1970s

Okay? Does that mean the Japanese Empire's brutal rule over the Vietnamese any less horrifying? 5,000 stranded Japanese soldiers that switched sides is not the government. The August Revolution did happen.

They weren't stranded. One was elected to the Japanese Diet twice and still came back to help out. I am citing this as an example of the benefit of when the actually Hakko ichiu concept was applied. But this is all way over your head so sorry about that.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Atheris wrote:Worse than the Nazis. The textbook definition of "empire". Absolutely disgusting.

They even buried people alive. More Japanese and Nazi war criminals should have hanged then there actually were.

More Allied war criminals should have been hanged than there actually were since zero where hanged and many avoided prosecution.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

United Chinese Communes wrote:I can certainly agree with the latter statements, but given that the Nazis developed a system of industrialised genocide the likes of which the world had never before seen (and thankfully has never seen since) I would hesitate to call practically anyone worse.


The Japanese in particular got off easy as the Americans thought they would be useful in opposing the soviets. There's a reason that a major war criminal later became Prime Minister.

I'm anti-communist, and I would have hanged a bunch of them anyway. I don't know what that says about me, but I prioritize justice.

In the Cold War realpolitik trumped justice. Still, the sort of people they let get away with their crimes, and even rewarded, were truly terrible. The two standout examples are Shirō Ishii, who was the head of the Unit 731 biological weapons program and was recruited to help with the US's own program, and Nobusuke Kishi, who was in charge of Japan's slave-industries in Manchuria and would go on to become Prime Minister with US backing. Interestingly, Shinzo Abe is his grandson.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
Pre-1994 South Africa or modern South Africa? Whether South Africa is important to US does depend on its racial decomposition and power.

Either. Nobody except racists like yourself cares about its racial composition. Its value as an ally comes from its geographic location and potential for power projection. With some economic integration and such things South Africa could become a very important factor in our global strategy.

Sure. However domestic politics in US trumps geopolitics. I’m not sure whether the alliance with SA will be mostly dependent on Democratic support. It indeed should be done though.