 |
| |
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:30
|
|
quote:
how is that not economic in addition to the standard geo-political reasons? |
The early phases of Japanese imperialism were obviously geared towards geo-strategic goals, as they focused on areas that had little economic value but were considered valuable strategic points (Korea, Formosa, German colonies in the Central Pacific). The economic thrust of Japanese imperialsim, however, didn't begin until after WWI.
Before that point, the Japanese did not believe that their lack of economic self-suffiency would pose a huge problem in a future military conflict. Most wars up to that point had been brief affairs won by military forces that had existed prior to the outbreak of hostilities. This was especially true in the Japanese case, as you can see by examining the Russo-Japanese war and the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95.
World War I changed the thinking of the Japanese military drastically. The Great War had been long-lasting and had bled dry the modern economies of the European combatants. This new kind of war required a powerful and self-sufficient economy, something that Japan did not have and could not feasibly build in the resource poor areas of the Japanese Empire. As such, the military leaders turned their sights to mainland Asia, first to the rich mineral deposits in Manchuria and eventually to other parts of China and the oil-rich Dutch East Indies. This phase of Japanese imperialism was much more grandiose than the earlier phase (which included the occupation of Korea) and was undertaken for entirely different reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
 Because they've been brain washed from birth to believe he was a great leader and not the mass murdering, incompetent swine that he was?
Naw, couldn't be... |
Brainwashed from birth? Sorry, these days not even the Communist Party claims that Mao was blameless.
From what I've been able to gather, most Chinese believe Mao was truly a great leader up until the Great Leap Forward. If you look at what he did, there is good reason for these claims. After that point, opinion is split over whether he was ignorant, over-ambitious, developed mental problems, or simply became a power-drunk tyrant. I believe the "official" Party line is that Mao was 70% "correct".
You really don't see Mao t-shirts around China anymore. Now young people wear Che Gueverra t-shirts (although few I've asked know who he was, they just think it's a cool-looking t-shirt).
You see a lot more t-shirts with the good ol' US stars-n-bars than you see of Che and Mao shirts added together. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them. |
How do you explain the rush for colonies in Africa, then? I can't think of a better example of empires snatching up colonies just to have them...
|
Come on Drake. You don't seriously believe that do you.
The European invasions into Africa were very much driven by economics. Just look at the Belgium Congo. King Leopold went in there to get rich. Initially it belonged to him, not the Belgium state.
The English invasion of India was started by a trading company. Hong Kong was taken for business reasons. The Dutch East Indies was taken for spice.
China was carved up for purely trade reasons from the Brits to the Americans to the Japanese.
The Germans took islands in the Pacific so that they could establish coaling stations for their ships, cargo ships and military ships to protect the cargo ships.
Money drove the colonies, and when it started to cost too much money to maintain the colonies, the Europeans pulled out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Empires don't just happen and countries don't go on colony grabbing sprees just to have them. |
How do you explain the rush for colonies in Africa, then? I can't think of a better example of empires snatching up colonies just to have them... |
Africa is full of vaulable minerals. King Leopold of Belgium gained immense wealth from his rape of the Congo. Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber. Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it.
quote:
quote:
One, for economic reasons, and two, to protect someplace |
Why'd the Germans have colonies in the middle of the Pacific, then? It couldn't be because they wanted some prestige, but those were the only spots left, could it? No they obviously wanted the Carolines in order to protect Berlin and engage in the valuable bread fruit trade. |
Coaling and water stations for their navy and merchant fleet. You need a navy to protect your merchants, and you need a place for them to stop and get fuel, food, and water. Germany had concessions in China, so the Pacific islands were rather useful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
|
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:30
|
|
quote:
Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber. |
Again, just because parts of Africa became economically valuable doesn't mean that the colonies were taken for economic reasons. Look at the British possessions, for example. They took more land than they could ever hope to utilize, just to keep it out of the hands of rival European powers. It didn't make good economic sense, but they did it anyway because of political reasons.
quote:
Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it. |
That must be the Marxist interpretation, which would explain why I've never heard it before.
quote:
Germany had concessions in China, so the Pacific islands were rather useful. |
If all they wanted were coaling stations, why did they take so many islands? One chain would've been more than sufficient and a more economically sound investment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Africa was, and is still, a very good place to invest and gain wealth. Did you know that most of the flowers sold in the US come from African farms? Chocolate and coffee are both extensively cultivated there, as was rubber. |
Again, just because parts of Africa became economically valuable doesn't mean that the colonies were taken for economic reasons. Look at the British possessions, for example. They took more land than they could ever hope to utilize, just to keep it out of the hands of rival European powers. It didn't make good economic sense, but they did it anyway because of political reasons. |
England wantd to be able to build a railroad from Cairo to Cape Town. To do that, you need all the land in between under your control.
Europe may not have known what specifically they were getting when they carved up Africa at the 1885 Berlin Conference, but they had every expectation that they would be making money out of it. Very little interior exploration had been done by Europeans, but they figured, rightly, that there was plenty of wealth to be plundered.
quote:
quote:
Africa was so damn useful that Europe fought WWI over it. |
That must be the Marxist interpretation, which would explain why I've never heard it before. |
The first person to advance that idea was actually W.E.B. DuBois, before he became a Marxist. Marxists also agree with it. Explaining it would be rather lengthy, but it comes down to Germany wanting more colonies and using the crisis in the Balkans as an opportunity to take France's colonies. Consider carefuly the fact that WWI almost started in 1905, when France and Germany almost went to war over Morocco.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The first person to advance that idea was actually W.E.B. DuBois, before he became a Marxist. Marxists also agree with it. Explaining it would be rather lengthy, but it comes down to Germany wanting more colonies and using the crisis in the Balkans as an opportunity to take France's colonies. Consider carefuly the fact that WWI almost started in 1905, when France and Germany almost went to war over Morocco. |
I don't think it is that simple. There have been many colonial crises (Fashoda, Morocco) between European powers which have always been solved by diplomacy so far. There is no doubt German imperialism pushed for war, but I highly doubt it is the first reason.
For once, it was a surprise that all the Allies would go to war. Austria-Hungary didn't expect the Russians to go to war over Serbia (AH was looking for its own intra-European imperialism at that time), and the Germans didn't expect the French to mobilize. The only ones who didn't act according to their alliances were the British, who only joined the war in 1915.
The German mobilization can be seen as a "preventive war" against Russia before it finished its quick industrialization, and before the French - Russian alliance could crush Germany sandwich like (this is only one of the many possible reasons). The French mobilization can clearly be seen in the light of the French ubernationalism of the time, and the feeling of revenge for the 1871 war and the loss of Alsace. The Russian mobilization can be seen in the light of Russia's imperialist interests in the Balkans now that the Ottoman empire was waning.
Sure, Imperialism was a key factor in the beginnings of WW1. But the African colonization was not, or very little. Besides, Africa was a nearly inexistent theater of operations, with only a few fights in Cameroon.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2003 21:38
|