6 ms·

Yes, a small cadre of extremists did this, after they were kicked out of the Japanese Communist Party for being violent nut jobs. They were by no means exemplar

Yes, a small cadre of extremists did this, after they were kicked out of the Japanese Communist Party for being violent nut jobs. They were by no means exemplary of the movement. At the same time, the right-wing in Japan (who was composed of former war criminals and had deep ties to organized crime in the country), was extensively funded and provided counterintelligence on their political opponents by the CIA. This intentional subversion of Japanese democracy guaranteed that the country could be used (at great cost to the Japanese people) as a forward operating base for US imperialism in SE Asia, something which was, and continues to be, deeply unpopular, even by those who are not “radical leftists.” https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/09/national/contamination-kadena-air-bases-dirty-secret/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/09/national/contam...

gedy 8y ago
I really dislike the characterization of Vietnam as US "Imperialism" when it was more a proxy war between US and USSR and/or futile involvement in another countries civil war. Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Hiding behind "nationalism" was a PR move by revolutionary leadership, and not the real/main driver for it
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  The country devolved into civil war after the US deposed and had executed the country’s leader, who they had previously corruptly installed, but I guess found insufficiently compliant. If it’s not “imperialism” to fix elections, then overthrow and murder the people you help elected, pushing the country into horrific violence (which you then exacerbate), I’d like to know what rises to the level of your definition of the term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup
  - buttcoinslol 8y ago
    The country was undergoing decolonization following WWII and got caught in the middle of two nuclear powers who couldn't openly fight each other without risking a nuclear exchange. It's a miracle that Vietnam isn't split in two like Korea. I'm not trying to rationalize the conduct of the US, there's plenty of blood on our hands when it comes to removing/installing foreign leaders, but this was a very complex situation with many players that lasted for over 30 years following the end of WWII. It's disingenuous to reduce it to 'American imperialism'.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I don’t think “American imperialism” has to be a reduction. American imperialism is one part of a complex picture.
  - buy1get0 8y ago
    to be fair, you should mention what North Vietnamese government did AFTER the war: concentration camps, "New Economic Zones" that forced land from South Vietnamese, and the resulting boat people...
    - gedy 8y ago
      And in the North before any American military involvement. Hence the 1 million plus refugees from the North to South. Most of whom greatly desired to not be under communism, which was clearly the aggressor.
  - cageface 8y ago
    Even today the Vietnamese are very divided about that period of their history. It's a complex issue without clear heroes or villains. If you spend much time in the country now you'll find it hard to argue that the current government is really prioritizing the needs of the people.
  - gedy 8y ago
    The country was in a state of civil war from the late 1940s, and North Vietnam was the sight of much intra-Vietnamese bloodshed due to revolution, land "reform" etc, without France or US involvement in the matter. In any case, your example may be undemocratic, poor judgement, etc, but that's not the same as "imperialism".
- sbmthakur 8y ago
  Yes, but only from the global perspective. For an average Vietnamese rice farmer, who doesn't give two hoots about the global proxy war, it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US." No, this is simply not true. South Vietnamese did not generally like the notion of the North Vietnamese Communists either. The North was invading the South, the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Vietnam is more nuanced than most terms can capture.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      >the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. The fledgling government was only “fledgling” because the CIA installed and then helped destabilize an unpopular, anti-democratic government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup >And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Japan was a democracy prior to the war, with universal male suffrage beginning in the late 1920s. It devolved into fascism through a series of internal coups. It’s great that suffrage was extended to women post war. What wasn’t so great was when the US government absolved, rehabilitated, and financed the former fascists and more or less handed the country back over to them to stop talking the rise of any legitimate, democratic left-wing rule of the country. And this was despite the fact that many leftists in Japan had fought, been imprisoned, and died trying to stop the war and atrocities by the fascists. Amazingly, this effort was led by the CIA-backed war criminal, Nobusuke Kishii under the guise of stopping the “socialist threat” to Japan (quite rich since he and his pals dragged the country into a war that caused untold devastation and destruction). https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi In South Korea, the US backed Syngman Rhee, another fascist who killed tens of thousands of people he perceived to be his left-wing opponents. This unchecked political violence legitimized the cause of Kim Il-Sung and threw the country into a devastating civil war that has been terrible for everyone on the peninsula for the past 70 years. And in spite of all of this, the US continued to back right-wing dictators in South Korea until they were pushed out by a popular uprising in the 1980s (the true origin of South Korean democracy, not the sham the US installed). If you want to understand the reality of US imperialism, I suggest you not blindly accept popular narratives about what the US did postwar, especially in SE Asia. There are plenty of history texts written on the subject.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Actually, the communists won a free election, and US-supported extremists ignored it. Edit: OK, I misremembered. The 1956 election didn't happen, because South Vietnam refused to participate. And I've read that they refused because they feared that they'd lose.
  - gedy 8y ago
    Maybe because those "extremists" saw what the communists were doing to their own people before this "free election"
    - mirimir 8y ago
      No, they were pretty clearly fascists, from what I've read. A key issue here is how difficult it is to apply evidence from what actually happened to what might have happened. I mean, sure, the North Vietnamese did lots of horrible stuff, both during the war, and after they won. But the issue is that "the North Vietnamese" wasn't some static thing. There was selection, based on what went down. And for sure, some horrible stuff went down. Who's to say what would have happened if Ho Chi Minh had become president of Vietnam in 1956.
- bjourne 8y ago
  In the same vein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just a proxy war between two super powers and not an example of imperialism? Many, many people appreciated the USSR fighting back against the theocratic takeover by Talibans.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The war in Vietnam was a direct continuation of the French attempt to hold on to their former colony. It turned into a proxy war, but I think the imperialism label sticks quite well here.
buy1get0 8y ago
I'm very impressed with your skill of justification using: > "Yes, a small cadre of extremists did this" Also where's the source for "they were kicked out of the Japanese Communist Party"? Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party#Post-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party#Post-... > Then after the Korean War broke out, the party staged some acts of terrorism or sabotage, which resulted in a loss of popular confidence. the plane kidnapping wasn't the only one - it's one of many
phobosdeimos 8y ago
To be fair Japanese-US military cooperation has served both sides well. If the US continues to decline Japan will have to find a way to get along with China.
- buy1get0 8y ago
  > Japan will have to find a way to get along with China It'll be very difficult to "get along with China"... China (PRC) is the New Thug Nation Look at China building "island bases" on South China Sea (ironic name, because the area is bordering Vietnam/Malaysia/Philippines) China's trying to claim what isn't 100% its own out of greed, even though the bordering countries are protesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luTPMHC7zHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luTPMHC7zHY
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  I would argue the opposite. US backing of Japan has allowed them to maintain an insular chauvinism relative to their neighbors that has put them in weak diplomatic and economic position when faced with China. If they had instead become more tightly coupled with their neighbors like Korea and Taiwan, they’d be in a much better position to check the power of a rising China (think Germany within the context of the EU). Of course this isn’t entirely Japan’s fault, as the US funded and backed right-wing nationalists in just about all of these countries, so they could play them off each other as was useful to their interests.
  - Pica_soO 8y ago
    Turns out the people the CIA finds the most sympathetic and "tuned towards our side" are usually able to send the whole population flying towards the opposition. I guess somewhere in Langley, there is a uttermost secret file analyzing the recruiting and support patterns, summing it up with: Nobody is as good at subverting the USA longterm goals in any region then the CIA.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  The period before Japanese-US military cooperation saw Japan controlling most of China, so kind of hard to believe it's served them well.

gedy 8y ago

I really dislike the characterization of Vietnam as US "Imperialism" when it was more a proxy war between US and USSR and/or futile involvement in another countries civil war. Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Hiding behind "nationalism" was a PR move by revolutionary leadership, and not the real/main driver for it

knuththetruth 8y ago
The country devolved into civil war after the US deposed and had executed the country’s leader, who they had previously corruptly installed, but I guess found insufficiently compliant. If it’s not “imperialism” to fix elections, then overthrow and murder the people you help elected, pushing the country into horrific violence (which you then exacerbate), I’d like to know what rises to the level of your definition of the term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup
- buttcoinslol 8y ago
  The country was undergoing decolonization following WWII and got caught in the middle of two nuclear powers who couldn't openly fight each other without risking a nuclear exchange. It's a miracle that Vietnam isn't split in two like Korea. I'm not trying to rationalize the conduct of the US, there's plenty of blood on our hands when it comes to removing/installing foreign leaders, but this was a very complex situation with many players that lasted for over 30 years following the end of WWII. It's disingenuous to reduce it to 'American imperialism'.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t think “American imperialism” has to be a reduction. American imperialism is one part of a complex picture.
- buy1get0 8y ago
  to be fair, you should mention what North Vietnamese government did AFTER the war: concentration camps, "New Economic Zones" that forced land from South Vietnamese, and the resulting boat people...
  - gedy 8y ago
    And in the North before any American military involvement. Hence the 1 million plus refugees from the North to South. Most of whom greatly desired to not be under communism, which was clearly the aggressor.
- cageface 8y ago
  Even today the Vietnamese are very divided about that period of their history. It's a complex issue without clear heroes or villains. If you spend much time in the country now you'll find it hard to argue that the current government is really prioritizing the needs of the people.
- gedy 8y ago
  The country was in a state of civil war from the late 1940s, and North Vietnam was the sight of much intra-Vietnamese bloodshed due to revolution, land "reform" etc, without France or US involvement in the matter. In any case, your example may be undemocratic, poor judgement, etc, but that's not the same as "imperialism".
sbmthakur 8y ago
Yes, but only from the global perspective. For an average Vietnamese rice farmer, who doesn't give two hoots about the global proxy war, it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US." No, this is simply not true. South Vietnamese did not generally like the notion of the North Vietnamese Communists either. The North was invading the South, the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Vietnam is more nuanced than most terms can capture.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    >the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. The fledgling government was only “fledgling” because the CIA installed and then helped destabilize an unpopular, anti-democratic government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup >And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Japan was a democracy prior to the war, with universal male suffrage beginning in the late 1920s. It devolved into fascism through a series of internal coups. It’s great that suffrage was extended to women post war. What wasn’t so great was when the US government absolved, rehabilitated, and financed the former fascists and more or less handed the country back over to them to stop talking the rise of any legitimate, democratic left-wing rule of the country. And this was despite the fact that many leftists in Japan had fought, been imprisoned, and died trying to stop the war and atrocities by the fascists. Amazingly, this effort was led by the CIA-backed war criminal, Nobusuke Kishii under the guise of stopping the “socialist threat” to Japan (quite rich since he and his pals dragged the country into a war that caused untold devastation and destruction). https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi In South Korea, the US backed Syngman Rhee, another fascist who killed tens of thousands of people he perceived to be his left-wing opponents. This unchecked political violence legitimized the cause of Kim Il-Sung and threw the country into a devastating civil war that has been terrible for everyone on the peninsula for the past 70 years. And in spite of all of this, the US continued to back right-wing dictators in South Korea until they were pushed out by a popular uprising in the 1980s (the true origin of South Korean democracy, not the sham the US installed). If you want to understand the reality of US imperialism, I suggest you not blindly accept popular narratives about what the US did postwar, especially in SE Asia. There are plenty of history texts written on the subject.
mirimir 8y ago
> Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Actually, the communists won a free election, and US-supported extremists ignored it. Edit: OK, I misremembered. The 1956 election didn't happen, because South Vietnam refused to participate. And I've read that they refused because they feared that they'd lose.
- gedy 8y ago
  Maybe because those "extremists" saw what the communists were doing to their own people before this "free election"
  - mirimir 8y ago
    No, they were pretty clearly fascists, from what I've read. A key issue here is how difficult it is to apply evidence from what actually happened to what might have happened. I mean, sure, the North Vietnamese did lots of horrible stuff, both during the war, and after they won. But the issue is that "the North Vietnamese" wasn't some static thing. There was selection, based on what went down. And for sure, some horrible stuff went down. Who's to say what would have happened if Ho Chi Minh had become president of Vietnam in 1956.
bjourne 8y ago
In the same vein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just a proxy war between two super powers and not an example of imperialism? Many, many people appreciated the USSR fighting back against the theocratic takeover by Talibans.
mikeash 8y ago
The war in Vietnam was a direct continuation of the French attempt to hold on to their former colony. It turned into a proxy war, but I think the imperialism label sticks quite well here.

buy1get0 8y ago

I'm very impressed with your skill of justification using: > "Yes, a small cadre of extremists did this" Also where's the source for "they were kicked out of the Japanese Communist Party"? Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party#Post-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Communist_Party#Post-... > Then after the Korean War broke out, the party staged some acts of terrorism or sabotage, which resulted in a loss of popular confidence. the plane kidnapping wasn't the only one - it's one of many

phobosdeimos 8y ago

To be fair Japanese-US military cooperation has served both sides well. If the US continues to decline Japan will have to find a way to get along with China.

buy1get0 8y ago
> Japan will have to find a way to get along with China It'll be very difficult to "get along with China"... China (PRC) is the New Thug Nation Look at China building "island bases" on South China Sea (ironic name, because the area is bordering Vietnam/Malaysia/Philippines) China's trying to claim what isn't 100% its own out of greed, even though the bordering countries are protesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luTPMHC7zHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luTPMHC7zHY
knuththetruth 8y ago
I would argue the opposite. US backing of Japan has allowed them to maintain an insular chauvinism relative to their neighbors that has put them in weak diplomatic and economic position when faced with China. If they had instead become more tightly coupled with their neighbors like Korea and Taiwan, they’d be in a much better position to check the power of a rising China (think Germany within the context of the EU). Of course this isn’t entirely Japan’s fault, as the US funded and backed right-wing nationalists in just about all of these countries, so they could play them off each other as was useful to their interests.
- Pica_soO 8y ago
  Turns out the people the CIA finds the most sympathetic and "tuned towards our side" are usually able to send the whole population flying towards the opposition. I guess somewhere in Langley, there is a uttermost secret file analyzing the recruiting and support patterns, summing it up with: Nobody is as good at subverting the USA longterm goals in any region then the CIA.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
The period before Japanese-US military cooperation saw Japan controlling most of China, so kind of hard to believe it's served them well.