3 ms·

It's simple, Japan can either choose to go with China, the new great power in its region (which would be the most rational and non-violent choice), or it could

It's simple, Japan can either choose to go with China, the new great power in its region (which would be the most rational and non-violent choice), or it could choose to re-arm at the US's behest and risk direct military confrontation with the same China, which, of course, would be the violent choice (and hence the non-rational one). That's what they get for having lost the last war in which they were involved, i.e. they get to play the music their victor is singing (also see the Plaza Accord).

Proven 4y ago
[dead]
jalapenos 4y ago
Avoiding violence isn't the be all and end all of rationality. It may be that the Japanese see hegemony of the US as a lesser evil than the CCP, and hegemony of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I do wonder why there are so many western voices that seem almost giddy about the rise of China as a power. I imagine they don't like the west much. But unless they've also lived in China in recent years, it's just maligning the devil you know.
- paganel 4y ago
  > of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I'm mirroring de Gaulle right now, in saying that the US have been blind-sided by not having had any real war on their homeland for more than a century (he was saying it in 1968), that's why they have all this messianic instincts. No, almost nothing is worth dying for en masse (which what a US vs China war would mean).
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > I’m mirroring de Gaulle Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty?
    - paganel 4y ago
      > Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty? I think you got him wrong, he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty (also see his NATO-related policies). I got that quote from a transcript of a discussion he had with Ceausescu (I'm from Romania myself), during his last visit outside of France as a president (in May '68). He also did take some risks regarding his personal safety when it came to the sovereign future of Algeria. Granted, what his henchmen did in connection to Africa was definitely not ok (I'm right now reading a book about Foccart), but unfortunately that was par for the course for the big powers back then.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing.
        paganel 4y ago
        > Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing. I don't think China would mirror France's policies against Guinea, it has never done so in, what? 1000+ years?. Saying otherwise is preposterous. But, hey, whatever gets the Western war machine going, I guess. Also, you're ignoring the part about de Gaulle being right about NATO and about its real meaning (US direct control over Western Europe).
        rhaway84773 4y ago
        The U.S. has been trying to divest itself from NATO for at least a decade now, since the Obama administration. It’s Western Europe that is unable to wean itself off the sweet sweet American funded protection.
  - noduerme 4y ago
    I don't think de Gaulle was trying to say that repeated wars on French soil had taught France that freedom wasn't worth dying for.
  - jalapenos 4y ago
    Yes, unfortunately it's just "almost".
- noduerme 4y ago
  It's inconceivable to people who've psychologically come to terms with prostrating themselves to life under oppressive regimes that someone else might be willing to die to avoid doing so.
logicchains 4y ago
>Japan can either choose to go with China, the new great power in its region (which would be the most rational and non-violent choice) It's not the non-violent choice any more than England trying to appease Nazi Germany was the non-violent choice. Or Ukraine trying to make friends with Russia.
- paganel 4y ago
  > It's not the non-violent choice any more than England trying to appease Nazi Germany was the non-violent choice. Or France calling Nasser as literally the new Hitler when they had become upset about the Suez Canal (real title from the NYTimes: "Nasser Is Hitler Imitator, France's Premier Charges"). It doesn't work that way. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/31/archives/nasser-is-hitler-imitator-frances-premier-charges-forced-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/31/archives/nasser-is-hitler...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- throwawaytrafe 4y ago
  England was no different they too killed millions in their colonies
edrxty 4y ago
Sure, on paper this looks rational but there's some pretty extreme historical...context...between the two countries. It could be overcome eventually but I wouldn't put money on that universe making any more sense than our own.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Japan and China are never going to have more than a businesslike relationship. People can get on but the two countries have fundamentally different ethos'.
noduerme 4y ago
The best thing to come from WWII was the definitive proof that the Axis/Nazi ethos was wrong. National/racial struggle through military might does not determine history. The idea that might can make right in the modern world turned out to be false; it was an exceptional species of hubris. Engaging in that belief now as China or Russia are doing is equally self-defeating. Japan's success is a testimony to the fact that rejection of a warlike nationalist belief system confers more economic power than hanging onto a self-destructive one.
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  > The idea that might can make right in the modern world turned out to be false; The idea of racial might has been disproven, but international might (including allies) very much still makes right. The undisputed winners of WWII were the USSR and the US, both with internationalist ideologies and very strong industrial bases. One might say that inclusive might makes right. (Another lesson would be to stay out of the fight and build up industrial capacity, supporting your allies by proxy while the other parties wear themselves down.)
  - noduerme 4y ago
    The USSR certainly didn't stay out of the fight; but your point is taken. Inclusive might was proven more effective than exclusive might. One of these states collapsed and was replaced by nation-states which are more or less inclusive of minorities, more or less democratic; some very much so, others not at all. The other, although it still projects power around the world, is riven by internal dissent and the type of self-questioning of its own history and validity that would never fly in a nationalist, expansionist, authoritarian state like Germany or Japan during the war. Some people think that's a sign of weakness for the US, but since the US's hold on the world hasn't lapsed perhaps we should consider it a sign of strength. In that case it's not just inclusive might, but self-reflection against the foundations of "might" that lets one write and rewrite history by appealing to people stuck in less flexible systems.
ipnon 4y ago
The funniest thing about this argument in a that you could have applied it to China itself in the 1930s. “Japan is the new great power in the East. China must get with the times and submit to Japanese Imperialism. It is the natural order now in international affairs.”

Proven 4y ago

[dead]

jalapenos 4y ago

Avoiding violence isn't the be all and end all of rationality. It may be that the Japanese see hegemony of the US as a lesser evil than the CCP, and hegemony of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I do wonder why there are so many western voices that seem almost giddy about the rise of China as a power. I imagine they don't like the west much. But unless they've also lived in China in recent years, it's just maligning the devil you know.

paganel 4y ago
> of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational. I'm mirroring de Gaulle right now, in saying that the US have been blind-sided by not having had any real war on their homeland for more than a century (he was saying it in 1968), that's why they have all this messianic instincts. No, almost nothing is worth dying for en masse (which what a US vs China war would mean).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > I’m mirroring de Gaulle Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty?
  - paganel 4y ago
    > Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty? I think you got him wrong, he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty (also see his NATO-related policies). I got that quote from a transcript of a discussion he had with Ceausescu (I'm from Romania myself), during his last visit outside of France as a president (in May '68). He also did take some risks regarding his personal safety when it came to the sovereign future of Algeria. Granted, what his henchmen did in connection to Africa was definitely not ok (I'm right now reading a book about Foccart), but unfortunately that was par for the course for the big powers back then.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing.
      - paganel 4y ago
        > Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing. I don't think China would mirror France's policies against Guinea, it has never done so in, what? 1000+ years?. Saying otherwise is preposterous. But, hey, whatever gets the Western war machine going, I guess. Also, you're ignoring the part about de Gaulle being right about NATO and about its real meaning (US direct control over Western Europe).
        rhaway84773 4y ago
        The U.S. has been trying to divest itself from NATO for at least a decade now, since the Obama administration. It’s Western Europe that is unable to wean itself off the sweet sweet American funded protection.
- noduerme 4y ago
  I don't think de Gaulle was trying to say that repeated wars on French soil had taught France that freedom wasn't worth dying for.
- jalapenos 4y ago
  Yes, unfortunately it's just "almost".
noduerme 4y ago
It's inconceivable to people who've psychologically come to terms with prostrating themselves to life under oppressive regimes that someone else might be willing to die to avoid doing so.

logicchains 4y ago

>Japan can either choose to go with China, the new great power in its region (which would be the most rational and non-violent choice) It's not the non-violent choice any more than England trying to appease Nazi Germany was the non-violent choice. Or Ukraine trying to make friends with Russia.

paganel 4y ago
> It's not the non-violent choice any more than England trying to appease Nazi Germany was the non-violent choice. Or France calling Nasser as literally the new Hitler when they had become upset about the Suez Canal (real title from the NYTimes: "Nasser Is Hitler Imitator, France's Premier Charges"). It doesn't work that way. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/31/archives/nasser-is-hitler-imitator-frances-premier-charges-forced-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1956/07/31/archives/nasser-is-hitler...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
throwawaytrafe 4y ago
England was no different they too killed millions in their colonies

edrxty 4y ago

Sure, on paper this looks rational but there's some pretty extreme historical...context...between the two countries. It could be overcome eventually but I wouldn't put money on that universe making any more sense than our own.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Japan and China are never going to have more than a businesslike relationship. People can get on but the two countries have fundamentally different ethos'.

noduerme 4y ago

The best thing to come from WWII was the definitive proof that the Axis/Nazi ethos was wrong. National/racial struggle through military might does not determine history. The idea that might can make right in the modern world turned out to be false; it was an exceptional species of hubris. Engaging in that belief now as China or Russia are doing is equally self-defeating. Japan's success is a testimony to the fact that rejection of a warlike nationalist belief system confers more economic power than hanging onto a self-destructive one.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
> The idea that might can make right in the modern world turned out to be false; The idea of racial might has been disproven, but international might (including allies) very much still makes right. The undisputed winners of WWII were the USSR and the US, both with internationalist ideologies and very strong industrial bases. One might say that inclusive might makes right. (Another lesson would be to stay out of the fight and build up industrial capacity, supporting your allies by proxy while the other parties wear themselves down.)
- noduerme 4y ago
  The USSR certainly didn't stay out of the fight; but your point is taken. Inclusive might was proven more effective than exclusive might. One of these states collapsed and was replaced by nation-states which are more or less inclusive of minorities, more or less democratic; some very much so, others not at all. The other, although it still projects power around the world, is riven by internal dissent and the type of self-questioning of its own history and validity that would never fly in a nationalist, expansionist, authoritarian state like Germany or Japan during the war. Some people think that's a sign of weakness for the US, but since the US's hold on the world hasn't lapsed perhaps we should consider it a sign of strength. In that case it's not just inclusive might, but self-reflection against the foundations of "might" that lets one write and rewrite history by appealing to people stuck in less flexible systems.

ipnon 4y ago

The funniest thing about this argument in a that you could have applied it to China itself in the 1930s. “Japan is the new great power in the East. China must get with the times and submit to Japanese Imperialism. It is the natural order now in international affairs.”