Those times AREN"T that far gone. Granted, Japan had no reason to act like the Americans of today, but if you examine their proclaimed reasons, it echoes current American conservative views.Simon_Jester wrote:What's pointless is to try and argue the difference between "irrational" and "insane."
Were Japan's actions rational? Only if you accept some of their premises, which no one today would accept. Were Japan's actions sane? Likewise- only if you accept their premises; it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you and all that. It's pretty much the same question either way.
In hindsight, analyzing history with 21st-century eyes, it's pretty obvious that Japan ended up a lot worse off than if they'd stopped fighting wars around 1919 and never started again. To Japan of the time- well, obviously if they'd seen matters any other way, they wouldn't have done what they did in the first place. It's trivial to say that Japanese grand strategy made sense to them, and equally trivial to say that it doesn't make sense to us.
PainRack seems to be defending the internal consistency of Japan's actions based on the prevailing ideas of the time. While Zinegata seems to be attacking the basic, fundamental stupidity of Japan's actions based on the prevailing ideas of our time.
A huge difference being that in Japan case, their neo-cons were radicals and were military officers dictating the coup as well as the invasion of Manchuria, and then later, to attack China whereas it was politicians in the US example. Just subsitute Iraq for Manchuria, Iran for China and the reasons was virtually the SAME. And of course, unlike 9/11 truthers, the Kwantung army actually DID commit a conspiracy meant to drag Japan into a war for Manchuria.