2012: do you remember?

It is almost the year 2012. We'll have a lot to remember this year ....

20 years ago (1992): the Maastricht Treaty signed (7 February). The move towards a European integration was boosted and the single currency, the Euro, became reality, while Britain remained as sceptical of the idea of European union as ever. Now they are saying I told you so and the rest of Europe is really, really annoyed.

30 years ago (1982): the Falklands War (April-June). Britain was about to be consigned to the second division of the world and then this war totally revived her fortune. It demonstrated that, with logistical backing of the United States, Britain could still wage an expeditionary warfare. The Argentinians could not believe they lost. The bloody dictatorship of General Galtieri ended as a result. Not so bad news after all then?

[The Illustrious class British aircraft carrier that proved its worth during the war.]

50 years ago (1962): the Cuban missile crisis (October). The United States and the Soviet Union square off in Cuba. Annoyed by the US deployment of new middle range nuclear missiles in Turkey, the Soviet Union shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba. JFK, having been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was determined not to climb down even if it meant an all-out nuclear war. The Soviets did back down; yet, behind the scenes, the US also agreed to withdraw the missiles in Turkey.

70 Years ago (1942): what Winston Churchill called the end of the beginning. The Axis powers in WW2 began to lose. First go the Japanese, who, despite enjoying numerical superiority in major warships in the western Pacific, got soundly beaten by the US Navy at Midway in June. In October, the British finally stopped and comprehensively defeated the Germans in North Africa, led by the ‘Desert Fox’, Erwin Rommel. The Germans would meet even bigger disaster in Russia: Operation Blau [blue], aimed at occupying Caucasus and its oil fields, was launched in summer. By the end of the year, they captured Stalingrad. There, they were bogged down, locked into deadly city fight with the Russians. They eventually got surrounded not just in the city but also in the entire operational sector by the counter-attacking Red Army. The German Sixth Army under General von Paulus was completely encircled and then annihilated. Nearly one million German soldiers perished, but, more than one million Soviets also became casualties.

100 years ago (1912): the Balkan Wars broke out (October). Throughout the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Turkish Empire was in retreat, whereas the advance of the Slavic nations was accelerating. Bulgaria and Serbia were at the forefront of this Pan-Slavic spring, with the backing of the Russian Empire. Greece also won independence, and, although not strong or large enough to take on the Ottomans on its own, it also benefitted from the weakening of the Ottoman power. The tension between the Sublime Porte and its former subjects reached a boiling point in the early twentieth century. With the Turkish defeat at the hands of the Italians (1911-1912) and the forming of the Balkan League, the time was ripe for an all-out offensive to push Turks back into Asia. At sea, the Greek armoured cruiser Averoff became the pride of the Hellenic navy by spearheading its offensive against the Turkish fleet, wrestling sea supremacy from the Turks in the Aegean. Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece all gained territories. But over the spoil of war, the second Balkan war would break out next year (1913) between Serbia and Bulgaria. This time, Bulgaria would lose what she had gained in the first war.

[The Averoff: the Italian-built armoured cruiser, now a museum ship in Athens, Greece.]

[The Battleship Averoff website (http://www.bsaverof.com/)

The Hellenic Navy website (http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/index.php/el/Ιστορία-Παράδοση/istoriapn.html) ]

Pan Slavism was destabilizing the whole region: the Slavic nations were gaining at the expense of traditional multi-national empires, but sowing new seeds of conflict as they go along. Most seriously, Serbia’s victories were alarming the Hapsburg Empire to such an extent that enmity between these two states would eventually spark off WW1, when Gavrilo Princip fired those fatal shots in Sarajevo in 1914.

[Available as free e-book: Shurman, J. G. (1914). The Balkan Wars, 1912-13.]

150 years ago (1862):  the second year of the American Civil War. The battle of Antietam in September. During the first year of the Civil War, both the United States and the Confederate States of America were still learning how to fight modern war. The more desperate Confederates had an edge though, and during 1862, they believed that they were winning, as they were threatening even Washington D.C. The battle of Antietam was a result of the Union’s attempt to stop the Confederates’ advance after their win in an earlier battle. It was a bloodbath: more than 20,000 Americans became casualties. Though not a clear victory for the Union, it did blunt the Confederates’ offensive and so is considered as the turning point of the Civil War by some. During the next year, the Confederates’ attempt to find another way to achieve a decisive victory led to the battle of Gettysburg [we’ll commemorate this one in 2013!], which quashed their last chance of victory.

[The Dunker Church. This rather featureless house was a focal point during the battle of Antietam. Antietam National Park.]

200 years ago (1812): Napoleon’s Russian campaign and the Anglo-American war of 1812. It was like a world war. Napoleon was victorious in Europe, except that Spain was still resisting with British help and Russia had no intention of submitting to him. Napoleon invaded Russia in three major thrusts. Napoleon’s main force in the centre marched straight towards Moscow. Having lost a series of minor engagements and the major battle at Smolensk (August), the Russians made their last stand at Borodino, in front of Moscow (September). Though suffering heavily, Napoleon won the day and resumed his advance. The Russian Tsar Alexander abandoned Moscow. Napoleon entered Moscow, but the Russians burnt down the city. Napoleon’s attempt to impose peace on the Russians was frustrated, as Alexander refused to capitulate. With the onset of the Russian winter, Napoleon realized that his army could not stay without provisions. His men were cold and starving. The tragedy of the retreat began. Constantly harassed by the Russian partisans and the Cossacks, the French doggedly withdrew, but, by the time the army departed Russia, the main force of the Grande Armée had been reduced to just 10,000, out of the original strength of more than 400,000.

With the bulk of the French army destroyed, the Russians chased up. The Tsar Alexander liberated Europe from the French and marched into Paris. Napoleon was deposed; even though he would come back taking advantage of the victorious allies’ bickering over post-war settlement, encouraged by the French defeat in Russia, another grand coalition materialized, which would converge in the field of Waterloo in 1815.

[The Tsar Alexander I]

1812 was the year that started the final downfall of Napoleon. Less spectacularly but equally importantly, two wars Britain had been waging against Napoleon were also going well this year: the guerrilla warfare in Spain and the naval war. Ever since Britain defeated France at Trafalgar six years previously, Britain held supremacy of the seas, tightening the blockade of France. But this led to another problem across the Atlantic.

The naval war meant interdiction of merchant shipping by belligerents. Any ship suspected of carrying goods to and out of France could be stopped by the Royal Navy. Britain upheld the right of the belligerent, seizing any goods as contraband. The United States, a neutral, on the other hand, insisted on freedom of the seas: she should have rights to trade with any country and carry goods to any destination at high seas.

In peacetime, this was a legal dispute. In wartime, this Anglo-American difference on the fundamental principle regarding maritime trade in wartime was serious enough to destroy their otherwise cosy relationship. (This Anglo-American row continued until the eve of WW2.) As the US continued to sell stuff to France (naturally, the French, blockaded by Britain, were eager to trade with the US), the British Royal Navy seized some American ships. Americans protested that it was an assault on their fundamental freedom. Neither side was prepared to back down, and incidents, which enraged the Americans more, were taking place with an alarming frequently. In the end, a war was inevitable. (June 1812)

The land war in 1812 was mostly fought along US-Canadian border regions. (Ever since, the idea of American invasion of Canada has never completely died out: as late as in 1926, the Canadian military drew up a plan for just such a case to the embarrassment of the government, and even today, the Canadians are worried that the Americans are up to something.[i]) The US Navy, outnumbered, fought gallantly, scoring some unlikely victories with its fleet of a handful of frigates. The war led to burning of Washington DC by the British. (The only occasion that the US mainland was seriously invaded by foreign forces since Independence.) Amazingly, however, the US persevered and would win the war [1815].

[The USN battling the Royal Navy.]

[Classic available as e-book: Roosevelt, Theodore (1882). The Naval War of 1812. New York and London.]

---

[i] The Economist, Print Edition, December 10^th, 2011: ‘The Border Two-step’

The scariest T-62 tank I've seen

Last month, I was in Budapest, Hungary. I went to House of Terror, a museum converted from the Police Prison. It commemorates victims of Nazi violence and Communist oppression in the 20th century.

Faces of those victims locked up in the basement of this building or deported to Siberia...

The exhibits appear to be rather usual at first sight. Except, visitors are given handouts which describe (in Magyar and English!) lives of Hungarians under these tyrannical regimes. Under what conditions political prisoners were forced to work in camps; how some were locked up in underground prisons. Multiple screen videos show recorded interviews of survivors and contemporaries to convey what it was like. To me the contrast between their battered faces and smooth, rather cheerful faces of Hungarian youth visiting this place was the most startling thing. Hungary has finally moved on since the collapse of the Habsburg Empire.

What was most poignant and funny in a way was a video in a small booth showing how people swapped their Nazi uniform to the Communist one at the end of WW2....

• http://www.terrorhaza.hu/en/index_2.html

(The English page doesn't seem to be working...)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Terror

Japanese Samurai warriors.. (from my recent work)

My article on the origins of the Samurai warriors of Japan has been published by Historical Quest, an online history magazine. Unfortunately, it is all in Greek! So here is the gist of it in English.

The image of the Samurai warrior has been distorted not just in the West but in Japan as well, due to romanticism in Japanese literature and modern media. Novels and movies tend to distort our perception of history, and, in Japan, the Samurai is just another victim.

The Samurai is something nostalgically reconstructed in the Edo era from the 17th century until 1868, during which Samurai warriors formed the ruling elite, but, since they successfully ruled the country in peace, there was no war, either externally or internally. Samurai warriors became bureaucrats. The colourful image of the Samurai was invented for popular consumption and also for the self-image of those officials who had lost all combat skills and ethos of those free spirited warriors of the olden times who had valued the idea of self-help in the chaotic medieval period.

So, what sort of people were Samurai warriors in reality?

Some people seem to believe that these warriors practically died out with the coming of western warfare to the east. Yet, these warriors were actually quite flexible, learning new art of warfare and adopting new weapons when necessary; they did not have to don those armours and wield that Samurai sword. The sword was not the weapon of the Samurai – it was a part of the image created in peacetime.

In the ancient and medieval period, Japan’s wars were usually precipitated by attempts of the early kingdom of Japan to spread its domain to the rest of the Japanese island chain. They met considerable resistance, and, conscript armies of the ancient Japanese state had hard time conquering the eastern and northern parts of Japan. The Japanese state was a rice-farming based sedentary society, whereas in the north, where it was too cold for rice farming, people preferred hunter-gathering life style (hence Sushi).

Court nobles often sought chances of promotion by serving the Emperor by organising armies of conquest. It is a little like the Western knightly class forming compagnie to wage wars for self-advancement. But, fighting in the countryside, they often went native: merging with the local strongmen, some were forming their own power base in the wild countryside, complimented by their own private armies.

The conquered, too, sought to help themselves by taking up practice of forming their own companies. Sometimes they were nothing but bandits, while others might be engaged in legitimate businesses. Some notable, powerful warlords would emerge, curving up territories, ostensibly as loyal subordinates of the Emperor.

As the old Japanese state was in decline by the 12th century, some powerful warlords began to seek ultimate power. They did not dare destroy the state. Rather, they sought to obtain positions reserved by the traditional, land-owning nobles at the court. Some warlords favoured marriage alliances with high nobles to win positions; but in the end, some tried brute force to gain recognition and appointment as high officials, including the coveted office of ‘Shogun’, the high commander of the Emperor’s army.

By the end of the 12th century, some warlords led by the Genji clan had become so powerful, they opened a government in Kamakura, which ruled the entire country on behalf of the Emperor, opening an era of dual government, which lasted until 1868.

So how did these Samurai warriors fight?

We think that they were sword swinging barbarian warriors. Even the Japanese themselves believed in this myth; during WW2, some soldiers and officers took their swords (many of them were actually made for decorative purposes and could not be used effectively apart from beheading captured enemies soldiers) to remind themselves of their traditional ethos and value of the Samurai.

But the early Samurais were more like horse archers of Central Asian nomads. They apparently learnt the style from the Mongols, most likely via the Chinese. They used the bow as the main weapon, not the sword. The sword was for the final coup de grace, which usually meant beheading of the fallen foe, so that a warrior can display that he had won. Horse archery skills were highly prized and they preferred close-range ambushes and skirmish type combats. Wars between rival bands of warriors might be decided by single combat.

This is due to the fact that the Japanese had to develop such skills against the native inhabitants of the Japanese island chain, who were hunter-gatherers and hence skilled archers. The early Japanese armies were a little like Roman legionnaires, equipped with short swords and shields, and fought in a massed formation of infantry. Against the mobile enemies of north, they were often beaten badly, so, naturally they adopted their more mobile combat styles.

Many contemporary drawings show warriors on horseback, shooting arrows from their long wooden bow or composite bows; apparently they were capable of making Parthian shot.

As the conquest of Japan was completed, however, fighting style began to change. Power struggles between rival warlords provoked more local wars, usually aiming at acquiring more territories, commercial rights, and, in some cases, satisfying personal honour. Winning a single combat with a strong rival often resulted in winning both material gains and prestige; the sword, the weapon suited for single combat with a decisive result, became the weapon of Samurai.

Fighting styles varied accordingly, but, as the whole country was plunged into free-for-all fray for land-grab, combined armies began to develop. By the high period of the so-called War Lord era of the 16th century, Japanese armies tend to be large with tens of thousands of infantry conscripted from the peasantry, led by high-ranking warriors, who were usually mounted. They were capable of adopting quickly: it did not take long for them to develop an effective massed tactics utilising muskets only a few decades after Portuguese merchants introduced them.

So it is a little wonder they disarmed quickly when the period of endless wars finally ended at the beginning of the 17th century (the last one was the uprising of Japanese Christians, which was brutally suppressed); then, in the middle of the 19th, faced with the threat of European colonialism, they quickly rearmed, learning new techniques and tactics from the West.

Samurais are essentially warriors who fought in spirit of free and self-help. This quality gave them flexibility and adoptability that made them such formidable warriors. 

Late Antiquity now

‘Late Antiquity’ is the term introduced in the 1970s in the English-speaking academia describing the centuries when the Roman Empire was in decline and Europe was plunged into the Dark Age. The Empire fell and the half of the Mediterranean world was taken over by the force of Islam.

Of course this is too simplistic. The Roman Empire did lose territories, and eventually had to accept even the loss of the city of Rome, the birthplace of the Empire. But, Rome itself was not the only magnet of ancient economy to begin with, and, in her place, other big cities were thriving. The decline of the city of Rome does not necessarily mean that the entire Mediterranean world was in decline.

The traditional view of the fall of Rome was basically about barbarian invasions from the periphery, especially those of the Germanic peoples from north, forcing Rome to overspend on defence. But in the post-WW2 period, historians and archaeologists began to find evidence to indicate that in many parts of this world, people are doing rather well.

More recent historical studies also show that what was happening in the late period of the Roman Empire, i.e., from the fourth into the seventh century, was the process of a transformation from a bipolar world to a multi-polar one. At the heyday of the Empire, only two powers, Rome and Persia, mattered. Within a few centuries, however, peoples in regions surrounding these empires were touched by these advanced civilizations, and, exploiting Roman peace, got richer. Vibrant and rich culture of Rome spread, changing the ways people live and think fundamentally. As a result, new political and social forces emerged. Having learned advanced civilization, they could form more efficient and powerful states that could rival the Roman state itself.

Sounds familiar? I wonder if we live in a world that resembles the late antique Roman world. The USA is no longer a dominant hegemon. We often talk about the decline of the USA, the US dollar and even the English language. But of course this does not mean that world civilization as a whole is in decline and will be plunged into another dark age. Our living standard has been steadily rising for the past half-century or so and the world population keeps growing.

In fact, the world is now more prosperous. More people are considered as ‘middle class’, relatively well off, well educated and politically more assertive than in the past. We demand more than just food and shelter; and we absolutely refuse to let the few push us around. Pluse our middle class morality led to be compassionate, trying to feed the poor in the less advanced parts of the world. Just as Christianity spread in the late Roman period.

One downside of this society is that we are not producing cultural giants. Everyone is mediocre (including you and I!). Literary and artistic skills, and scientific and philosophical training are not monopolised by the handful of privileged people. This means that in future people would not be reading twentieth or twenty-first century authors as Classics as we read Homer, Herodotus or Shakespeare, or listening to Bach or Mozart. In late antiquity, we have a similar, culturally lean period with few original works of science or literature was produced. Before modern archaeology, historians thought that this was a sign of decline, but maybe it could also be a sign of a rich, smug and lazy society?

What will be the conseuquences of all this? It can be argued that the late antique world eventually led to a fragmentation of the world once connected with trade presicely because of its success. The ancient world was linked by trade routes, stimulating international trade and commerce, encourageing population movements and specialisation of local economies. When financial and economic crisis of the third century led to the massive restructuring of the world system, which inevitably produced winners and losers, the middle class peoples, having enjoyed dividend of Roman peace, demanded more power, hoping to replace the existing elite who had cuased the crisis. Thus the centralised system of Roman imperialism was under increasing pressure, giving way to regional and more localised centres of political power.

Within the Roman Empire, Egypt and Western Europe were particularly strong dissenting voices. Keeping Europe in the Roman orbit was not as crucial as Egypt, so the Empire downsized by shedding the West. Letting Britain go was no surprise; Gaul had to go too, as the cost of controlling this province was too high; losing Italy was a bit shocking, as Rome was where the Empire had started in the first place. After a brief lull in the sixth century, which the Romans used to regroup and reorganise (historians call this empire Byzantium), the force of Islam took Egypt away in the seventh century. The Egyptians did not exactly welcome the Arabs, perhaps, but the Muslim leaders could exploit the independent spirit of the Egyptians to their advantage.

Translated into today’s political landscape, the same sort of thing is going on in various parts of the world. Countries are getting less inclined to adhere to a system that intricately connects up different parts of the world, which encourages specialization of economy and can deprive nations of ability to control their own future. Europe’s financial crisis is one good indication that various European states with varying degree of financial and industrial development could get together and form a community of equals is a fiction. Either we must accept the reality that the EU is essentially a Franco-German Empire (Charlemagne’s dream, basically) and impose their rule with intimidation behind closed doors, or, just give up the idea. A partnership of equals can work only among countries like Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

It is said that out of ashes of Rome, three worlds were born: Western Europe, Orthdox East and Islamic East with their own unique cultural and economic outlook. Our world is going through a similar transformation. This time the story is unfolding in a truly global scale. What is ironic is that thanks to globalised economy, we enjoy today’s prosperity, making us more assertive and critical of forces of globalisation. (Those liberals who think they are poor and therefore protesting against capitalism and globalisation would have been busy just getting next meal without benefits of globalisation.)

The political forces arising out of this generation which takes everthing for granted would eventually lead to changes in the ways our economy works, perhaps leading to more localised economy and restrictive political culture. Access to resources to sustain today’s technology and economy could easily be hampered by suspicious and jealous local rulers whose primary mission is to protect the locals. In other words, by trying to get rid of distant demon emperors, we would just invite barbarian kings. I bet they would tolerate no liberal protesters squatting in city squares!

Shifting our green problems

Is the solar panel really green? While discussing with a friend over matters of our energy supplies, this question just hit me. We think that the solar panel is a green solution to our energy needs; but what if producing it can be as eco unfriendly as oil-powered power plants (cf. Deepwater, 2010) or even nuclear ones (cf. Fukushima, 2011)?

Manufacturing solar panels takes lots of energy (that is, using electricity generated by other carbon emitting power plants) and produces toxins that could damage environment and people’s health. Also extracting materials from the mother earth itself can impact on environment, both natural and human.

Some have warned about this, but unless you consciously look for it, you won’t find much information. Certainly there is no drive to heighten public awareness on the issue on the part of the mainstream media.

Then I heard on BBC for just five seconds: there has been a protest in eastern China against a nearby solar panel factory damaging their environment. I started chasing.

Now it is reported that the plant in question was closed down. The manufacturer, Jingko Solar Co., was suspected of dumping toxic material in a nearby river, killing fish and causing other environmental damages. The local people demanded explanation, violent confrontation followed, and finally authorities stepped in, ordering the company to stop production of solar panels.

Can we say that it is a Chinese problem and dismiss it as such? After all, manufacturing of any industrial products can leave dangerous toxic stuff as byproduct, and apparently, the Chinese are behaving just like Western industrialists in the era of the Industrial Revolution in the previous centuries. In the West, they say that our technology is improving. Overall, the whole process of solar panel production, from the material extraction stage to the final assembly, is still much more eco friendly than using other energy sources.

Or, are we just letting the Chinese build the most polluting kinds of those panels while our manufacturers get to build good ones? Our old computers also end up in China, where under-paid low-skilled workers put those machines apart by bear hands. No protective gears, no facemasks, nothing. It is amazing that they let a Japanese TV crew film it at all.

Now should we go on talking about manufacturing of computers, mobile phones, and flat panel TVs? Personally, I’m not so sure the radiation from mobile phones won’t damage our brains. By the looks of it, it is already too late, most young people and business elite is now zombies.

.. and incidentally, a small solar panel for mobile phones I bought this summer broke down within a week of purchasing. It was made in China. How the >_< do I recycle this thing?

Ref.: -

http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/enviro-vlc/2009-January/001286.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-09/20/content_13739338.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/chinese-solar-panel-factory-protest

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power

War month is finally over!

August is over. 66 years ago, Japan surrendered on August 15^th and signed the peace treaty in early September. Ever since, the Japanese media, especially the state run NHK has been using August as the war remembrance month, telling the public that their country is dedicated to peace. To make this point, they talk about the extent and scope of national calamity that was the Pacific War: war vetrans and civilians who lived through the Pacific War talks about how their cities were bombed and innocent people were burnt alive; soldiers, who had no personal grudges against enemy, were ordered to fight and kill – sometimes enemy PoWs. Everyone suffered and many lives and properties were lost; hence war is not worth it, and Japan has renounced war as a policy option. Etc. etc.

What is not talked about is how on earth Japan started the war in the first place. What calculations were made when deciding on aggressive foreign policy that ultimately led to that war are discussed rarely.

A recent TV documentary I saw on NHK discussed how a lack of strong leader led to the decision to go to war with the US in December 1941 – they say that the decision makers all wanted to avoid war with the US, but equally, they did not want to humiliate some ministers, diplomats or military leaders who had been responsible to have led the nation to the mess. In the end, they just failed to take a decisive step to accept the American ultimatum that demanded that Japan would stop its aggressive actions in the Western Pacific region, and so they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Huh?

All of this does not make sense because they almost never discuss root causes of wars in Asia in the 30s and the 40s. The War in the Pacific 1941-45 was, in a way, a peacekeeping operation by the American led allies in the world without peacekeeping mechanism. (The US did not even join the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, making it spineless when it comes to peacekeeping. ) What was going on was a Japanese design based on the old, now discredited European imperialist model, aimed at constructing a system or empire getting out of hand. We must see this in a larger context of development of international relations from the late 19th century up to the 1930s.

In face of growing menace of Western imperialism of the 19th century, Japan responded with a bold strategy: to join the ranks of the great powers. They considered themselves a young nation, and looked up at the European great powers as role models. The Japanese eagerly learnt to play by the rules of the great game. From the late 19th century, they ventured overseas to test their own ability to survive in the competitive environment of international great games.

Colonising China was a logical step. As China was powerless in face of British, German and Russian imperialism, Japan’s security could be obtained either by propping up China or by colonising it. The Americans chose to help China for the sake of their commercial interest and anti-imperialistic principles. (From the Chinese point of view, they were merely meddling!) Japan followed the second. Still enmity between them did not develop at first, as Americans considered Japan as a potential victim of European imperialism, which needed their protection.

They realised that Japan was not heading a right direction soon after Japan managed to defeat Russia in 1905. But soon, the whole framework of international relations went through a radical overhaul.

WW1 resulted in destructions of four European empires: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and the Ottoman empires were all extinguished. The winners, Britain and France, were so exhausted economically and financially (Britain, for example, was borrowing money from Egypt!), their expansive energy and confidence were gone.

As a result, suddenly, Japan rose to the first division of the great power club. Symbolically, the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921-22 considered Japan as the third largest naval power, next only to the British Empire and the US. (Then, the number of battleships determined your place in the world.)

This rapid rise from being an obscure and unknown Asian country to a first class world power naturally affected Japanese self-image and confidence. They were beginning to think that they were the most superior race, on a par with the Anglo-Americans.

By contrast, China’s fortune hit the rock bottom. The country was a shambles: the old Chinese Empire, powerless in face of Europeans and even the Japanese, lost its credibility. The new republican government was set up after a revolution but this was still fragile . During WW1, Japan, taking advantage of European preoccupation with the war, demanded the Chinese government to accept some humiliating terms giving up concessions and trade privileges to Japan. The Chinese were incensed, but in face of Japanese military might, they had no choice but to acquiesce.

One good thing about your country’s fortune hitting rock bottom is that there is only way up from that point on. Although in a virtual civil war, new forces contesting for control of China were emerging (i.e., the Nationalists and the Communists). On the other hand, Japan began to struggle to maintain its newly won position. Soon after the end of WW1, its fragile economy was exposed; the massive earthquake that destroyed Tokyo in 1923 also exacerbated the problem. Society was in turmoil, as the gap between the rich and the poor widened, with social policies lagging behind. Food riots were rampant. The ruling class genuinely feared a Socialist revolution. Finally, with the onset of the Great Depression in the 30s, the fact that Japan was still a ‘work-in-progress’ nation was all too plain to see.

For Japan’s democracy was still primitive. In time of difficulty, politicians failed to act wisely and decisively, making the frustrated populace back a wrong kind of people: the army.

The army believed that formerly colonising northern chunk of China, which was in a state of anarchy, was the only practical answer to Japan’s economic and social woes and strategic problems. They also thought that what they were doing was no different from British colonial intrigues.

Except that the Chinese were not willing to live under the Japanese. The Japanese, on their part, looked down on the Chinese as a subservient race and considered them as inferior to them in any conceivable way.

So, when the Japanese launched a full-scale invasion in 1937, they were surprised by the fierce resistance of the German-trained Chinese forces defending Shanghai. These were equipped with much better German and Czech weapons and inflicted considerable casualties on the invading Japanese troops.

Not just tactically but politically also, the Chinese will to resist was far more tenacious than the Japanese expectations. The Nationalists even concluded a truce with the Communists to concentrate on the war with the Japanese. A tragedy this directly or indirectly caused was the infamous massacre at Nanking.

It was a classic case of soldiers going wild after a difficult siege; with the surprisingly primitive logistical system of the Japanese army, the soldiers on the front line were starving and fighting with mounting losses. So, they were not in a mood to show mercy after taking the city. The scale and the nature of this atrocity have been disputed by the Japanese and the Chinese. It is, however, fairly obvious that this was caused by the poor planning and over-confidence on the part of the Japanese high command.

The fall of Nanking did not end the war. The Japanese tried terrorizing the populace by aerial bombing and brutal scorched earth tactics but these only stiffened the Chinese resistance. It is estimated that between 1937 and 1941, as many as 300,000-400,000 Japanese were killed (Chinese losses were at least several times of this figure.)

Instead of blaming their own arrogance, short-sightedness, poor intelligence and inept planning, the Japanese army developed utter hatred to Britain and America, as they were giving the Nationalist Chinese morale and material support.

Still, at first, they knew that they could not fight China and the Western nations simultaneously. They tried to seek diplomatic solutions, but they did not want to admit that they made a mistake to their own public. They needed a face-saving decisive victory, which was denied to them. The Japanese were sucked ever deeper into the quagmire.

The hope now was Nazi Germany, ironically enough. In 1940, it looked as though Germany was about to win; with Britain, France and the Netherlands either already defeated or busy fighting Germany, they figured, they could seize their colonies to get oil and other war materials.

The US response was trade sanctions; then it moved its Pacific Fleet to Hawaii to send a strong message that it was serious. This move, instead of making the Japanese act sensibly, cornered them psychologically: there was no way out now. Rather than accept a humiliating climb-down, they chose war with America, regardless of consequences. The Japanese felt that they were already losing a contest to control the Western Pacific with the US anyway. It was a gamble: hit the US hard and hope the US public opinion would stop the American government. Some became victims of their own propaganda: saying that the Americans were soft, they really began to believe that, only to find out the sheer determination of the US public to defeat Japan utterly.

What Japan lacked was experienced diplomats and strategists. Unable to find an exit strategy from the stagnant war, they ended up starting another unwinnable war. 

Tragic.

And what is even more tragic is that latest generations of the Japanese are growing up without learning any of this.