Talk:Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

credibility

Why is this ideology described as a front? Is the Civil War called the war of Northern Aggression or the Civil War and does the differing perspectivs in that war bring explanation for this article? Or how about the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, White Mans Burden, Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, or GLobalization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 17:39:47

The War of Northeren Aggression is used by Confederate sympathists to make the South look better. In reality, the root of the war was not in an aggressive union. Likewise, the war was not about bringing prosperity to East Asia. The citizens of Nanjing can tell you that. That's why it is a front. Foster2008 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the following paragraphs, brutality and intended goals used as a form of one must match the other to prove validity is a terrible fallacy practiced among dilettantes of history :) On the contrary to your assertion about the Civil War not being about an aggressive union or prosperity. Here let me explain to you since this escapes your perception. Prosperity results in a unified program or plan. Hmmmm,,, could the EU or any other hemispheric or continental economic organization have it benefits? The South wanted to have its own sovereignty as it perceived this as the only course of action to maintain their own status quo for slave states participation in the political process of the US. Sorry, you are entirely wrong in your preceding paragraph and apologize for not responding in quickness to your comment. It was not my intention to allow your comment to damage your reputation or confidence in your command of historical information. In so far as aggressive Union, there is a difference if you have not noticed in southern and norther historiography about the Civil War. In the north they stress how Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. In the South, what is emphasized is the quote heard numerous times in a southern classroom about how Lincoln wanted a united union regardless if it was half slave, half free. You obviously are not aware of this quote so I wouldnt be wrong to assume your education comprises of a non-southern orientation. Unlike you I have been subjected to New York and South carolina education systems and notice this difference. The Civil War ended slaver, however its real benefits lay in maintaing a single united and efficient political, economic, and military entity we know of today. It was the dream of many like the Japaneses' Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere or Simon Bolivar. Your premises show either a lack of information or research in history or intentional negligence to facts due to a consistent observation of history with blinders of American bias and anti-Japanese hate. The US has built the story of becoming the leader of the world today and the hegemon in many aspects through World War II and subsequent Bretton Woods Conference. Western Propaganda is supposed to smack with declarations of how "evil" the Germans and Japanese were during World War II. Worse, we see the same theme in western history forwarded through various persepctives of proving this single theme. That theme is we became the most advanced nations in comparison to others by continuously being the good guy rather than the bad guy. It is humorous assertion if you strip western arguments down to its fundamental themes absent of esoteric semantics. Put another way, we became rich and powerful without any action of greed or violence :) 

In summation, brutality during warfare in the proces of achieving declared goals of a country is horrible but has no relevance as to whether the belief by a country is a front or not. The acceptance of this ignorant claim would leave the door open for the US using fronts to support genocide in Guatemala (whom our government and media called a democracy) against the Mayans or the front of replacing Patrice lumumba in formerly Zaire with Mobuto Sese Seko who aided the Hutus in Rwanda during genocide of the Tutsis were implications of massive numbers of deaths based on fronts by the US. To be better understood and accepted Mr. Foster2008, please differentiate between which wars the US was involved with that caused massive amounts of innocent casualties and declare those wars fueld by fronts. Let's be fair :) If you had even considered by preceding rants on those various wars, any level of intelligence absent of chauvinism and retardedness would have seen examples of what I am talking about. In addition, prosperity results in a united economic, military, or political entity for the benefit of its constituents. Dont blame a country when those benefits dont surface especially if the country failed in those efforts. By your own methodology, because Japan did not provide a better standard of living for Asians or more specifically Chinese in Nanjing, then its proclaimed goals were a front. This equates into the winners write history. Let's see, the Vietnamese are not living better like the US proclaimed as one of its goals if not major goal in Viet-Nam, so the US intentions were a front. Better yet, the genocide committed against the Budhists, Cao Dai, Binh Xuyen, Hao Hao, and other Vietnamese automatically makes US actions in Viet-Nam a front. Is this what you are saying Foster2008? Finally, the Civil War was about a united United States, do more reading and less whatever you do.

additional credibility

If this plan was a front because Japan manipulated other countries with puppet governments to their advantage, then what is the difference in the countries with puppet governments now and in the past that benefit the U.S.? Such as the Philippines (declassified CIA documents display the intervention by the U.S. on the part of Philippines and U.S. interest in the country at the time for resources and strategic importance), what about governments like Pinochet's, the Shah, and the list goes on to the point of even attempting to list all these examples is too time consuming because there are too many examples. Was the cold war a front? Is the war on drugs a front? Is globalization a front? Etc.Etc.Etc. It is unfair to classify the Greater East Co=Prosperity Sphere plan a front when the article itself states the activities partaken to establish this end were similar and as of today even more similar to western colonialism. In other words, all these fancy equivocal War on _______ names are means of control for the benefit for the west whichever way you look at it. Cold War - elimination of communism and building capitalistic countries friendly to the U.S. and intertwined to their economic systems. War on Drugs- Stop the flow of drugs to U.S. therefore eliminating crime in the U.S. and in the long run replacing governments that harbour these activities with friendly governments that trade the production of drugs with other economic means that are interwined to the U.S. economy. Globalization - the creation of an economy and world rul similar to the original model of U.S. democracy which is always the same as capitalism when applied in foreign policy. War on Terror- elimination of the threat of terrorists to make the world safe including the prevention of another 9/11, it just so happens that 9/11 had to happen before terrorism was a world plague. All of these preceding doctrines of bull____ and many others all supposedly inadvetently strengthen economic hegemony for the U.S. Perhaps it is because money is the only way to create meaningful change or to eliminate poverty which is the cause of many social disorders in the world. Yet does the U.S. know this and could this fact be used for U.S. advantage?

To state that Japan's aforementioned plan of unification of country states (similar to what occured in the Civil War or War of Northern Aggression) a front and imply that the west's is not, smacks of American jingoism and chauvinism. Ok Ok Ok, yes segregation and slavery is over, it does not mean the next victims of prejudicial judgements can be asians because there aren't enough of them here in the U.S. or western countries to make a difference. Please consider rearanging your viewpoints, try to be a little more subtle with your biased disposition, or try another hobby because your writing is only for wikipedia and not the academic community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 18:06:53

Also

Yes, the methodology employed to further this doctrine by Japan was more horrible than U.S. activities during World War II. Japan was guilty of massacres against innocent civilians. The Japanese MILITARY committed a thousand My Lais, but does that mean inappropriate, cruel, and harsh methodology or war crimes mean that the intentions were false? How many times have good intentions turned sour? How many times have good intentions turned sour enough where anger and negligence caused something criminal to occur? It happens and its a way of life. Moreover, in the application of Manifest Destiny, where did the Native Americans go? Compare the amount of land controlled by native tribes from the beginning to now. Do the same with population figures. Regardless of any excuse, anyone not able to be deceived with subjective and insignificant complex arguments will be able to focus on the simple fact that such a difference in numbers can not be explained by nothing more than genocide. The statistical facts say so including many testimonies as to intentions and behavior of western expansion into all of North America. If there is any denial of Japanese massacres by Japan during World War II, they are STRAIGHT OUT LIES similar to the ones in the U.S. about there was no form of genocide on Native AMericans and other incidents.The facts speak for themselves. On the contrary, though both coutries have their own self-perpetuated lies to hide and comfort the feeling of guilt, their intentions should not necessarily be questioned because of these incidents. Did Japan really want a united asian land for their benefit or for all asians benefit? Does the real motivations behind these intentions matter when the end result will be the same? Did the immigrants and corporate (charter) workers in the U.S. really need what the Germans called Lebensraum (living space) or were they just greedy? Does it matter when the same end occured? I would like to know the answers to these questions but fairness must be observed in all issues of similar subject matter. There has to be an end to anti-japanese sentiment. Pearl Harbour and World War II are over. Stop using the term Japs when common sense tells everyone that every derogatory slur applied to any culture or race has not been met with kindness. Stop talking about massacres from Japan and Germany as if they were actions of the anti-christ when similar actions have been committed by many countries including the U.S. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the U.S. is now responsible for more loss of innocent lives due to ambitious program that support those mysterious and self-proclaimed angelic, humane, and just Cold Wars, Drug Wars, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. than both German and Japanese atrocities put together. Actually that number is so signifiacnt that there is really no need to compare. In Conclusion, don't dismiss the intentions of Japan due to actions that are not diametric to policies enacted by countries such as the U.S. and don't dismiss intetntions due to war crimes. Give ample eveidence that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was unlike other western programs which warrants its dismissal as a real intetnion. Otherwise you will receive articles like this for the rest of your life and opposition to your arguments for the future will no longer be saved from scrutiny because of how many Asians there are in your country anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 18:40:25

It seem to me that you'd be better off doing a research paper about this. Wikipedia is not really the place to have academic debates. Rather, it reports on academic views and information found in other verifiable sources. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia is actually of the substance for academic debates. If it isnt, then what seprates Wikipedia from any other source of information. Why choose something free where the same repetitive info can be found in something with more reputation. The reason people choose Wikipedia is because a person can find info fast and find info purposely dis-included amongst the consensus of a western or eastern perspective. So no, seperating academic research from Wikipedia will damage its reputation, use, and functionality in the future. The argument and facts should be presented and it is every history enthusiast's responsibility to change history.Dont place such low expectations for a Wikipedia that I respect and uphold very highly please :(

Actually, it is widely considered in the WEST that this was merely a front, but there is ample evidence for disparities in this view. Many Taiwanese, for instance, subscribe to Japan's intentions in this regard, and it is taught in places like Myanmar/Burma that the Japanese were liberators from English colonial rule. Loft3 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's grossly inaccurate. Even Taiwan, Myanma/Burma do not actually believe that this wasn't a front. In any case, they are GROSS minorities even in Asia.Melonbarmonster 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is truth in that assertion. Provide your sources for this refutation. Otherwise it is a gross error of judgement to ignore the preceding assertion when no source has been provided in refutation. Moreover, there are sources that suscribe to evidence of this belief. in aqddition, it seems some of our constituent Americans want to ignore the historical event we call decolonization. Hmmmmmm... did people want to be free? I believe there are constitutnets of this country that had a difficult time as well convincing the majority of their want for freedom. Irony :) Lastly, but not least, it is unecessary to argue whether other nations wanted to be liberated. Consider Vichy France and collaboration. Does that mean every Frenchmen believed in Nazi ideology? Or could the threat of force cause the majority of a population to cooperate regardless of ideology, what are policemen? What about each and every colony run by western powers? Did they really subscribe to our ideologies? These considerations are irrelevant in coming to a conclusion as to whether U.S. or Japanese imperialism's causes were actual beliefs or not. The question really is, how many supporters amongst the civilians in each country did so because of their belief in a country's proclaimed goals such as getting rid of terrorism in the world? This was and still is hnard to resolve, not impossible though. Nevertheless, the summation of my argument is that if we continue to write-off Japanese intentions as propaganda or something "evil" then it will be a boomerang that will inevitably arise questions to the validity of our own choices of paths. The proliferatin of imperialistic propaganda for the US continues while Japan's stagnizes, this inequity benefits whom?

WPMILHIST Assessment

This is a major concept within the discussion of the Pacific War as a whole - Japan's motivations & ideology etc etc. The article needs much expansion, and perhaps a bit better attention to NPOV. It is a controversial subject, and certainly one does not wish to be too pro-Japan, but all must be taken within context. Was this really a front for fascist, imperialist expansion, a cover to secure land and resources only for Japan's benefit? To what extent did the people of Japan, the soldiers, and the higher-ups believe in this or not? Who saw it as propaganda, who as a front, and who as a genuine motivation? How does this differ from the Communist Chinese propagandist ideology of "liberating" Tibet from its supposedly oppressive and feudal overlords?

Three things I think need changed: (1) Expansion. (2) Better attention to a less anti-Japanese view, and to an attempt to objectively, academically, consider the ideology or slogan within its context. (3) The introduction, identifying and defining the Co-Prosperity Sphere. It was not "an attempt by Japan to create..." anything. It was a slogan, a euphemism, much as sonnō jōi and fukoku kyōhei were. Okay, not quite the same. I think it would be most accurate to say that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a goal: a goal envisioned by the Japanese militarists and a justification for their expansionist actions.

Finally, a more minor quibble: is it really fair to call the Monroe Doctrine a comparable policy? The US may not have always had the most 100% noble & selfless goals in mind - she was always looking out for her best interests - but she never invaded or attacked Central or South America. Is protecting Central/South America from European imperialist depredations the same as militaristic imperialism itself? LordAmeth 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If we look at the history of insurgencies in South and Central America, we did use force and not only in the interests of strategic defense against Europe. We did embark on a form of militaristic imperialism. Take Nicaragua for example, Secretary of State Chase Knox was also part of the law firm for the U.S. mining company in Nicaragua I believe if my memory serves me correctly, Los Angeles and Lights mining company. Knox also held stock in this company. (Frightengly like the Dulles brothers in the Guatemala case. this would make a good dissertation topic for exploration or a good book because these relationships are not as explored as it should be). The very National Guard which protected the Somoza government was set up and modeled after the marines we sent into Nicaragua to fight Augusto Cesar Sandino to protect our economic interests and avoid the building of a canal which we chose to be Panama instead. The individual that was placed in charge when we overthrew the president at the time was an accountant for the mining company. Somoza came later. Monroe Doctrine was originally not supposed to be hostile, at least its intent was not. However, with the coming of Theodore Roosevelt, there were changes to this doctrine that did make it hostile and aggressive and contributes to one of the reasons there remains anti-American sentiment in numerous countries in Latin Americ today. The monroe doctrine is no different than Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere by the Japanese, nor China's involvement with the Viet-Nam and Korean Wars to avoid western influence on its borders. China and Korea are less aggressive when it comes to protecting its interests and security within its hemisphere. Japan and the US clashed because they were the same animal when it came to hemispheric concerns. Both were aggressive and paranoid :)The Monroe Doctrine smacks with the proclamation, "an America for Americans", not even Europeans which comprise of the majority of the ethnic population of the United States then and today. So yes, Monroe Doctrine did become something aggressive and hostile to other interests in protecting a hemisphere of the world.If you look at the national histories of each individual country in these aforemention Latin American geographic regions, familiarity will tell you US involvement and aggression was evident in almost all countries and doesnt involve just William Walker or Cuba.

I've done some work on the article, cutting out some of the more accusatory bits, and trying to turn it more towards the direction of an article on a history of the idea - which is what this was, an idea, not an attempt, an action. For anyone who would like to jump in to help improve this important article, I suggest that it might be helpful to take a look at the article on Manifest Destiny (at least as it stands today). That article discusses, in a sober, objective tone, the history of the ideology. It is not a diatribe about the horrors inflicted upon the Native Americans, nor about the evils of American expansion - a calm, neutral point-of-view academic representation of the history of the idea. Thanks. LordAmeth 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

u.s. japan relations.

I thought this article well written. As a Japanese-American , I would like to bring attention to a few minor questionable statements within the context of this article. Use of propaganda is not described accurately enough. I am not trying to guess your intentions nor do I want to pursue that endeaver. However, use of propaganda in describing Japanese media may be perceived as the unstated assumption being that because Japan lost or were the "bad guys" according to western "propaganda", then all of their films or media were all propaganda. I'm assuming this assumption also is that the U.S. was incapable of such. What specific definition of "propaganda" are you refferring to and please state if you are going to use this word because "propaganda" is not used commonly and carries with it a perception of dishonesty. Probably be best to take your time and state your definiton and explain why it sounds as if you are stating that anything pertaining to the forwarding of the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea is propaganda. Was it certain material you are referring to that is considered propaganda or are you making the assumption that all World War II Japanese materials are propaganda. I don't want to go into a comparitive analysis of Cold War and World War II propaganda. In addition, you are not implying that brutality in the process of achieving goals eliminates the validity of a self-proclaimed intended goal of a country, are you? Simon Bolivar and Abraham Lincoln had ideas of unification or nationalism which were perceived as indivisible. These preceding men are admirable individuals for making a United States for European-Americans and a Latin America for Latin Americans. Asian Co-Prospeity has equitable merit as those and many other forms of mytholo.. excuse me, nationalisms that have and still exist. Nationalism is an instrument used by every country for obtaining goals regardless if those goals pertain to an extension of aggression outside one nation's borders. Brutality has no bearance on the intended goals of a country, it should be looked down upon and emphasized when necessary, but brutality are acts of a military in the process of obtaining political goals. The responsibile Party is the military and political system which allowed this to occur. Blaming the Japanese people for these acts by attacking the ideology they adhered to equates into stating religion and those whom believed in the civilizing missions of western culture during imperialism when taking colonies by force and setting up uncountable puppet governments were culpable of the genocide of the Native Americans and numerous innocent people across the world. It also equates into all Americans responsible for the dead in the Viet-Nam, Korean, and Iraqi War. Or frightengly, all American whites were responsible for slavery and the following negro holocaust leading up to the 70s. If it has in fact stopped because it seems the modern method is discrete discrimination. Japan, like the U.S. in Viet-Nam, made the mistake of seperating military and politics. In both circumstances, both countries' military forces used undescribable genocidal acts of horror to obtain a political goal which could not be achieved by that methodology :)Therefore, make a distinction as to why brutality of a military allowed by intentional negligence by the political system in control at the time of these acts is equitable to the assertion that each and every individual or "Japan" if we really want to emphasize nationalism, are responsible for the attempts of genocide in China, Phillippines, and elsewhere. Here is a shocker, many Japanese could have imagined an Asia for Asians that could effectively compete with western interests in both economic and political aspects. unfortunately , we see Japan-bashing or anti-Japanese hatred expressed perhaps unintentionally because of the effects of this bias taught in the western educational system post World War II. This propaganda has blinded the U.S. from acknowledging real problems it has had in the past in its policies. The U.S. emphasizes Pearl Harbor in the history of World War II to create a continuity of Pearl Harbor to WW II. In western classes this is also taught to little kids. Granted, an initial act of aggression is and should be cause for retaliation (not excessive force (beginning of nuclear war)). Nevertheless, we see that by emphasizing Pearl Harbour, western historiography has succeeded in creating an image of continuity of WW II history beginning at Japanese and Nazi take-overs of colonies, Pearl Harbour, then the rest of the war and aftermath. Antes de WW II or before WW II is purposely neglected because if one looks at western aggression in Asia, one might ask, well did anyone think that Japan may feel like being that they were the foremost national power in that hemisphere, they felt they deserved the right to defend and unite the interests of all asians against western imperialsm? What countries were taken over by Western powers in Asia? What countries were in a position to force the "white man" out? Because western propaganda emphasizes the "evil" acts of the Japanese during Pearl Harbour, the U.S. and specifically Americans have failed to recognize a problem with U.S. foreign policy which has come back to bite us in the buttocks today. The real interesting question is would the U.S. have tolerated an Asian power taking over Mexico and implacing a puppet government on the U.S.'s southern border during thses times? Why did we expect Japan to tolerate it? Worse, even today we cant seem to understand why an independent and nationalistic organization such as Al Quaeda will not tolerate it. Now is the western or eastern version of WW II propaganda correct and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point about "propaganda" vs media is a good one. The American media was equally virulent in racist attitudes against the Japanese, and the difference between propaganda and media can be a very subjective one. I did not write most of this article, merely cleaned it up a bit and keep an eye on it. If you think you can contribute, make the changes you think need to be made, please go ahead and do so. Just remember to cite your sources, and to be as objective (neutral point of view) as possible. Thank you. LordAmeth 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the ackowledgement, I do not hear this admission on both sides of the coin often. I love history and tolerate the bias on both sides because this not only annoys but makes historiography beautiful. If history was always one history by one viewpoint, things would be efficient but boring :) I thank you for reminding me of the neutral point of view and your truthful recognition of the role of propaganda in not just Japanese, but all societies. In my opinion LordAmeth, there are few people like yourself whom state things with a respect for truth. In Post-graduate studies, we are taught (if we havent grasped it yet in the undergraduate curriculum) that absolute truth cannot be ascertained. However, many have believed in coming as close to this truth as possible. Your statements seem to indicate that you are embarking on this challenge which is truly a difficult one in the midst of historiography today. It is an honorable path and only those of the most intellectual substance would try to engage this tribulation. In my personal opinion, only those of this caliber are deserving of being a professor. Anyone can pay an ardent racist or chauvinist to teach their version of history. I admire your comment and pray that History will be blessed with more intellectuals that have chosen this pursuit rather than chauvinists which my experience in the history field has revealed to be numerous in the institutions of higher learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OOOpps

Thought to mention that Luis Taruc and Ho Chi Minh have mentioned that their treatment during World War II was harsher from the collaborators of the west and Japan than the actual Japanese or westerners. That leaves China and where else as premises as treatment by Japanese being harsher than western governments. I thought it was collaboraters that Thomas Babington Macalauy made popular as an instrument of imperialism and the very model the U.S. and other countries copied. Let's break western propaganda here, asians wanted neither westerners nor other easterners running their countries. They wanted independence for themselves, sorry to shock american hubris :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)