Anti-Imperialist

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Speaking of Darfur, does anyone wonder why the screaming for intervention to prevent "genocide" has stopped?

And isn't it interesting how we only talk about stuff when the MSM trumpets it on the front pages?

[url=http://rabble.ca/columnists/world-fiddles-while-darfur-bleeds]Here's an unfortunate example[/url] of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war. That was February 2005. I wonder when he last wrote/worried about Darfur. This isn't a personal slam. It's a comment on how anti-imperialism has been battered and beaten to the ground. How else could Nycole Turmel make her obscene display on welcoming the conquering heroes?

We have to learn to think for ourselves.

 

Polunatic2

Quote:
Give us a modern real-life example, Caissa.

One example that some might cite (but I wouldn't) was the Cuban involvement in Angola in the 70's. The Cubans were helping to defend the Angolan people (and providing medical support) from US, Chinese & South African backed guerrillas who were attempting to overthrow the popular MPLA government.  

Cuban support for the Grenada revolution is another example that some might cite as a form of interventionist "imperialism" but I would disagree with that too. Of course Grenada got complicated because of a split in the New Jewel movement, leading to the assassination of President Maurice Bishop and other leaders of the movement. 

Unionist

Yeah, but in Angola, the legitimate recognized government invited Cuban assistance. Cuba didn't butt in unasked, nor did it install some puppet regime which then issued an "invitation".

Angola was like republican Spain, whose legitimate elected government invited international help against a fascist foreign-backed rebellion.

Grenada - I have no clue what happened there. Did Cuba send troops? Who invited them? I don't remember at all, except the assassination. My bad.

I'm still looking for an example of a "humanitarian" intervention, uninvited by any sovereign country, which progressive folks supported.

Polunatic2

Agreed on Angloa. 

If I'm not mistaken, most of the Cuban presence in Grenada was medical personnel invited by the government. The Cubans were also building a runway and that project was guarded by a small number of Cuban troops. These were not active combat troops. Nor did they fight the Yanquis when the invasion happened. 

Fidel

Excerpt from 'The CIA's Greatest Hits': Grenada 

Quote:
As for the Cuban troops we invaded to protect our citizens from, there were 43 of them; the other Cubans on Grenada were mostly middle-aged construction workers. ...

When it was all over, 81 Cubans, 296 Grenadines and 131 Americans had been killed or wounded.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Care to comment on the substance on my post, Gaian? I wrote it with great care and was careful not to let the usual bitterness you so frequently decry infect it, being the holiday season and all. It would be nice to engage with you on actual ideas, but you too often seem content to fume about marginalia.

Gaian

Gosh, the licence taken with the language: "when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians."

Can't have been hearty hails, in fact, I don't recall a goddam one, for "killing Libyan civilians." but then, the dramatic is so much more ....impressive?

ANd when folks are on a roll, generalizing, such "inaccuracies" slip by as folks search desperately for the next one liner, and truth be damned.It's how lies are born.

Glenl

Are sanctions and embargoes, uninvited ones that is, imperialistic, or does it stop at military intervention?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Glenl wrote:
Are sanctions and embargoes, uninvited ones that is, imperialistic, or does it stop at military intervention?

I think they can be imperialistic, of course: the case could easily be made that pre-Iraq-war embargoes were progressing the West's imperialist agenda. But the whole question of foregn policy, and the West's obsession with "humanitarian" intervention, should always be accompanied with their incessant failure to apply the same standards to their own behaviour and policies. Witness the deplorable conditions of Attawapiskat, the reliance on violent regimes to provide goods for the West's unfettered desire for oil, diamonds and other blood resources, and the immiserating impulse of the economic system on which they rely.

Unionist

Unfair comment by me - retracted.

Glenl

I was called away to a meeting, if your determination was based on my absence, and I do have to return to my family. Sorry if you consider my point of view, questions and struggles with the topic insincere.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

I'm still looking for an example of a "humanitarian" intervention, uninvited by any sovereign country, which progressive folks supported.

The "sovereign" part might be under dispute, but many progressives, rightly or wrongly, see the American Civil war as in part a humanitarian intervention - though of course that is only part of the truth.

And Charles II hanging the threat of dissolution over the Massachusetts Colony in order to impose greater religious tolerance. 

I am sure some Americans think the Invasion of Montreal was a case of bringing freedom and fighting empire (and they did leave behind the printing press that started the Gazette). 

Though I think the greater question is not what is and is not imperialism, but what is appropriate and valid discourse with respect to it. 

I don't think there is any one answer to that one. This space has its set of rules and protocols, and I think most of us understand how to operate within them most of the time. 

But there is no one right answer, and how that question gets answered depends entirely on the context.

 

 

Unionist

The 50-year U.S. blockade against Cuba is the epitome of imperialism. The world applying sanctions and embargoes against racist South Africa or Israel is the epitome of anti-imperialism. So it depends. 

Unionist

Duplicate

 

Glenl

Unionist, I cross posted with you. ( I think that's what it's called ). No offense taken and certainly none intended. I will come back to continue reading when I get free. It is an important topic and one that confuses me.

Unionist

Oy - double post. 

Fidel

We know that NATO has killed Libyans in Libya.

But as it is in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, are we missing someone? What about U.S./NATO-backed religious militants, this time in Libya?

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

The 50-year U.S. blockade against Cuba is the epitome of imperialism. The world applying sanctions and embargoes against racist South Africa or Israel is the epitome of anti-imperialism. So it depends. 

Was this in response to something I said? Hard to tell with all the examples being tossed around.

 

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
 We need to be able to speak emphatically against imperialism; not only because it is so richly deserving of being spoken against, and not only because such caveats are often demanded as a way to measure our compliance with someone else's progressive scale.  At any rate, it seems that it is rarely a given in our discussions.  The same sleeve wearing denunciations are not generally demanded when we speak in the context of repressive regimes. This is in fact discouraged, on the presumed basis that we're lending comfort and validity to the narratives of our reactionary enemies. I think we should be free to reject the false choices between dichotomies and between displays of political contortionism formed out of cement. But we can't put the people out of our minds. They should never be used as anyone's excuse. We need to do a better job of understanding the difference between discussing people and discussing the various political systems they fall under.
 

Excellent! And I think that at times it's possible that we find ourselves focused, perhaps, a little too intently on condemning our own opposition party for their bad decisions. This is good for democracy no doubt. And I think when we have the NDP on the ground kicking hell out of them while laughing maniacally like this, sometimes we neglect to criticize the actual imperialists in phony majority rule doing the bulk of toadying to NATO and Uncle Sam so predictably. I enjoy a good kick at the NDP, but meanwhile the vicious toadies in government are rising off the pavement, brushing themselves off and crawling past our steel-toe boots on the sidewalk to political safety.

We are missing the opportunity to ask why? Why did the Harper Government of Canada knowingly prop-up 

Libya's top rebel commander who has deep ties to Al-Qa'eda?

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Here's an unfortunate example of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war.

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism. In which case, perhaps the moderators should take it down, or at least add a note saying "This is something that we regret having published". Sort of like those old racist Warner Brothers cartoons I've seen on DVD, where the studio puts an intro at the beginning saying "We realize now that this stuff is highly offensive, but we're not going to pretend the cartoons never existed".

Fidel

Let's condemn the Harper Government, too, for propping-up AQIM in North Africa.

And let's condemn NATO's policies, official and otherwise, for their import-export business in terrorism at the same time.

Hello? Where did all the anti-imperialists go?

Oy! Wait up, mates. What's the hurry? ...

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

The 50-year U.S. blockade against Cuba is the epitome of imperialism. The world applying sanctions and embargoes against racist South Africa or Israel is the epitome of anti-imperialism. So it depends. 

Was this in response to something I said? Hard to tell with all the examples being tossed around.

 

No. It was in response to Glenl.

 

Unionist

Double post

CDN_FORCES

voice of the damned wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Here's an unfortunate example of someone who should know better getting caught up in the rush to war.

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism. In which case, perhaps the moderators should take it down, or at least add a note saying "This is something that we regret having published". Sort of like those old racist Warner Brothers cartoons I've seen on DVD, where the studio puts an intro at the beginning saying "We realize now that this stuff is highly offensive, but we're not going to pretend the cartoons never existed".

 

Voice of the Damned,

The article immediately opposite to the one you posted is even more blunt in advocating foreign intervention, this time from Linda McQuaig. Isn't she a regular contributor to rabble?

 

Quote:

Can't we spare 600 troops for Darfur?
By Linda McQuaig

| May 15, 2006

 

Some 200,000 people have already been killed and another 2 million driven from their homes.

An international intervention in Darfur could make an enormous difference, possibly even averting a Rwanda-style genocide.

While the janjaweed, mounted on horseback and camels, easily kill and terrorize the unarmed people of Darfur, they're no match for a modern army.

Peter Langille, a defence analyst at the University of Western Ontario, notes that the Canadian army's fighting vehicles, the Coyote and Lav III, are equipped with top-of-the-line sensors and firepower that could easily stop the janjaweed in their tracks.

Canada is well equipped to play a leading role in a UN mission to Darfur. Such a mission could be carried out by a special UN standby force known as SHIRBRIG, which was created in 2001 to deal with just this sort of crisis.

Canada was one of the moving forces behind SHIRBRIG, and one of 15 nations agreeing to support it. A Canadian general heads it up.

But Ottawa has refused to authorize Canadian troops for a SHIRBRIG mission to Darfur, to assist overwhelmed African Union troops.

 

http://rabble.ca/columnists/cant-we-spare-600-troops-darfur

Fidel

Or the Congo where the armies of U.S. proxies Rwanda and Uganda have slaughtered six million human beings since 1998? Let's not go there and interfere with the grand central plan, either.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism.

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc. You want to turn that discussion into some kind of caricature by asking what we will ban and what we won't ban for discussion. You can do better than that.

Gaian

Shit yes. Just let you imagination flow and put down fellow babblers in this fashion: "This is far from ideal, obviously, but it's difficult to ask for anything more when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians."

Chortle, chortle.

Yes,Merry Christmas.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Good read, thanks Caissa for starting it and all the contributions from others. I have much to learn.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Gaian wrote:

Shit yes. Just let you imagination flow and put down fellow babblers in this fashion: "This is far from ideal, obviously, but it's difficult to ask for anything more when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians."

Chortle, chortle.

Yes,Merry Christmas.

Really? Reeaallyy?? And you somehow think not one Libyan civilians blood is our shame? It's no insult to babbler's. It's a deserved insult to the NDP and a shot across the bow they need.

Slumberjack

Gaian wrote:
Shit yes. Just let you imagination flow and put down fellow babblers in this fashion:

"This is far from ideal, obviously, but it's difficult to ask for anything more when our one mainstream progressive party is hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians."

Chortle, chortle. Yes, Merry Christmas.

It's ugly, and not very festive I'll grant you that.  But is there not a ring of truth in it for you?

Gaian

Neither I nor any other New Democrat was "hailing the actions of our troops for killing Libyan civilians." Not one. That's just distorted nonsense hung out on the line for effect. The usual holier than thou from folks who pretend to a higher moral order. We hailed the deaths of the bloodthirsty bastards who played butcher for the madman who engineered the deaths of innocents over Lockerbie. Is there not a "ring of truth in that." Get a grip, people.

Fidel

Getting a grip. Got it-good a-ok. And it now appears that the Gladio gang prolly fitted-up Gadaffi for that one, too. 

Key Lockerbie Witness admits perjury wrote:
 "I am sorry for the consequences of my silence at that time, for the innocent Libyan Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahisentenced to life imprisonment, and for the country of Libya."

Just another false flag I'm afraid. There's a lot of it going around.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc.

Hmmm... Maybe we should amend that to say that progressive people are not immune to propaganda.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc.

Hmmm... Maybe we should amend that to say that progressive people are not immune to propaganda.

 

? You seem to be forwarding it. What's your elixir?

6079_Smith_W

That's nice. 

Well you see what I mean about the question not being about what is and is not imperialism, but rather what is acceptable discourse with respect to it.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Well, generally, you've been trying to derail us off the MSM trail, no? That's what I took from your statement amendment?

If we can't start there, why are you trying to drag it back to a meta backstage discussion?

Let's have it out there in the open. Then let people decide. If you're going to remove the MSM from culpability, I can't respond in good faith.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

If you want to understand what is meant by anti-imperialism you must first understand what is meant by imperialism.

Quote:
David McNally offers us a helpful definition of imperialism, one that allows us to see how its form may change over different historical periods while its basic presuppositions remain constant. He suggests that "Imperialism is a system of global inequalities and domination – embodied in regimes of property, military power and global institutions – through which wealth is drained from the labour and resources of people in the Global South to the systematic advantage of capital in the North."

This is from Todd Gordon's excellent 2010 book, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/canadian-imperia... Canada[/url].  

6079_Smith_W

RP

Look, I neither said nor meant any such thing.

Actually it was a comment on the Lockerbie bombing, of which yes, there are a number of alternative theories. Not to dismiss any of them, but none have been proven.

I think I have pointed out deception and bias in the media as much as anyone here. The difference is I think the mainstream media can be useful if one reads it with open eyes. And furthermore, there are many people working within it who are on our side.

But when I read Unionists post I did raise my eyebrows a little bit. Misinformation and bias come from many directions, after all, even if yes, the right wing of the media is the biggest bogeyman.

We don't all have exactly the same perspective on these issues. We shouldn't have to in order to discuss them in a reasonable manner.

 

 

 

Erik Redburn

I'm not against having an anti-imperialism rule here, but defining what anti-imperialism actually is won't be as easy as some here insist. 

Fidel

And so we forge on...

The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda: The CIA's Drug-Running Terrorists and the "Arc of Crisis" Andrew Gavin Marshall

Quote:
In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA's need for more discretion, "a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah]."[1] However, "The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA," Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, "transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history."

AGM is talented young Canadian and promising anti-imperialist researcher and author in his own right.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess it would get right to the heart of the matter if we were to ask if that article would have violated babble's later policy on anti-imperialism.

We're trying to have a discussion about what anti-imperialism is, how we should view it, how progressive people are not immune to the massive propaganda of the MSM, etc. You want to turn that discussion into some kind of caricature by asking what we will ban and what we won't ban for discussion. You can do better than that.

Well, the discussion, as started by Caissa in the OP, is specifically about babble's "anti-imperialist stance", which I took to mean the ways in which the board applies the rules regarding anti-imperialism.

So yes, if the board is going to have a policy against imperialism, I think it's legitimate to discuss what constitutes a violation of that policy, and how violators should be dealt with.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

1. When it comes to anti-imperialism, we have to focus on or start with our own country. Canada is an imperialist country in its own right; it's also entangled in a colonial history of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide of the First Nations Peoples.

Lecturing others - whether here in Canada or elsewhere - about their failure to respect human rights while blithely ignoring the current actions or imperial legacy of this country is an approach rather typical of the most dangerous imperialist country in the world.

2. Of course I mean the USA. With its 1,000 or more military bases OUTSIDE the official territory of that militarist regime it projects the use of force, violence as a NORM of behaviour.

The overthrow of the Soviet regime led to the creation of what has been called a "unipolar" world that has been dominated by the USA. We can go over Yanqui atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Sudan, or Libya and the list is, well, lengthy and disturbing. The greatest threat to peace in the world today comes from this regime. I dont' care whether they elect an African-American for President or not; it's still got 1,000 military bases OUTSIDE their own damn country, etc., etc., etc..

Canada is in a military alliance with this juggernaut. We allow them to send ships into our own territorial waters and we don't even ask (since we know they won't answer and we don't wish to embarass our "friends") whether their warships are carrying deadly nuclear weapons. We are in the process of making our military forces "interoperable" with the military forces of that dread regime. Our political decisions are polluted by the political culture of that regime. Canadian governments, traitors really, have signed trade deals giving the USA equal access to our own resources. The heart of such anti-patriotism is Alberta where the current Prime Minister of Canada hails from. We have an ignomonious Yanqui bootlicker for a leader. That is the bitter truth.

3. You see how it is only now that I even have time to mention any other country? Like our former colonial master, the United Kingdom of Great "Britain" and Northern Ireland, for example? This means that if we really MEAN something by anti-imperialism, then most of our concerns SHOULD be directed at the pro-imperialist activity of our OWN government and the juggernaut it is in a military alliance with. This is just honesty and common sense; there's not much analysis required to come to such a conclusion.

4. All of this could have summed up by saying that there is a class divide in foreign policy. One way to talk about anti-imperialism is to say that those who are anti-imperialist SIDE with ``progressive``social classes (like the working class, farmers, and other social groupings) and those who are pro-imperialist SIDE with bosses and big business interests. Yes, in a very real sense, it really is that simple. And babblers should, obviously, side with ordinary people.

Of course, in a competitive battle between capitalist interests, we might find ourselves "siding" with "our own" (Canadian) business interests, i.e., with Canadian business interests. But we should be very, very careful that we are not, thereby, siding AGAINST ordinary people OUTSIDE of Canada. And that's what is typically asked of us in supporting so-called Canadian foreign policy and decisions; we are asked to support Canadian business, not against other businesses, but against classes who would be our political allies and friends were they in Canada. We shouldn't get sucked into thinking there is just "one" foreign policy.

Now it is a funny thing, but this is very difficult to do in an imperialist country like our own. What passes for common sense is pro-imperialism. The ruling ideas are from ... where? Yup, that's right. The ruling ideas come from the ruling groups (classes) in society. This too is rather obvious when you think about it.

And we could discuss at length how that is done, how successful it is, and so on, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be too sidetracked. We know, in advance, what our orientation is, what the big problems are going to look like, and so on.

5. Yes, there are OTHER imperialist countries. And, obviously, if they're fighting over a carcass we should be wary of picking sides in such a horrific undertaking.

6. I just want to add that Canada has been a big player in the global arena when it comes to general human rights discourse. We once had many blue-helmeted UN Peace Keepers, (now, less than a bus load), a Canadian was the author of the UNHRD back in '48 or thereabouts, a Canadian PM won a big prize for UN-related activities, yadda yadda. Canada was the first country in the world to accept women as political refugees by virtue of their gender ( I think), and so on. Our Canadian political culture has been enriched by 2 decades of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so hated by Conservatives and other misanthropes, and this splashes over into foreign policy.
This is all by way of saying that there is plenty that's good; it's not all a stream of disgusting Canadian atrocities from beginning to end. Just as in our own country we can have competing rights, so too outside of Canada we can have competing human rights and such. And we should be smart enough to pull it apart and figure things out and find a way to support those social elements who deserve our support. it's mostly going to be local populations against Canadian big business interests. That's just the way it is because of the kind of country we live in.

In a very real sense, and I mean this quite sincerely, an anti-imperialist perspective by a Canadian is the height of political consciousness. It takes a lot. Those who can't raise themselves to this level need to see that it's a worthy goal for them, and work at it, because the noblest and greatest expression of human solidarity can still, pretty well, be summed up by the words of a brilliant 19th century scribbler:

Working People of all lands, Unite!

No one has said it better.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

unionist started a thread earlier this year on the same topic and it's probably worth looking at since some of the same issues are covered.

I would just re-iterate the idea that an anti-imperialist perspective can be seen as a point of view that a person "rises to", probably, but not always, due to their active involvement in the various struggles. And in that sense it should be a natural for any prospective babbler.

OTOH, if we want to welcome people to babble who aren't YET active, but who are "curious", then we need to convey this idea of "rising to" a higher consciousness, much as the women's movement has taught many (including me, of course, against my determined stupidity!) to look at language in a new way, to adopt different approaches to decision-making, and to understand "the other".

uh, Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings to ya all. I haven't been participating nearly as much this year.

Fidel

Thanks, N.B. I just wanted to add that exchanges between you and Cueball so impressed me on my very first visits to babble a number of years ago. Yes we need a united front on the left no doubt about it.

The Globalization of War: The "Military Roadmap" to World War III ONLINE INTERACTIVE E-READER

WW III ? It doesn't sound good.

Fascism is war

Georgi Dimitrov, 1936 wrote:
The situation is now developing in such a way that to maintain peace throughout the world means first and foremost to bring about the defeat of the fascist invaders of Spain and China. They must be taught a good lesson, they must be really made to feel that the international proletariat and all progressive and civilized mankind will not tolerate their military aggression and acts of robbery, and are ready to do everything to prevent them from fulfilling their plans of igniting the flames of a new world war.

Dr Strangelove: I have a plan. Mein führer, I CAN WALK!!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Thx, Fidel. I once had an article from the 1980's Soviet Gorbachev-era in which the author outlined  their approach to foreign policy analysis. I must have loaned it to someone, or perhaps it remains buried in a pile of unrelated papers, and there it shall probably remain until the end of time, or the end of me, whichever comes first.

Whatever that regime later turned out to be, one ought to at least give them credit where credit is due. The first act of Lenin's Bolshevik government was to publish and make public (Wikileak-like!) all the secret treaties of the previous bourgeois and autocratic regimes. And that too is an ideal of the political left that we should always remember. Secrecy, while it might sometimes be justified, is mostly just an ugly enemy of democracy.

Fidel

ikosmos wrote:
Secrecy, while it might sometimes be justified, is mostly just an ugly enemy of democracy.
 

Truer words were never spoken. I like it.

The Glasnost is half full.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel #94

I agree with Dimitrov's sentiment, though I remember a conversation with a now-departed babbler who was of the opposite opinion, and (while I don't want to speak for another) seemed to be saying that what the Japanese did in Manchuria and other lands they occupied wasn't alll that bad, was not really imperialism, and nothing like the Nazis.

Again, even all of us on the left don't see everything from exactly the same perspective all the time. And that is probably a good thing. "United fronts" might be good in some ways, but not so good in others.

 

Gaian

That departed babbler would have benefited from reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and its fuller explanation of what happend in Manchuria (and elsewhere). The Japanese are very revealing now in their admission of what took place in their relatively brief experiment in imperialism. One wonders where these "opinions" are born. :)

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Just a quick drop-in to say that I've stickied this very useful thread and am now closing it for length and posterity. Thanks for everyone's contributions, for staying on topic and respectful and to Caissa for starting it.

Pages

Topic locked