Search This Blog & Get A Rife

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Japan Noted As Potential War Enemy By U.S. In 1915

I wonder if people in 1941 were truly surprised that Japan had just become and enemy of the U.S….

Not only had newspapers in Hawaii truly expected the Japanese attack in the days prior to December 7, 1941, but a newspaper account from 1915 notes that even as early as that date, Japan was regarded as a potential enemy thanks to its recent global initiatives.

From Readex, a Division of Newsbank, we find an interesting tidbit of news on page 5 of the January 31, 1915 edition of the Oregonian, published as Morning Oregonian of Portland, Oregon. Click HERE to check out Readex.



Japan Regarded as Potential Enemy
——
Monroe Doctrine and Legislation by States Declared to Hold War Menace.
——
NAVAL BILL DISCUSSED
——
Massachusetts Member of House Declares Victor in Present War
Could, if It Chose, Become Master of World.
——
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30.—Possible trouble with Japan because of unwise state legislation, maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine and the conditions of the present war were ascribed by Representative Gillet of Massachusetts, today as reasons why he had recently become an advocate of large armaments.
The naval appropriations bill, on which he was speaking, lost, through points of order, an allowance of $1,000,000 for aeronautics, this being the unexpended balance from last year, and a provision for the creation of a chief of operations to head a naval war board.  Democratic leaders expect to provide for aeronautics by adding $1,000,000 to the total of the bill, and Representative Hobson immediately introduced the chief of operations as a separate bill.

Victor Could Master World.
Mr. Gillet declared it would be possible for the victor in the European war to disarm all other nations and become mistress of the world, although the chance of this would be slight, he said.
“Among those nations we have considered the most progressive and civilized,” he continued, “has suddenly burst forth a worship of force, reversion to the primitive savage type, a lawless selfishness, a disregard of sacred obligations, of pity, or mercy and of humanity which is depressing and confounding.”
The Monroe Doctrine, “without basis in law or justice and never acknowledged by Europe,” Mr. Gillet asserted, “was the one prolific source of trouble for the United States.” He referred to Japan as a possible antagonist of this country, and said some of the states had singled out the Japanese for unfriendly legislation, which course if persisted in might “cause a wave of resentment to sweep the Japanese people into a hostile outbreak.”

-30-

There was more, related to the Naval Bill, but it had nothing to do with Japan.

The first thing I would like to say is: Holy crap! That writing sucked. I know I am from a different time period, but I should still be able to understand English from a mere 100 years ago!

I only present this article because it shows that Japan was being discussed as a possible enemy state by the U.S. in 1915.

But why? Because it (Japan) had some unfriendly legislation says the news article. Okay… like what? You can’t make a statement that Japan should be considered and enemy and give ZERO facts as to why! Crap journalism at its worst.

As for Massachusetts Representative Gillet… this guy likes to hear his voice more than I do!And I like my voice a lot. If you heard it, you'd like it too. ;)

“Uh, yeah, the uhhh people of the god-feering state of er, Mass-a chewsits, would like to uhhh make a point.

“We, er, feel that whomevah wins the War to End All Wars (WWI) can make awl othah nations disarm…

“Foah example, should Canader lead and defeat the evil Hun, it could make not only the Hun, but the British, French and yes, even the great United States of Ameriker give up all her arms.

“…er, except the odds of Canader or any other country trying to do that is slim.”

So why the fug even bring up such a ridiculous notion? How the fug are you going to force anyone to do be your bitch, er… mistress?

Again… no attempt by the media to ask why… just blindly reporting whatever people say.

At least call Gillet’s bluff and say: “BS. How could any country force another country to give up their arms? Did you just mean the loser of the war? If so, why the heck didn’t you say so? And in a global war, how does one country stand out more than another?

“You know that Japan is actually on our side now, right… and we’re not exactly winning this war right now… and you want to stir up the wasabi and piss of the Japanese?

“We want them on our side, you schmuck.”

Now… when WWI ended, four empires collapsed, countries disappeared, new countries arose, countries got new boundaries, and everyone was pissed off at Germany and tried to further beat them into submission by forcing German to admit they were entirely to blame for the war, and as such, would have to pay reparations of then US$31.5 billion… which basically meant that German would remain a poor country for a very long time.

It caused Hyperinflation which meant it was easier to burn money than to use it to purchase wood.
The economic and psychological abuse of the German people after the war helped bring to rise that crazy wallpaper hanger Adolph Hitler who brought respect back to the pure Germanic peoples and fear into everyone else.

When World War II ended, the rest of the world learned its lesson from what had happened after WWI.

With regards to Japan, the United States was clearly the dominant force in repelling the Japanese. Yes, Asian countries such as those in Vietnam, Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Solomon Islands and more played roles against the Japanese, so to did Canada, Russia, Australia, Great Britain and China… but it was the U.S. and its atomic bombs and its large commitment of weapons and men (generic) to fight back against the country that dared attack its naval base in Hawaii, and thus the American way of life.

I wonder if Hawaii in the 1940s was a bastion of American way of life yet. It still seems to have its own culture. But that’s not the point.

Anyhow… that’s why the U.S. helped prop up Japan with a New Constitution that was probably better in places than its own (no right to bear arms, nothing in there about slaves or anything about how women or Blacks being chattel) so that’s cool. And while it took away Japan’s right to have it’s own army, navy and airforce, it would protect Japan’s borders while also allowing Japan to eventually create its own self-defence force that looked suspiciously like an army, navy or airforce, but it wasn’t. But it is.

The U.S. propped up Japan’s economy - especially in electronic, as lots of people had Japanese TVs, and radios, and later automobiles. So… yeah, I guess Gillet was right about the victor being able to make the loser disarm - but in a different war… but certainly not able to disarm everyone who was a prick in WWII.

Okay… enough of this… it was a stupid article about a loud-mouthed schnook about the lazy media and about the kindness of Vinnie who sent me the link to this story from America’s historical database—Readex, a division of Newsbank. Click HERE (again) and check out history for yourself. Type in a topic and presto… the world is your oyster.

And... just because the story was poorly written, who says you can't learn something. You guys do every time you read one of my articles!

Banzai,
Andrew Joseph

No comments:

Post a Comment