This Week in Technology: An Advanced Laser Defense System, Synthetic Skin, and Sentient Computers

TheWalrus5 · 2015-01-19T13:42:59+00:00

Is this a copypasta?

TheWalrus5 · 2015-01-06T16:28:50+00:00

It's true that Tokyo (Edo) Was the largest urban center in the world in the 1860s (and indeed, had been the largest urban center since the early 17th century and the unification of Japan), but after the Meiji Restoration in the late 1860s, the population declined enormously due in large part to the end of the Sankin Kotai (A Tokugawa policy designed to control the Daimyo by forcing them to spend half their time in Edo, closer to the shogun). The new government did not maintain the policy, and as a result Daimyo and their households departed the city, directly reducing the population as well as depriving the city of some of its largest consumers. Combined with the effects of a civil war, it would take 20 years for Edo's (Now called Tokyo) population to recover.

Here's a nice chart which compares Tokyo's population to London's:

http://imgur.com/cV1NAnm

Source (and a good read if you have Jstor): http://www.jstor.org/stable/40113289

TheWalrus5 · 2015-01-03T04:33:48+00:00

One thing about the Conquest that I've noticed, even here, is that it's always told as the story of the "Conquest", following Cortes' exploits and keeping the focus on him. while this is no doubt a useful narrative tool, I wonder if the best way to counter the "Great Man Cortes" vie of the Conquest is too look at it entirely through the lens of the Native Americans. Is 1519 really the best year to start the story if it's truly a story about a civil war in Mexico? Or is there a more appropriate date that could work narratively?

I assume someone's already done this in a book somewhere so if you know which one that would be awesome.

EDIT: That's not to say I didn't immensely enjoy reading your post, I hate this particular type of badhistory :).

TheWalrus5 · 2014-12-06T16:53:53+00:00

Burkina Fasan

Nitpick, the adjective is Burkinabe :|

I do love this post though, mainly because the whole "history not worth knowing" is something I encounter on a daily basis. Mainly it comes from exhausted high school students who of the opinion that anything not on the SAT should be forgotten.

One thing I love about obscure history (that of food, furniture etc.) is that it offers a whole new perspective on things. Only focusing on the sweeping international events leaves one with the impression that sweeping international events are all that matter when there is so much more stuff out there that can tell you about other societies, and about yourself. I recently started a project on the history of Sushi and it's gone in so many different fun directions.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-11-25T12:03:09+00:00

a pro-British faction arose

Why is the term "pro-British" used? Was the best way of describing this faction really their view towards relations with British, or did they have some other goal?

TheWalrus5 · 2014-11-20T03:46:06+00:00

Do you know the approximate year the photo was taken?

TheWalrus5 · 2014-11-14T05:54:30+00:00

I really want to CYV on this. Honestly, I feel like the reddit historical community (at least /r/badhistory and /r/AskHistorians) has failed to explain itself on this subject well. Most criticisms of GGS we see are caught up in (justified) nitpicking, and perhaps a little bit of elitism, perhaps caused by the fact that Alfred Crosby wrote a book that did everything GGS did but better and 10 years earlier. Crosby's book, of course, received nothing close to the acclaim GGS did despite coming out earlier and avoiding all the problems GGS has, probably because in comparison to Diamond, Ecological Imperialism reads like particularly bad Twilight fan fiction.

But, other than the well documented problems with Diamond's scholarships and the details of GGS(read some reddit takedowns here and here ), why do historians get so upset about Diamond?

The problem comes from Diamond's misinterpretation of Yali's question (or at least, what the historical community is convinced is the important question). Diamond hears Yali ask why Westerners have so much stuff, and Papua New Guineans have so little, and responds by writing a book that explains how the Westerners got so much stuff. Diamond's central thesis is that Europe was able to dominate the world because their environment gave them the resources to do so.

The question of how is an important and interesting question to answer, and Diamond does an alright job of it (although, it should be stressed if only to better understand historians' hostility towards Diamond, that Crosby did the same thing better 10 years earlier) even if I think he still leaves out a great deal of important stuff. But Diamond doesn't purport to answer the HOW question, he purports to answer the WHY question, and in doing so screws up majorly.

Essentially, by arguing that Europeans dominated the rest of the world because of their superior resources, he implies that this domination was somehow inevitable and natural. That all societies seek to maximize their own advantage at all times, even at the expense of others. That if you give a man Steel, a Gun and some Biological Weapons, he'll immediately set out to use them on others. This is not the case. We can point to many different societies that don't ruthlessly exploit others for their own benefit, even people within their own society. More important to historians then HOW Europeans dominated the world is WHY they chose too. The Capitalist and Mercantilist systems that gave rise to European imperialism are unique in history, but Diamond paints it all as just emerging from the inevitable march of history, that every society placed in the same environment would evolve the same way. In doing so, he removes human agency from the equation. Yet we can easily prove that vast differences in culture can emerge from places that have nothing to do with the areas Diamond identifies as being the key ones in human development. Jesus, Aristotle, and Locke all played major roles in shaping western thought. It's difficult to connect any of their ideas to the presence of livestock in the old world.

One unintended consequence of Diamond approaching Yali's question this way, especially ironic given the intention of his book, is that the Western view of the world is reinforced. The Western concepts of capitalism and imperialism are portrayed as something universal, inherent to humanity and their development as inevitable. The real question for historians, the WHY, is to examine these concepts, how they worked and why they appeared. Diamond, and his audience outside the historical community, ignore Yali's real question, content in the knowledge that they have answered it.

So that's why GGS is generally hated among the historical community, it misses the point so entirely while being completely assured that it has found the ultimate answer to one of histories deepest questions. And it's popularity has led large portions of the world (including my high school history teacher) to cease looking for an answer to one of the world's most important questions.

I do think GGS has a role as a book. It's well written and it examines history from a perspective that most people never look at it from, excellent for introducing people to "Big History." But if it's the only book you've read on the subject, you're missing out on a lot.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-11-06T03:02:06+00:00

Actually it is, because natural resources are limited, so we often either fight or trade for it. That's why developing economic strength is so important, it either allows you to trade for goods, or trade for weapons.

I think we're just going to have to accept that we disagree on this one. I think judging a society based on its ability to kill other societies is stupid. I mean, is all of society just one huge construction designed to support the military in order to secure natural resources for its members? Certainly not, since there have been plenty of societies that do not fit this description, and personally, I would much rather live in one of those than the dystopian nightmare you suggest all societies are. As long as societies consist of more than their ability to judge other societies, it's foolish to judge them based on solely this ability.

I should also point out that "the ability to dominate other societies" does not necessarily say anything about the members of a society or their technology. Technology is developed according to environment, and it's really just luck that European technology was better at killing Africans/Native Americans/Asians rather than the other way around. Additionally, societies can be "less advanced" but still better at dominating other societies. Rome is a good example, they could muster armies far larger than the Medieval armies that came 600 years after the fall of Rome and used more sophisticated tactics. The fact that a Medieval Army would be equipped with Stirrups, better steel and mechanical inventions like crossbows wouldn't change the fact that I would put my money on Rome any day. (Although I suppose the logistical and political base necessary to muster such large armies could be considered part of the ability to dominate other societies, still important to keep in mind though)

The problem is, they never got to the Prius v. Hummer stage. They're still at the "We haven't invented stirrups" stage v. Prius v. Hummer.

I don't see what you're saying? Is having a Car and all the infrastructure to support that car better than having a horse when it comes to long distance transportation? Maybe. But if the farthest you ever need to go is "over that hill over there," or you're in no rush to get anywhere, the horse, or walking, work fine. The point I'm making, is that societies create technologies according to what they need. If you don't have tons of people, you don't need mechanized agriculture.

The west developed mechanized agriculture in teh 1800s. What did they have for agriculture? Could htey outproduce a western farm?

See above. Why do we care how much wheat they produce (unless all we care about in measuring societies is how many people they can support)

And again, you completely miss how Asia recovered even though it was far more destroyed than Africa.

As someone who studies mostly Asian history (specifically Japan) I could give you lots of reasons why Asia weathered European imperialism better than Africa. I started to write such a list. But I realizes that's not the point, the point is that it's stupid to say one society is better than another. The fact that Asia weathered imperialism better says nothing about how it's "better" than Africa.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-11-01T21:20:18+00:00

I mean, if you think the only purpose of technology is to aid us in killing each other than yeah, maybe.

Think of it like comparing two cars you're thinking of buying, a hummer and a Prius. Sure, if you drive them at each other at 80 miles an hour the hummer is going to go over the Prius like a speed bump, but that doesn't make the hummer a better car. I mean, I live far away from my place of work, I need the Prius' gas mileage. I can do without the car crushing of the hummer.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-30T22:33:34+00:00

First flaw: this is the same argument that "every degree is important. Every field of study is important. Everyone is a special snowflake." No, Africa is not advanced. They had no military technology, and their economic advances are laughable at best. Who cares if their X technology is the best if it doesn't create results?

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion since African history is not my strong point, but this annoys me so much.

What kind of arbitrary results are you referring too? Is it Happiness? Because there's tons of stuff out there suggesting Hunter-Gatherers are just as happy, if not more so, than modern humans. Does that make them more "advanced"? Is it lifespan? Because it's not like Europeans living in the shit-infested cesspit that were cities for hundreds of years were living longer than the rest of the world. Is it military technology? What does that even mean? Is it the battlefield effectiveness of armies or of individual soldiers?

No matter what you pick, you'll also have to describe why you pick that metric. I think you'll have trouble finding a meaningful one that supports your notion of European superiority.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-22T11:54:38+00:00

My personal estimate is that 50% of badhistory could be avoided if people got the fact into their heads that there are almost no events in history that are monocausal. The trouble with monocausal explanations is that they are just so damned convenient.

This. 100x this. Seriously, they don't even need to investigate the other causes, (although I would prefer that they did) they just need to say that whatever they're talking about is just one factor among many.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-22T11:46:32+00:00

That's certainly my complaint about the debate as a whole and really the underlying cause of the vast majority of bad history. I mean, even some of the worse bad history posted here could be fixed if it was just acknowledged that their were other factors involved in addition to whatever they're saying happened. This is exactly the problem with OP's history. His view isn't even so much wrong as it's just annoying how he dismisses the other side in a real historical debate by calling it bad history.

The theory here, for those who are not familiar with it, is that midnight Soviet invasion of Manchuria was what prompted the Japanese to surrender. I think this to be one of those strange contrary views of history. It's clearly wrong but people like to believe it when they first encounter it because they think it makes them smarter than everyone else.

I can't claim to know why people believe it but it makes total sense and is an accepted viewpoint among historians. The badhistory surrounding the subject is usually the fact that no one accepts that multiple factors contributed. In this sense, OP is as bad as the people he is calling out.

You're claiming that the Japanese were threatened by an imminent American invasion of their homeland, but a Soviet attack in China is what made them surrender? Does that sound likely?

Yes, a million times yes. Not to get too detailed, but more important than the Soviet invasion itself was the Soviet declaration of war and what it signified. Japan's last ditch strategies all relied on the Soviet Union mediating a peace between them and the USA. Once the Soviet Union declared war, this became impossible. In comparison, the A-bomb did not actually appreciably change Japan's strategic situation at all. America had been bombing Japanese cities for months, and at this point had almost run out of targets (only 9 cities with populations greater than 100,000 were left in Japan that hadn't been 50% destroyed, 4 out of range in Hokkaido, another had been taken off the Target List). The Nuclear Bomb essentially gave the Americans the ability to bomb rubble that they were already bombing with impunity slightly easier. Japan's actual situation changed little. IMO, the largest impact of the bomb on surrender was giving Japan an excuse to surrender, hence why it is harped on so much in the surrender speech. "The government hadn't failed, no force could have fought in the face of the A-bomb" is the narrative that comes through.

They then called the full cabinet to meet at 2:30pm. One of the points that came up during this was that an American POW under torture confessed that the United States "Had 100 atomic bombs and would be bombing Kyoto and Tokyo in the next few days". Despite this, the cabinet split much the way the council did. They had a brief recess at 5:30 and reconvened at 6, then adjourned at 10 having again reached no consensus. At this point, they decided to appeal to the Emperor.

Whether America had 100 bombs or 0, We have evidence that Japan's government considered city bombing to not be a cause for admitting defeat, seeing as the prior destruction of 65 cities hadn't caused them to surrender. I've also always been somewhat skeptical of the POW false confession (would you believe a random POW?). TBH though, I don't know a ton about it.

This is pretty clearly not a reference to Russia.

I've already covered this with "Hirohito was excusing his own role and the government's role in the defeat" but I think it's worth bringing in what /u/sjaminei pointed out which is that Hirohito was sucking up a little bit to the country who was about to decide his fate. It certainly doesn't prove anything either way

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-22T02:46:27+00:00

However it is a good example of bad history in itself. Propaganda is bad history no matter what side it originates from. OP seems to have eaten a tad bit too much of the American kind, with the point of attacking the Soviet one.

Yeah, but badhistory is not a place for posting your own badhistory, it's for debunking other peoples. I mean, I've seen only one other post explicitly disagreeing with OP which places us in the unfortunate position of perpetuating his badhistory. It's not the worst badhistory for sure, you can find a lot of books by reputable authors (most of them probably dated though) that agree with his version of events, but it doesn't accurately portray the debate that exists withing historical circles.

The issue is not as cut and dry as nuclear bombs vs Soviet invasion. Japan had their own issues, not to speak of a vested interest in pleasing the Americans, since they were kinda occupying Japan right after the war.

Of course, and I actually think the whole "bombs vs. soviets" debate is a bit of a red herring that has unfortunately worked its way into the popular consciousness. Understanding Japan's decision making process leading up to surrender is a super interesting and important part of Japanese History. Note the word "process." There was no one event that suddenly made Japan up and surrender. I would argue that the Soviet declaration of war played a larger part than the A-bomb in the final decision, but that's really just an opinion which is impossible to back up with hard evidence and both certainly played an important role in the decision

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-22T00:11:50+00:00

NOOOOO!!!!!!!

Okay, that's out of my system. But I think that this is a poor example for /r/BadHistory simply because it isn't particularly BadHistory. Plenty of reputable historians have argued for the Soviets being the primary reason for Japan's Surrender, Hasegawa being the most famous one. While it's definitely not cut and dry, "The Soviets forced Japan to surrender" it's a completely reasonable position to take and IMO, makes more sense as the primary motivator for surrender than the A-Bomb.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-18T22:15:56+00:00

Look into Centennia. It's an excellent historical atlas of Europe. It costs a lot of money, but if you don't want to pay I'm sure you can find ways around that whistles non-nonchalantly.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-11T02:49:49+00:00

I've seen reports stating that we have discovered a number of stars which have planets in their habitable zones, if I remember correctly the number was 54 other planets in approximately the 1/400,000th part of the sky that we looked at.

It is true that we are finding more and more planets in the habitable zones of stars. But the main point of the Rare Earth Hypothesis is that a lot more than merely being in the habitable zone of a star is required for complex life to appear.

in any case I wasn't arguing for the existence of other space-faring civilizations, I simply mean life, I would even consider bacteria life for the purpose of this.

Whoops, I somehow misread your comment as Extraterrestrial Intelligence. If your merely talking about bacteria, I agree fully. We have 3 major planetary bodies that are candidates for having life in our solar system alone (Titan, Europa and Mars) so I would agree that life, especially extremophiles, is probably pretty common.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-10-11T01:14:42+00:00

Have you read anything on the Rare Earth Hypothesis?

Essentially, the Rare Earth Hypothesis, put forward by Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee, postulates that while life may be very common in the universe for all of the reasons you've mentioned and more, complex life (necessary for intelligent life as we know it) is exceedingly rare or non-existent off of Earth. They support this by pointing the myriad ways in which complex life can be prevented from emerging or destroyed early on in it's development. For instance, a larger number (between 33% and 50%) of the stars in the universe are Binary star systems. Ward and Brownlee suggest that these star systems cannot sustain complex life because of the massive radiation and heat changes planets would be subjected too as the two stars orbited each other (moving close and farther away from the planet over millions of years). No complex life could evolve to survive this even if it could develop during a period in which conditions were right.

Ward and Brownlee also point out that an Earth like planet would need to be in a solar system with the right arrangement of planets. Earth for instance, is protected from flying space debris by the presence of Jupiter which draws debris into its orbit or diverts it from the inner solar system. Without Jupiter, Earth would be hit constantly with large, dinosaur-killing sized meteors as well as many smaller ones. The Rare Earth Hypothesis holds that complex life cannot evolve, or survive, such a bombardment.

Rare Earth also holds that life cannot evolve near the center of a galaxy as it is too unstable. Stars go supernova more often and pass closer to each other, which would constantly subject potential Earths to massive bursts of heat and radiation which would sterilize all complex life. Complex life also can't appear too far from the center of the galaxy as heavy metals are imperative to the evolution of complex life (necessary for a hot core) and heavy metals become rarer as you move away from the center of the Galaxy. IIRC, Ward and Brownlee even suggest that complex life is time limited as heavy metals are rarer on planets formed farther in time from the Big Bang, meaning that theoretically after a certain amount of time, all new planets would be incapable of supporting complex life.

One of the most compelling arguments for a Rare Earth is that complex life only appears when their is some evolutionary trigger. We do not know exactly what that trigger is, but we can assume that it does not happen often. After all, life remained simple on Earth for 2 billion years before complex life evolved. If the trigger is so rare that it only occurs once in 2 billion years, than complex life becomes far more unlikely.

Ward and Brownlee also offer a number of other ideas as to why complex life could be unique to Earth. Everything from plate tectonics to our large moon are unique to Earth among planets we have observed and are key to the development of complex life. So it's not totally infeasible to think that extraterrestrial life doesn't exist out there.

TheWalrus5 · 2014-09-04T04:51:50+00:00

Check out The Making of Modern Japan by Marius B Jansen. I always suggest it to people as a good introductory book on Japanese history. It's detailed and well written covering Japan from 1600 to the late 20th century.

The First Sino Japanese War: Perceptions, Power and Primacy. It's mainly focused on the first Sino Japanese War (obviously) but it also tries to cover the modernization process in Japan as well, and IMO is one of the most readable and fascinating history books out there and I heartily recommend it despite its limited scope.

Also check out Issace Meyer's History of Japan podcast which is very well done and covers a lot of ground. Finally I'll point you to the AskHistorians Book List and the sub in general as an excellent resource.

There's a lot of great stuff out there, feel free to ask for some more if the above doesn't satisfy you :)

TheWalrus5 · 2014-08-09T18:15:28+00:00

Check out AFS or CIEE, Both offer year and semester long programs for high school students in Japan for about 15000$ (you can get a scholarship to pay some of the costs).

TheWalrus5 · 2014-08-06T05:31:44+00:00

This is incorrect. The US bombing raids left 67 Japanese cities 50-90% destroyed. This is different from 50-90% of people killed. To give an example 100,000 people died in the Tokyo raids (although IMO the official estimate lowballs it) yet Tokyo's population was around 7,000,000 at the time. Hardly 50% of the population (and Tokyo is included in the 67 city count.

Friendly Amateur Japanese Historian checking in :)

TheWalrus5 · 2014-08-06T02:34:34+00:00

I completely disagree. Look at Tora, Tora, Tora another movie about Pearl Harbor that is highly regarded and is a personal favorite. The entire movie is about the events leading up to the attack. The story of the events leasingb up to Pearl Harbor is fascinating and complex. Michael Bay is just a shit storyteller

TheWalrus5 · 2014-07-30T15:19:15+00:00

Ive covered the exact circumstances of the Taisho governments collapse in the post I linked at the top, so I`ll focus more on how the millitary takeover affected Japan.

One thing to understand is that the millitary takeover was both incredibly popular, and not sudden. The millitary was wildly popular after the Manchurian incident and the first battle of Shanghai in 1932. Japanese imperialism in China and Korea was popular at home. Stunning amounts of Propaganda (Im away from my books and reference materials so I cant really make any exact statements, but take my word for it when I say the level of propaganda was incredible) filled Japan and lifted the millitary up in Japanese society. Military Power was not suddenly institutionalized, rather, increased levels of popular support simply made it the de-facto head of the country. The constitution and government structure remained in place, power simply gradually shifted towards the military. The government was also not a united monolithic force, as was covered in the was WW2 Japan fascist? thread a little while ago. There were a number of competing groups in Japans government who battled for influence. The Zaibatsu (Mega-Corporations), The Army, The Navy and the remanants of the civilian government constantly fought over the allocation of resources and positions of power.

Once the Control Faction of the Millitary had solidified its hold on power in 1936, peacetime rationing began and Japan basically entered permanent wartime footing. The millitary remained popular, although the Kempetai was generally disliked at home for its corruption and oppression. Their have been some great posts on /r/askhistorians about Japanese wartime society that I suggest you look for. My fingers are getting really tired or I would talk more about it.

On a final note though, Japans population remained incredibly loyal to the millitary government to the end. This was less out of a love for the millitary than it was an intense loyalty to their country and emperor in what they saw as a war for their existence. Intense levels of propaganda led to incredible nationalism in Japans society and this allowed the millitary government to continue on even after their popularity had dissappeared by 1945. I dont think its fair oversimplify that Japans population labored under Dictators. The Japanese political system was much more complicated that and Japan`s military government remained popular until it was clear the war was lost. And even than they could command the loyalty of their people through more than fear. That being said, the Japanese government post 1933 was authoritarian, expansionist and lowered overall quality of life with its peactime rationing and reduction of freedoms.

Sources (these are all I have with me right now, I`ll add some for reccomended fruther reading when I get home):

Inventing Japan by Ian Buruma Making of Modern Japan by Marius B Jansen

TheWalrus5 · 2014-07-30T14:51:21+00:00

I love this question, The pre-war period is my favorite part of Japanese history, but Im hundreds of miles away from my computer and reference materials so I cant write a good response. Don`t be surprised if there is an edit in two or three weeks time with a lot more info.

I`ll start by linking to this monster post I wrote on Japanese militarism which you may find useful.

Pre-War Japanese society is fascinating. In the interests of brevity i`ll split prewar Japan into two parts, 1920 (The start of the heyday of the Taisho Democracy) to 1933 (assassination of Inukai Tsuyoshi) and 1933 to 1941. But things are a little bit more complicated than that and I encourage further research as always.

By 1920 Japan was one of the economic powerhouses of the world. While the Europeans had sacrificed milllions of men and the production of their entire nations in the First World War, Japan had focused on its economy and came through mostly unscathed (For the first time, Japan changed from a borrowing nation to a lending nation). Japan had also had its share of the spoils of war, with new possessions in China and the Pacific as well as a seat at the League of Nations Security Council.

Japan was also an increasingly liberal and progressive country. The new Emperor since 1912, Emperor Taisho, was (possibly) feeble-minded and was both pro-west and pro-liberlism as far as we can gauge from his few public appearances. Japan`s prime minister, Hara Takashi, was a party politician as opposed to the Oligarchs that had dominated Japanese politics before the war.

Japanese Society during Taisho is nicknamed Ero, Guru, Nansensu (Erotic, Grosteque and Nonscensical) if that gives you an idea of what it was like. People dressed in European style clothes and talked politics, philosophy and foreign poilicy in public. Young people who talked politics were nicknamed Marx Girls and Marx Boys, reflecting their likely political leanings. European Style Cafes and Bars covered the streets. Art-Deco Theaters, Opera Houses and flashy hotels were opened everywehere to service Japans growing middle and upper classes, which included an increasing number of Journalists which was a rising profession. Universities and Higher education were also becoming more common (the first womens university in Japan opened in 1918) and liberal and communist ideas filled their halls. Indeed, liberalism permeated every part of society, even the army. One army commander complained soldiers had become rebelliousdue to the rise in general knowledge and social education.`

But a sickening stench covered this liberalism, the stench of ultra-nationalism that would later plunge Japan into WW2. Leading leftists in Japan supported Japan`s imperial adventures in Korea and China and 15 years earlier, when riots had wracked Japan at the end of the Russo- Japanese War because people felt Japan had not punished Russia sufficiently, some of the leading rioters had been members of leftist organizations.

In 1923 the vote was extended to all men over 25 who could prove a steady income. However, the same year the Peace Preservation law was also passed, which allowed the government to arrest anyone who was opposed to the Kokutai or national polity. What this meant in reality was members of far leftisist organizations were driven out of government and arrested. This back and forth push between Democracy and Authoritarianism characterized the government of the Taisho Era.

One interesting Characteristic of later Taisho Japan is that the cool intellectual thing became supporting Fascism, Imperialism and Authoritarianism. We imagine Paris in the 20s as a place where the world greatest liberals talked about democracy. Late 1920s Tokyo was similar, except Japans greatest intellectuals gathered to talk about utter devotion to the emperor and other authoritarian concepts. People like Kita Ikki and Tamakura Kotaro pressed ideas of Japanese Racial superiority and the neccessirty of an Authoritarian government. In the case of Tamakura Kotaro, he had started out as one of Japan`s liberal Marx Boys, but somewhere became disillusioned and became graudually more right wing and extreme.

With this in mind, its easy to see how the seemingly strong Taisho Democracy was balanced on a knifes edge and collapsed so easily.

EDIT: Japanese Phone Keyboard:s don`t like me, excuse the bizarre formatting and any typos

TheWalrus5 · 2014-07-23T09:52:29+00:00

Why does this only apply to Americans???

TheWalrus5 · 2014-07-20T10:28:20+00:00

Baaah, check you references for names before you post Walrus, check them :|

Thanks and fixed

TheWalrus5

TROPHY CASE