<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Thumbs up
Review: I'm finding this book captivating to read. I read many other history books mentioning about Japanese_Russo war but this particular offering discussed the incident in detail of why the war needed to occur at the first place. Unlike the book "Rape of Nangking" which is fairly one-sided from an American Chinese point of view, this book projected the Japanese been chilvarous during the Japanese_Russo war and also the Boxer Rebellion in China. Later, the author discussed the reason(s) why moral values weren't taken as seriously as they used to by the Japanese during the later war. It's intriguing to note that Japan was a victim of its circumstances & that what the decision makers had planned for Japan didn't turn up to be the way they intended to be & by then, Japan had already overextended itself & far too late to turn back the clock. It also refuted about the conspiracy surrounding the bombing of Pearl Harbour as discussed in "Yamato Dynasty" by Sterling Seagrave but due to a simple misunderstanding of interpretation in the code-breaking! The book emphasised that should we flicked to the other side of the coin which the Axis won the war, it's the Allies that would be depicted as the villains for dropping the lethal & inhuman atomic bombs which killed countless of innocent victims including their own fellow soldiers who were held capitve in Japan at the time. In other words, it's not only Japan that commited barbaric act during the wars but everybody seemed to be doing that since the beginning of time. In war, civilised people would become "monsters" due to their surroundings & their circumstances. The book wanted us to see that we are reflection of Japanese, that we are only human. Towards the end, the book discussed about the emerging power(s) in the Asia Pacific region. Japan has started to increase its spending in military in order to be more prepared should countries such as China, North Korea, Pakistan, & so forth start to threaten its sovereignity or perhaps, Japan has been called upon by the countries of the world to play a pivotal role in maintain the stability in the region. The author mentioned that the military teaching in Japan is different from what it used to be (less fanatical & emphasising towards the freedom of choice) but whether Japan would revert to its old self, or whether it would play a different role together, we are urged to wait and see. Well, we might never know the whole truths about the history of the Japanese military or perhaps what are discussed here are inaccurate but still, it is a very well written book & induces discussion. It would be ideal if war could be averted by any means. History of the past reminds us of the ugliness of war, lest we forget. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Too political
Review: The author is not a historian but an anthropologist. As I read through this book, I found that the author is too much interested in military ethics. I thought it's because he is an anthropologist. After I finished this book, I realized that this book is very politically written. The author showed how decently Japanese soldiers had behaved during Boxer Rebellion, Russo-Japanese War, World War I and Battle of Nomonhan. Then he showed Japanese brutality during the World War II. Here the author overexerted his logic to improve the smeared image of Japanese military. He held forth on many brutalities committed by other countries including England and America, and then insisted that war-time brutalities have been common in human history and Japanese military chivalry in the early 20th century is an exception. Though his argument has some truth, it is hardly persuasive. In epilogue, he emphasized the growing military threat of China, and insinuated that Japan should check Chinese military threat in the 21st century. This is what the author really wanted to say. By the way, I found a few problems in this book. First, the author said the fear that Chinese communism would spread, eventually to engulf Manchuria, led Japan's largely uncoordinated efforts to dominate China(see p239). Given the fact that war, destruction and poverty greatly helped communism to spread in China, his argument is infernally absurd. If he had said population pressure and fear of communism in mainland Japan drove her to try to conquer China, it would have sounded better. Second, the author said the Japan's decision to bomb Pearl Harbor derived from a trivial misunderstanding between American Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Japanese decision makers(see p254-255). According to him, Hull presented an ultimatum one of whose provisions called on Japan to withdraw from China. And Hull had not meant "China" to include Manchuria, but the Japanese assumed that it did. The explanation is utterly ridiculous. The vassal state in Manchuria was never internationally recognized. So China should naturally include Manchuria. Japan did not misunderstand anything. If he thought Cordell Hull had not meant China to include Manchuria, he should have provided a solid evidence.
Rating:
Summary: NOT a History of the Japanese Military
Review: The first quarter of the book deals with European military actions in China with the occasional mention of the Japanese.
The next half of the book deals with the Russo-Japanese War,
almost entirely from the Russian perspective. He skims over
the period between the world wars and finally brushes over
World War II.
It has a number of extraordinarily glaring factual errors and it
is telling that his bibliography includes exactly ONE Japanese
language source.
...
Rating:
Summary: Opportunistic and somewhat overbearingly Western
Review: The present book is supposed to deal with the history of the Japanese military, but after having just read the first several pages I decided not to pursue any further. The reason for this anticipatory judgement is the presence of too many factual historical errors as well as some blatantly Western-style interpretations of Japanese historical events in the pages under direct scrutiny, obviously made without any actual knowledge of Japanese military culture and it's historical development. Another reviewer stated that the bibliography contains just one Japanese source, so that might have been the cause, but this doesn't make things right. It's books like this that give the English reading audience such misguided and distorted ideas about the Japanese military, as if the Japanese are by nature a cruel people without human morals whatsoever, a fact that people should be given ample warning about. What happened during WW II at the hands of the Japanese army are facts beyond dispute, but Japanese military history should not completely be interpreted in that light. Not only this, but books should be written about Japanese military history by people that have direct access to primary and secondary Japanese sources and who therefore know what they are writing about. In this way people without any knowledge on Japan and it's people can compare interpretations and come away with a more balanced idea about the subject. If the author of the present book thinks he has done a well-balanced job, he should think again. Of course, I have only read the first several pages, but should the rest of the book be in the same pattern of shaky and biased interpretations, readers of this review are most cordially invited to consider this Japanese Studies specialist's two-star rating to be a factual one-star rating.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, informative and easy to read.
Review: While this book makes for fascinating reading, it comes up well short of the claims made on the jacket and in the introduction. There is almost no mention of the centuries of samurai society; the book pretty much starts with the Boxer Rebellion. Anything before that time is more Chinese history than Japanese.From the Boxer Rebellion onward, there is a lot of "what" happened, but a severe shortage of "why" it happened, which is the whole premise of the book. For that matter, the book is almost entirely about the Russo-Japanese War; World War II is condensed into the end, and Japan's part in the Boxer Rebellion is more or less scrunched into one chapter. I'm reminded of the US History textbook I had in high school in the mid-70s: of 20 chapters, the entire 20th century was squeezed into chapter 20, while the Civil War was seven chapters of its own. I will admit that World War II has been more than adequately covered in hundreds of other books, but it would have been nice for the author to say
<< 1 >>
|
