Japan Options for WWII

[RF]

The Japanese have always resented US presence in their country but put up with it during the cold war because they feared a Soviet takeover more (A soviet takeover would have put the Emperor against a wall).

I think there has always been a dichotemy here. There was always a latent anti-US feeling in post WW2 Japan, as indeed such feeling exists in a lot of other areas of the world, such as in Latin America and indeed in Britain and some of the other European countries including Germany.

In Japan there was, and perhaps is slowly growing feelings that the country needs to be more assertive to show that it isn't a ''client state'' of the US and some of this revolves around martial ideas and a desire to re-arm. But there is a very deeply ingrained fear of a re-birth of militarism and military dictatorship and it is difficult to judge how this will go.

As I say the Japanese have benefitted enormously from US occupation and being part of the western alliances headed by the US. That has kept any resurgence of militarism at bay as well as preventing the establishment of pro-communist movements.

As for a Soviet takeover leading to Hirohito or Akihito being put up against a wall - a more likely fate I think is that the Japanese emporer would end up doing what the Chinese communists gave Pu Yi, the former Japanese puppet emporer of Manchuria: a job cleaning out latrines in a hospital.

[lwd]

... Firstly my mistake, I should have said the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have all hated each other since Before Roman times.

Not really. The "English" are a mix of Germanic tribes who settled in the British Isles after the Romans left (although I'm sure there's some British and Romano-British blood mixed in as well). The "Scots" were what the Romans called the Irish. Scotland got it's name after they took over the Pictish kindom in Northern Great Britain again after the Romans left. While the various Celts have fought for millenium it's more on a clan level than a national one and I'm not at all sure that a case can be made for them "hating" each other even in historical times. Although most of the Celts did have a profound dislike for the "Saxons".

The point was that if Northern Ireland could exist independently of the UK without being subsumed by the ROI it would, it doesn't stay with the UK because the people there get on well with the people in England, Scotland or Wales.

If that's your point I'm not at all sure it is correct either.

Puerto Rico was colonized by the Spanish in direct opposition to the local tribes (Arawaks or Tainos I think) in the early 1500s. The Scot colonisation of Ulster occurred in the early 1600s by James I (Stuart), James VI of Scotland, in direct opposition of the locals. Seems quite similar to me. Except for the taking over by the US after the 1898 Spanish American war part.

Well the native tripes in the Carribean were pretty much wiped out in the 16th and 17th century. But my point was the US didn't send colonist to Puerto Rico in order to hold on to it like the English did to Northern Ireland. Now if you were argueing the position of Spain being similar to the UK that would be a different story.

[neil hilton]

I saw a program on tv about an archaeological campaign that questioned the entire notion of an Anglo-Saxon 'settlement' of the British Isles. They compared the DNA of skeletons of known Romano-British and those from the so-called period of the Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement and found essentially no difference, there was no Anglo-Saxon migration into Britain. Several hundred warriors hired by local rulers to keep out other barbarians would make no difference to the gene pool of a whole country.
So the entire notion of an 'English' nation (bastardisation of the name Angle) is wrong! It should in reality have another name.

Again, my mistake. I should have said the English, Scots/Picts, Welsh and Irish have hated each other since Roman times and before that the various Celtic tribes hated each other (Celts didn't have nations as we would call such). And I do think the Celts hated each other going off what they did to each other when they fought and captured opposing warriors and non-warriors, the only thing they hated more was non-celts.

[lwd]

I saw a program on tv about an archaeological campaign that questioned the entire notion of an Anglo-Saxon 'settlement' of the British Isles. They compared the DNA of skeletons of known Romano-British and those from the so-called period of the Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement and found essentially no difference, there was no Anglo-Saxon migration into Britain.

While there are other studies that indicate just the opposite.
One of the websites that has info on this apparently is locking up my browser so I'll add the references one at a time until I figure out which one it is:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/ ... hancestry/
This site suggest that the Celts and Germanic tribes were very close DNA wise and both had minimal impact on the British gene pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxo ... c_evidence
Mentions both theories but notes that Central England seems to have been 50-100% Germanic at one point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1_(Y-DNA)
Goes into more detail and states that the estimated migrations were anywhere from 10,000 to 200,000 in the period under discussion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... itain.html
ups the upper number to 500,000 and states 100,000 is supported by archological and historical evidence but goes on to say the imigration may have taken longer and started earlier than some propose.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html
Seems to be pretty even handed and as such doesn't come to any firm conclusions although the evidence sited doesn't seem to agree with your posting.
as does this one:
http://heritage-key.com/britain/genetic ... ke-uks-dna

Several hundred warriors hired by local rulers to keep out other barbarians would make no difference to the gene pool of a whole country.

In any case it's pretty clear that there were more than a "several hundred warriors". Indeed estimates range from a 10,000 up to 500,000 German imagrants during the period in question.

So the entire notion of an 'English' nation (bastardisation of the name Angle) is wrong! It should in reality have another name.

Yes and no. It's pretty clear that the Angles were in the minority and indeed the Celts refered to the German invaders as "Saxons" for the most part from what I've read. To the point that the word became an insult whose use was not confined soly to those whom it logically applied.

Again, my mistake. I should have said the English, Scots/Picts, Welsh and Irish have hated each other since Roman times and before that the various Celtic tribes hated each other (Celts didn't have nations as we would call such). And I do think the Celts hated each other going off what they did to each other when they fought and captured opposing warriors and non-warriors, the only thing they hated more was non-celts.

Either you are using a very different defintion of the word "hate" than I am or you simply don't understand the Celts. I suspect it's the latter by the way. Just because they fought each other doesn't mean that they necessarily hated each other. Indeed it's fairly clear that that wasn't the case in general although when you are talking about "Saxons" things may be different. Note the above is still not correct as there were no English until well after Roman times and it wasn't until latter that the Irish and the Scotts were considered different people and even later yet that the Scotts absorbed the Picts.

[RF]

This is an interesting digression, but....... how do the ethnic origins of my ancestors and millions of other Brits relate to Japanese options for WW2?

Now theres a taxing question.

[lwd]

This is an interesting digression, but....... how do the ethnic origins of my ancestors and millions of other Brits relate to Japanese options for WW2?

Now theres a taxing question.

I suppose we could go back and figure it out but perhaps best to just return to topic ....

[neil hilton]

This is an interesting digression, but....... how do the ethnic origins of my ancestors and millions of other Brits relate to Japanese options for WW2?

Now theres a taxing question.

Its entirely my fault this thread has gone way way off topic, apologies. . I could reply to lwds post regarding his opinion of my lacking understanding of celtic culture and the differences in Romano-British/Celtic gene pools and Germanic gene pools etc. But that would send the topic off course even further so I will say no more.

[lwd]

This is an interesting digression, but....... how do the ethnic origins of my ancestors and millions of other Brits relate to Japanese options for WW2?

Now theres a taxing question.

Its entirely my fault this thread has gone way way off topic, apologies. .

You were hardly alone in it.

I could reply to lwds post regarding his opinion of my lacking understanding of celtic culture and the differences in Romano-British/Celtic gene pools and Germanic gene pools etc. But that would send the topic off course even further so I will say no more.

There's always the OT forum. I know I find several of the issues raised quite interesting so if you wish to continue why not there?

[RF]

I believe that you could ask Jose Rico as Administrator to ''cut and paste'' the relevant posts into an Off Topic thread, though I suspect he won't be thanking me for the suggestion.......

[neil hilton]

There is an 'Off Topic' forum? One of these days I really should have a thorough rummage through this whole forum, theres probably lots of stuff I'm missing, I know I'm always finding threads where I can shove my oar in (pardon the pun) that are years old but I've only just found them. Thanks for the suggestion.

[RF]

Neil, go to board index and scroll to the very bottom. There is Off Topic.