Talk:Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

credibility

This article seems out of date. There was a recent book on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that came out from Cornell University Press in 2019. The author argues that the Sphere was an evolving concept that was not fully understood by Japanese leaders themselves until after it was next but impossible to implement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.158.186 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this ideology described as a front? Is the Civil War called the war of Northern Aggression or the Civil War and does the differing perspectivs in that war bring explanation for this article? Or how about the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, White Mans Burden, Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, or GLobalization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 17:39:47

The War of Northeren Aggression is used by Confederate sympathists to make the South look better. In reality, the root of the war was not in an aggressive union. Likewise, the war was not about bringing prosperity to East Asia. The citizens of Nanjing can tell you that. That's why it is a front. Foster2008 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the following paragraphs, brutality and intended goals used as a form of one must match the other to prove validity is a terrible fallacy practiced among dilettantes of history :) On the contrary to your assertion about the Civil War not being about an aggressive union or prosperity. Here let me explain to you since this escapes your perception. Prosperity results in a unified program or plan. Hmmmm,,, could the EU or any other hemispheric or continental economic organization have it benefits? The South wanted to have its own sovereignty as it perceived this as the only course of action to maintain their own status quo for slave states participation in the political process of the US. Sorry, you are entirely wrong in your preceding paragraph and apologize for not responding in quickness to your comment. It was not my intention to allow your comment to damage your reputation or confidence in your command of historical information. In so far as aggressive Union, there is a difference if you have not noticed in southern and norther historiography about the Civil War. In the north they stress how Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. In the South, what is emphasized is the quote heard numerous times in a southern classroom about how Lincoln wanted a united union regardless if it was half slave, half free. You obviously are not aware of this quote so I wouldnt be wrong to assume your education comprises of a non-southern orientation. Unlike you I have been subjected to New York and South carolina education systems and notice this difference. The Civil War ended slaver, however its real benefits lay in maintaing a single united and efficient political, economic, and military entity we know of today. It was the dream of many like the Japaneses' Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere or Simon Bolivar. Your premises show either a lack of information or research in history or intentional negligence to facts due to a consistent observation of history with blinders of American bias and anti-Japanese hate. The US has built the story of becoming the leader of the world today and the hegemon in many aspects through World War II and subsequent Bretton Woods Conference. Western Propaganda is supposed to smack with declarations of how "evil" the Germans and Japanese were during World War II. Worse, we see the same theme in western history forwarded through various persepctives of proving this single theme. That theme is we became the most advanced nations in comparison to others by continuously being the good guy rather than the bad guy. It is humorous assertion if you strip western arguments down to its fundamental themes absent of esoteric semantics. Put another way, we became rich and powerful without any action of greed or violence :)

In summation, brutality during warfare in the proces of achieving declared goals of a country is horrible but has no relevance as to whether the belief by a country is a front or not. The acceptance of this ignorant claim would leave the door open for the US using fronts to support genocide in Guatemala (whom our government and media called a democracy) against the Mayans or the front of replacing Patrice lumumba in formerly Zaire with Mobuto Sese Seko who aided the Hutus in Rwanda during genocide of the Tutsis were implications of massive numbers of deaths based on fronts by the US. To be better understood and accepted Mr. Foster2008, please differentiate between which wars the US was involved with that caused massive amounts of innocent casualties and declare those wars fueld by fronts. Let's be fair :) If you had even considered by preceding rants on those various wars, any level of intelligence absent of chauvinism and retardedness would have seen examples of what I am talking about. In addition, prosperity results in a united economic, military, or political entity for the benefit of its constituents. Dont blame a country when those benefits dont surface especially if the country failed in those efforts. By your own methodology, because Japan did not provide a better standard of living for Asians or more specifically Chinese in Nanjing, then its proclaimed goals were a front. This equates into the winners write history. Let's see, the Vietnamese are not living better like the US proclaimed as one of its goals if not major goal in Viet-Nam, so the US intentions were a front. Better yet, the genocide committed against the Budhists, Cao Dai, Binh Xuyen, Hao Hao, and other Vietnamese automatically makes US actions in Viet-Nam a front. Is this what you are saying Foster2008? Finally, the Civil War was about a united United States, do more reading and less whatever you do.

additional credibility

If this plan was a front because Japan manipulated other countries with puppet governments to their advantage, then what is the difference in the countries with puppet governments now and in the past that benefit the U.S.? Such as the Philippines (declassified CIA documents display the intervention by the U.S. on the part of Philippines and U.S. interest in the country at the time for resources and strategic importance), what about governments like Pinochet's, the Shah, and the list goes on to the point of even attempting to list all these examples is too time consuming because there are too many examples. Was the cold war a front? Is the war on drugs a front? Is globalization a front? Etc.Etc.Etc. It is unfair to classify the Greater East Co=Prosperity Sphere plan a front when the article itself states the activities partaken to establish this end were similar and as of today even more similar to western colonialism. In other words, all these fancy equivocal War on _______ names are means of control for the benefit for the west whichever way you look at it. Cold War - elimination of communism and building capitalistic countries friendly to the U.S. and intertwined to their economic systems. War on Drugs- Stop the flow of drugs to U.S. therefore eliminating crime in the U.S. and in the long run replacing governments that harbour these activities with friendly governments that trade the production of drugs with other economic means that are interwined to the U.S. economy. Globalization - the creation of an economy and world rul similar to the original model of U.S. democracy which is always the same as capitalism when applied in foreign policy. War on Terror- elimination of the threat of terrorists to make the world safe including the prevention of another 9/11, it just so happens that 9/11 had to happen before terrorism was a world plague. All of these preceding doctrines of bull____ and many others all supposedly inadvetently strengthen economic hegemony for the U.S. Perhaps it is because money is the only way to create meaningful change or to eliminate poverty which is the cause of many social disorders in the world. Yet does the U.S. know this and could this fact be used for U.S. advantage?

I would like to also add that my research has showed that the war on drugs funds and military equipment have actually been used for battling insurgent groups in Latin America. Therefor, US Drug War is a political war and is involved with emplacing a pro-US government in power in countries diametric to our economic and political systems. Another front for a unified western world :)

To state that Japan's aforementioned plan of unification of country states (similar to what occured in the Civil War or War of Northern Aggression) a front and imply that the west's is not, smacks of American jingoism and chauvinism. Ok Ok Ok, yes segregation and slavery is over, it does not mean the next victims of prejudicial judgements can be asians because there aren't enough of them here in the U.S. or western countries to make a difference. Please consider rearanging your viewpoints, try to be a little more subtle with your biased disposition, or try another hobby because your writing is only for wikipedia and not the academic community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 18:06:53

Also

Yes, the methodology employed to further this doctrine by Japan was more horrible than U.S. activities during World War II. Japan was guilty of massacres against innocent civilians. The Japanese MILITARY committed a thousand My Lais, but does that mean inappropriate, cruel, and harsh methodology or war crimes mean that the intentions were false? How many times have good intentions turned sour? How many times have good intentions turned sour enough where anger and negligence caused something criminal to occur? It happens and its a way of life. Moreover, in the application of Manifest Destiny, where did the Native Americans go? Compare the amount of land controlled by native tribes from the beginning to now. Do the same with population figures. Regardless of any excuse, anyone not able to be deceived with subjective and insignificant complex arguments will be able to focus on the simple fact that such a difference in numbers can not be explained by nothing more than genocide. The statistical facts say so including many testimonies as to intentions and behavior of western expansion into all of North America. If there is any denial of Japanese massacres by Japan during World War II, they are STRAIGHT OUT LIES similar to the ones in the U.S. about there was no form of genocide on Native AMericans and other incidents.The facts speak for themselves. On the contrary, though both coutries have their own self-perpetuated lies to hide and comfort the feeling of guilt, their intentions should not necessarily be questioned because of these incidents. Did Japan really want a united asian land for their benefit or for all asians benefit? Does the real motivations behind these intentions matter when the end result will be the same? Did the immigrants and corporate (charter) workers in the U.S. really need what the Germans called Lebensraum (living space) or were they just greedy? Does it matter when the same end occured? I would like to know the answers to these questions but fairness must be observed in all issues of similar subject matter. There has to be an end to anti-japanese sentiment. Pearl Harbour and World War II are over. Stop using the term Japs when common sense tells everyone that every derogatory slur applied to any culture or race has not been met with kindness. Stop talking about massacres from Japan and Germany as if they were actions of the anti-christ when similar actions have been committed by many countries including the U.S. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the U.S. is now responsible for more loss of innocent lives due to ambitious program that support those mysterious and self-proclaimed angelic, humane, and just Cold Wars, Drug Wars, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. than both German and Japanese atrocities put together. Actually that number is so signifiacnt that there is really no need to compare. In Conclusion, don't dismiss the intentions of Japan due to actions that are not diametric to policies enacted by countries such as the U.S. and don't dismiss intetntions due to war crimes. Give ample eveidence that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was unlike other western programs which warrants its dismissal as a real intetnion. Otherwise you will receive articles like this for the rest of your life and opposition to your arguments for the future will no longer be saved from scrutiny because of how many Asians there are in your country anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.112.217 (talk • contribs) . 2006-04-14 18:40:25

It seem to me that you'd be better off doing a research paper about this. Wikipedia is not really the place to have academic debates. Rather, it reports on academic views and information found in other verifiable sources. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia is actually of the substance for academic debates. If it isnt, then what seprates Wikipedia from any other source of information. Why choose something free where the same repetitive info can be found in something with more reputation. The reason people choose Wikipedia is because a person can find info fast and find info purposely dis-included amongst the consensus of a western or eastern perspective. So no, seperating academic research from Wikipedia will damage its reputation, use, and functionality in the future. The argument and facts should be presented and it is every history enthusiast's responsibility to change history.Dont place such low expectations for a Wikipedia that I respect and uphold very highly please :(

Actually, it is widely considered in the WEST that this was merely a front, but there is ample evidence for disparities in this view. Many Taiwanese, for instance, subscribe to Japan's intentions in this regard, and it is taught in places like Myanmar/Burma that the Japanese were liberators from English colonial rule. Loft3 14:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's grossly inaccurate. Even Taiwan, Myanma/Burma do not actually believe that this wasn't a front. In any case, they are GROSS minorities even in Asia.Melonbarmonster 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is truth in that assertion. Provide your sources for this refutation. Otherwise it is a gross error of judgement to ignore the preceding assertion when no source has been provided in refutation. Moreover, there are sources that suscribe to evidence of this belief. in aqddition, it seems some of our constituent Americans want to ignore the historical event we call decolonization. Hmmmmmm... did people want to be free? I believe there are constitutnets of this country that had a difficult time as well convincing the majority of their want for freedom. Irony :) Lastly, but not least, it is unecessary to argue whether other nations wanted to be liberated. Consider Vichy France and collaboration. Does that mean every Frenchmen believed in Nazi ideology? Or could the threat of force cause the majority of a population to cooperate regardless of ideology, what are policemen? What about each and every colony run by western powers? Did they really subscribe to our ideologies? These considerations are irrelevant in coming to a conclusion as to whether U.S. or Japanese imperialism's causes were actual beliefs or not. The question really is, how many supporters amongst the civilians in each country did so because of their belief in a country's proclaimed goals such as getting rid of terrorism in the world? This was and still is hnard to resolve, not impossible though. Nevertheless, the summation of my argument is that if we continue to write-off Japanese intentions as propaganda or something "evil" then it will be a boomerang that will inevitably arise questions to the validity of our own choices of paths. The proliferatin of imperialistic propaganda for the US continues while Japan's stagnizes, this inequity benefits whom?

"Actually there is truth in that assertion. Provide your sources for this refutation. Otherwise it is a gross error of judgement to ignore the preceding assertion when no source has been provided in refutation. Moreover, there are sources that suscribe to evidence of this belief."

Er, no, that's not how it works. If you make an assertion, it is up to you to offer evidence in support of it, not everyone else to disprove it. Otherwise, I could simply make a ridiculous statement such as "on the eve of the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror played enthusiastically on his Wii to build up adrenaline", and without any means to prove me wrong you would have to accept that what I said was right. Without evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss any assertion out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.143.73 (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

This is a major concept within the discussion of the Pacific War as a whole - Japan's motivations & ideology etc etc. The article needs much expansion, and perhaps a bit better attention to NPOV. It is a controversial subject, and certainly one does not wish to be too pro-Japan, but all must be taken within context. Was this really a front for fascist, imperialist expansion, a cover to secure land and resources only for Japan's benefit? To what extent did the people of Japan, the soldiers, and the higher-ups believe in this or not? Who saw it as propaganda, who as a front, and who as a genuine motivation? How does this differ from the Communist Chinese propagandist ideology of "liberating" Tibet from its supposedly oppressive and feudal overlords?

Three things I think need changed: (1) Expansion. (2) Better attention to a less anti-Japanese view, and to an attempt to objectively, academically, consider the ideology or slogan within its context. (3) The introduction, identifying and defining the Co-Prosperity Sphere. It was not "an attempt by Japan to create..." anything. It was a slogan, a euphemism, much as sonnō jōi and fukoku kyōhei were. Okay, not quite the same. I think it would be most accurate to say that the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was a goal: a goal envisioned by the Japanese militarists and a justification for their expansionist actions.

Finally, a more minor quibble: is it really fair to call the Monroe Doctrine a comparable policy? The US may not have always had the most 100% noble & selfless goals in mind - she was always looking out for her best interests - but she never invaded or attacked Central or South America. Is protecting Central/South America from European imperialist depredations the same as militaristic imperialism itself? LordAmeth 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"The US may not have always had the most 100% noble & selfless goals in mind - she was always looking out for her best interests - but she never invaded or attacked Central or South America. "

Lord Ameth, that isn't a "minor quibble." That's a leaping, shouting celebration of your own insanity. You were doing fine for a while there, but your total estrangement from the facts of Americans' and America's invasions, manipulations, and so forth in Latin America from Monroe's time up until say March 4, 2016, makes you the Clown du Jour.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If we look at the history of insurgencies in South and Central America, we did use force and not only in the interests of strategic defense against Europe. We did embark on a form of militaristic imperialism. Take Nicaragua for example, Secretary of State Chase Knox was also part of the law firm for the U.S. mining company in Nicaragua I believe if my memory serves me correctly, Los Angeles and Lights mining company. Knox also held stock in this company. (Frightengly like the Dulles brothers in the Guatemala case. this would make a good dissertation topic for exploration or a good book because these relationships are not as explored as it should be). The very National Guard which protected the Somoza government was set up and modeled after the marines we sent into Nicaragua to fight Augusto Cesar Sandino to protect our economic interests and avoid the building of a canal which we chose to be Panama instead. The individual that was placed in charge when we overthrew the president at the time was an accountant for the mining company. Somoza came later. Monroe Doctrine was originally not supposed to be hostile, at least its intent was not. However, with the coming of Theodore Roosevelt, there were changes to this doctrine that did make it hostile and aggressive and contributes to one of the reasons there remains anti-American sentiment in numerous countries in Latin Americ today. The monroe doctrine is no different than Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere by the Japanese, nor China's involvement with the Viet-Nam and Korean Wars to avoid western influence on its borders. China and Korea are less aggressive when it comes to protecting its interests and security within its hemisphere. Japan and the US clashed because they were the same animal when it came to hemispheric concerns. Both were aggressive and paranoid :)The Monroe Doctrine smacks with the proclamation, "an America for Americans", not even Europeans which comprise of the majority of the ethnic population of the United States then and today. So yes, Monroe Doctrine did become something aggressive and hostile to other interests in protecting a hemisphere of the world.If you look at the national histories of each individual country in these aforemention Latin American geographic regions, familiarity will tell you US involvement and aggression was evident in almost all countries and doesnt involve just William Walker or Cuba.

I've done some work on the article, cutting out some of the more accusatory bits, and trying to turn it more towards the direction of an article on a history of the idea - which is what this was, an idea, not an attempt, an action. For anyone who would like to jump in to help improve this important article, I suggest that it might be helpful to take a look at the article on Manifest Destiny (at least as it stands today). That article discusses, in a sober, objective tone, the history of the ideology. It is not a diatribe about the horrors inflicted upon the Native Americans, nor about the evils of American expansion - a calm, neutral point-of-view academic representation of the history of the idea. Thanks. LordAmeth 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

u.s. japan relations.

I thought this article well written. As a Japanese-American , I would like to bring attention to a few minor questionable statements within the context of this article. Use of propaganda is not described accurately enough. I am not trying to guess your intentions nor do I want to pursue that endeaver. However, use of propaganda in describing Japanese media may be perceived as the unstated assumption being that because Japan lost or were the "bad guys" according to western "propaganda", then all of their films or media were all propaganda. I'm assuming this assumption also is that the U.S. was incapable of such. What specific definition of "propaganda" are you refferring to and please state if you are going to use this word because "propaganda" is not used commonly and carries with it a perception of dishonesty. Probably be best to take your time and state your definiton and explain why it sounds as if you are stating that anything pertaining to the forwarding of the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea is propaganda. Was it certain material you are referring to that is considered propaganda or are you making the assumption that all World War II Japanese materials are propaganda. I don't want to go into a comparitive analysis of Cold War and World War II propaganda. In addition, you are not implying that brutality in the process of achieving goals eliminates the validity of a self-proclaimed intended goal of a country, are you? Simon Bolivar and Abraham Lincoln had ideas of unification or nationalism which were perceived as indivisible. These preceding men are admirable individuals for making a United States for European-Americans and a Latin America for Latin Americans. Asian Co-Prospeity has equitable merit as those and many other forms of mytholo.. excuse me, nationalisms that have and still exist. Nationalism is an instrument used by every country for obtaining goals regardless if those goals pertain to an extension of aggression outside one nation's borders. Brutality has no bearance on the intended goals of a country, it should be looked down upon and emphasized when necessary, but brutality are acts of a military in the process of obtaining political goals. The responsibile Party is the military and political system which allowed this to occur. Blaming the Japanese people for these acts by attacking the ideology they adhered to equates into stating religion and those whom believed in the civilizing missions of western culture during imperialism when taking colonies by force and setting up uncountable puppet governments were culpable of the genocide of the Native Americans and numerous innocent people across the world. It also equates into all Americans responsible for the dead in the Viet-Nam, Korean, and Iraqi War. Or frightengly, all American whites were responsible for slavery and the following negro holocaust leading up to the 70s. If it has in fact stopped because it seems the modern method is discrete discrimination. Japan, like the U.S. in Viet-Nam, made the mistake of seperating military and politics. In both circumstances, both countries' military forces used undescribable genocidal acts of horror to obtain a political goal which could not be achieved by that methodology :)Therefore, make a distinction as to why brutality of a military allowed by intentional negligence by the political system in control at the time of these acts is equitable to the assertion that each and every individual or "Japan" if we really want to emphasize nationalism, are responsible for the attempts of genocide in China, Phillippines, and elsewhere. Here is a shocker, many Japanese could have imagined an Asia for Asians that could effectively compete with western interests in both economic and political aspects. unfortunately , we see Japan-bashing or anti-Japanese hatred expressed perhaps unintentionally because of the effects of this bias taught in the western educational system post World War II. This propaganda has blinded the U.S. from acknowledging real problems it has had in the past in its policies. The U.S. emphasizes Pearl Harbor in the history of World War II to create a continuity of Pearl Harbor to WW II. In western classes this is also taught to little kids. Granted, an initial act of aggression is and should be cause for retaliation (not excessive force (beginning of nuclear war)). Nevertheless, we see that by emphasizing Pearl Harbour, western historiography has succeeded in creating an image of continuity of WW II history beginning at Japanese and Nazi take-overs of colonies, Pearl Harbour, then the rest of the war and aftermath. Antes de WW II or before WW II is purposely neglected because if one looks at western aggression in Asia, one might ask, well did anyone think that Japan may feel like being that they were the foremost national power in that hemisphere, they felt they deserved the right to defend and unite the interests of all asians against western imperialsm? What countries were taken over by Western powers in Asia? What countries were in a position to force the "white man" out? Because western propaganda emphasizes the "evil" acts of the Japanese during Pearl Harbour, the U.S. and specifically Americans have failed to recognize a problem with U.S. foreign policy which has come back to bite us in the buttocks today. The real interesting question is would the U.S. have tolerated an Asian power taking over Mexico and implacing a puppet government on the U.S.'s southern border during thses times? Why did we expect Japan to tolerate it? Worse, even today we cant seem to understand why an independent and nationalistic organization such as Al Quaeda will not tolerate it. Now is the western or eastern version of WW II propaganda correct and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 May 2007

Your point about "propaganda" vs media is a good one. The American media was equally virulent in racist attitudes against the Japanese, and the difference between propaganda and media can be a very subjective one. I did not write most of this article, merely cleaned it up a bit and keep an eye on it. If you think you can contribute, make the changes you think need to be made, please go ahead and do so. Just remember to cite your sources, and to be as objective (neutral point of view) as possible. Thank you. LordAmeth 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the ackowledgement, I do not hear this admission on both sides of the coin often. I love history and tolerate the bias on both sides because this not only annoys but makes historiography beautiful. If history was always one history by one viewpoint, things would be efficient but boring :) I thank you for reminding me of the neutral point of view and your truthful recognition of the role of propaganda in not just Japanese, but all societies. In my opinion LordAmeth, there are few people like yourself whom state things with a respect for truth. In Post-graduate studies, we are taught (if we havent grasped it yet in the undergraduate curriculum) that absolute truth cannot be ascertained. However, many have believed in coming as close to this truth as possible. Your statements seem to indicate that you are embarking on this challenge which is truly a difficult one in the midst of historiography today. It is an honorable path and only those of the most intellectual substance would try to engage this tribulation. In my personal opinion, only those of this caliber are deserving of being a professor. Anyone can pay an ardent racist or chauvinist to teach their version of history. I admire your comment and pray that History will be blessed with more intellectuals that have chosen this pursuit rather than chauvinists which my experience in the history field has revealed to be numerous in the institutions of higher learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2007

OOOpps

Thought to mention that Luis Taruc and Ho Chi Minh have mentioned that their treatment during World War II was harsher from the collaborators of the west and Japan than the actual Japanese or westerners. That leaves China and where else as premises as treatment by Japanese being harsher than western governments. I thought it was collaboraters that Thomas Babington Macalauy made popular as an instrument of imperialism and the very model the U.S. and other countries copied. Let's break western propaganda here, asians wanted neither westerners nor other easterners running their countries. They wanted independence for themselves, sorry to shock american hubris :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 May 2007

Concessions made in 1944 not mentioned?

I read somewhere, that when the Japanese realized that they gonna surely lose the war, they tried to reform the "Sphere", and this later had an effect on the decolonization of the region. Surely, I dont want to make da "Sphere" look better, but this is a historical fact.

This sounds familiar... I'd be curious to hear more about it. If you can expand upon the article, please do. LordAmeth 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One example would be the willingness of the Japanese to accept the notion of Indonesian nationhood in 1944 and 1945. You'll notice that Indonesia, Brunei and the sultanates of Malaya were not represented at the Tokyo Conference of 1943 whereas India was. By the summer of 1945 the Japanese were encouraging the Indonesians to announce the formation of an Indonesian nation free of the Dutch.

Another example would be the reversal of Japanese policies towards Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with the overthrow of the French colonial govenment in French Indo-China in March, 1945, and the push thereafter for these three national groups to establish national governments.

A good researcher could probably find others. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was indeed a front for Japanese imperialism/colonialism

"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was indeed a front for Japanese colonialism/imperialism because changing the European colonial master for a Japanese one doesn't benefit non-Japanese Asians at all. Also, if "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was truly genuine, all the Asian peoples would have joined up with the Japanese in driving out the European parasites, and it would have succeeded. But that didn't happen because "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was truly a front for Japanese colonialism/imperialism. Therefore, millions of Asian peoples fought against Japan alongside the Western allies, greatly contributing to the defeat of Japanese empire. By the term itself, Japanese empire, proves "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was indeed a front for Japanese imperialism/colonialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.2.75 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that or is that just WP:OR? --Merbabu 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yeap, probably true, but this is not an argument, just an addition of (not even) high-school aphorisms.

the current wiki-article just throws around with 'puppet govts' without presenting any proofs for. how did the japanese install them, and how did Japan take advantage of the colonies? maybe a mention about the koreans brought forcibly to Japan? not to mention how the very concept of c-propserity was hijacked by the jap. govt. out of the academic discussion - wiki for sure does not have an academic face now,but maybe it would not be so bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.122.57 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritical slant on article

I must agree on the criticism of the way this article was written.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Very hypocritical and biased representation. When we write about the Monroe Doctrine or 'How the West was Won' or Texas Independence or NAFTA, NORAD, OAS, NATO or the British Commonwealth, we don't use terms as 'front' and 'propaganda'.

Even the most recent books using the most recent released 'enemy of Japan' intelligence records like Slavinsky's "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" prove that the Japanese politicians let alone people sincerely believed in the ideals of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and 'Asia for Asians'... no less than we do our NAFTA or NATO or NORAD or British Commonwealth, but we don't use the words 'propaganda' when writing about them.

When I ask my students from mainland China and Taiwan how they were taught history in school, one of the rare things they agree they were taught was that the reason the Japanese invaders did so well for so long against a foe 10 times their population and resources was because neither the 'Christian Western Puppet Chiang' nor the 'Soviet Communist Puppet Mao'(depending on which student of course) had no more support of the people than did the 'Japanese puppet Wang's support of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' and 'Asia for asians'.

You simply cannot invade a country 10 times bigger than you and hold the majority of it's populace, cities and industries for that long if the majority of the people hated you that much more than the alternatives.

Of course there were Japanese racists then, as there are today. Hell, half my own family believe anglo-saxons have the divine right to dominate the world like Patton got in trouble for in a speech in England(btw, only because he excluded the Russians, not because it was racist). But we don't go calling US or British history or trade, political and military alliances as propaganda or our puppets.

Of course military extremists and industrialists used the Greater East Asia thing as a cover for their own interests. Hell, half the world says we're fighting in the mid-east today not for our stated ideals but only for oil and support Ike's feared 'military industrial complex' instead. I don't see us using the word propaganda in those articles.

I was surprise to learn from a recent immigrant student from mainland China that he claimed he was taught the KMT(throughout the Civil War) murdered as many Chinese than even the Japanese did. Like when Chiang ordered the dams destroyed so the Japanese couldn't catch him fleeing to Chungking, the immmediate flooding killed hundreds of thousands and the resulting disease and famine millions and the Japanese, in their futile efforts to counter their reputation for Nanking and Shanghai, set up hospitals and work and food programs in their wake. Like us setting up schools and hospitals in Afghan villages we levelled with our bombers. My Korean students say they are taught more Koreans were killed in the Korean War than during the Japanese occupation. But I can say more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other American war too.

And yet don't we today say we have the right to invade foreign countries to kill all sides for their own good because if we didn't step in they would only kill more of eachother than even we did? Nothing is so black and white.

But I must agree. The article has a clear and unfair anti-Japanese slant.When the European Union was developing, we didn't go around linking it to Napoleon's or Hitler's ideals for a united Europe. But we clearly want to remind Asians that if they try to do the same thing, it smacks of what the Japanese called the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

One irony I learnt from Korean students was why so many Koreans then and today supported that Greater Asia Sphere thing, and that was because according to Korean history, much of what was then Manchuria was in fact historically part of Korea taken from them by the Chinese then Russians and the Japanese were re-settling Koreans back in what they felt is their land historically. Given Korean hatred of Japanese, whenever their histories agree, I tend to give it some credence.

And my newest Chinese student mentioned the same thing about Chinese disputes with Russia over Mongolia let alone of course Taiwan issue(which I where I think that anti-KMT equalling Japanese atrocities stems from).

As for the drug issue. That's embarassing to even try to bring up considering the Boxer Rebellion. By the way, that's where we invaded China to prevent them from enacting laws to prevent us from profiting from ever-increasing Chinese opium addiction.

As for the complaint the asians should be against replacing White imperialists with Asian imperialists. I know Canadians would much rather be linked to America, economically and militarily, than say China in that way; no matter how much the world might criticise American arrogance and bullying. It's still favorable to have someone of your own race and geography even shared history and religions domintating you (if you want to use that term), than someone from the other side of the globe who see you in even more racist and religious prejudice.

Hell, even the British Commonwealth treated it's 'citizens' as Ghandi argued by letter of law, by racial and religious descrimination even after the war. I remember living with my uncle in the States where blacks weren't allowed where I was and that was in the 60s. Hell, today we got movements saying citizenship should be based on religion again. So give us a break on the Japanese being the Nazis of the world compared to us, past or present.

One of my great uncles who was released from POW camp in Burma told me how the 'coolies' werent' celebrating because they felt they would be treated no better than the Japanese did to them as slave labor. Even worse to many. The irony is that Chiang Kai Shek was one of many future asian leaders who went to school in Japan between the wars literally because they did see Japan as the example of independence from the Europeans/Westerners. No doubt the Japanese had forced labor and millions suffered and died, but so did we, even after the war, which makes it all the worse because it shows we didn't learn that lesson. It's just pure hypocrisy to make these arguments against the Japanese alone given our own history maybe even present day actions using the same arguments.

The great thing about being a teacher with so many immigrants is asking them what they learn in their own countries. And to them, most if not all our history is 'propaganda' and 'fronts for racial imperialism', from our nation's inception to our own Monroe Doctrine's, Manifest Destiny's, British Commonwealth rather than Empire, forced religious and language conversions and hell, outright genocides of native people's, for us to talk this way really is hypocritical to them.Befuddler (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points! Ask Filipinos about the "Philippine Insurrection" of 1898-1903. From their perspective what the Americans called an "insurrection" was a war of independence between the (first) Republic of the Philippines and the United States through which the (first) Republic of the Philippines attempted to defend itself against American imperialist aggression. The Filipinos had already freed most of the Philippines from Spanish rule before the start of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and assumed in 1898 that the Americans had come to help defeat their common enemy -- Spain. I believe a diligent researcher can find numerous examples of Japanese spokesmen saying prior to the Pacific War that if the United States could claim an exclusive right to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin America via the Monroe Doctrine it was hypocritcal for the US to deny Japan similar rights in East Asia.

And don't think there are many documented examples of the United States interfering in the internal affairs of various Caribbean and Latin American nations in the first half of the 20th century.

The main entry on the Greater East Asia Co-Prospetiry Sphere lacks obectivity. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Merge Request

I'm surprised to not find any other discussion about this yet. Ah, well, I guess I'm starting then.

• Oppose. Overseas political parties and movements with Japanese support is indeed a sad little stub of an article, and perhaps should be merged somewhere, but I really don't see how it has enough in common thematically (that is, in terms of its subject, its content) with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as to be merged here. LordAmeth (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its not needeed. --201.235.108.29 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

propaganda

I think this article is very informative and well written. However, I again beckon the question why we should label ideology of a loser propaganda. U.S. empire building still exists today in its attempts in Iraq. The U.S. has established in the name of democracy puppet governments in Latin America, Asia, and Africa yet no documents or historical documents from U.S. sources label democracy propaganda. Propaganda is the dissemination of information to ascertain a certain objective. To label a country's ideology propaganda because they lost while unfairly not doing the same for the winner warrants the description "victor's cause". The U.S. because it won and continues to win wars have a just cause while Japan and other countries that lose have propaganda. This is a really disturbing and skewed sense of logic here and I again ask that the author of this article re-think things in light of what has been said. Otherwise, this article's quality is a hindrance for acceptance in academia because such flaws in logic would be ridiculed not because it doesnt make America sound better! Yet because its bias is a bit too obvious :( 03:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~~Collective Consicous

In addition

Stop using slant after anti-japanese. Try a more diverse command of vocabulary if it is possible. Slant and asian whether intentional or not is not lost on your AMERICAN asian audience nor others :) Try to imagine the response you would get from using the racial slur for an African American in the presence of an African American that is the size of a football player. If you wouldnt do it then, then dont do the same for asians and dont do it now! Try to be a little intelligent and courteous. 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~collective conscious

Would you be offended if someone wrote that an article had "...an anti-American slant..." or would that be OK? The word "slant" does have at least two meanings where as "the racial slur for an African American..." has but one. Would you prefer the phrase "...anti-Japanese bias" instead? If so, perhaps it would be OK to make the switch since the meaning of the statement would remain the same. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Puppet States

Should there not be a list of the members of the Sphere with links to the relevant pages on these nations and their governments? 207.112.45.168 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Emperor of China

If the Co-Prosperity Sphere was, at least for propaganda purposes, an anti-Western endeavor (claiming "Asia for the Asians"), how did Japan legitimize deposing the emperor of China, who was himself an Asian ruler? Was he considered by Japan to be a puppet of the West? This should probably be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The Emperor of China was deposed by the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, and not by the Japanese. --MChew (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the emperor shown in the film The Last Emperor. Wasn't he emperor through the 1930s and 1940s? Badagnani (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He was deposed during the Xinhai Revolution. The Japanese reinstalled him as the puppet emperor of Manchukuo during their occupation of the area. DHN (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And he (Puyi) was deposed by the People's Republic of China, not by Japan. --MChew (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Xinhai Revolution resulted in the establishment of the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. DHN (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have been clearer in the explanation for User:Badagnani. Puyi was deposed by the Republic of China from his status as Emperor of China in the Xinhai Revolution of 1911/1912, and deposed again from his position as Emperor of Manchukuo by the People's Republic of China in 1945. --MChew (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Issue

Just a minor issue. The appears to be a lot of empty space at the top of the article. Perhaps the image should be moved down a bit so that the text will flow a little better. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange quote

"Dr. Ba Maw argues that Japan could have engineered a very different outcome if the Japanese had only managed to act in accord with the hortatory concept of "Asia for the Asians"."

... what on earth is a "hortatory concept"? This sentence makes no sense. WikiReaderer (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishida Kitaro

The inauguration speech for the sphere given by PM Tojo was originally written by Nishida Kitaro of the Kyoto School. Though severely altered by Tojo’s advisors, it is still used to link Kitaro to the wartime regime. Anyone know more about this? I see that it’s not even mentioned on Kitaro’s page or the Kyoto School page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.239.133.50 (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Kantouken Plan

This article about a Japanese-planned Republic of the Far East could be useful: http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1521051 --151.41.134.156 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss quote

We should amend European powers to Western powers to include U.W involvement if not domination of plans for a new world order. The collective consciousness of the time ruled that Western civilisation was the type imagined by divine will. Refusing Japan's proposal for an equal race pact is proof of this. Igmarshfrance (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829194844/http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fo_japan_series1_prt1to2/japanese_minister_officals.aspx to http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fo_japan_series1_prt1to2/japanese_minister_officals.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Re-Insertion of the detailed land disposal plan

I have re-insterted the list of Japanese governed regions and puppet states which were mentioned in the Land Disposal Plan in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This list has been deleted before because it was unsourced. I have obtained a copy "Visions of Victory" by Gerhard L. Weinberg and was able to find in it each and every government general and puppet state on the list the way they are described now here, almost word by word. I have addeed the reference.Gernsback67 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now explained in the passage differences between puppet states in the Land Disposal Plan, puppet states existing before and those which have been founded later on without being mentioned in the plan in this way.Gernsback67 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Since all items on the list of the Land Disposal Plan were tagged as "dubious", I have added the reference to Gerhard L. Weinbergs book "Visions of Victory" to each item, to make the source more clear. Weinberg has his own Wikipedia article in which his achievements as a historian are mentioned. The source is not dubious.Gernsback67 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the "Kingdom of Burma" and "Kingdom of Annam" into the "Land Disposal Plan". They had been deleted in favor of the puppet states which really were founded in 1943/1945. These kingdoms however were part of the plan drafted in Dec. 1941 as can be found in the source. That the Japanese government has made different decisions during the war later on is described in the section below the list of puppet states. To make a difference here between initial planning and final execution of the plan is nhecessary to understand the history of the whole process. Gernsback67 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The main goal was to obtain oil

This sentence is found in the § Imperial rule, as if it were an in-passing remark. This topic should probably be expanded and better sourced, as it was undoubtedly one major rationale of Japan expanding the war theater far into the Pacific. As a starting point, I would recommand Oil, Power and War : a Dark History, by Matthieu Auzanneau (2018), and its extensive bibliography.

--Noliscient (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Japanese 1943 propaganda booklet 2.JPG, currently described as just "propaganda"

This looks first and foremost to be for children, as shown by the word spacing, basic language, and extreme avoidance of kanji. Fish bowl (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Source for membership

What sources are there for, for example, Cambodia having been a "member" of the sphere? It is not clear at all that the sphere actually had "members", or could have "members". There was a conference, but a conference has attendees, not "members". Without any sources to back this content up, it should be removed. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Land disposal plan COPYVIO concerns

Much of the land disposal plan part of this article is identical to the source it cites. Compare and contrast, for example:

• Our article: "The Micronesian islands that had been seized from Germany in World War I and which were assigned to Japan as C-Class Mandates, namely the Marianas, Carolines, Marshall Islands, and several others do not figure in this project."

• Visions of Victory by G. L. Weinberg p. 63: "The Micronesian islands that had been seized from Germany in World War I and which were assigned to Japan as C-Class Mandates, namely the Marianas, Carolines, Marshall Islands, and several others do not figure in this project."

Identical, and there are multiple sections like this. I'm striking the Land disposal plan section as a COPYVIO. For this material to be included it needs to be completely re-written (as it is it is practically a copy/paste) and preferably another source needs to be found as well as Weinberg for proper verification. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)