this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
98 points (95.4% liked)
World News
31446 readers
753 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The U.S. declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not imperialism. But after the war, when the U.S. turned Japan into a vassal state and kept a ton of military bases throughout the Pacific (to supplement those from its initial phase of empire building), that is imperialism.
Disagree, they shouldn't have even been in Hawaii
Japan certainly wasn't trying to liberate Hawaii. This is not a good take.
I never said they were trying to liberate Hawaii mate?
It was obviously two imperial powers having an imperial conflict - but it's interesting how unexamined the attack on pearl harbour justifying US entry to WW2 among Americans is, given Hawaii is a relatively small island 4,000km from the US mainland and had only been annexed a handful of decades prior (and wouldn't become a state for another ~20 years).
I understand you didn't say that. What I meant was, had Japan been trying to liberate Hawaii and the U.S. reacted by trying to maintain control, I would see that as U.S. imperialism. But that wasn't the case -- it was more like Napoleonic France launching an attack on British India and Britain invading France as a response. Both are imperial powers, sure, but one metropole attacking another in response to its colony being attacked is really stretching the definition of imperialism. And it helps to have somewhat restricted uses of terms like imperialism so they don't just become meaningless (see libs calling everything done by any Bad Country "genocide").