This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.
The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.
But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:
"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."
Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?
"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"
"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."
Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.
It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔
Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.
huf [he/him] - 2w
i think the soviet episode of this series also says things like "the soviet people are a freedom loving people, just like us". this was produced in the very last moment when it was in the US interest to tell something like the truth about their future enemies.
12
OBJECTION! - 2w
I believe it, it was the same era as this:
12
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
I love the little
[Russian]
Like that helps or is even accurate to the Red Army (which had a great diversity of nationalities, even if Russians were a plurality)
8
darkmode [comrade/them] - 2w
i’d wager that the producers were confident the KMT would win the civil war since they didn’t consider the fact that, mercifully, the CPC had the mandate of heaven
7
purpleworm [none/use name] - 2w
The Tibet thing is interesting. Obviously Tibet had long been considered part of China (and it looks like the doc is very oriented toward its version of a long historical view), but due mostly to war it was operating on a basically autonomous basis because managing the rest of China was already quite difficult, especially with the level of development at the time, but I think there was an understanding even then with the KMT that re-entry would be negotiated at some point after the war.
I think both characterizations kind of make sense and it's immaterial to the question of Mao's subsequent invasion, since countries that don't serve their people can be done away with regardless of their administrative status and it is very demonstrably true that there was support in Tibet for Mao (they had people doing the please Xi meme before it was cool) and things did improve incomparably afterward.
I'm not an expert though, so maybe I'm totally wrong.
Objection in history
Why We Fight: The Battle for China (1944 US film)
https://hexbear.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.ml%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F78d5c7fe-2cb2-42a4-bdf7-2739ab659fa3.pngThis is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.
The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.
But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:
"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."
Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?
"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"
"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."
Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.
It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔
Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.
i think the soviet episode of this series also says things like "the soviet people are a freedom loving people, just like us". this was produced in the very last moment when it was in the US interest to tell something like the truth about their future enemies.
I believe it, it was the same era as this:
I love the little
Like that helps or is even accurate to the Red Army (which had a great diversity of nationalities, even if Russians were a plurality)
i’d wager that the producers were confident the KMT would win the civil war since they didn’t consider the fact that, mercifully, the CPC had the mandate of heaven
The Tibet thing is interesting. Obviously Tibet had long been considered part of China (and it looks like the doc is very oriented toward its version of a long historical view), but due mostly to war it was operating on a basically autonomous basis because managing the rest of China was already quite difficult, especially with the level of development at the time, but I think there was an understanding even then with the KMT that re-entry would be negotiated at some point after the war.
I think both characterizations kind of make sense and it's immaterial to the question of Mao's subsequent invasion, since countries that don't serve their people can be done away with regardless of their administrative status and it is very demonstrably true that there was support in Tibet for Mao (they had people doing the please Xi meme before it was cool) and things did improve incomparably afterward.
I'm not an expert though, so maybe I'm totally wrong.