What do you think?
Rate this book
In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and the Battle for Postwar Asia
The New York Times said of Ronald H. Spector’s classic account of the American struggle against the Japanese in World War II, “No future book on the Pacific War will be written without paying due tribute to Eagle Against the Sun.” Now Spector has returned with a book that is even more revealing. I n the Ruins of Empire chronicles the startling aftermath of this crucial twentieth-century conflict.
With access to recently available firsthand accounts by Chinese, Japanese, British, and American witnesses and previously top secret U.S. intelligence records, Spector tells for the first time the fascinating story of the deadly confrontations that broke out–or merely continued–in Asia after peace was proclaimed at the end of World War II. Under occupation by the victorious Allies, this part of the world was plunged into new power struggles or back into old feuds that in some ways were worse than the war itself. In the Ruins of Empire also shows how the U.S. and Soviet governments, as they secretly vied for influence in liberated lands, were soon at odds.
At the time of the peace declaration, international suspicions were still strong. Joseph Stalin warned that “crazy cutthroats” might disrupt the surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay. Die-hard Japanese officers plotted to seize the emperor’s palace to prevent an announcement of surrender, and clandestine relief forces were sent to rescue thousands of Allied POWs to prevent their being massacred.
In the Ruins of Empire paints a vivid picture of the postwar intrigues and violence. In Manchuria, Russian “liberators” looted, raped, and killed innocent civilians, and a fratricidal rivalry continued between Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and Mao’s revolutionaries. Communist resistance forces in Malaya settled old scores and terrorized the indigenous population, while mujahideen holy warriors staged reprisals and terror killings against the Chinese–hundreds of innocent civilians were killed on both sides. In Indochina, a nativist political movement rose up to oppose the resumption of French colonial rule; one of the factions that struggled for supremacy was the Communist Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh. Korea became a powder keg with the Russians and Americans entangled in its north and south. And in Java, as the Indonesian novelist Idrus wrote, people brutalized by years of Japanese occupation “worshipped a new God in the form of bombs, submachine guns, and mortars.”
Through impeccable research and provocative analysis, as well as compelling accounts of American, British, Indian, and Australian soldiers charged with overseeing the surrender and repatriation of millions of Japanese in the heart of dangerous territory, Spector casts new and startling light on this pivotal time–and sets the record straight about this contested and important period in history.
With access to recently available firsthand accounts by Chinese, Japanese, British, and American witnesses and previously top secret U.S. intelligence records, Spector tells for the first time the fascinating story of the deadly confrontations that broke out–or merely continued–in Asia after peace was proclaimed at the end of World War II. Under occupation by the victorious Allies, this part of the world was plunged into new power struggles or back into old feuds that in some ways were worse than the war itself. In the Ruins of Empire also shows how the U.S. and Soviet governments, as they secretly vied for influence in liberated lands, were soon at odds.
At the time of the peace declaration, international suspicions were still strong. Joseph Stalin warned that “crazy cutthroats” might disrupt the surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay. Die-hard Japanese officers plotted to seize the emperor’s palace to prevent an announcement of surrender, and clandestine relief forces were sent to rescue thousands of Allied POWs to prevent their being massacred.
In the Ruins of Empire paints a vivid picture of the postwar intrigues and violence. In Manchuria, Russian “liberators” looted, raped, and killed innocent civilians, and a fratricidal rivalry continued between Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and Mao’s revolutionaries. Communist resistance forces in Malaya settled old scores and terrorized the indigenous population, while mujahideen holy warriors staged reprisals and terror killings against the Chinese–hundreds of innocent civilians were killed on both sides. In Indochina, a nativist political movement rose up to oppose the resumption of French colonial rule; one of the factions that struggled for supremacy was the Communist Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh. Korea became a powder keg with the Russians and Americans entangled in its north and south. And in Java, as the Indonesian novelist Idrus wrote, people brutalized by years of Japanese occupation “worshipped a new God in the form of bombs, submachine guns, and mortars.”
Through impeccable research and provocative analysis, as well as compelling accounts of American, British, Indian, and Australian soldiers charged with overseeing the surrender and repatriation of millions of Japanese in the heart of dangerous territory, Spector casts new and startling light on this pivotal time–and sets the record straight about this contested and important period in history.
400 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2007
30 people are currently reading
538 people want to read
About the author
Ronald H. Spector
37 books24 followersProfessor Spector received his B.A. from Johns Hopkins and his MA and Ph.D. from Yale.
He has served in various government positions and on active duty in the Marine Corps from 1967-1969 and 1983-1984, and was the first civilian to become Director of Naval History and the head of the Naval Historical Center. He has served on the faculties of LSU, Alabama and Princeton and has been a senior Fulbright lecturer in India and Israel. In 1995-1996 he was Distinguished Visiting Professor of Strategy at the National War College and was the Distinguished Guest Professor at Keio University, Tokyo in 2000.
He has served in various government positions and on active duty in the Marine Corps from 1967-1969 and 1983-1984, and was the first civilian to become Director of Naval History and the head of the Naval Historical Center. He has served on the faculties of LSU, Alabama and Princeton and has been a senior Fulbright lecturer in India and Israel. In 1995-1996 he was Distinguished Visiting Professor of Strategy at the National War College and was the Distinguished Guest Professor at Keio University, Tokyo in 2000.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
September 25, 2020
Spector explores the aftermath of WWII in five Asian nations that were still largely under Japanese occupation in August of 1945. In each case, sudden regime change launches a race to fill a power vacuum, with Allied armies, national liberation movements, former colonial powers, and warlord gangs moving into collision. Naturally, this story could easily involve wholesale vilification of various contending parties, each of which felt victimized. But Spector gives an admirably fair and sympathetic account of what it was like on the ground for basically all of those involved: Japanese troops who sympathized with the Indonesian independence movement; Vietnamese patriots organizing against the French; British troops trying to quell ethic score-settling in Malaysia, or American officers attempting to "help" in the political chaos of North China or Korea. The account shows the US forces at a moment when America was perceived as an anti-colonial liberator, before the doctrine took hold that anti-colonial movements were part of a global communist conspiracy. The victorious warriors against imperial fascism are left in a position of choosing which of many factional leaders are "legitimate," how to keep the peace without clearly taking sides in a civil war, or how to respond in a collapsing rice market. The perils and quandaries of change management have seldom been presented so clearly.
September 29, 2012
This book is a focused exercise in history that focuses on a specific situation faced at the end of WWII in East Asia. This situation came about from four developments:
1) Japan surrendered much more quickly after the second atomic bomb at Nagasaki that was expected by the allies;
2) Japan at the time of surrender still maintained a vast empire in Asia staffed by a large army that had not experienced defeat in battle
3) Victorious forces of the US, Britain, USSR, France, and the Netherlands had not yet reached the locations where they wished to be by the war's end
4) the war had demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the former colonial powers and the possibilities for resisting the reimposition of political/military control after the war.
The interaction of these four developments led to considerable uncertainty which in turn caused the political conditions in East Asia to develop in ways that had not been anticipated by any of the parties with the effect of producing the starting point for some of the major conflicts of the second half of the 20th century, including the Chinese Civil War and the emergence of the PRC, the Korean War and the persisting stalemate between North and South Korea; the extended war of liberation in Vietnam involving first the French and then the US, and the growth of liberation movements in the islands of Indonesia. Spector makes clear that many mistakes were made in the early postwar period that significant shaped the evolution of the region.
A punchline for today? The author waits to the last chapter to mention it explicitly but throughout the book one is drawn to the idea that "losing the peace" is a real problem and is very likely for occupations in places where the occupiers may have good intentions (or may not) but lack critical knowledge and expertise. Iraq and Afghanistan???? Hmmm . . . it could be. The conclusion is not overdrawn, however, and the analysis stands on its own. This book fills in a small stretch of history that links WWII to its aftermath and it does so very effectively.
The events and issues in the book are very specific and may not engage more general readers. The book is effectively written but requires some effort to follow. It is worth the effort.
1) Japan surrendered much more quickly after the second atomic bomb at Nagasaki that was expected by the allies;
2) Japan at the time of surrender still maintained a vast empire in Asia staffed by a large army that had not experienced defeat in battle
3) Victorious forces of the US, Britain, USSR, France, and the Netherlands had not yet reached the locations where they wished to be by the war's end
4) the war had demonstrated the vulnerabilities of the former colonial powers and the possibilities for resisting the reimposition of political/military control after the war.
The interaction of these four developments led to considerable uncertainty which in turn caused the political conditions in East Asia to develop in ways that had not been anticipated by any of the parties with the effect of producing the starting point for some of the major conflicts of the second half of the 20th century, including the Chinese Civil War and the emergence of the PRC, the Korean War and the persisting stalemate between North and South Korea; the extended war of liberation in Vietnam involving first the French and then the US, and the growth of liberation movements in the islands of Indonesia. Spector makes clear that many mistakes were made in the early postwar period that significant shaped the evolution of the region.
A punchline for today? The author waits to the last chapter to mention it explicitly but throughout the book one is drawn to the idea that "losing the peace" is a real problem and is very likely for occupations in places where the occupiers may have good intentions (or may not) but lack critical knowledge and expertise. Iraq and Afghanistan???? Hmmm . . . it could be. The conclusion is not overdrawn, however, and the analysis stands on its own. This book fills in a small stretch of history that links WWII to its aftermath and it does so very effectively.
The events and issues in the book are very specific and may not engage more general readers. The book is effectively written but requires some effort to follow. It is worth the effort.
January 18, 2016
Excellent, just as expected. Professor Spector is one of the most brilliant scholars of his generation in the field of Politico-Military History, and this survey of the chaotic political milieux throughout East & South-East Asia at the end of World War II will no doubt become the standard work on the subject within the coming years. Written in such a way as to be valuable & instructive both to specialists and a more general readership, I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the history of the 20th Century, most particularly as it was impacted by the Second World War. This book is particularly fascinating when one compares its modern scholarly view of events & personalities with the contemporary journalistic perspective offered by books such as the late Harold R. Isaacs' No Peace For Asia (and of course Professor Isaacs' companion volume to the latter, New Cycle In Asia: Selected Documents on Major International Developments in the Far East, 1943-1947 as well...).
June 17, 2023
Another book to file under "great research tool, but a dry-read-for-pleasure". It covers a great deal...too much, I think. I would prefer separate books on each of the Asian nations covered, with much more political and sociological examination.
May 4, 2018
A tedious slog.
September 26, 2018
In the Ruins of Empire offers an overview of the allied occupation of Japan’s colonial empire following WW2. This is a fascinating topic that tends to be skipped in most tellings of history.
Take Vietnam as an example, most people know that it was a French colony occupied by Japan during WW2 after which the French returned and there was a war, followed by yet another war involving the US. But between the Japanese surrender and the return of the French, the southern part was occupied by Britain and the northern part by China. This is the period detailed in this book and it is in many ways critical to understand Vietnams later development.
Take Vietnam as an example, most people know that it was a French colony occupied by Japan during WW2 after which the French returned and there was a war, followed by yet another war involving the US. But between the Japanese surrender and the return of the French, the southern part was occupied by Britain and the northern part by China. This is the period detailed in this book and it is in many ways critical to understand Vietnams later development.
July 19, 2018
A well written book that takes a glimpse at the political/military fighting of the various areas that Japan controlled during World War 2, when Japan suddenly surrendered while still in control of vast swathes of territory a political leadership vacuum was created in Korea, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia this book deals with the various struggles between the various rival groups in the various areas. From the Dutch trying to retake Java to the Nationalists and Communists fighting it out over Manchuria. Book does a a solid overview of the conflicts.
September 9, 2025
English language histories of WW2 are often like Rom-Coms, in that there is a nice dramatic arc, protagonists and antagonists, finally leading to 'victory' (AKA the lovers get together The End.). Then we tend to skip ahead to The Cold War. Of course in reality things are not that simple, and life, with all its connections, conflict, messiness and complexities - goes on. At least for the survivors. That's what this history is about. I found it fascinating.
April 22, 2021
August 1945 came, the Japanese surrendered, and immediately everyone went home, right? Ronald H. Spector tells us the story of exactly how that didn’t happen. At the end of WW II, Japan had millions of troops stationed throughout Asia, many of whom were fresh and undefeated. However, the home country surrendered, and they had to be disarmed and sent home. The book tells us what happened in China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, and Indonesia as the relieving troops came in. If you want to know how so many of post-War tragedies started, this book will give you a good idea of how. Peace was only a “brief interlude.” The book talks about the people involved, their motives and their shortcomings.The simplistic narratives are that this is all about colonialism or capitalism, or Great Power rivalries. All those issues were very important, but there was much more to it than that.
Some of the big-picture facts that come from the book are these: the USSR occupied Manchuria and Northern Korea; the USA occupied Southern Korea and parts of Northeast China; the Chinese occupied Northern Indochina; the British occupied Southern Indochina, Malaya and Singapore and the Dutch East Indies islands of Java and Sumatra; and the Australians occupied the rest of the Dutch East Indies. All the troops were there for three reasons: first, to rescue Allied prisoners of war and interred civilians; second, to take the surrender of the Japanese, disarm the troops and send them home; and third, to maintain law and order until an effective civilian government could be established. It was the last point that proved most elusive.
China
“The entire people of our country should feel grateful and loudly shout, ‘long live cooperation between China and the United States.’”
Mao Tse Tung
The Russians had cut through the 1.2 million Japanese troops in Manchuria like a buzz saw in the final days of World War II. In the chaos that followed, they more or less completely dismantled the entire Manchurian industrial complex, including factories and power plants, and sent everything back to Russia, along with 300,000 Japanese prisoners, who never returned. They had agreed to hand over control to the Nationalists but the Communists were strong in Northern China and the USSR did not want to fight with fellow Communists, with the result that the Communists actually took over control of parts of Manchuria. When the Russians left in 1946, there was a power vacuum that led to a major outbreak of war between the Nationalists and Communists for control of all Manchuria.
When surrender was declared on August 15, 1945, some Japanese forces allowed themselves to be disarmed by the Communists, but many other Japanese forces sided with the Nationalists to keep the Communists out of some of the large cities including Beijing and Shanghai. The Japanese fought the Communists and kept order until and even after they were relieved by the Americans. The last Japanese troops left China in May, 1946.
U.S. Marines landed in China at the end of September, 1945 and occupied various places in Northeast China including Tianjing, Beijing, Qinhuangdao, and Tsingtao. While official American policy was to try to bring a negotiated settlement to the civil war in China, in effect the actions the Marines took to support the official government of China (the Nationalists) led to fighting with the rebel (Communist) forces in which troops from both sides died. The U.S. navy moved Nationalist troops by sea to ports in Manchuria where they were to take the Japanese surrender, thereby alienating the Communists who were already there. Also, American Marines guarded railways that Nationalist troops were riding to get to the fight with the Communists. In September, 1946, security for the railways was turned over the Nationalists and by May, 1947 only 4,000 Marines were left at Tsingtao. They stayed until 1949, when the Communists won the Civil War.
Malaysia
“[W]hite supremacy was a myth…the Japanese had come and shown that Asians could overthrow the white authority.”
Gay Wan Guay
This was one of the more successful post-war occupations. There was a one-month delay between the declaration of Japanese surrender and the arrival of British occupation troops, and in that time there was a general breakdown of law and order and much communal violence. There were food and electricity shortages and rampant inflation. Chinese Communist guerillas had taken over in many places. However, when the occupation forces arrived, they managed the liberation of Allied prisoners and the withdrawal of the Japanese forces in a relatively orderly fashion. While the idea of British colonials ruling Malays had become much less popular in post-War Malaya, the Malays were also worried about the Chinese Communist guerillas and generally made common cause with the British against them. Although many problems remained, Civilian government was restored on April 1, 1946.
Vietnam
“The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.”
Vietnamese Declaration of Independence
At the end of August, a small party of Americans arrived in Hanoi to liberate the Allied prisoners and civilian internees. This seemingly humanitarian mission was extremely political because 4,500 French soldiers had been interned by the Japanese. To release them meant that the approximately 25,000 French civilians in North Vietnam would arm them, and that and there would be a fight for control of the city. This was so because on Sept 2, 3 or 4 hundred thousand people watched and cheered in Hanoi as Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent. As well, they were under orders to keep order and the now independent Vietnamese were very hostile to the French. This situation was relieved to a certain extent when Chinese occupation forces arrived in Hanoi on September 14. They agreed to let the Viet Minh stay in charge and kept the French soldiers in the Citadel. In March, 1946, the Chinese agreed to hand over the North to the French, but the French had to also negotiate with a Viet Minh government in Hanoi that was not prepared to give up its independence. An agreement was reached, but it didn’t last long.
British occupation forces arrived in Saigon on August 25. A Vietnamese nationalist government was in charge there too, but the British intended to bring back the French. On September 21, the British general in charge ordered the Nationalist government to dissolve and be disarmed. On the night of September 22, the Vietnamese guarding public buildings and police stations were replaced by released French soldiers. On September 23, there were French riots in Saigon by both soldiers and armed civilians, beating Vietnamese up on the streets and mass arrests. The Vietnamese reacted, attacked the power station, burned out markets, and there were kidnappings, murder and arson. “Life in Saigon was brought to a standstill” On September 24, 150 French civilians were massacred and there was civil war, more or less. Japanese soldiers were brought in by the British to assist in reestablishing order. Some Japanese soldiers also fought for the Vietnamese nationalists.
By October 6, French reinforcements began arriving, and by the end of October, they had heavy weapons . Some were brought on American ships, which the Vietnamese noticed and resented. In November, they went on the offensive in the Mekong Delta. On November 30, Japanese forces officially surrendered and were moved out of Vietnam. The British mission ended in January, 1946, and a civil war that would not end until 1854 had begun.
Korea
Japanese and Koreans “are the same breed of cat.”
General John Hodge
Immediately after the surrender, the Japanese authorities negotiated with Korean leaders and a left-leaning nationalist government was set up. Political prisoners were released, militias occupied the countryside, and on September 6 a Korean People’s Republic was declared, dominated by Nationalists and Communists. A week later, a Democratic Party formed of more well-to-do moderates was declared, so there was no political unity.
On August 24, 1945, the first Soviet troops entered Pyongyang. Although, by 1946, the Soviets had taken $1 billion of goods, machinery and coal, they redistributed land from the Japanese and rich. The Soviets kept the local People’s Committees in place but brought them under control, and they brought Kim Il Sung, a former anti-Japanese militia leader and officer in the Russian army, into the leadership in October 1945. Banks and industries were nationalized and the beginnings of a Communist system were set up. Many rich landowners fled south, but the government was generally popular among those who stayed.
The Americans in Southern Korea in early September. No one could speak Korean but some of them could speak Japanese because they had originally been supposed to go to Japan for occupation duty there. Thus, they leaned heavily on the Japanese in Korea for information and had very little understanding of the rather confusing political situation in Seoul. Disaster ensued. There was a Japanese surrender ceremony in Seoul, after which Koreans broke into wild cheering. This was quickly silenced when the Americans announced that all the Japanese government personnel would continue in their jobs under American supervision. This was quickly disavowed by the American government, but damage had been done. Next, a US Army military government was formed as the American occupation army started to arrive in October. They promptly ejected People’s Committee governments in towns and cities throughout Korea and generally put the former officials back in charge under American supervision. As these were former Japanese collaborators, this did not go down well. There were communist and nationalist uprisings in the country.
In December 1945, negotiations with the Soviets produced a Soviet-US Joint Committee for Korea, a trusteeship. Koreans and their politicians wanted independence now and did not react well. From September to December 1946, a more-or-less full-scale insurrection broke out across South Korea. There were mass strikes and demonstrations, police stations were attacked and police were murdered. American troops helped to quell the disturbances. The US handed the problem to the UN, which established a commission and held elections, which Rhee Syngman won. There was more fighting in Cheju-do.
On Aug 15, 1948, Korea was proclaimed independent. By June 1949 all US military had left Korea. They would be back in a year.
Indonesia
“[I]n those days it was difficult to find a drink of fresh water…as most of the wells were stopped with the bodies of dead Chinese.”
Resident of Batavia
When British troops arrived in Java in September 1945, they found that the Indonesians had declared independence three weeks earlier. The new government had armed its supporters with Japanese rifles and swords and said it would cooperate with recovering POWs but would not tolerate the return of the Dutch colonial government. There was widespread disorder and communal clashes, especially against the Chinese minority. The Nationalist leaders in charge generally were suspicious of the British, but they would cooperate with them. However, the crowds in the cities were much more radical and often impossible to control.
Dutch civilians had been interred by the Japanese. When they were released, they returned to their houses and found that they were looted by mobs. Violence began to increase against isolated Japanese units and civilians and Chinese also. By October, many Dutch, Eurasians and Chinese had returned to the internment camps for safety. Anyone caught outside the camps was likely to captured, tortured and murdered. Japanese troops guarded the camps and provided Red Cross supplies but conditions were bad.
Open fighting broke out between the Nationalist government in the city of Surabaya and the British forces who were trying to occupy it and evacuate Dutch and Eurasian civilians and Japanese at the end of October. In November it erupted into the greatest urban battle since WWII, with tanks on both sides, the British bombing with aircraft and firing from ships offshore . The battle took 3 weeks, by which time 90% of the population were refugees. It ended in defeat for the Nationalists but it showed that they were determined to fight and “were pretty good at it”
By December, the Allies were still struggling to evacuate the internment camps against concerted opposition. By June 1946 most of the camps had been evacuated and Japanese troops were out of Indonesia. The last British troops left in November 1946 and the first Dutch troops arrived in October 1946. Although there had been agreements between the British and the Nationalist government, the fighting had never really stopped.
The Australians were responsible for the rest of Indonesia. They didn’t have much trouble and handed over control to the Dutch colonial government in 1946.
By 1949, Indonesia was independent and at peace.
The author’s conclusions seem justified. The situation was more complicated than colonialism vs. anti-colonialism. All the countries had various political factions that tried to ally themselves with occupation forces against their regional rivals. The military occupations were successful in that they liberated prisoners and disarmed the Japanese and sent them home, but completely unsuccessful in that everywhere was at war in 1948. However, this was often because of forces beyond the control of the occupation forces. These forces had to maintain order and implement policies decided by their home governments. These were often incompatible goals. Usually, with the exception of the Americans in Korea, the people on the ground understood the situation but were hindered by home governments that had other priorities. The most successful occupations were by the USSR in North Korea and China, the British in Malaya, the Chinese in North Vietnam, and the Australians in Indonesia because the occupation forces and local people and political leaders had common interests and objectives. With the Americans in Korea and the British in Southern Vietnam, that was definitely not true. The British in Indonesia seem to be a special case. There, the radicals among the nationalists controlled events. The British really were not interested in bringing back the Dutch, but seemed unable to convince the radicals of it.
The author’s sources are extensive, though they rely heavily on the records of the occupiers, with no primary sources from Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Indonesian archives. The author’s secondary sources are extensive also, but one wonders what further insights could be gained from looking at this more from the point of view of those being occupied.
Some of the big-picture facts that come from the book are these: the USSR occupied Manchuria and Northern Korea; the USA occupied Southern Korea and parts of Northeast China; the Chinese occupied Northern Indochina; the British occupied Southern Indochina, Malaya and Singapore and the Dutch East Indies islands of Java and Sumatra; and the Australians occupied the rest of the Dutch East Indies. All the troops were there for three reasons: first, to rescue Allied prisoners of war and interred civilians; second, to take the surrender of the Japanese, disarm the troops and send them home; and third, to maintain law and order until an effective civilian government could be established. It was the last point that proved most elusive.
China
“The entire people of our country should feel grateful and loudly shout, ‘long live cooperation between China and the United States.’”
Mao Tse Tung
The Russians had cut through the 1.2 million Japanese troops in Manchuria like a buzz saw in the final days of World War II. In the chaos that followed, they more or less completely dismantled the entire Manchurian industrial complex, including factories and power plants, and sent everything back to Russia, along with 300,000 Japanese prisoners, who never returned. They had agreed to hand over control to the Nationalists but the Communists were strong in Northern China and the USSR did not want to fight with fellow Communists, with the result that the Communists actually took over control of parts of Manchuria. When the Russians left in 1946, there was a power vacuum that led to a major outbreak of war between the Nationalists and Communists for control of all Manchuria.
When surrender was declared on August 15, 1945, some Japanese forces allowed themselves to be disarmed by the Communists, but many other Japanese forces sided with the Nationalists to keep the Communists out of some of the large cities including Beijing and Shanghai. The Japanese fought the Communists and kept order until and even after they were relieved by the Americans. The last Japanese troops left China in May, 1946.
U.S. Marines landed in China at the end of September, 1945 and occupied various places in Northeast China including Tianjing, Beijing, Qinhuangdao, and Tsingtao. While official American policy was to try to bring a negotiated settlement to the civil war in China, in effect the actions the Marines took to support the official government of China (the Nationalists) led to fighting with the rebel (Communist) forces in which troops from both sides died. The U.S. navy moved Nationalist troops by sea to ports in Manchuria where they were to take the Japanese surrender, thereby alienating the Communists who were already there. Also, American Marines guarded railways that Nationalist troops were riding to get to the fight with the Communists. In September, 1946, security for the railways was turned over the Nationalists and by May, 1947 only 4,000 Marines were left at Tsingtao. They stayed until 1949, when the Communists won the Civil War.
Malaysia
“[W]hite supremacy was a myth…the Japanese had come and shown that Asians could overthrow the white authority.”
Gay Wan Guay
This was one of the more successful post-war occupations. There was a one-month delay between the declaration of Japanese surrender and the arrival of British occupation troops, and in that time there was a general breakdown of law and order and much communal violence. There were food and electricity shortages and rampant inflation. Chinese Communist guerillas had taken over in many places. However, when the occupation forces arrived, they managed the liberation of Allied prisoners and the withdrawal of the Japanese forces in a relatively orderly fashion. While the idea of British colonials ruling Malays had become much less popular in post-War Malaya, the Malays were also worried about the Chinese Communist guerillas and generally made common cause with the British against them. Although many problems remained, Civilian government was restored on April 1, 1946.
Vietnam
“The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.”
Vietnamese Declaration of Independence
At the end of August, a small party of Americans arrived in Hanoi to liberate the Allied prisoners and civilian internees. This seemingly humanitarian mission was extremely political because 4,500 French soldiers had been interned by the Japanese. To release them meant that the approximately 25,000 French civilians in North Vietnam would arm them, and that and there would be a fight for control of the city. This was so because on Sept 2, 3 or 4 hundred thousand people watched and cheered in Hanoi as Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent. As well, they were under orders to keep order and the now independent Vietnamese were very hostile to the French. This situation was relieved to a certain extent when Chinese occupation forces arrived in Hanoi on September 14. They agreed to let the Viet Minh stay in charge and kept the French soldiers in the Citadel. In March, 1946, the Chinese agreed to hand over the North to the French, but the French had to also negotiate with a Viet Minh government in Hanoi that was not prepared to give up its independence. An agreement was reached, but it didn’t last long.
British occupation forces arrived in Saigon on August 25. A Vietnamese nationalist government was in charge there too, but the British intended to bring back the French. On September 21, the British general in charge ordered the Nationalist government to dissolve and be disarmed. On the night of September 22, the Vietnamese guarding public buildings and police stations were replaced by released French soldiers. On September 23, there were French riots in Saigon by both soldiers and armed civilians, beating Vietnamese up on the streets and mass arrests. The Vietnamese reacted, attacked the power station, burned out markets, and there were kidnappings, murder and arson. “Life in Saigon was brought to a standstill” On September 24, 150 French civilians were massacred and there was civil war, more or less. Japanese soldiers were brought in by the British to assist in reestablishing order. Some Japanese soldiers also fought for the Vietnamese nationalists.
By October 6, French reinforcements began arriving, and by the end of October, they had heavy weapons . Some were brought on American ships, which the Vietnamese noticed and resented. In November, they went on the offensive in the Mekong Delta. On November 30, Japanese forces officially surrendered and were moved out of Vietnam. The British mission ended in January, 1946, and a civil war that would not end until 1854 had begun.
Korea
Japanese and Koreans “are the same breed of cat.”
General John Hodge
Immediately after the surrender, the Japanese authorities negotiated with Korean leaders and a left-leaning nationalist government was set up. Political prisoners were released, militias occupied the countryside, and on September 6 a Korean People’s Republic was declared, dominated by Nationalists and Communists. A week later, a Democratic Party formed of more well-to-do moderates was declared, so there was no political unity.
On August 24, 1945, the first Soviet troops entered Pyongyang. Although, by 1946, the Soviets had taken $1 billion of goods, machinery and coal, they redistributed land from the Japanese and rich. The Soviets kept the local People’s Committees in place but brought them under control, and they brought Kim Il Sung, a former anti-Japanese militia leader and officer in the Russian army, into the leadership in October 1945. Banks and industries were nationalized and the beginnings of a Communist system were set up. Many rich landowners fled south, but the government was generally popular among those who stayed.
The Americans in Southern Korea in early September. No one could speak Korean but some of them could speak Japanese because they had originally been supposed to go to Japan for occupation duty there. Thus, they leaned heavily on the Japanese in Korea for information and had very little understanding of the rather confusing political situation in Seoul. Disaster ensued. There was a Japanese surrender ceremony in Seoul, after which Koreans broke into wild cheering. This was quickly silenced when the Americans announced that all the Japanese government personnel would continue in their jobs under American supervision. This was quickly disavowed by the American government, but damage had been done. Next, a US Army military government was formed as the American occupation army started to arrive in October. They promptly ejected People’s Committee governments in towns and cities throughout Korea and generally put the former officials back in charge under American supervision. As these were former Japanese collaborators, this did not go down well. There were communist and nationalist uprisings in the country.
In December 1945, negotiations with the Soviets produced a Soviet-US Joint Committee for Korea, a trusteeship. Koreans and their politicians wanted independence now and did not react well. From September to December 1946, a more-or-less full-scale insurrection broke out across South Korea. There were mass strikes and demonstrations, police stations were attacked and police were murdered. American troops helped to quell the disturbances. The US handed the problem to the UN, which established a commission and held elections, which Rhee Syngman won. There was more fighting in Cheju-do.
On Aug 15, 1948, Korea was proclaimed independent. By June 1949 all US military had left Korea. They would be back in a year.
Indonesia
“[I]n those days it was difficult to find a drink of fresh water…as most of the wells were stopped with the bodies of dead Chinese.”
Resident of Batavia
When British troops arrived in Java in September 1945, they found that the Indonesians had declared independence three weeks earlier. The new government had armed its supporters with Japanese rifles and swords and said it would cooperate with recovering POWs but would not tolerate the return of the Dutch colonial government. There was widespread disorder and communal clashes, especially against the Chinese minority. The Nationalist leaders in charge generally were suspicious of the British, but they would cooperate with them. However, the crowds in the cities were much more radical and often impossible to control.
Dutch civilians had been interred by the Japanese. When they were released, they returned to their houses and found that they were looted by mobs. Violence began to increase against isolated Japanese units and civilians and Chinese also. By October, many Dutch, Eurasians and Chinese had returned to the internment camps for safety. Anyone caught outside the camps was likely to captured, tortured and murdered. Japanese troops guarded the camps and provided Red Cross supplies but conditions were bad.
Open fighting broke out between the Nationalist government in the city of Surabaya and the British forces who were trying to occupy it and evacuate Dutch and Eurasian civilians and Japanese at the end of October. In November it erupted into the greatest urban battle since WWII, with tanks on both sides, the British bombing with aircraft and firing from ships offshore . The battle took 3 weeks, by which time 90% of the population were refugees. It ended in defeat for the Nationalists but it showed that they were determined to fight and “were pretty good at it”
By December, the Allies were still struggling to evacuate the internment camps against concerted opposition. By June 1946 most of the camps had been evacuated and Japanese troops were out of Indonesia. The last British troops left in November 1946 and the first Dutch troops arrived in October 1946. Although there had been agreements between the British and the Nationalist government, the fighting had never really stopped.
The Australians were responsible for the rest of Indonesia. They didn’t have much trouble and handed over control to the Dutch colonial government in 1946.
By 1949, Indonesia was independent and at peace.
The author’s conclusions seem justified. The situation was more complicated than colonialism vs. anti-colonialism. All the countries had various political factions that tried to ally themselves with occupation forces against their regional rivals. The military occupations were successful in that they liberated prisoners and disarmed the Japanese and sent them home, but completely unsuccessful in that everywhere was at war in 1948. However, this was often because of forces beyond the control of the occupation forces. These forces had to maintain order and implement policies decided by their home governments. These were often incompatible goals. Usually, with the exception of the Americans in Korea, the people on the ground understood the situation but were hindered by home governments that had other priorities. The most successful occupations were by the USSR in North Korea and China, the British in Malaya, the Chinese in North Vietnam, and the Australians in Indonesia because the occupation forces and local people and political leaders had common interests and objectives. With the Americans in Korea and the British in Southern Vietnam, that was definitely not true. The British in Indonesia seem to be a special case. There, the radicals among the nationalists controlled events. The British really were not interested in bringing back the Dutch, but seemed unable to convince the radicals of it.
The author’s sources are extensive, though they rely heavily on the records of the occupiers, with no primary sources from Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Indonesian archives. The author’s secondary sources are extensive also, but one wonders what further insights could be gained from looking at this more from the point of view of those being occupied.
September 6, 2010
Problematic. I came to this book right after reading Bayly and Harper's brilliant "Forgotten Armies". Which examines the British war in Asia during the second world war...leaving off shortly after the end of the war. This book picks up, pretty much, where the last one left off...and proceeds to the late 40s with some asinine commentary on Iraq and Afganistan thrown in.
It wasn't a, genuinely, bad book but it was mostly narrative historiography with little analysis thrown in...not when compared to "Forgotten Armies". If you want the 'American' perspective on Asia it's a good book but if you are looking for a larger, pan-Asian, or global perspective it fails rather dramatically. Tends to focus on the Americans' interactions with the Asians and leaves Asians' attitudes out...though not entirely so.
This was a fairly well written and researched volume but I would much rather have read Bayly's "Forgotten Wars" that covers the same period. Not as articulate and comprehensive as it should have been but at under three hundred pages what could you expect. Also focuses on too much...some of which was purely ancillary.
Worth a look...but not much more. Will be giving this book away...not really worth keeping in my library.
It wasn't a, genuinely, bad book but it was mostly narrative historiography with little analysis thrown in...not when compared to "Forgotten Armies". If you want the 'American' perspective on Asia it's a good book but if you are looking for a larger, pan-Asian, or global perspective it fails rather dramatically. Tends to focus on the Americans' interactions with the Asians and leaves Asians' attitudes out...though not entirely so.
This was a fairly well written and researched volume but I would much rather have read Bayly's "Forgotten Wars" that covers the same period. Not as articulate and comprehensive as it should have been but at under three hundred pages what could you expect. Also focuses on too much...some of which was purely ancillary.
Worth a look...but not much more. Will be giving this book away...not really worth keeping in my library.
April 18, 2016
Spector knows his stuff and presents it well. Describes a situation in which occupying powers failed in postwar East and Southeast Asia because there were no plans for reconstruction and return to civil government. Lots of mass slaughter, sectarian warfare made worse by the failed, poorly thought out policies of the occupying Allied forces.
Some lessons seem impossible to learn.
Some lessons seem impossible to learn.
March 4, 2021
Professor Ronald Spector, professor at the National War College in DC, has produced an outstanding volume here of Asia’s immediate post-war years. As an American military historian he does weight his tome toward a US operational perspective, with detail on American forces. To an extent that’s understandable, considering US dominance in the Pacific theater. But he doesn’t neglect the role of the British (surprisingly in Indochina) or the Soviets in the northeast Pacific.
As in Europe, the “Old Powers” – Britain and France – sought return to the status quo ante; the “progressive forces – Communists and nationalists – saw the war as opportunity: the beginning of a continuing revolution. Herein lies the real origin of the Cold War. The US, originally, tried to play a mediating role, such as Marshall’s and Wedermeyer’s in China; one faction leaning to the West, the other “progressive.” In the end the US followed its own interests against the “Communist threat,” which ran much deeper and broader than just “Soviet expansionism.” Here, too, lies the origin of the Red Scare bloodpurge of the State Department and its advisors in academia and the media.
An interesting aspect of the immediate postwar, which Spector gives its due, was the use of Japanese forces to keep a lid on things until the Allied powers could establish themselves. This has been slighted in conventional history; so too the willingness of some Japanese to join Asian nationalist movements while stuck so far from home. Their joining the Viet Minh as experienced advisors was revelatory, an aspect totally ignored by mainstream historians trying to find that missing Chinese link.
Spector writes on p. 143: “Had the Koreans been left to determine their own future, they might have found a basis for unity and independence, or they might have become embroiled in a civil war,” and implies the arrival of competing superpowers on the peninsula guaranteed the latter. Certainly it helped, but by his own evidence - of the post-surrender political split between the leftist People’s Republic and the conservative Democratic Party - the social and political divide was already deep enough for conflict as in Spain a decade earlier, though outside influence was certainly a stimulus. South Korea did undergo a low-intensity civil war, while the North-South war was really an extension of this civil war. The same was also true in Indochina.
Spector’s bias does show, however, in neglecting the Philippines. He makes passing reference to the US dominion as a successful exception, because the US did grant autonomy and then independence based on wartime collaboration between American and Filipino guerrillas. But even so there was a fierce postwar insurgency against the Huk guerrillas – the “Anti-Japanese People’s Army” – much the same as US suppression of their counterparts in South Korea. The road to Philippine independence was not quite the smooth democratic-national transition Spector suggests.
Also noteworthy is the book’s recognizing the bloodshed in postwar Indonesia, directed even then against the Chinese. The roots of the mass slaughter of 1965 go back to this and did not just spring from a cold war coup. And it is revealing that British and American forces favored – or were at least benevolently neutral – to the claims of returning European powers in Asia. Contrast this paternalism, bordering on racism, with their urgent endorsement of European nationalists under the Germans, or opposing the return of non-Western powers like Russia to the Baltic states.
Among the what-ifs not pondered by Spector, but which his book raised for me: If China had been divided, like Korea and Vietnam? Would this have led to a more peaceful separation of the latter, without eventual war? Or brought war in Asia all the sooner, perhaps WW III? And, if the USSR had made its landing in northern Japan, as originally planned? Again, how could a divided Japan have changed Asia, and the world? We’ll never know, but Spector does thread us through the choices, options, and self-fulfilling prophecies that led to the real history he unearths.
As in Europe, the “Old Powers” – Britain and France – sought return to the status quo ante; the “progressive forces – Communists and nationalists – saw the war as opportunity: the beginning of a continuing revolution. Herein lies the real origin of the Cold War. The US, originally, tried to play a mediating role, such as Marshall’s and Wedermeyer’s in China; one faction leaning to the West, the other “progressive.” In the end the US followed its own interests against the “Communist threat,” which ran much deeper and broader than just “Soviet expansionism.” Here, too, lies the origin of the Red Scare bloodpurge of the State Department and its advisors in academia and the media.
An interesting aspect of the immediate postwar, which Spector gives its due, was the use of Japanese forces to keep a lid on things until the Allied powers could establish themselves. This has been slighted in conventional history; so too the willingness of some Japanese to join Asian nationalist movements while stuck so far from home. Their joining the Viet Minh as experienced advisors was revelatory, an aspect totally ignored by mainstream historians trying to find that missing Chinese link.
Spector writes on p. 143: “Had the Koreans been left to determine their own future, they might have found a basis for unity and independence, or they might have become embroiled in a civil war,” and implies the arrival of competing superpowers on the peninsula guaranteed the latter. Certainly it helped, but by his own evidence - of the post-surrender political split between the leftist People’s Republic and the conservative Democratic Party - the social and political divide was already deep enough for conflict as in Spain a decade earlier, though outside influence was certainly a stimulus. South Korea did undergo a low-intensity civil war, while the North-South war was really an extension of this civil war. The same was also true in Indochina.
Spector’s bias does show, however, in neglecting the Philippines. He makes passing reference to the US dominion as a successful exception, because the US did grant autonomy and then independence based on wartime collaboration between American and Filipino guerrillas. But even so there was a fierce postwar insurgency against the Huk guerrillas – the “Anti-Japanese People’s Army” – much the same as US suppression of their counterparts in South Korea. The road to Philippine independence was not quite the smooth democratic-national transition Spector suggests.
Also noteworthy is the book’s recognizing the bloodshed in postwar Indonesia, directed even then against the Chinese. The roots of the mass slaughter of 1965 go back to this and did not just spring from a cold war coup. And it is revealing that British and American forces favored – or were at least benevolently neutral – to the claims of returning European powers in Asia. Contrast this paternalism, bordering on racism, with their urgent endorsement of European nationalists under the Germans, or opposing the return of non-Western powers like Russia to the Baltic states.
Among the what-ifs not pondered by Spector, but which his book raised for me: If China had been divided, like Korea and Vietnam? Would this have led to a more peaceful separation of the latter, without eventual war? Or brought war in Asia all the sooner, perhaps WW III? And, if the USSR had made its landing in northern Japan, as originally planned? Again, how could a divided Japan have changed Asia, and the world? We’ll never know, but Spector does thread us through the choices, options, and self-fulfilling prophecies that led to the real history he unearths.
August 14, 2023
Chapter 1: Shoot the Works!
Chapter 2: An Enormous Pot, Seething and Boiling
Chapter 3: Graft and Corruption Prevail
Chapter 4: Freedom Is on the Offensive
Chapter 5: Long Live Vietnam's Independence
Chapter 6: Cochinchina Is Burning
Chapter 7: Just Say You Don't Know Anything About It
Chapter 8: Hopeless as a Society
Chapter 9: On No Account Be Drawn into Internal Troubles
Chapter 10: Built upon Unknown Graves
Chapter 11: The Children of Andalas
Chapter 12: Wars Postponed
Chapter 13: Wars Renewed
Chapter 14: The Least Desirable Eventuality
Book review
It's a very well-written book about Asia post Japan's fall. The author concludes that Asia fell apart to communist and regional gangs and rebels because USA, the West, and the weak conservative leaderships in Asia were not ready to handle this kind of conflict. He also says that Afghanistan and Iraq may fail for the same reason. USA is not ready to handle conflicts in such nations. There will always be groups ready to grab power if they spot weakness and bad leadership and a badly run military and rulership will fall apart to any rebel gang that just hits them again and again using small flexible armies and terrorist attacks. No nation can sustain endless attacks.
In my view the conclusion is real actually that Asian communism was created with nationalist and xenophobic or self-centered ideas. The communists in China and Vietnam appealed to nationality while trying to kick out imperialists. Same thing happened in Indonesia. The old imperialist nations in Holland, USA, Britain, France were ruling the areas in peace and prosperity compared to what the gangs and communists had to offer. But post WW2 there were a lot of weapons in Asia and guerilla gangs who faugh Japan were now ready to fight another enemy to grab even more power. As they often used terrorist attacks, rape, and violence it was not possible to stop them unless you somehow wiped them out or had cops on every corner. Imperialists were just not equipped to handle these communist revolts. There was no visible army to wipe out.
USSR meanwhile didn't support communism initially. They took over areas and then transported full factories to Russia. They would rape women everywhere and steal everything they found to take it back to Russia. There was no mission to create friendly nations initially. But as the rebels wanted to grab power they faugh Western nations not USSR whose army just came to rape and steal and then left again. The Western nations actually wanted to build prosperous societies and the regional leaders were often corrupt and incompetent not doing much to sustain the society personally with their wealth as USA was ready to supply all weapons and soldiers to protect the areas. Basically, it seems like many nations became lazy leeches and Vietnam and China were bound to fall to a bloodthirsty army with a much greater hunger for power.
The audiobook can be a bit all over the place and hard to follow. But there are good ideas and good history here. I did learn a lot from it and now understand communism in a new light as something nationalist groups use to grab power. It's basically an excuse to kick out imperialism and democracy. But even without communism likely the very same thing would have happened. The West, as seen with Afghanistan, is just not prepared to handle such zones. USA always claims that West Germany and Japan is how it will turn out if after each war. Yet that's actually outliers. Largely they fail and mostly because they assume that a war will solve everything as "we assume the nation will turn in Japan after we leave". There is little understanding of regional groups and cultures trying to grab power in a multicultural society. And the lesson is actually that unless a nation was Japan before USA arrived it won't turn into Japan after they leave it decimated either.
Chapter 2: An Enormous Pot, Seething and Boiling
Chapter 3: Graft and Corruption Prevail
Chapter 4: Freedom Is on the Offensive
Chapter 5: Long Live Vietnam's Independence
Chapter 6: Cochinchina Is Burning
Chapter 7: Just Say You Don't Know Anything About It
Chapter 8: Hopeless as a Society
Chapter 9: On No Account Be Drawn into Internal Troubles
Chapter 10: Built upon Unknown Graves
Chapter 11: The Children of Andalas
Chapter 12: Wars Postponed
Chapter 13: Wars Renewed
Chapter 14: The Least Desirable Eventuality
Book review
It's a very well-written book about Asia post Japan's fall. The author concludes that Asia fell apart to communist and regional gangs and rebels because USA, the West, and the weak conservative leaderships in Asia were not ready to handle this kind of conflict. He also says that Afghanistan and Iraq may fail for the same reason. USA is not ready to handle conflicts in such nations. There will always be groups ready to grab power if they spot weakness and bad leadership and a badly run military and rulership will fall apart to any rebel gang that just hits them again and again using small flexible armies and terrorist attacks. No nation can sustain endless attacks.
In my view the conclusion is real actually that Asian communism was created with nationalist and xenophobic or self-centered ideas. The communists in China and Vietnam appealed to nationality while trying to kick out imperialists. Same thing happened in Indonesia. The old imperialist nations in Holland, USA, Britain, France were ruling the areas in peace and prosperity compared to what the gangs and communists had to offer. But post WW2 there were a lot of weapons in Asia and guerilla gangs who faugh Japan were now ready to fight another enemy to grab even more power. As they often used terrorist attacks, rape, and violence it was not possible to stop them unless you somehow wiped them out or had cops on every corner. Imperialists were just not equipped to handle these communist revolts. There was no visible army to wipe out.
USSR meanwhile didn't support communism initially. They took over areas and then transported full factories to Russia. They would rape women everywhere and steal everything they found to take it back to Russia. There was no mission to create friendly nations initially. But as the rebels wanted to grab power they faugh Western nations not USSR whose army just came to rape and steal and then left again. The Western nations actually wanted to build prosperous societies and the regional leaders were often corrupt and incompetent not doing much to sustain the society personally with their wealth as USA was ready to supply all weapons and soldiers to protect the areas. Basically, it seems like many nations became lazy leeches and Vietnam and China were bound to fall to a bloodthirsty army with a much greater hunger for power.
The audiobook can be a bit all over the place and hard to follow. But there are good ideas and good history here. I did learn a lot from it and now understand communism in a new light as something nationalist groups use to grab power. It's basically an excuse to kick out imperialism and democracy. But even without communism likely the very same thing would have happened. The West, as seen with Afghanistan, is just not prepared to handle such zones. USA always claims that West Germany and Japan is how it will turn out if after each war. Yet that's actually outliers. Largely they fail and mostly because they assume that a war will solve everything as "we assume the nation will turn in Japan after we leave". There is little understanding of regional groups and cultures trying to grab power in a multicultural society. And the lesson is actually that unless a nation was Japan before USA arrived it won't turn into Japan after they leave it decimated either.
May 23, 2023
I picked this book up from a stack in an old Military Surplus shop in the town of Twenty-nine Palms, just outside the Marine Corps base of the same name.
If there's one thing you can always count on when it comes to books found in a military surplus store outside of a sizeable military base, it is that the selection of cast-off books will be informative, relevant, or at the very least entertaining.
This book was thoroughly engaging, blending a scholarly eye for detail with an author's effective hand at narrative. Focusing on the years immediately following the Japanese surrender in WW2, this book takes us through; the post-war demobilization and repatriation of Japanese AND Allied forces; geopolitical card shuffling; the missteps and purposeful cruelties that assured the violent end of European colonialism across much of East Asia; and the machinations both public and private of the two new Superpowers and the declining Old World powers.
There was an old joke said in the Army when discussing numerous conflicts the US got involved in, it was simply the statement, 'Blame the French/British' and while this holds true, the list of culprits is much longer. The US' stepping onto the world stage as a full global power and trying to right the ship of local and global economics and politics and military policy is told through effective and evocatively illustrative anecdotes and documented historical events. While at times entire campaigns and the suffering of all involved is curtly summed up in dates, numbers dead, and overland movement, the on the ground realities are likewise made clear through the use of firsthand and press accounts, often tinged by worldviews of the time and the emerging political pragmatism among the more effective players.
I really don't want to spoil the book for you, as much as one can spoil a history with dense citations and further reading lists, but to put a nice bow on it, I'll say this about the conclusion. In essence, the book ends by referring to the, at the time, ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It points to the practical knowledge and historical examples detailed in the book and says, in so many words, 'It is to be seen, it is to be hoped.'
Here we are in 2023, and we've seen, and we'd hoped. It was a gut punch for me, and I'd assume for many interested in US foreign policy, both out of academic concern and personal experience.
If there's one thing you can always count on when it comes to books found in a military surplus store outside of a sizeable military base, it is that the selection of cast-off books will be informative, relevant, or at the very least entertaining.
This book was thoroughly engaging, blending a scholarly eye for detail with an author's effective hand at narrative. Focusing on the years immediately following the Japanese surrender in WW2, this book takes us through; the post-war demobilization and repatriation of Japanese AND Allied forces; geopolitical card shuffling; the missteps and purposeful cruelties that assured the violent end of European colonialism across much of East Asia; and the machinations both public and private of the two new Superpowers and the declining Old World powers.
There was an old joke said in the Army when discussing numerous conflicts the US got involved in, it was simply the statement, 'Blame the French/British' and while this holds true, the list of culprits is much longer. The US' stepping onto the world stage as a full global power and trying to right the ship of local and global economics and politics and military policy is told through effective and evocatively illustrative anecdotes and documented historical events. While at times entire campaigns and the suffering of all involved is curtly summed up in dates, numbers dead, and overland movement, the on the ground realities are likewise made clear through the use of firsthand and press accounts, often tinged by worldviews of the time and the emerging political pragmatism among the more effective players.
I really don't want to spoil the book for you, as much as one can spoil a history with dense citations and further reading lists, but to put a nice bow on it, I'll say this about the conclusion. In essence, the book ends by referring to the, at the time, ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It points to the practical knowledge and historical examples detailed in the book and says, in so many words, 'It is to be seen, it is to be hoped.'
Here we are in 2023, and we've seen, and we'd hoped. It was a gut punch for me, and I'd assume for many interested in US foreign policy, both out of academic concern and personal experience.
November 7, 2019
I purchased this book with only a cursory glance at the title, expecting it to be about postwar Japan, the American occupation and Douglas MacArthur. That history is somewhat familiar to me.
Instead this is a book about a history very unfamiliar to me and was much more engrossing for that fact. It is a broad-ranging examination of the war’s complex, messy, violent aftermath in countries such as Korea, Vietnam, China and Malaya.
The war in Asia was won in summer of 1945; in many countries, the peace was almost immediately lost.
Allied forces expected to oversee the recovery of prisoners of war and the ouster of the Japanese. These tasks were soon overwhelmed by the reality of life in countries devastated by war.
Contempt for the occupying Japanese had unified some peoples; with the Japanese out of power internal factions turned on each other. Political groups grew, shrank, took power, lost it, then developed political aims totally unlike the ones they had begun with.
Efforts to establish law and order often led to the surreal act of having to turn to the only entity that still retained some discipline: The defeated Japanese.
France and the Netherlands, stinging from the indignity of having been occupied by the Nazis, were anxious to reassert their colonial authority. They committed atrocities against Native peoples – who responded by committing atrocities against them.
Those brought in to reassert what they considered “normalcy,” were out of their depth. Americans sent to reestablish order in Korea arrived with no knowledge of the country’s language, culture, political background – or even a sense for its borders and major cities.
And everywhere, as difficulties if not hostilities emerged, Allied leaders put too much stock in the official position of important armchair policy experts, and far too little stock in the reports of junior officials who were actually in country and knew what was happening there. (This is the portion of the book which made me think of the tone deaf way in which the United States handled the war in Vietnam.)
If you want to learn more about the complexities of nations coming out from under a traumatic, violent war – read this book.
Instead this is a book about a history very unfamiliar to me and was much more engrossing for that fact. It is a broad-ranging examination of the war’s complex, messy, violent aftermath in countries such as Korea, Vietnam, China and Malaya.
The war in Asia was won in summer of 1945; in many countries, the peace was almost immediately lost.
Allied forces expected to oversee the recovery of prisoners of war and the ouster of the Japanese. These tasks were soon overwhelmed by the reality of life in countries devastated by war.
Contempt for the occupying Japanese had unified some peoples; with the Japanese out of power internal factions turned on each other. Political groups grew, shrank, took power, lost it, then developed political aims totally unlike the ones they had begun with.
Efforts to establish law and order often led to the surreal act of having to turn to the only entity that still retained some discipline: The defeated Japanese.
France and the Netherlands, stinging from the indignity of having been occupied by the Nazis, were anxious to reassert their colonial authority. They committed atrocities against Native peoples – who responded by committing atrocities against them.
Those brought in to reassert what they considered “normalcy,” were out of their depth. Americans sent to reestablish order in Korea arrived with no knowledge of the country’s language, culture, political background – or even a sense for its borders and major cities.
And everywhere, as difficulties if not hostilities emerged, Allied leaders put too much stock in the official position of important armchair policy experts, and far too little stock in the reports of junior officials who were actually in country and knew what was happening there. (This is the portion of the book which made me think of the tone deaf way in which the United States handled the war in Vietnam.)
If you want to learn more about the complexities of nations coming out from under a traumatic, violent war – read this book.
February 29, 2020
I'm glad that I find this book and it is one of the best history books I've ever read. I only wish it is longer, including more of the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War and the Vietnam War, which of course is too much to wish for. I, like most people, only know about these three wars, but not knowing much about the turmoils leading up to the wars. This book gives clear accounts and many details. Still I feel it is not enough and my curiosity has not been fully satisfied.
I've always wanted to know more about the post war East Asia--why things went the way they did and why turmoils followed by turmoils. Even to this day, a lot of what are happening now have their origins in the power vacuum of the post war era. This book gives more clear and more detailed description than other books I've read about like "The China Mission", "The American Caesar", "The Force So Swift", and another book, which I forget the name, about the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
I've heard about stories of orphans and bandits in Manchuria after the Japanese occupation, but I've never connected those stories, which were portrayed in movies and plays more for their theatrical heroism than anything else, with real life miseries. The whole Manchuria was pillaged by the triumphant Russian army and people were robbed and raped. It is so hard to read. And this is just a beginning. Events happened in Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia were every bit as bloody and chaotic. It's such a wonderful book that I only wish it to be longer than it is, extending even further into the post war era.
Growing up, I knew two families of Chinese Indonesians whose parents lived through WWII as youngsters in Indonesia. They didn't like to talk about their life in Indonesia but from the occasional allusion and reference to the era, I could guess how much they suffered. I would love to know more about the post war Indonesia and Malaysia, how they got their independence, how Singapore got separated from Malaysia, how the rebel groups in Malaysia were organized etc. There are so much to learn that I ended up ordering the book "Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia", which hasn't arrived yet. There's no kindle copy of it. Too bad.
I've always wanted to know more about the post war East Asia--why things went the way they did and why turmoils followed by turmoils. Even to this day, a lot of what are happening now have their origins in the power vacuum of the post war era. This book gives more clear and more detailed description than other books I've read about like "The China Mission", "The American Caesar", "The Force So Swift", and another book, which I forget the name, about the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
I've heard about stories of orphans and bandits in Manchuria after the Japanese occupation, but I've never connected those stories, which were portrayed in movies and plays more for their theatrical heroism than anything else, with real life miseries. The whole Manchuria was pillaged by the triumphant Russian army and people were robbed and raped. It is so hard to read. And this is just a beginning. Events happened in Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia were every bit as bloody and chaotic. It's such a wonderful book that I only wish it to be longer than it is, extending even further into the post war era.
Growing up, I knew two families of Chinese Indonesians whose parents lived through WWII as youngsters in Indonesia. They didn't like to talk about their life in Indonesia but from the occasional allusion and reference to the era, I could guess how much they suffered. I would love to know more about the post war Indonesia and Malaysia, how they got their independence, how Singapore got separated from Malaysia, how the rebel groups in Malaysia were organized etc. There are so much to learn that I ended up ordering the book "Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia", which hasn't arrived yet. There's no kindle copy of it. Too bad.
July 20, 2020
Anyone who decides to romanize "Beijing" as "Peiping" has some serious issues to address.
This book couldn't have been worse if it tried. The scope of it - attempting to deal with each and every area Japan was occupying when it surrendered - makes it less than a crash course, but a harried listing of names and places and overviews that barely even touch the surface. It over represents the Western influence, constantly giving little asides about who was born in Illinois or rural Kentucky and loved baseball or whatever, constantly quoting boring commanders who say 'damn' every other syllable, and severely under represents the peoples of the areas these bumbling homeboys went to muck around in.
A book four or five times the size of this one wouldn't do it justice. There's just too much to cover. He doesn't have an enjoyable writing style that could have made an overview at least absorbing to read, if not overly informative. It was dry, dull, and an absolute slog that I skimmed through large portions of. Read something else.
This book couldn't have been worse if it tried. The scope of it - attempting to deal with each and every area Japan was occupying when it surrendered - makes it less than a crash course, but a harried listing of names and places and overviews that barely even touch the surface. It over represents the Western influence, constantly giving little asides about who was born in Illinois or rural Kentucky and loved baseball or whatever, constantly quoting boring commanders who say 'damn' every other syllable, and severely under represents the peoples of the areas these bumbling homeboys went to muck around in.
A book four or five times the size of this one wouldn't do it justice. There's just too much to cover. He doesn't have an enjoyable writing style that could have made an overview at least absorbing to read, if not overly informative. It was dry, dull, and an absolute slog that I skimmed through large portions of. Read something else.
September 28, 2022
I have to say I was a bit disappointed in this one. I had some high hopes that it would be as interesting a read as Savage Continent was for the European side of things. It fell a bit short. First off this is along the lies of a popular history, well written, and seemingly well researched. it was an enjoyable read overall. While to title may lead you to believe the book covers the entirety of the pacific region post WW2, it primarily focuses on China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Korea. Yes these areas were important post war, but I left wondering why Japan, the Philippines, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, were given short shrift, or left out entirely. Particularly Japan and the Philippines. I mean both these areas were devastated during the war. Why not give them equal coverage?
The tales for the other four were done pretty well, though I thought there could have been more details. I would suggest this book for people unfamiliar with the post WW2 era as a primer on the four countries mentioned above. It just doesn't go far enough beyond them.
The tales for the other four were done pretty well, though I thought there could have been more details. I would suggest this book for people unfamiliar with the post WW2 era as a primer on the four countries mentioned above. It just doesn't go far enough beyond them.
September 23, 2023
This was a surprisingly brilliant book - it's rare to explore a completely unexpected perspective. Before this reading I didn't even know there was a story to tell here -- I'd read about World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Chinese Civil War, the Indonesian mass killings. But always in the context of there specific national stories and time periods. However, Ronald Spector makes the bold and insightful decision to draw the connection between the end of the Japanese Empire and the wars which rocked Asia in the decades that followed.
This is a book rich with historical depth, incredible tragedy, and will set the record straight on a one of the most important periods in history. I'd love to read Spector expand this to cover other adjacent events in Japan and India, but understand that the scope here is already wide-ranging enough for a memorable read.
There is a lot of forgotten history here that 100% should be remembered. In particular, I was shocked that I had never heard about Shen Chong before.
This is a book rich with historical depth, incredible tragedy, and will set the record straight on a one of the most important periods in history. I'd love to read Spector expand this to cover other adjacent events in Japan and India, but understand that the scope here is already wide-ranging enough for a memorable read.
There is a lot of forgotten history here that 100% should be remembered. In particular, I was shocked that I had never heard about Shen Chong before.
March 23, 2023
Excellent piece of scholarship. The author juggles between China, Korea, Indochina, Malaysia and Indonesia. Its a pretty full dance card but, he strikes the right balance and tone. Providing and unflinching look at communist and non-communist atrocities. I also appreciated the motivations and thoughts of Japanese soldiers at the end of World War II get much more attention and thought. For example in "Embers of War" a book on the history of France in Indochina the fact that some Japanese forces fought other Japanese after World War II but, their motivations or thoughts or event potential numbers aren't mentioned. This author is painting sketches but, they are well thought out ones. Survey history at its finest.
May 27, 2023
Fascinating account of American involvement regionally in the areas of Japanese domination after the surrender of Japan. There was a surprising level of cooperation with US military government -- and lots of marines-- with some Japanese officials and soldiery left in place to keep on ruling. There was a surprising (now) tendency to be wary of nationalist forces and more complacent to communist insurgencies in Korea, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia setting the ground for a lot of the turmoil in east Asian in the '60s, '70s, and beyond.
December 28, 2024
Must've read this bad boy in the 5th or 6th grade so please forgive me for forgetting its exact details. That being said I remember it was a challenging and at times difficult read, and while the history that Spector illuminates so well could easily have been made into a crisp narrative, he declines to do so, meaning that those looking for a more "enthralling" work of history will probably be disappointed. Still, Spector does a great job covering an oft-ignored facet of this period that had long-lasting geopolitical implications. Great read.
July 5, 2021
This is a well-written and fascinating examination of the often overlooked post-WW2 events in Asia, leading to decades of conflict pitting communism against colonialism, with democratic ideals too often abandoned. It was interesting to learn of the many intelligence and military officers, especially American OSS, who provided accurate assessments of situations on the ground but whose advice was ultimately ignored.
August 2, 2017
This book was very through but a bit dry. Spector analyzes the direct aftermath of World War II in East Asia, particularly the former Japanese Empire. Focuses primarily on American and European attempts and failures to vie for control and peace in postwar Asia. It ends a mere three years after the Japanese surrender which is a bit abrupt as the Chinese Civil War was ongoing and Korean War yet to come. An interesting read on a rather obscure yet rather significant time period and subject.
December 30, 2022
Other reviewers below will give you a sense of the book's importance. For me, what opens up is the complicated open political fighting and warfare between various factions once the Japanese are defeated and before the West reclaims (or tries to reclaim) these areas. It is from these complications through which we can understand our contemporary situation. I found the book riveting.
December 13, 2024
A comprehensive and readable look at what happened in Asia after WWII. This period was one I didnt know very much about and sadly the decisions and mistakes made , set the tone for what happened through today. The focus is China, Vietnam, Malaysia/Indonesia and Korea. What if different decisions were made in the post war period? Very provocative and insightful book
Read
September 8, 2020Well researched, but I read it fast, skipping many details.
April 24, 2021
Very interesting, and very well written work on a little understood time in history.
June 6, 2021
Dense but comprehensive history of Asia’s occupation and liberation following ww2
Read
May 4, 2023Quite educational
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews