This is fantastic -- really covers all the various goals of the major powers leading up to and through the war. One thing that wasn't clear in the interview (that you asked about) is part of bushido -- when she says "honor", that doesn't mean what westerners think of as honor. There was no chivalry in bushido. Samurai were notorious for killing and abusing peasants on a whim, and killed each other frequently (look at how many duels -- to the death -- Musashi was in). Honor was about something entirely different; it was about adhering to duty and loyalty above all else. Also, you know, regardless of culture, people are people. It's easy to convince yourself that loyalty to the state is more important than loyalty to your immediate superior, and that honor is best served by leading a coup. In the end, the culture she talks about explains a lot of the differences in approach to warfare, and the misunderstandings that resulted, but culture is only a broad guideline to somewhat universal human behavior.
I was more enthused by last year's episode with Sarah. In particular I find some of her arguments somewhat dogmatic?
I think you poke at some logical inconsistencies in what she argues for, which she deflects by saying "but it's the Eastern world they don't mind being illogical!" when that wasn't quite your point.
Anyway in particular one thing I would've liked more clarity on is why not compromise with an opponent with unlimited goals. I mean sure, I get it didn't work out well when we tried it with the Nazis.
But goals can be scaled back. Without much thinking I'd argue the Korean was started with unlimited aims on both sides and ended with compromise on both sides.
I don't understand why it is that compromise must backfire, and in any case, if one was to expect a resuming of hostilities, what prevents one from preparing to the eventuality?
Curious if there's a source for this? Seems incredible if true
> Another thing, when MacArthur does his Incheon landings, it's very tricky because the tides are, I don't know how many feet, like 30-foot tides. It's enormous. So you can really get stuck on mud flats if you don't time that right and know where you’re going. Who are the pilots to bring it all in? It's Japanese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon -- "The tides at Incheon have an average range of 29 feet (8.8 m) and a maximum observed range of 36 feet (11 m), making the tidal range there one of the largest in the world and the littoral maximum in all of Asia. Clark observed the tides at Incheon for two weeks and discovered that American tidal charts were inaccurate, but that Japanese charts were quite good"
This is fantastic -- really covers all the various goals of the major powers leading up to and through the war. One thing that wasn't clear in the interview (that you asked about) is part of bushido -- when she says "honor", that doesn't mean what westerners think of as honor. There was no chivalry in bushido. Samurai were notorious for killing and abusing peasants on a whim, and killed each other frequently (look at how many duels -- to the death -- Musashi was in). Honor was about something entirely different; it was about adhering to duty and loyalty above all else. Also, you know, regardless of culture, people are people. It's easy to convince yourself that loyalty to the state is more important than loyalty to your immediate superior, and that honor is best served by leading a coup. In the end, the culture she talks about explains a lot of the differences in approach to warfare, and the misunderstandings that resulted, but culture is only a broad guideline to somewhat universal human behavior.
I was more enthused by last year's episode with Sarah. In particular I find some of her arguments somewhat dogmatic?
I think you poke at some logical inconsistencies in what she argues for, which she deflects by saying "but it's the Eastern world they don't mind being illogical!" when that wasn't quite your point.
Anyway in particular one thing I would've liked more clarity on is why not compromise with an opponent with unlimited goals. I mean sure, I get it didn't work out well when we tried it with the Nazis.
But goals can be scaled back. Without much thinking I'd argue the Korean was started with unlimited aims on both sides and ended with compromise on both sides.
I don't understand why it is that compromise must backfire, and in any case, if one was to expect a resuming of hostilities, what prevents one from preparing to the eventuality?
Curious if there's a source for this? Seems incredible if true
> Another thing, when MacArthur does his Incheon landings, it's very tricky because the tides are, I don't know how many feet, like 30-foot tides. It's enormous. So you can really get stuck on mud flats if you don't time that right and know where you’re going. Who are the pilots to bring it all in? It's Japanese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon -- "The tides at Incheon have an average range of 29 feet (8.8 m) and a maximum observed range of 36 feet (11 m), making the tidal range there one of the largest in the world and the littoral maximum in all of Asia. Clark observed the tides at Incheon for two weeks and discovered that American tidal charts were inaccurate, but that Japanese charts were quite good"
YouTube really decided to just kill this in the algorithm… really sad, was an amazing episode