" If we had....."

     Hindsight is always at least 20/20.....sometimes even better, like Superman's X-ray vision!  It is with this though in mind that I would like to revisit some of the issues that have been discussed and covered earlier in some of the blogs.
     As I have mentioned before, during World War Two, the Kuomintang (Nationalist Chinese) government in Chunking urged the U.S. to recognize the Korean Provisional Government, the KPG.  The Chinese thinking was that the war was going to end and inevitably, Japan would be the loser.  When that happened, Korea would have a ready made government in place, a government that if supported by the U.S. would be pro-U.S.  Considering that we gave millions in aid to the Nationalists and listened to their advice on just about all things involving northeast Asia, it is all the more puzzling that we stubbornly refused to listen to them on the Korean issue.
     If we had recognized the KPG as the legitimate government of Korea (in exile, of course), no doubt all our allies would have fallen in line.  It is very doubtful that the Soviet Union would have objected.  In fact, Soviet Union supported an element of KPG and KLA, so they would have been in agreement, thinking that their influence would eventually win out and Korea would become communist. 
     If we had recognized the KPG, on August 15, 1945, when Japan surrendered, KPG would have taken over and Kim Ku, the chairman of KPG would have assumed the role of the president of the new, free Korea.  No doubt arrangements would have been made for a nationwide election a few years down the road, and Syngman Rhee may have very well become the president as he did in 1947 when he cheated Kim Ku out of the presidency with a rigged election.  Be that as it may, Korea would have been one country, not split.  There may have been a communist instigated civil war down the line, but there would not have been the all-out Korean War which was so costly to everyone in lives!
     Going down south to the Indochinese peninsula, a different scenario could have taken place and the Vietnam War could have been avoided all together.  What if we had kept our promise to Ho Chi Min and backed him for a free independent Vietnam, rather than turning our back on our promise and supporting the French in a losing proposition.  Ho was a communist, but as many of our own experts had said, his form of communism was not like the Soviet communism.  These same people said that we could work with Ho's type of communism.  I guess they were right, we are "working" with the Vietnamese now.
     Probably the biggest "what if" in this category is what happened in China after the war, during the Chinese civil war.  The so-called "Dixie Mission" was dispatched to take a close look at Mao and his movement against the Nationalists.  Reports from the field suggested that we should support Mao, that he was the future for China.  Again, as with Ho, reports indicated that Mao's form of communism was different from the Soviets and that it would be possible for us to cooperate in commerce as well as other areas.  If we had listened to the likes of John Service, Edgar Snow, etc., just think how different the world would have been.  Soviet Union would not have had a powerful ally in the form of PRC during the cold war.  It would have been the other way around!  Of course, with no PRC to support North Korea or North Vietnam, there would not have been the Korean War or the Vietnam War, even if those two countries were split.
     That is an awful lot of "what ifs," and of course, it is now all in the past.  But let's just for a moment take the "back to the future" look of possibilities.  I know the whole exercise may seem rather silly, based on "what ifs," but you must admit that it does give food for thought!
     Let's just assume for a moment that the current so-called rise in Japanese nationalism leads to militarism.  Then the fears of those Asian countries (primarily China and Korea) will be realized.  Japan is a country whose culture is steeped in warrior tradition.  There are those, both Japanese and non-Japanese scholars who scoff at the idea, claiming that the warrior culture is but a small part of overall Japanese make up.  That may very well be true, but the warrior culture and traditions happen to be very influential part of Japanese culture.  Anyone who denies it or refuses to see it is being unrealistic.  I think all you need to do is look at Japan's history and see the constant aggression by Japanese warlords and others in position of power!  I don't mean to suggest that all Japanese are warlike and constantly want to go to war.  On the contrary, the current demonstrations and protests against the newest change in Japanese constitution clearly shows that many, many Japanese abhor and deny the warrior tradition. However, it has always been the few that led many.  Throughout world history it has always been the few that forced others to their will.  So, what if there appears a strong, charismatic, nationalistic leader in Japan?  What if this new leader happens to have a militaristic bend? 
     All of the above, the "if we had...." and the future "what if...." are but tidbits of food for thought.  Although the saying goes, "history repeats itself,"  let's hope it does not in case of the latest developments in Japan.  There is nothing that we can do about what has already happened in the past, but hopefully we can prevent future disasters, having learned from history......or am I being too optimistic?