F. Kikan: Japanese Intelligence Operations in Southeast Asia during World War II.

1985 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Edward J. Drea ◽  
Iwaichi Fujiwara ◽  
Akashi Yoji
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
World War ◽  
Intelligence Operations

Bones of Contention: China’s World War II Military Graves in India, Burma, and Papua New Guinea

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linh D. Vu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Papua New Guinea ◽  
New Guinea ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Chinese State ◽  
International Status

Abstract Exploring the construction and maintenance of Nationalist Chinese soldiers’ graves overseas, this article sheds light on post-World War II commemorative politics. After having fought for the Allies against Japanese aggression in the China-Burma-India Theater, the Chinese expeditionary troops sporadically received posthumous care from Chinese veterans and diaspora groups. In the Southeast Asia Theater, the Chinese soldiers imprisoned in the Japanese-run camps in Rabaul were denied burial in the Allied war cemetery and recognition as military heroes. Analyzing archival documents from China, Taiwan, Britain, Australia, and the United States, I demonstrate how the afterlife of Chinese servicemen under foreign sovereignties mattered in the making of the modern Chinese state and its international status.

An ‘Age of Commerce’ in Southeast Asian History

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Reid
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Economic History ◽  
External Factors ◽  
The Other ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
World War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Increased Sensitivity ◽  
Asian History

Since the end of World War II the study of Southeast Asia has changed unrecognizably. The often bitter end of colonialism caused a sharp break with older scholarly traditions, and their tendency to see Southeast Asia as a receptacle for external influences—first Indian, Persian, Islamic or Chinese, later European. The greatest gain over the past forty years has probably been a much increased sensitivity to the cultural distinctiveness of Southeast Asia both as a whole and in its parts. If there has been a loss, on the other hand, it has been the failure of economic history to advance beyond the work of the generation of Furnivall, van Leur, Schrieke and Boeke. Perhaps because economic factors were difficult to disentangle from external factors they were seen by very few Southeast Asianists as the major challenge.

Intervention in Southeast Asia

Worldview ◽  
1962 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Werner Levi
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
China And Japan ◽  
Independence Movements

Southeast Asia as a region of political importance is a new concept. It arose after World War II to designate the countries lying between India China and Japan. This “quiet backyard” of the world began to attract attention as a result of the freedom movements and the possible complications they might cause.The reasons presumably why the several states in the area were lumped together without differentiation in the minds of the Westerners as one geographic concept are: first, very little was known about them, and from a distance they all looked alike; second with the exception of Thailand, the territory was colonial and the feeling was abroad that the metropolitan powers would handle the problems resulting from nationalism and independence movements; and third, nobody seemed to have any particular interests in the area, not even the colonial powers which appeared willing gradually to abandon ownership.

Fact and Fiction in Southeast Asia

Worldview ◽  
1965 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-12
Author(s):  
Harold W. Thatcher
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
American People ◽  
World War ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
Atomic Age ◽  
Secretary Of State

Once again we are practicing brinkmanship in a manner that even the late Secretary of State Dulles would have envied. How we have done so and why the American people in the Atomic Age have permitted their government repeatedly to get itself into perilous situations which could escalate into a general nuclear war cannot really be understood without reference to the background of our thinking since World War II. We must separate fact from fiction, which means that we must re-examine critically and objectively the premises and conclusions from which our actions have sprung.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document