Primary vs. Secondary sources: Whats true, whats not - Term Paper Example

Primary vs. Secondary sources: What’s true, what’s not. The world has been at war for thousands of years. Results were handed down from one generation to another until writing was invented. Even after writing was used, only those of power and influence could write and fewer could read. This resulted in battles being remembered by the victors and those with enough power to influence the retelling. Once literacy spread to all socio-economic groups, battles were depicted in more depth and candor than ever before. Although those in the battle were able to document the events, military officials and media sources censored the reports from being released publically. The reports, if kept were locked away in classified folders. It was not until later when the documents were declassified that authors and historians were able to pry deeper into events. These writers were able to take long strides in recreating the history of battles from both sides. To look at all instances of a battle that showed discrepancies between contemporary reports and those published after 1975. The extent of censorship and misremembering is not apparent until both of these sources are viewed side by side for one specific battle or skirmish. To look at two specific incidents it can either strengthen or weaken the argument that perceptions and information changes as documents are released or those directly involved pass away. Another interesting question is if the same trend occurs for western countries, as in Great Britain and eastern countries such as Japan. If the trends are the same that means it is not one specific army or country that is affecting dissemination but an overall concept of what is perceived as need to know. Two interesting conflicts that are similar while different are the British Occupation of Egypt in 1882 and the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War in 1894. These incidents have been chosen because the reasons for going to war were different as well as the outcome. In the British Occupation of Egypt the British, the leader Ismail the Magnificent was driven by necessity allowed dual control over Egypt to Great Britain and France in 1879. The Sino-Japanese conflict while short lived displayed the power of Japan and the relative weakness of China to take control of Korea. The two major issues that will be examined between contemporary sources and those written post 1975 are the events leading up to war and the results of the war. By looking at these three important elements of all conflicts, it will show if any differences exist and if they do where the difference lie. If there are differences, the reason behind these differences and how they can be explained or justified. It is important to understand rather the discrepancies are intentionally left out or if the absence is caused by security or other reasons. Each topic will be viewed from two sources unless a vast difference presents itself. Prior to the 1882 when Great Britain began to occupy Egypt it was not the first time that a European power had looked at Egypt. With the creation of the Suez Canal it soon became apparent that Egypt could not shoulder the entire expense and so France joined in with monetary support to make the canal occur. After this Great Britain took over some of the economic support and a duel control was created between Egypt and their European supporters. In 1881 a large military demonstration forced a change in Egyptian control which caused France and Great Britain to rethink their stance. According to the Daily News it was the creation of Earthworks, or ships laden with stone blocking the Suez Canal that prompted intervention to occur.1 Although the Egyptian government agreed, the British military had already began to mobilize, with orders going both locally and to colonies such as India.2 Henry Tollefson in his book Policing Islam: The British occupation of Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian over control of polce 1882-1914 argues that it was not completely about the Suez Canal but more about how poorly the native Egyptian forces were protecting the European stock. What was believed to be a poor police force, the chance that another country could come in and take over not only the canal but possibly Egypt as a whole.3 In addition to that, Great Britain was becoming more and more worried about having their investment of nearly 100 million pounds paid back.4 It was not until Egypt started to really hesitate against British rule that Britain started to activate troops in the event that the earthwork campaign continued. At no time did France argue that taking action against Egypt was the wrong thing to do. According to news articles written prior to the Sino-Japanese conflict it was apparent that Japan was pushing for a conflict while China was not as anxious to engage in combat. Published by the New York Times on July 30, 1894, the article broke down what each country was believed to have military wise and also how Corea (sic) felt about the inevitable conflict brewing. According to the author “Coreans (sic) enjoyed the suzerainty of China and the recent political control of the country.” However, Japan was absorbing “nearly all the trade of the country… rooted jealousy of China, and, it would appear of the Coreans (sic) themselves.”5 The author continues to explain exactly how the two countries split up Korea and how negotiations were meant to occur. If one country was debating landing troops, advance notice shall be given, as well as polite request to remove forces once order was restored. Ultimately the author concludes that Japan may be in a better force position to win a conflict, but China could prove “a tough nut to crack”. 6 Japan had just become an economic power in Asia and was attempting to continue this growth. However all around them they saw prospective foes, such as China and Russia. Due to the proximity of Korea to Japan, the Japanese government was worried that an enemy such as Russia would take control of Korea and therefore be in striking position of Japan.7 It was for this reason that Japan did not want to necessarily take over Korea but wanted to ensure that Korea was an independent nation. The other reason that author N. Jayapalan believed that Japan was eyeing Korea was for economic reasons. Korea at the time had a surplus of rice but had banned an export due to the possibility of needing it in the future. Japan felt that with an ever growing population, by increasing the Korean ties with Japan, Japan may be able to procure some of the rice.8 Unlike the Sino-Japanese conflict that only lasted a year, the British Occupation lasted until 1952 when Egypt finally gained independence from Great Britain. This came about when British forces started to combat Egyptians near the Suez Canal, a reminder of what began in 1882. While the British media stated that this was a relatively light skirmish and no one hurt, Egypt argued that over 15 soldiers were killed.9 This started a cascade effect where Egyptian authorities began to talk to Sudan and fellow neighbors in attempts to gain complete independence from Great Britain and any other stake holder. Due to the previous conflicts that embroiled the world, Great Britain was not adamant about maintaining a military presence in Egypt and did not give more than a token effort in continuing to preserve control. Following the small scuffle, Egypt was free of empirical power.10 In 1952 the Free Officer’s corps in Egypt, which was an extensive of the British army began to realize that freedom was beneficial to the country and themselves more than being pawns.11 This group of men and their families began to organize others in attempts to gain independence from Great Britain and other occupying forces. As Great Britain used Egyptian air bases during World War II, there were still soldiers there during the early 1950s. It was here that the free corps started their physical campaign for freedom. For those who were stationed there, it was not expected and many left instead of fighting. It was soon apparent that Great Britain was not going to put up that much of a front against the Free Officers’ and the battle for independence was soon over. The end of the conflict in Korea between China and Japan was quickly over. In less than a year China sued for peace and asked for an armistice. Prior to the armistice, there were serious allegations that the Japanese killed many wounded at the battle for Tien-Chwang. On top of that it was alleged that although an armistice was in effect, high level Chinese officials did not heed the notification and continued to fight.12 When China realized that it could no longer fight against Japan effectively without mass casualties they proposed letters for an armistice. The Japanese agreed but with conditions, the Japanese Emperor wanted Japan to agree without conditions to ensure that a there would be an “immediate cessation of aggressive hostilities”.13 It took over a month for a formal cessation of fighting to occur however. In recent published works a similar train of thought regarding the conclusion of the war is present. The end of the war brought about the removal of Chinese influence from the Korean Peninsula as well as having to repay Japan for damages and war time rewards. The wars conclusion brought about an international change to diplomatic negotiations and beliefs.14 European countries were not forced to realize that Japan was a force to be reckoned with in diplomatic proceedings. Following the conclusion of the war, Korea was not only liberated, but three other former Chinese territories were turned over to Japan as part of the repatriations agreement. This severely decreased the power that the Chinese government had and actually caused a large loss of prestige for the Qing Dynasty.15 As it was shown in some cases the information presented at the time was factual with only small errors. However in other cases it seemed as if the media wanted to increase the distain for the enemy while at the same time increasing the morale of the invading nation. This can be seen in the Sino-Japanese conflict, when it was thought that the Chinese may succeed, claims of torture and the murder of wounded was published. However, when the United States realized that Japan was going to prove the victor, the stories changed to how it was unverified and that the Japanese government refuted any and all claims. Rather this actually occurred may still be found in locked away documents. Direct war effects people’s perceptions of events and can alter the recounting of events. With time and distance, one can look back and see the faults and actual events that occurred. This allows for researchers to synthesize both types of sources to bring together a full accounting of the events before, during, and after an event. WORKS CITED: Anon. “ An Armistice is Ordered”. The New York Times, 30 Mar 1895. Anon. “Egyptians Battle Britons Near Suez; British Say Clash was Minor but Cairo Reports Police Killed 15 of Soldiers”. New York Times, 3 Jan 1952. Anon. “Egypt Preparing for War: A Collision Believed to be Unavoidable”. The New York Times, 6 July 1882. Anon. “False Tales of Cruelty”. The New York Times, 8 Apr 1895. Anon. “Japan Anxious for a Fight”. The New York Times, 30 July 1894. Anon. “Sudanese Approve Plan; New Party Accepts Egyptian Proposal for Independence”. New York Times, 27 Nov. 1952. Jayapalan, N. History of Japan. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2000. Tollefson, Henry. Policing Islam: The British occupation of Egypt and the Anglo-Egyptian struggle over Control of the Police, 1882-1914. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 1999. Read More