Gold Warriors : the plunder of Asia

[Maciamo]

Please read the article of the Japan Times if you haven't read the book yet.

If you want more, read the backcover and prologue on the authors' website.

You can also order it from the JREF Shop (thanks) and post your review there.

I'd like to discuss with those having read the book what they think about it.

The numbers (gold, money in $) involved are so huge that it is hard to believe, especially that most are only estimations (and gold price fluctuates a lot over decades).

But what seems fairly certain is that Japan recovered most of the plunder from Korea and China, and a (small ?) part from South-East Asia. The total SE Asian treasures must not have accounted for half of all treasures from Asia, as China always had a much larger population than the whole of SE Asia, and was historically richer. What is more, the Japanese have had several more years' time to plunder China than SE Asia, as they started in 1905 in Manchuria and 1937 in Eastern China (the richest part).

But from what the Seagraves say, the Marcos would have recovered at least US$1,63-trillion worth of gold, and this only from a few caches out of the 175 existing ones. Santa Romana would have received a share worth US$50-billlion. Of course, we don't know what the US and Japan recovered from these 175 sites, but it seems that lots of them are still there. As a results, I'd say that there are/were several trillion $ worth only in the Philippines, and the part taken to Japan from Korea, China and what made it from SE Asia was certainly at least as big as this total, and most of it is either hidden in Japan (mountain tunnels, hidden mines, Imperial palace, zaibatsu...) or was taken by the US government (to finance the cold war against communism, and this way also assure its political control of many Latin American, or even European and Asian countries, including Japan).

If it is dubious that the Imperial family needs to be several richer than the entire Japanese population bare a few elite politicians, we could argue that the US made "good use" (bare a few "justified" assassinations) of this money (the M-fund or Black Eagle Trust) to "protect" (or corrupt) its allies during the cold war.

The Seagraves wonder what this money is used for now that the cold war is over. That disappoints me that they couldn't answer such a straightforward question. There are the Muslims now. America has got control (even superficial, at the top) of the whole world yet. Bush said it's time to crusade against the Talibans, Iraqi and even Irani, and maybe Syrian too. Who knows if they aren't going to "help" the poor Sudanese in Dafur in their combat against Islam. Probably not as there is not much to gain - but why not as there is money to spend and time (and Muslims) to kill.

[mad pierrot]

As far as conspiracies go... I certainly find it believable that the United States had strong involvment in using dirty money to further it's own interests. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn't. I do find it unreasonable that America would be conspiring against Muslims. The majority of the Isamic nations, perhaps, are in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the flip side, they are ideal for abuse and demonization by the powers that be. America's involvement has nothing to do with religion, but with money. (But religion is a great scapegoat.)

Just to nitpick:

America has got control (even superficial, at the top) of the whole world yet.

I disagree. America can't even control its self. Large, multi-national corporations based in America, however, are different story. I think they've show they can effectively control America and the rest of globe. Laws are only for people who can't afford bribes. (Especially international law.)

Whew! Lots of conspiracy theory there! Don't read into my words too deeply. I'm just saying whoever has the most money gets the biggest advantage.

[shiningblue]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

Who knows if they aren't going to "help" the poor Sudanese in Dafur in their combat against Islam. Probably not as there is not much to gain - but why not as there is money to spend and time (and Muslims) to kill.

Whoooooaaaaaa!!!

I am not a conservative in any sense, i disagreed with both the Afghanistan and Iraqi war. In fact, I am against war in the most part. I am also horrified in the way that the wars were carried out. I will be voting for Kerry in November and I believe that Bush is one of the worst presidents we've had since, well...ever.

However, I do not think that the US Department of State or Defense masturbates to the thought of killing Muslims. Is there oil in the Middle East? Of course. Are so dependent on this oil that if a crisis were to happend the American economy would crumble? Maybe so. But do we go out of our way to kill innocent people? No.

In war, mistakes happen, if you want to go through the history of aerial campaigns from any nation, most of them involve indiscriminate carpet bombing, and yes, many innocent civilians are killed (japan even mangaged to kill a dog in oregon with a bomb strapped to a giant weather ballon they floated over).

However, people like to single out the United States as the single authoritative, unilateral, crusader against people in the world. And I do not believe that this is so.

People are quick to find the worst case scenario and then immediatly accept it as they would like to see the US government accused of some horrific crime. However, you need to look from both sides of the street to see if there are any cars, so to speak. I most often find that between the left and right, the liberal and conservative, the communists and the facists, and the different sides of the world, that the truth actually lies.

On a lighter, and insanely more funny note:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4037

[blessed]

woow, gotta get this book... seems interesting.

shiningblue: i think the problem and reason why people blame america more than other countries is that a) its the most visible and reported-on country, and b) because it has the most secretive government (or just badly kept secrets)... and secrets are kept for a reason..

[shiningblue]

Originally Posted by blessed

shiningblue: i think the problem and reason why people blame america more than other countries is that a) its the most visible and reported-on country, and b) because it has the most secretive government (or just badly kept secrets)... and secrets are kept for a reason..

As for america being the most visible country, i totally understand. People like the big dog to fall and the US is under constant scrutiny for their actions no matter what they maybe doing in the world...

Most secretive government, or having badly kept secrets, i just can't agree. There is a difference in secrets that have gotten out, such as the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's Tapes, Spies in the government, etc. and conspiracy theories. Most of the stuff you hear about the United States is either a)grossly exaggerated or b) totally untrue.

EDIT: (I need to be more clear)
America has done it's share of nasty and bad things to the peoples of the world. And we are to blame for them. But take a look at the history of any country in the world, and how they acted. It will be a pretty even playing field......

People assume that they can make an unfounded theory about how (for example) Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. They then back it up with the least fact based (yet imaginative) argument ever. People need to take into mind Ocham's Razor [the simplest explination is most likely the correct one].

The US taking gold reserves from Japan that Japan took from different Asian nations? Maybe. The US using that money to fund the arms race during the cold war and now against terrorists in the Middle East? Not Likely. The US in a giant global domination scheme with ties to people in the government of all the G-8 countries, the martians that landed in 1949, and Jimmy Hoffa's reanimated body? Most definately not.

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by shiningblue

However, I do not think that the US Department of State or Defense masturbates to the thought of killing Muslims. Is there oil in the Middle East? Of course. Are so dependent on this oil that if a crisis were to happend the American economy would crumble? Maybe so. But do we go out of our way to kill innocent people? No.

So why did they attack Afghanistan ? There was no oil and really not much to seize. Maybe were they just testing their new weapons before Iraq, but the fact remains that the Taliban regime was a Muslim fanatical one. If you say to catch Bin Laden, well he is from Saudi Arabia, which is also happens to be the richest country for oil.

But the main reason I think the US is ready to fight for its believes as much or even more than for money is its history of fighting communism worldwide since 1948. What did they gain in China/Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, or in spending huge sums of money to keep dictators favourable to US capitalism in South America (Nicaragua, Chile, etc.) ? This was mostly for ideological reasons, and the US probably lost more than it got in return (especially in Vietnam). So what makes you believe they don't want to get rid of Muslim extremist ? Iran and North Korea are both on Bush's blacklist. The former for being too Muslim, the latter for being too communist. Certainly not for resources (North Korea is one of the poorest country on earth). If they wanted oil, they'd attack Saudi Arabia, but they are alreday in good terms and can get what they want. However friends they may be, the US government still warned its Saudi ally over religious freedom today (see BBC article).

[bossel]

Interesting article. Though I have my doubts about some of the claims, they seem a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, the authors seem to provide plenty of evidence for their allegations. I'll probably wait for some reputable European historians to review the facts.

Originally Posted by shiningblue

As for america being the most visible country, i totally understand. People like the big dog to fall and the US is under constant scrutiny for their actions no matter what they maybe doing in the world...

Not only being the most visible, but with the highest pretence: land of the free, guardian of human rights & so on. If the US insists on having the moral high ground, it will be judged accordingly. Noone expects Russia or China (let alone Sudan) to be too considerate regarding human rights or collateral damage. Hence their human rights violations (usually) don't get that much public attention.

The US taking gold reserves from Japan that Japan took from different Asian nations? Maybe. The US using that money to fund the arms race during the cold war and now against terrorists in the Middle East? Not Likely. The US in a giant global domination scheme with ties to people in the government of all the G-8 countries

The US most probably had (& has) secret funds for all kinds of purposes. Hence the notion that they used booty gold for these is not too far-fetched. If it was worth $ 500 billion (in modern currency), who knows.
Of course the US has its people (in governments, ministries, secret services) all over the world. If that can be called a global domination scheme, I don't know, but the US surely uses all possible ways to get information & to increase its influence.

[shiningblue]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

So why did they attack Afghanistan ? There was no oil and really not much to seize. Maybe were they just testing their new weapons before Iraq, but the fact remains that the Taliban regime was a Muslim fanatical one. If you say to catch Bin Laden, well he is from Saudi Arabia, which is also happens to be the richest country for oil.

If you want to talk about oil and Afghanistan, then...Ever since the breakup of the USSR, the oil (mostly natural gas) reserves have been untapped. The United States, with the help of good ol' Halliburton would like to build a pipeline from the caspian sea to the Persian Gulf in order to build this pipeline. But they would have to cross boundaries of nations. The southeastern most nations to the Caspian Sea are Iran and Turkmenistan, now which one can we get a pipeline through?...ok Turkmenistan. However, before it could get to the Persian Gulf it has to go through two more nations, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since we are already on good (sort of) terms with Pakistan, all we needed to do was take out Afghanistan to get the resources we needed.

But on the bigger picture. I know Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and we arn't going to attack them due to their power and current relations with them. Osama however had been living in Afghanistan for about two decades (yes i know he was once a CIA agent and we funded the Taliban to beat the USSR). Thus it would not do the US much good to try to bomb the Saudis since he doesn't even live there anymore. And according to your logic, if we wanted to bomb Muslims, we could just go to Indonesia, which is the most populus Islamic nation, or Iran or Iraq immediately, or any other nations which have a larger Muslim population.

Originally Posted by Maciamo

But the main reason I think the US is ready to fight for its believes as much or even more than for money is its history of fighting communism worldwide since 1948. What did they gain in China/Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, or in spending huge sums of money to keep dictators favourable to US capitalism in South America (Nicaragua, Chile, etc.) ? This was mostly for ideological reasons, and the US probably lost more than it got in return (especially in Vietnam). So what makes you believe they don't want to get rid of Muslim extremist ? Iran and North Korea are both on Bush's blacklist. The former for being too Muslim, the latter for being too communist. Certainly not for resources (North Korea is one of the poorest country on earth). If they wanted oil, they'd attack Saudi Arabia, but they are alreday in good terms and can get what they want. However friends they may be, the US government still warned its Saudi ally over religious freedom today (see BBC article).

North Korea being on Bush's black list for being too communist?!?!? Maybe six active nuclear weapons in a region in which the US is trying to establish trade ties to Japan, S. Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. is the answer. Having a crazy guy with some of the most powerful weapons known to man isn't sort of the economic catalyist they were hoping for (except if they have a war). Iran is (until recently) been one of the countries in which more terrorists have found shelter than possible the rest of the middle east/central asia combined. Being a fundamental Islamic state certianly doesn't help the matter, but I doubt it is the main reason.

And yes I am aware of the US's actions in South America and SE Asia, nothing we should be too proud of. But look at it this way (if possible) would you rather be living in a greedy, corrupted, capitalist state, or an oppressive, tyrannical, communist state? Both sides of the fight in any regions have nothing to be proud of (Shining Path, anyone???), so don't go blaming the whole thing on the US.

Originally Posted by Bossel

Not only being the most visible, but with the highest pretence: land of the free, guardian of human rights & so on. If the US insists on having the moral high ground, it will be judged accordingly. Noone expects Russia or China (let alone Sudan) to be too considerate regarding human rights or collateral damage. Hence their human rights violations (usually) don't get that much public attention.

Exactly my point (to a point)...

Originally Posted by Bossel

The US most probably had (& has) secret funds for all kinds of purposes. Hence the notion that they used booty gold for these is not too far-fetched. If it was worth $ 500 billion (in modern currency), who knows.
Of course the US has its people (in governments, ministries, secret services) all over the world. If that can be called a global domination scheme, I don't know, but the US surely uses all possible ways to get information & to increase its influence.

I was being sarcastic about the global domination scheme, btw. I didn't say that they don't have secret funds, IT IS THE US GOVERNMENT FOR GOD'S SAKE (no pun intended). We are the birth place of "arms for hostages" and so forth. I am just saying that using some sort of "secret japanese gold booty" to fund the arms race and the cold war, and now the "war on islam" (according to Maciamo) is a little far fetched. We do have little things called itemized budgets that get screened by many many people and if a little fund called "Japan Pirate Gold Inc." came up, I am sure some questions would be raised.

[mad pierrot]

But the main reason I think the US is ready to fight for its believes as much or even more than for money is its history of fighting communism worldwide since 1948. What did they gain in China/Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, or in spending huge sums of money to keep dictators favourable to US capitalism in South America (Nicaragua, Chile, etc.) ? This was mostly for ideological reasons, and the US probably lost more than it got in return (especially in Vietnam). So what makes you believe they don't want to get rid of Muslim extremist ? Iran and North Korea are both on Bush's blacklist. The former for being too Muslim, the latter for being too communist. Certainly not for resources (North Korea is one of the poorest country on earth).

I have disagree again. You say the US is ready to fight for its believes as much or even more than for money. DO you really believe that? I think the US would LOVE for everyone to believe that. Certainly, that is the image produced by the media. "Remember folks, we're making the world safe for Democracy by fighting Communism." If you were the government, wouldn't you rather your citizens believed they were fighting a moral crusade rather than just to satisfy greed?

Secondly, I highly doubt the U.S. will ever invade North Korea. Just look at the way Powell dismissed the mushroom cloud reported this week. The U.S. has higher priorites than North Korea. *coughs* Iran?

[Maciamo]

Originally Posted by shiningblue

And according to your logic, if we wanted to bomb Muslims, we could just go to Indonesia, which is the most populus Islamic nation, or Iran or Iraq immediately, or any other nations which have a larger Muslim population.

I expect that Indonesia is already on a "grey list" (not yet black) of the US, esp. for its terrorist attacks in the nightclub in Bali, the Australian embassy this week, etc. The main difference between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is that the Indonesian gov. is not extremist and has to cope with religious diversity (Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Animists...). Then, even most Indonesian Muslims are not very religious (from my experience of travelling there). Terrorists are just a minority group, fought by the government. But still Indonesia and the US are far from being friends (even more developed and pluri-cultural Malaysia is quite anti-American).

North Korea being on Bush's black list for being too communist?!?!? Maybe six active nuclear weapons in a region in which the US is trying to establish trade ties to Japan, S. Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. is the answer.

China has a much bigger nuclear capacity, much bigger army and hardly less crazy government, but the US tries hard to make friends with them, because 1) it would be too dangerous to fight them, and 2) they hope capitalism completely overtake communism soon.

And yes I am aware of the US's actions in South America and SE Asia, nothing we should be too proud of. But look at it this way (if possible) would you rather be living in a greedy, corrupted, capitalist state, or an oppressive, tyrannical, communist state? Both sides of the fight in any regions have nothing to be proud of (Shining Path, anyone???), so don't go blaming the whole thing on the US.

I don't only blame the US. The problem is that the US gov. tries too much to pressure other countries to go their way, and claim to be a reference of democracy and universal moral at the same time. China, Iran or Saudi Arabia don't.

[shiningblue]

Originally Posted by Maciamo

I expect that Indonesia is already on a "grey list" (not yet black) of the US, esp. for its terrorist attacks in the nightclub in Bali, the Australian embassy this week, etc. The main difference between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is that the Indonesian gov. is not extremist and has to cope with religious diversity (Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Animists...). Then, even most Indonesian Muslims are not very religious (from my experience of travelling there). Terrorists are just a minority group, fought by the government. But still Indonesia and the US are far from being friends (even more developed and pluri-cultural Malaysia is quite anti-American).

According to your logic, using the minority muslim extremist population, all of these countries would be on the US "black list": Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Uzbekistan (most of the ~stan countries for that matter), Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and many African naions. Because of this, I don't think that the US could take on all of these countries at once, and the selection out of these countries for "muslim attack" would have to incorporate other factors. So I don't think the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were religiously motivated as they were economically and politically (Bush wanting reelection, regime change, etc.)

Originally Posted by Maciamo

China has a much bigger nuclear capacity, much bigger army and hardly less crazy government, but the US tries hard to make friends with them, because 1) it would be too dangerous to fight them, and 2) they hope capitalism completely overtake communism soon.

China has a much less crazy government, especially after Deng Xiaopeng came to power. Their economy has turned more and more capitalist giving private ownership to about half of thier industries. As well, local governments in the west have been having democratic elections for their leaders for the last decade. This trend has also been spreading around the different rural cities (need i remind you that about 80% of the population in China is rural) so democracy has been spreading. Save a few instances like Tiennamen Square, the whole Falun Gong thing, Hong Kong and Taiwan, China is on its way to become THE world power, surpassing the US in economic strength. And who wouldn't want to be friends with that? (And yes, it would be too hard to fight them)

Originally Posted by Maciamo

I don't only blame the US. The problem is that the US gov. tries too much to pressure other countries to go their way, and claim to be a reference of democracy and universal moral at the same time. China, Iran or Saudi Arabia don't.

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Wouldn't you say that the people that Bush is "supposedly" fighting are the same way. Pressuring other countries to go their way not by aerial campaigns and invations, but by car bombs and hijackings. I don't see the difference between Bush sending 100,000+ troops into a country for political and such reasons, and Bin Ladin ordering 9/11 for political and such reasons. Both sides push, but since the US is so powerful, ours is like a violent shove.

And as for the US trying to be a moral standard for the rest of the world, yes i too think it is a little hypocritical. ie - "Killing for peace is like ***king for virginity" However, my whole point is that while the US might be on their own little carpet bombing zone over here, the rest of the world isn't so innocent in comparison. Many more conflicts with much higher body counts are taking place right now, with much less to no attention because people would rather take on the big target --> the US.

Hopefully, Kerry can get elected in November, then the wars will stop (for the most part) and we could get back to a more multilateral kind of foreign policy. VOTE KERRY ON NOVEMBER SECOND OR PREPARE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF GLOBAL HEGEMONY, SMART BOMBS, DICK CHENEY, AND OTHER NASTY ICKY THINGS!!!!!

[stupidumboy]

I once heard about this wesite of (http://www.yamashita-gold.com/
) and they uploaded the materials to explain about the hidden history to prevent some misfortunes or threats,

but it does not exist anymore,anybodys have checked this site?
anybody wonders why Japan is the top purchaser of US government issued national bond?

EDIT:now the yamashita-gold site is working,but I found its not working sometimes on unregular basis.....I dont know why..

this is off topic,but if you guys want to get more informations about American foreign policy in Asia after WWII and the progress.I recommend this book -"BLOWBACK"-written by Mr.Chalmers Johnson.It tells many unknown things to general public.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...961593-6128768

[bossel]

Well, the Nazi gold at least seems to a great deal to have been shipped away before the US could take hold of it:

Documentary uncovers Nazi gold trail to Argentina

[Shanghai Yank]

Yes “Golden Warriors” by the Seagraves is a fascinating read!
One of my favorite lectures in China is about this subject. I enjoy hearing the response of my students.
It it only an amount of time before I convince the Chinese to begin legal prosecution after the booty.
There is a money trail, there are bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars based in 1945 gold deposits to chase in the name of justice. This is one heck of growth industry for China. They should learn from the Israelis how it is done.
Another subject of particular interest to me is the Awa Maru.
Rumor has it, it lies in 150 feet of water in the Taiwan Straight with 5 billion dollars worth of 1945 diamonds on board!
This is an incredible story as well.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

The Chinese government raised AWA-MARU from the bottom of the sea during 1980 from 1977.

[Shanghai Yank]

This is the first time I read about the Chinese Government "raising" the Awa Maru.

The only reports I have read are A) Chinese tried a salvage in 1977 and was unsuccessful B) Chinese government did a salvage operation in 1977 and was highly successful, but reported nothing was found.

Where is your source the Chinese government "raised" the Awa Maru?[/B]

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

It was writing here.

http://202.130.245.33/japanese/185481.htm

[Mitsuo]

If you ever watch the news here in America (Not sure any where else) they only show the bad things that are happening, and usually blow it way out of proportion. Don't watch the News because most of the time they are wrong. Trust me they have mis quoted everything my dad has ever said. It's a brain washing. Just be aware that not all of it is Fact.

[Dutch Baka]

Very interesting story, and I am thinking of buying the book! they don't have it in the libary here, and neither do the american book stores have it... I-net it will be... Is the book really worth buying? or does it make my trust in the world even smaller