I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
![日本が侵略したのはど]()
Which country did Japan invade? - Japan invaded European - controlled areas - Asian liberation and colonial policy.
When considering the aspects of Japan's war of aggression, first of all, the Korean Peninsula was made an independent state by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and was annexed by the Treaty of Annexation, so it is not included in the invasion. Taiwan was also formally ceded under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so it was not included in the invasion. Southeast Asian countries are already Western colonies and do not have administrative powers. To be honest, Japan invaded Britain, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and the United States. Would you call this an invasion of Asia? Viewed in this way, if China had dared to invade, it would have been China that was barely maintaining its administrative power.
Now, regarding what Japan's purpose was, if we say that Japan is no different from Western colonies in terms of increasing its national power through colonial rule, the reality is different. Japan did not adopt racist policies and developed laws, and eventually Southeast Asian countries grew to the point where they were able to fight against whites and protect their own countries on their own. War operations are meaningless unless they are linked to national interests. So these things are always related to Japan's national interests.
Historically speaking, Japan was isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration. It took only 27 years from the establishment of the new government to its victory over the Qing Dynasty, which was said to be a world power. It would be 37 years until Japan again defeated Russia, which was said to be a world power. Next, it was in 1919 that Japan won World War I and became a permanent member of the League of Nations, so Japan isolated itself from developing countries that had never seen a steam engine, and only 51 In 2019, I will be sitting on a chair at the table at the center of the world. Japan proposed the ''Racism Discrimination Elimination Bill.''
There is probably no one who has not seen the vast area called Asia on a map. On top of that, over a long period of 400 years, the white maritime nation colonized Asian countries one after another. Japan is an island nation floating on the farthest east coast. Japan's opening to the world was related to this movement of white people. The colonization of the vast area of Asia was already approaching Japan.
Japan's Restoration and opening of the country, as well as the energy of the industrial revolution and modernization, were explosively generated during these global movements. If one country or one ethnic group in such a vast region of Asia, where so many ethnic groups live, were to unite and confront the white countries, the white people would never come to such a farthest island nation. It would be a good thing if there was even one country that could stop the invasion of white people, but unfortunately there was not a single country in Asia like that.
The main focus of Japan's colonial policy in Asia is to build a collective security system for people of color in Asia and to spread the results of Japan's Restoration to Asia. This is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which is signed by the participating leaders from each country. If we look at history from a myopic perspective, we will not be able to understand this era.This may seem obvious, but no matter how many times you hear about former comfort women or visit coal mine sites, you will never understand this era.
![【自虐史観】侵略国と]()
[Masochistic view of history] Postwar Japan, which became an invading country, and the Western view of history | Recover Japan's view of history
Recently, there has been public criticism of Japan's GHQ view of history. There used to be an expression called the Tokyo Trial Historical View, but it was not widely used due to the strong left-wing tendencies in the Japanese media and educational institutions. The historical view of the Tokyo Trials is essentially a counterargument against the international label of an aggressor country as stipulated by a unilateral international military tribunal, but the current movement is not only based on the unfairness of the Tokyo Trials, but also in recent years, A major reason may be that records related to the Pacific War, whose period of classified information has expired, have been made public, and various things have come to light. The GHQ historical perspective is a perspective that covers various aspects of Japan's education, systems, and laws during the subsequent trusteeship era, including the Tokyo Trials.
There is a uniquely American compositional feature here. The United States was probably the first country to value the concept of a just war to this extent. Even today, the United States uses the word "justice" a lot when fighting or supporting wars. In other words, this value system started the postwar era with the premise that America was just and Japan was unjust. Can there be a concept of justice in war? War is not about good or bad; rather, the two countries have become unable to come to terms with justice. Otherwise, a war will break out when there is a fatal collapse, so there is no point in trying to say justice at this stage. Let's say the war ends and one of the countries wins. If we do so, will we be able to reach a compromise between the two countries? There are only victorious countries and defeated countries, so there is no point in calling it justice. But Japan received that education.
Japanese people are learning the history of Western values, not just modern history, but world history in general, but this is rarely questioned. In the first place, when you think about what Europe really is, Motomoto is a land where indigenous people called Celts lived, and Jews and Romans are also indigenous peoples. Today's Britain, Germany, France, and various other European countries are lands that were conquered and assimilated by Germanic peoples. The Germanic peoples were an ethnic group that lived in what is now Central Asia, and came under pressure from the expansion of the Huns and occupied Europe. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and many other modern European countries are countries of these Germanic tribes.
Broadly speaking, as an indigenous people, the Jews had already lost their country to the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire was destroyed by the Germanic peoples. Slavic peoples are said to be indigenous peoples, and later Eastern European countries centered on Russia corresponded to them.
In other words, Germanic peoples invaded Europe from Central Asia, and for some reason this is described as the Great Migration of Germanic Peoples. It just means you moved. As a result, the Celts lost almost all of their territory, and now Ireland and Scotland are inhabited by Celts. Halloween is a Celtic festival that is famous for its harvest festival.
■English subtitles
Have you ever heard of the Age of Exploration? This started in the mid-16th century when the European maritime nations set out on ships and swept the world, and when we think of the Age of Discovery, we dream about it. However, from the perspective of us people of color, this would be the beginning of a colonial era that would last hundreds of years. Or for Africans, it has become an era of dark slave trade. The discovery of the American continent is said to be a spectacular discovery during this age of discovery. Didn't you learn the story of Columbus' egg in school? It is because he was a man with such a great change of thinking that it is as if he came to discover the American continent. Nowadays, various ideas are uploaded on Youtube every day, such as scattering salt on a table and making an egg stand up, which is not even a magic trick. The discovery of the Americas marked the beginning of an era of genocide for the indigenous Indians, and it is said that by the end of the 19th century, approximately 90% of the indigenous people had disappeared. It is estimated that there were once approximately 100 million indigenous people.
But now there is America, the land of freedom, which is the leader of the world. Not only did most of the Indians disappear, but blacks were imported from Africa as slaves, and it seems that we still have issues with racial discrimination, but America is a free country where many ethnic groups live. We will not neglect promoting our country as a democratic country that banishes ethnic discrimination from the world.
In fact, it is true that they have a lot of knowledge through research on various ethnic groups and cultures and the history of coexisting with many ethnic groups in the United States, and they want to eliminate discrimination. Although it is true that they are highly conscious, they used to do pretty dangerous things according to their wishes and desires, and even though they reflect on their cruel history, they suddenly claim to be messengers of justice. However, there is.
It is desirable that the Japanese people begin to become aware of the GHQ historical perspective, that the momentum for constitutional revision increases, and that Japan moves toward an autonomous nation, but in the first place, this European expansion policy and world division policy are important. From a broader perspective, Japan was the only Asian country that resisted hundreds of years of global colonial policy.
However, if we say that Japan's war was also a just war, it would be the same as America's, so we need to consider that it was a war that was fought in conjunction with Japan's national interests. However, at that time in the West, there was no sense that racial discrimination was wrong, and people of color thought it was okay to enslave or kill people. It can be said that they were considerably more advanced than them. In fact, Japan has already advocated the elimination of racial discrimination to the international community, and this is clearly stated in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration. This becomes clear when we compare the management reality of Western colonial policies with Japan's annexation and colonial policies. This may be history that Westerners would never want to acknowledge.
If you look at it from the perspective of the GHQ view of history or the Western view of history, it becomes surprisingly easy to understand, but what makes Japan so complicated is that on top of this, it is naturally eroded by communist, Chinese, and peninsular views of history. After the war, the Japan Teachers Union was dominated by communists, who taught as educators, and left-wingers talked about the Chinese and Peninsular views of history, as if there was any need to listen to the fictional history they claimed. The media has been pouring it out to the people. There is still no sign that the comfort women issue will be resolved.
The problem is that Japan has abandoned its own historical perspective, and as a result has become a country that sways from side to side, wondering whether the past was just as it is told. The Japanese people need to regain their historical perspective. However, this is strictly an academic approach to history, and Japan is different from neighboring countries, which aim to turn history into a political and diplomatic issue rather than an academic approach.
In fact, the history of the West and the history of Japan are clearly different, and from Japan's perspective, the West is the aggressor. , Japan's closest neighbors are Western countries. How many democracies are there in Asia? There is no answer to these questions if we consider the past in terms of values of good and evil, but we should focus on the justice that can be shared by liberal countries in the present.
Regarding the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the war between Israel and Hamas, there are doubts about the tone of the discussion that excessively develops arguments about right and wrong. Since the war has already started, there is no point at all. In the history of the world, there is no example of a war ending based on the theory of good and evil.
As a TV show, it would be easier for viewers to understand and get excited if the show was broken down into an easy-to-understand picture of good and evil. We empathize with wars between other countries and want to believe that we are on the right side. However, during a war, information is also cut off, making it difficult to assess what is actually true.
Economic sanctions were imposed on Russia, and there was initially talk that the Russian economy would soon collapse, but what happened? The Russian economy's main industry is the export of natural resources, and its customers are EU countries, so if it continues to import oil and natural gas, its main industries will remain protected. For example, if an industry, such as industrial products, competes to be at the cutting edge of global technological competition, if it suffers from economic sanctions and suffers from financial difficulties, goes bankrupt, and is no longer able to manufacture products, even 10 years may pass. If you try to enter again, you won't be able to catch up. This may be the case with Japan's semiconductor industry. But natural resources are not like that; they do not degrade, recede, or diminish. Whether you dig in 10 years or now, you will be able to extract the same quality natural resources. In other words, Russia's main industries will not disappear. Furthermore, the area of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia is said to be 7.2% of Ukraine's territory. And when reporting on economic sanctions against Russia, there is absolutely no mention of Russia's profits from this vast occupied territory.
What would happen if the war ended with the country still under occupation? This region will still be Russia in 100 or 200 years. So will economic sanctions still be in place 100 years from now? In other words, the occupation policy ultimately has economic benefits when considered over a 100-year span. There is a person who is currently a member of the Diet who once said that it would be a good idea to give Takeshima to South Korea, but he doesn't seem to understand the meaning at all. If one fish is landed in South Korea in those nearby waters, Japan will lose the amount equivalent to that one fish. This is a loss that occurs every day, but how much profit will it provide over 100 or 200 years based on the amount of fish caught?
Whether you look at Ukraine or Takeshima, there is actually no justice at all, and the only way to protect territory is through military force. Is it possible to get these things back through diplomacy? Japan only has a track record of not being able to do so.
In this way, the idea that wars and conflicts can be ended by developing a theory of good and evil is nothing more than a delusion, and the idea that war can be avoided in any case through diplomacy is also a delusion. Since war occurs after diplomacy fails, the very idea of resolving it through diplomacy is bankrupt.
In other words, it is the responsibility of a normal country to strengthen both its diplomacy and military. In the case of Japan, we always develop an either/or argument. The choice is diplomatic or military. It would be nice to do both, but that kind of thinking won't become mainstream. Diplomacy no longer works in the military phase, and when diplomatic relations are working, it is no longer in the military phase. It is mainly the opposition forces in Japan who are forcing us to choose one or the other. The Japanese government only needs to do diplomacy, and has simply asked the United States to take on the responsibility of protecting the country.Takeshima and the Northern Territories, which the United States did not protect, were taken and are within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. We are barely maintaining the Senkaku Islands with words alone.
This is a country where candidates who say they should give up defending the country with their own strength are elected to the Diet. Isn't it strange?
![鳩山一郎は敵基地攻撃]()
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
