Continued from above.

I'll exercise some of old men's privileges and put in a few words in the Australian Great National Debate. I think even a democratic society needs cultural or religious homogeneity whether you are church goers or not. It can't remain tolerant of cultural diversity beyond a point if it is to remain a unified democratic society.

Japan was defeated in 1945. China had the biggest reason to have trust in, and the least reason to feel resentment toward, the United States of all imperialistic powers. Did they, nationalists or communists, ever expressed gratitude? And the warning is that if ever they do so, it is bound to be tactical duplicity. Chinese deceive each other among themselves.

But "These words (John MacMurray's) need no other comment than the situation we have before us today in Korea...The Western powers have lost the last of their special positions in China. The Japanese are finally out of China proper and out of Manchuria and Korea as well. The effects of their expulsion from those areas have been precisely what wise and realistic people warned us all along they would be. Today we have fallen heir to the problems and responsibilities the Japanese had faced and borne in the Korean-Manchurian area for nearly half a century, and there is a certain perverse justice in the pain we are suffering from a burden, which, when it was borne by others, we held in such low esteem. What is saddest of all is that the relationship between past and present seems to be visible to so few people. For if we are not to learn from our own mistakes, where shall we learn from? (Kennan, American Diplomacy, p.54.)"

To be continued

Posted by plantagenet- melded culture song "I Am Australian" should replace the Girt Song. "Multicultural" baiting...bigots like LEGO.

Answer- I believe that every culture should have their own nation.

You can call me a racist or a race baiter for believing that if you like- It seems that in the 1800's- 'one culture one nation'- wasn't questioned. I prefer to take a long view of history.

The Australian people have been very generous- per capita probably the most generous in the world- now their generosity has come back to bite them- as their benefactors have gone to war against the Australian people.

The Dalai Lama says Europe should be for the European's- I agree with him.

The libertarian's have been fighting a rear guard action to protect their inconsistent arbitrary absolutist principles for some time- to such an extent that those that use terms such as 'race baiting' are now looking pretty silly. They aren't interested in discussing the issues with policy and how their libertarian global universalist (socialist/ global business) policy is disenfranchising people from their own land.

If you want to accuse me of racism, race baiting, bigotry for protecting the rights of cultures over their own property- for their Traditional rights- go for it.

I'm sure that I don't agree with LEGO on everything- but if it comes to a choice between him and you I suspect that I would favour him- and I am proud of LEGO for standing up for his people.

As I understand Plantagenet is Peter Coates-

I'd be interested if you have spent any time in the military despite your articles.

"Peter Coates has been writing articles on military, security and international relations issues since 2006. In 2014 he completed a Master’s Degree in International Relations, with a high distinction average. His website is Submarine Matters."

I can empathise with Peter Coates coming from an academic background given the highly politicised socialist environment in universities.

You call the Australian National Anthem- 'The Girt song'- you are intentionally disrespectful- and you think that you have a right to comment on Australian policy. Interesting

Michi- It appears you are saying that the way people think is based on the history of their culture and the idiosyncracies of their language- we know this in the west as 'cultural relativism'. I find that even many Japanese don't know Japanese history- but I'm sure swimming in the Japanese diaspora they absorb much through osmosis. Mr Opinion seems to have a better than average intuition on things even not of his own culture probably because of his wide reading.

An isolationist in regard to European affairs and the monopolist of imperialism in Latin America, the United States made its international debut in East Asia, and as an interventionist.

The Washington Conference, 1921-22, was the first international conference it summoned and presided over. The aim was to thwart Japanese imperialism, forgetful of and impervious to its robbery in the Pacific like the Hawaiian annexation and the occupation of the Philippines and very nervously mindful of Japan's minor shoplifting in China, and establish a system of its dominance in East Asia.

It demanded termination of the Anglo-Japanese alliance because it did not wish to fight Great Britain in case of a Pacific war, which policy was supported by Canada. London was not reluctant, rather willing as Japan was, to extend it for the fourth time, which was supported by Australia. Winston Churchill said after the World War II that it was a mistake of British foreign policy not to have renewed it.

The United States wanted a naval disarmament among Great Britain, Japan, France and Italy, the last two being no problem, for its naval supremacy in the Pacific.
"The history of the attempts at disarmament is a story of many failures and few successes (Han J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Alfred K. Knopf, 1966, p.375)" "The outstanding example of a venture in disarmament compounded of success and failure was the Washington Treaty of 1922 for the Limitation of naval armaments...Finally, at the London Naval Conference of 1930, the United States, Great Britain and Japan agreed upon parity...with Japan limited to approximately two thirds of the American and British strength...(Morgenthau, p.379.)" "During all the ensuing decades there has been only one instance of voluntary agreement among the Powers to reduce and limit armaments: the Washington treaty of 1922, summarized above (Frederick Shuman, International Politics, McGwaw-Hill, published by Kogakusha, Tokyo, 1969, p255.)"

"The record is one of deception, self-deception, endless quibbling over technicalities, hypocrisy, and fraud. Its details are at once nauseating and meaningless (Shuman, pp. 254-5.)"

To be continued.

Continued.

"The difficulties in making such a quantitative evaluation - in correlating, for instance, the military strength of the French army of 1932 with the military power represented by the industrial potential of Germany - have greatly contributed to the failure of most attempts at creating a stable balance of power by means of disarmament. The only outstanding success of this kind was the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922...(Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, p. 175.)"

Probably the most essential and most important factor for the success of disarmament overriding many difficulties is trust in the other(s). The United States lacked such trust in Japan; it had suspicion and doubt. But Japan had more than enough trust in America to outbalance it.

(In passing, as perhaps I will not have space and time here to write, various Japanese groups had began to grope for termination of the Pacific War in 1943. Kantaro Suzuki, an admiral, formed a cabinet in April, 1945. The lineup clearly showed that Japan was preparing for surrender. Hirohito had said as early as in 1942 that we had to think how to bring the war once started to an end. Tojo said at the Suzuki cabinet, "This is the end. This is our Badoglio government."

To be continued.

Continued.
At the Washington Conference, the Four-Power Treaty was signed among the US, Great Britain, France and Japan. They pledged status quo in the Pacific, with Germany gone.
The Nine-Power Treaty was concluded among China, the US, Great Britain, Japan, etc. for the status quo of China, pledging territorial integrity of China, equal opportunity for business, etc. in China. The two treaties were big victory for the US.

One big problem of the Nine Power Treaty lay with China. "While Japan, through diplomatic negotiations over a long period of years (about fifty years, Michi,) accomplished her national objectives to revise the unequal treaties, to place her finances on a sound basis, and to amend her legal system as well as to consolidate her domestic affairs, no comparable steps were taken by China. P. H. Clyde, a noted American historian, in commenting on the Far Eastern situation after the Washington Conference said: 'There is no anxiety of the powers invading China, rather is there the danger posed by China, which is fa from being an organized nation, threatening the powers' interests in China. The principles of the open door or equal opportunity could well be based on the assumption that China is a representative nation. Without this prerequisite, these principles could hardly be attained (Kajima Morinosuke, A Brief Diplomatic History of Modern Japan, Charles E. Tuttle, 1965, pp. 78-9.)"

"The same (ambiguity and complexity) was true of 'territorial and administrative integrity of China,) This seemed to Western observers, on the face of it, a plain and specific principle. But this view assumed that China was at all times a nation like others, with all the qualifications necessary essential to a neat embodiment in the national state system as it had grown up in the West. Actually, the fact was not this simple... But there many ways in which its attributes (the attributes of China a state) failed to coincide with the clear pattern of the national state in an international context, as evolved in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Kennan, American Diplomacy pp. 40-1.)"

To be continued.