Here's a link to the original - the link is to a PDF file.
I've read through it a couple of times today, and I'm still digesting it.
A few random thoughts that struck me from the essay:
- What he is saying, ie. the content of the essay, is a little different from what the media is making it out to be.
- He makes a very valid point at the outset, regarding the presence of Japan in China being the result of treaties. The West has largely forgotten the
similar treaties and installations it had in China, particularly post-Boxer Protocol. The USA had gunboats patrolling the Yangtze from about 1905 to
1937, protecting US enclaves in China. Most European nations had the same. The singling out of Japan's Unequal Treaties while relegating the Western
Unequal treaties to obscurity does bear investigation. Likewise the extent and nature of European military/industrial/missionary enclaves in China
- Chiang Kai-shek. Everything he writes about Chiang Kai-shek is directly in line with things I've read elsewhere from a wide variety of sources. No
eyebrow raising claims here, but interesting to see it in this context.
- Development. Again, I find his comments difficult to refute. Currently, S. Korea is trying to rid the landscape of Imperial Japanese architecture in
a fit of nationalist pique. But the fact is, it's taken them 80 years to do so. Japan DID modernise the infrastructure of the countries he mentions,
and it was extensive. That's fact. The impact and cost, however....
- US involvement/ Start of the war. Again, uncomfortable facts here. Roosevelt did start arming Chiang Kai-shek before Pearl Harbour, and did send
mercs (Flying Tigers) to fight the Japanese in China. Not stated, but alluded to, are the numerous blockades on Japan that were put in place to
squeeze Japan concurrently. I don't necessarily agree with his point, but I can see where he's going with it. I'm sure there's a few old threads
here on ATS about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbour, prior knowledge, manipulation so forth.
That's all I've got at the moment. It's an interesting read, and a lot to think about. He does raise some interesting points. I will say this,
though: as a blue eyed foreigner living in Japan, I don't find his commentary frightening, nor do I find it all that offensive for excluding what it
does. Have not attacked the Japanese version yet - but I will soon. There's a few translated phrases I'd like to check up on.
What I do find interesting has been the blogsphere reaction to the article - swift, rounding condemnation from all quarters on the basis of two or
three out of context quotes and a headline - with very very few cases of people who actually read what the paper had to say.
Anyway, yeah. That's my take on it so far.
Read it yourself, make up your own mind.