THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23350, 16 November 1937, Page 12

THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR

ro THE EDITOR Sir, —May I be permitted to congratulate “Patriotic New Zealander” on his sensible letter, I cannot understand the strong wave of anti-Japan-ese sentiment which is at present sweeping through this country. The tales of the “ atrocities,” appearing daily in your columns, are far too reminiscent of the remarkable stories set in motion by the “lie factories” during the Great War. All this pious lifting of the hands in horror and the sneers at Japanese “ civilisation ” can serve no good purpose, but on the other hand will offend Japan. Do people expect war to be child’s play? One would almost imagine that people believe that the Japanese have the sole monopoly of perpetrating atrocities. It is regrettable that non-com-batants are being killed, but are we to expect the Japanese to make war with kid gloves? I venture to assert that were an uprising to take place in India the same ruthless methods would be used to stamp it out. The story of Japan’s encroachment upon China is much the same as the story of Britain in India or of the European Powers in Africa. “ But, people say, “ While that was all very well years ago, unfortunately for the latecomers in the imperialistic race for possession of new lands, we are now living in a different era, an era in which we have the League of Nations to settle international disputes. But is this so? Is it not rather that here we have an association of nations which sanctioned the misuse of moral values for political ends, and were thus guilty of attempted suicide. Admittedly, the principles set forth in the League Covenant are very laudable, but does this justify one particular band of nations which because it was victorious in the Great War, was placed in the position of being able to put these principles into practice, setting itselt up in judgment upon less fortune nations? The only possible basis for a successful League is the basis of equality. All the nations must start from scratch. We must not have nations placed in the same position as Germany was when she was almost ordered by Britain and France to emulate a foreign standard of conduct, in a time when Germans were looked upon as fiends incarnate mainly as a result of the slanderous charges brought against her of having deliberately conspired to bring about the World War. Post-war history is not what some people think it to be—namely, the heroic attempts of a divinely-inspired association of nations to triumph over the powers of evil. It is pitiful to hear a man who thinks he is glorifying universal peace when actually he is extolling the Peace of Versailles. “The nationality of the unhappy Versailles Treaty has acted as a virus in the veins of humanity. It has put us back, • centuries back, into the poisonous attitude of regarding other nations’ ruin as our welfare and other nations’ welfare as our ruin. We are back again to the insular insanity ol ‘Rule Britannia,’ exulting in the fact that other nations ‘ shall one by one to tyrants fall.’ ” I cannot see how the truth of these words can be denied. But I am digressing, although I consider my reasons are legitimate. I merely wished to challenge the right of an unrepresentative body of nations, even admitting their principles to be sound, to criticise the actions of other nations. I challenge also the British belief that our way of life is necessarily the best way for all nations.

It is time people cast off this childish attitude of regarding Japan as a sort of witches’ kitchen, where sinister potions are ceaselessly being brewed. The use of sanity and com-, monsense, instead of vague notions of philanthropy, will inevitably lead to the conviction that concessions will have to be granted to Japan in China or else we shall have to face the consequences. Surely every reasonable New Zealander will agree that it is far better to sacrifice the money invested by a few British companies in China than to endanger the well-being of the British Commonwealth. From the fear, hatred, and suspicion aroused by the senseless propaganda appearing in our newspapers, there can he only ope inevitable outcome—war. No one attempts to justify Japanese aggression on moral grounds, but surely it is evident, that, wherever the white man (and the Japanese have proved apt pupils) with his lust for gold comes into contact with a lower people, atrocities will occur. The British colonial Empire is founded upon bygone cruelty, and we cannot but expect the Japanese to be rather sceptical when they suddenly find themselves confronted by nations who have changed the older “It is better not ” into the newer “Thou shalt not.” This sudden discovery of a new set of moral values just when the European nations have gained all they can seems to the Japanese rather too much of a coincidence. The fact that Japan is an important purchaser of our wool may incidentally appeal to our concern for our material welfare. But doubtless the farmers would be quite willing to see a small drop in wool pi'ices if only those “ horrible Japanese” can be beaten whilst British munitions’ vendors make considerable profits. In conclusion, I wish to quote a sentence from Thackeray, which, it appears to me, might well apply after the present conflict is over:— “ There was no lie which we would not believe: no charge of crime which our foolish prejudices would not credit.” —I am, etc., Anti-Bunk. , [The above letter digresses to a large extent from the question which it sets' out to discuss. Any other correspondence on this subject must be confined to the actual issue.—Ed., O.D.T.]