THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23354, 20 November 1937, Page 27

THE SINO-JAPANESE WAR

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l take it that the letter written by your correspondent “Anti-wheeze in answer to mine was meant merely as a joke. If, however, it was written in all seriousness, the position is entirely different, for it has deliberately distorted my words so as to read into them meanings which I never intended. Such tactics betray a lamentable lack of good sportsmanship. I intend examine in logical order the wheezy, asthmatic and ill-natured attacks of your correspondent. He begins by saying that my letter “ starts out as a defence of Japanese aggression.” On the contrary, I said No one attempts to justify Japanese aggression on moral grounds.” I would not expect any right-minded New Zealander to attempt to ]us +if v the Japanese action in China, even though Japan could, if she so wished, make a fair case for herself on the grounds of economic necessity. But I do think that we would do well to let Japan have a free hand in China. In defence of this attitude I am going to call to my help none other than you. Sir. In a leading ..rticle of a few issues ago you expressed the belief that Japan, by her ruthless methods, is laying up for herself troubles in China and you insinuate that, even if she is eventually successful, she will have dealt herself a serious blow. Now Sir, most New Zealanders can nardly be said to have benevolent inclinations towards the Japanese, and therefore they should rejoice to see Japan bringing about her own downfall. If they arc to be consistent they should give her every encouragement by abstaining from abusing her. and thus materially help to remove a serious menace to the peace of the Pacific If Japan decrees that someone has to suffer because of her aspirations, we. unless we happen to be fools or saints, should be quite content to let it be anybody but ourselves. I have too much respect for the average New Zealander to regard him as either a fool or a saint

In my opinion New Zealanders are < very glad that they are not being caled upon to suffer. Furthermore, I think that their desire to help the Chinese in any way but by prayers, which cost them nothing, has been greatly exaggerated. Could you inform me the amount of money subscribed by white people in New Zealand for humanitarian work in China? But I must proceed to the next point on which “Anti-wheeze ” attacks • me—namely, upon my views on the League Covenant. He has apparently discovered that the quotation which 1 included (in quotation marks) in my letter was taken from the works _of an eminent professor of economics. Consequently to attack such a statement would, to his mind, be a foolish thing to do. What he does not appear to realise is that the quotation merely sums up my other statements. Therefore, if “Anti-wheeze ” thinks that there are some “ glimmerings of common sense” in that quotation, he must also admit the truth of my other remarks.

Next •Anti-wheeze” attacks me for challenging our right to think that British “ policy ” is best for all the nations. Will he tell me where i said this? What I said was “ our way of life,” which can hardly be interpreted as “ policy ” or “ foreign policy.” In common fairness I think I have the right to ask “Anti-Wheeze” where 1 mentioned that British policy is the best for all the nations. What I meant was that the British conception that a liberal democracy (such as our own) is the best form of government for all nations is not necessarily correct. In countries whose inhabitants are of less stable character, there is the gravest danger lest individual freedom should become indistinguishable from anarchy. Your correspondent also questions my contention that the news of the conflict is pure propaganda. Remembering the newspaper reports during the last war, I stand firm In the belief that the war news we are receiving is a deliberate perversion of the facts. May I remind “Anti-wheeze ’ of Stanley Baldwin’s shrewd observation that “With var and the preparation for war go the stratagems of diplomacy, the dropping of the code of morals, and a holiday for truth. . . .” Further, “Anti-wheeze ” asks me to offer “ something better to lead the world to peace.” If he will read my previous letter he will perhaps note that I stated that the only possible basis for a successful league is one of justice and equality. In conclusion, I wish to point out to “Anti-wheeze ” that the rules of controversy demand that one should criticise what has been written and not what one would like to have been written. Does your correspondent so mistrust his critical faculties that he finds it necessary to enlist the aid of misrepresentation? If to him such tactics are invested with a halo of divine and magic significance, to me they appear in a less favourable light. I must now turn to your correspondent “Light,” who is evidently deeply shocked at my suggestion that the British colonial Empire is founded upon the cruelty of past years. I must tell him that there is nothing treasonable or wicked about my attitude. Not one of the European nations can say in all sincerity that it has kept its hands clean in its colonising activities. If we British think that our nation has always been righteous and just, and accuse other nations of horrible methods, the only answer we can expect is “tu quoque.” Perhaps "Light” has heard of a peculiar business called the slave trade. Evidently he has not realised that for 200 years the British were one of the biggest slave-trading nations. The profits which accrued from this lucrative trade were often spent in colonial development, whilst the slaves who were taken to Jamaica, for instance, were the means of establishing flourishing industries there. Perhaps he has also heard of the Chinese opium war, the most shameful in the annals of world colonial history, by which Britain forced the Chinese to receive Indian opium, which resulted in the degradation of thousands of Chinese, but, on the other hand, handsome profits to Indian growers. But it is in Africa that Britain, in common with the other nations, treated the natives most cruelly. A harrowing, blood-curdling tale could be told of British barbarity in Africa. A few instances of this will suffice. Speaking of the Zulu War, Mr Gladstone, attacking the then Government in connection with the slaying of 10,000 natives, said that was “for the only offence of attempting to defend their independence and homes.” But why speak about the conveniently dim past? Why not come nearer our own times. Does “ Light ” remember the occasion, shortly after the war, when the mandate Administration of South-west Africa proceeded against the Bondeswarts with air bombs which killed many women and children? Or lias he read of the recent bombing of the Waziri tribesmen'. The instances are almost countless. But what of our fair islands? Nothing is more eloquent of the actual condi - tions of the administration of the Maori race than the action of the Samoan Council, soon after the war, who regarded the New Zealand Native policy with such loathing that it actually petitioned the King not to allow Samoa to be handed over to New Zealand. I am extremely sorry to have taken up so much of your valuable space, Sir, but “Light” asked me to explain as “fullv as possible.” In conclusion, I hope that “Light” will take up a more tolerant viewpoint, but if he continues to obtain his ideas on British colonial policy from the picture theatre, or if he still continues to believe what was no doubt ladled out to him at school, I am afraid that there is nothing I can do for him.—l am. etc.. Anti-Bunk.