Japan was attacked by a coalition of Chinese and Korean forces.Japanese troops were sent to defeat China.
2022-01-20
Category:Japan
Photo by anonymous (licensed under CC0 1.0 )
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Genkou enemy is the Allied Forces of China and Korea
Genkou refers to the invasion of Japan by the Chinese Yuan and the Goryeo army.There are also theories that Khabirai Khan intended to invade Japan, and that King Goryeo incited Khabirai to attack Japan.The two expeditions ended in failure when a Chinese ship sank due to a storm called kamikaze .
After that, Japan entered the Warring States Period and entered a turbulent period.Oda Nobunaga, a genius, was not only good at fighting but also sensitive to the international situation.Literature at that time revealed that urgent Japan's unification was carried out because it predicted that there would definitely be another invasion from the continent .He then told Toyotomi Hideyoshi about it.The enemy will surely come from the continent.
The dispatch of Korean troops based on the experience of the Genkou
The purpose of Hideyoshi's dispatch to Korea was Ming, China.South Korea is said to have been attacked by Japan, but North Korea is not the purpose.As a result, the Ming army's counterattack on the Liaodong Peninsula led to a stalemate in the war situation, skepticism about the merits of Japan's rule of vast land with different cultural customs, and the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
If Japan had captured Ming at this time, the Japanese era would have been born in the era of different ethnic countries such as Sui, Tang, Yuan and Qing.Relations with Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and China have become clear in this era.It will come to light again in the next Sino-Japanese War.The Korean Peninsula exists between Japan and China and has not been an autonomous country in history.
POINT Historically, Korea has been part of China.Although it exists as a liberal country, its dependence on China remains the same.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
TSE market capitalization returns to number one in Asia - Expectations for Japan's competitiveness after withdrawal from Chinese investment?
On the 11th, the total market capitalization of stocks listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange exceeded that of China's Shanghai Stock Exchange. It seems that the TSE has returned to the top spot in Asia for the first time in about three and a half years. Various things are being talked about, including a move away from investment in China and expectations for Japan's competitiveness to recover. In the first place, the current strange international situation is the result of developed countries investing in dictatorial countries such as China and Russia.
In 1973, the G7 once accounted for 65% of world GDP. That's the GDP of only seven countries. This was seen as a monopoly on the world's wealth, and problems in developing countries were discussed. At that time, the world was also in the era of the Cold War, but the Cold War itself was at least a better era than now. Economic and political exchanges between communist and capitalist countries were closed off and blocked by a barrier called the Iron Curtain. Russia and China are calling for a return to the Cold War era, but is that really the case? One could argue that the Cold War era was the era with the least number of wars in the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe collapsed one after another. China also pursued a path of liberation and reform, aiming to become an open nation. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world went crazy and thought the era of tension was over, but that was not the case at all. The loss of balance in the world has led to localized conflicts. Issues that were not highlighted during the Cold War era have been exposed as tensions have eased. Various things have been said about this, and while that may be true, I believe that it is essentially a matter of money.
What began with the collapse of the Cold War was global capital, or so-called globalism. Globalists are talked about as a conspiracy theory on social media, but there is no interest in knowing who is behind it. The problem is that the era when business and investment in authoritarian countries began can be thought of as the collapse of the Cold War. Did they simply think that the world would turn to democracy once communism fell? What is clear today is that the country has spent decades cultivating a state in which its domestic market is opened up to the capitalist state as much as possible, and wealth is distributed by a dictator.
The Cold War era was a great time. It was a time when the world was divided based on ideology, and it was a rational and peaceful time. The world should once again create an iron curtain of democratic and non-democratic countries. We no longer need to care how much wealth the G7 makes. Only countries that choose the democratic state form can receive democratic investment. As long as we continue to be a dictatorial nation, we should just live with the economy of dictatorial nations. You should rethink that. However, there will be some remorse for the times when we grew a nation that grew fat and threatened us with weapons.
Trump was impressed by former Prime Minister Abe's presentation skills during his visit to Trump Tower - Strong friendship between Japan and the US leaders.
Former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower
South Korea with different objectives as usual
Specific explanation of Japan's contribution
Abe's presentation that impressed Trump
A strong friendship that only businessmen can understand
The impression is that the relationship between former Prime Minister Abe and former President Trump was that of businessmen. It is often thought that businessmen are in a relationship where they take advantage of others based on utilitarianism, but that is not the case in this case. Before Trump won the presidential election and took office as president, former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower.
South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha tried to do the same thing in the next presidential election, but it appeared that South Korea was desperately trying to outdo Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe's objectives are completely different. Abe is said to have personally given the presentation at Trump Tower.
Mr. Trump did not have much knowledge about Japan, viewed the deficit on the U.S. side in Japan-U.S. trade as a problem, and questioned the cost sharing of the Seventh Fleet under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Mr. Abe appealed to Mr. Trump about Japan's position on that question. He explained how much Japan contributes to the American economy, and how Japan contributes to the stability of the Asian region, both in terms of location and cost burden for the Seventh Fleet.
Mr. Trump was a businessman, and Mr. Abe considered himself a salesman for Japan. Mr. Trump must have watched countless business meetings and internal presentations, but he was taken aback by Mr. Abe's proposal, calling it "great." This included the QUAD concept. When Trump later visited Japan, Abe locked him in a separate room and gave the presentation himself again.
There are many politicians and national leaders who have nothing to do with business, but Mr. Trump and Mr. Abe appear to have been formed through mutual understanding between businessmen. Business is about carefully calculating the other party's position, the other party's economy, and the development of both parties, making plans, sharing them, and implementing them. It is only natural that we should respect both parties who have sincerely faced this issue and put it into practice.
The sealed Greater East Asia War, what is the original meaning of the word Hakko Ichiu?
There are some words that were banned by GHQ after the war. Typical examples include the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Kazuu.
The Greater East Asia War became known as the Pacific War, or World War II, and many Japanese people have probably never heard of Kazuu Hakko. What exactly was the Greater East Asia War? It would be best to think of it as a war based on Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere concept.
Starting with India, Asian countries were colonized by the West one after another over hundreds of years. The countries that were invading these countries were mainly Western maritime nations: Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. In fact, not a single country in Asia was able to resist this and surrendered its country. In the end, almost all of the vast Asian region became a Western colony, and even China, which was once called a great power, went through the Opium War and the Arrow War, and its major cities were leased out one after another, resulting in a state of divide-and-rule.
It was clear that the opening of the Suez Canal would greatly shorten the sea route that had previously reached Asia via the southernmost tip of Africa, accelerating the division of Asia.
Russia was lagging behind in colonial policy in Europe. The Russian coast freezes over in winter, making it impossible to navigate. Even if sailing is possible during the season, they will have to pass through the narrow strait between present-day Denmark and Sweden, enter the North Sea, and then travel through the English Channel. Even going out into the Atlantic Ocean was influenced by other countries, and Russia was only able to acquire some areas such as Alaska regarding its colonial policy in the Americas.
Russia planned to colonize Asia by land. This is the Trans-Siberian Railway. They used this railway to send soldiers and weapons, colonize Northeast Asia, and transport the supplies they obtained to St. Petersburg. With the completion of this colonial infrastructure, it was clear that colonial policy in Northeast Asia would accelerate. The Trans-Siberian Railway was opened in 1904, and at the same time information was received that the Baltic Fleet, said to be the strongest fleet at the time, was heading for Vladivostok, the terminal station of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
What was the Baltic Fleet planning to do now that it was able to receive supplies from Vladivostok? China? Korea? Of course, it is natural to acquire those areas, but if it is a continent, it will be a land strategy, so do we need a fleet for land routes? In other words, it is clear that the purpose of these ships was to subdue Japan. The Baltic Fleet sank the ship in the Sea of Japan before entering Vladivostok during the Russo-Japanese War and the Battle of the Sea of Japan. In the end, Japan won, and Russia's plans suffered a major setback. The Russo-Japanese War was from 1904 to 1905, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed during this war.
Even among Japanese people, there are many who say that Japan waged a reckless war. Is it really reckless? In fact, Japan has defeated all European countries such as Britain, France, and the Netherlands, including in Southeast Asia. If anything was reckless, it could be said that it was the start of war with the United States. Next, there are those who say that Japan invaded Asia. Now let's think about where we invaded. Thailand was the only independent nation in Asia west of China. In other words, the Asian countries that Japan invaded no longer existed in Asia at the time, in the sense that they were self-governing. They were Western colonies, so Japan invaded Britain and the Netherlands. If I had to say it, if we think of the Sino-Japanese War as an invasion of China, then we can say of the Asian countries that they invaded China.
So why is it said that Japan invaded Asian countries? That's probably why the term Greater East Asia War was banned. At that time, the world was about to be divided into European maritime nations. All of the Americas are colonies. What about Australia? What about the African continent? Europe's maritime nations will acquire all of this. Is Asia different? There's no reason for that. Japan is the only Asian nation that has resisted this global colonial policy.
The Greater East Asia Conference was held in 1943. Participants included representatives from Burma, Manchukuo, the Republic of China, Japan, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Philippines, and India. I would like to introduce the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration that was adopted here.
The countries of Greater East Asia will work together to ensure stability in Greater East Asia and build an order of coexistence and mutual prosperity based on morality. The countries of Greater East Asia will respect each other's independence and independence, bear the fruits of mutual aid and harmony, and establish affinity in Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will mutually respect their traditions, develop the creativity of each ethnic group, and enhance the culture of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will cooperate closely with each other on a basis of mutual benefit, plan their economic development, and increase the prosperity of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will deepen relations with all countries, eliminate racial discrimination, widely exchange cultures, and contribute to the advancement of the world by willingly opening up their resources.
This is a declaration issued by representatives from various regions of Asia. The ideas common to each statement are the coexistence and co-prosperity of Asian countries, mutual respect, and the elimination of racial discrimination. Was there ever an example of such an agreement between countries in that era? Britain and other countries gained wealth through the slave trade from Africa, which was reflected in the industrial form of producing goods in the Americas using cheap labor and exporting them to Europe. In Manchukuo, the Five Tribes of Harmony was actually sung, and the idea was that all ethnic groups living in Manchuria would build a nation on an equal footing. In other words, Manchukuo advocated the most advanced ideology in the world at the time, and the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration was pioneering in its content, calling for Asian countries to coexist and prosper together and eliminate discrimination. This underlying idea is the spirit of Kazuu Hakko. Hakko Ichiu is the idea of living in peace with the world as one home, centered on His Majesty the Emperor, without discrimination of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. It may seem unreasonable based on current values for countries other than Japan to have the Emperor at the center, but although there are 56 member countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations, the so-called Commonwealth is made up of 56 countries. is the current King of England, Charles III. The original meaning of Hakko Ichiu is found in the latter part, and it can be said that it is also expressed in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration.
So, where in Asia did Japan invade? In order to cover up all of this, the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Ichiu were banned. The purpose, of course, was to justify war and colonial policies for the West, and the story was changed to one in which Japan suddenly went crazy and invaded Asian countries.
Japan's struggle against Western colonial policy is a well-known hist
Who is Japan's first female prime minister candidate?A rival candidate who is being dragged out as an attempt to disperse women's votes.
The moment Makiko Tanaka comes up as the next prime minister, Japanese public opinion feels hopeless. He inherited the position of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, and became popular in the media for his oratory skills, and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Koizumi administration, but his actual political beliefs are unclear and he is no longer just making political jokes. People in the audience began to notice that this was the case, and the audience grew tired of his speech, which was filled with repeated slander against Liberal Democratic Party members.
As a result, she lost the election in Niigata's 5th ward, which was her father's seat, and was not elected even after a proportional restoration. This is a loss for a second-generation lawmaker with experience as prime minister. In other words, she was out of favor with both the Liberal Democratic Party and her local constituency. Personally, I think that she will run as a candidate for the Democratic Party if she thinks it is impossible for her to run for the Liberal Democratic Party, and that it is completely unclear where her political beliefs lie.
It is surprising that the media is once again elevating this person. I wonder if it's the media that's lifting it or the audience that's lifting it. It seems like she could be a candidate for the next president if she talks about politics and money issues in a fun way. In the first place, she probably won't even be able to return to the Liberal Democratic Party. How can she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party without becoming a member of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Another female member of the Diet who has been nominated is Tokyo Governor Koike. She seems to be working hard to talk to Tokyo Governor Koike about whether or not she will run in the general election, but Mr. Koike seems to have clearly denied her candidacy. In the first place, how will she become a member of the Diet if there is no dissolution before the presidential election, and will she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Looking at it this way, it appears that what some media outlets are trying to do is divide the vote for a female president. Perhaps it would be better if she were well-known and a woman, but her purpose was to suppress candidate Takaichi. In the ranking of women's politicians who they would like to see become Japan's first female prime minister, Yuriko Koike came first, Makiko Tanaka came second, and Sanae Takaichi came third. The first and second place candidates are not even Liberal Democratic Party members.
