In account No. 8 of the "Witness to war series" (Oct. 5), Masayoshi Ito explains that one factor in setting his course in life was his view that the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922 (in which the size of the Japanese navy was limited to 60 percent of that maintained by the United States and Britain was unfair. So likewise was the 1930 London Naval Conference.
I wonder whether he still feels that way, because these treaties were not unfair. In 1939, I was a sixth-year elementary student in Japan when I likewise heard my teacher explain and criticize the two treaties in class. In his narration, this teacher, like Ito, did not explain how the Western powers justified their support of the treaties.
But years later, in the United States, I came across the reason: Japan required a naval fleet large enough only to cover its defense needs for the Pacific Ocean; while the U.S. was committed to protecting both the Pacific and the Atlantic. Britain required coverage for the Indian Ocean as well.
I would like to ask Ito if he later realized that he misconstrued the rationale/necessity for this treaty -- which sadly, during his young, impressionable years, hardened his view of the West as aggressive adversaries?
If it had been made clear to him that his interpretation was erroneous, he would be obligated to say so whenever he gives an account of his early character development.
As a retired rear admiral in the Maritime Self-Defense Force who apparently still accepts invitations to talk about his wartime adventures, Ito clearly has a responsibility to stick to historical facts.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.