Based on firsthand experience before the 1960 Security Treaty revision, this section argues that revision was self-evidently necessary for Japan. By contrasting German realities, academic leftism in Japan, and the subsequent era of high economic growth, it questions the credibility of experts who failed to recognize this necessity.

2017-06-15
The following is a continuation of the previous section.
Revising the security treaty was only natural.
Even in journalism, the talented disciples of left-wing professors at famous universities across Japan entered major newspapers.
Because it is difficult to enter such newspapers, the most talented graduates of prestigious universities were hired.
And the more prestigious the university, the deeper the left-wing penetration, so the outlook of those disciples is easy to imagine.
In recent years, however, even among the disciples of those disciples, some sane individuals have emerged who were not influenced by the great left-wing professors.
So why did I, despite being a university professor, come to hold these views?
Non-leftist intellectuals—people such as Shoichi Saeki and myself, who studied English literature, and Keiichiro Kobori and Kanji Nishio, who studied German literature—specialized in foreign literature, not law, economics, or Japanese history.
Therefore, it did not matter whether our teachers were left-wing or right-wing.
We had no need to take their opinions into account.
That is why, without betraying our mentors, we were able to speak correctly in the postwar period.
I studied abroad in Germany and Britain, and I first stood at the university lectern in 1959.
This was just before the 1960 security treaty revision.
The security treaty protests were a tremendous upheaval, but I had seen Germany firsthand.
At the time of my study abroad, the Berlin Wall had not yet been built.
In West Germany at that time, communism held absolutely no appeal.
It was said that there was not a single communist professor in West Germany.
When I returned to Japan, Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi was calling for revision of the security treaty.
Anyone thinking normally could immediately understand that Japan would be in trouble without revising it.
Japan was essentially a protectorate, so revision was necessary.
I therefore tried to stop my students from going to those demonstrations, but they did not listen very well (laughs).
At Sophia University, I formed a group called “The Association to Encourage Prime Minister Kishi” and became its chairman.
Volunteers gathered, but not in numbers sufficient to stage a demonstration (laughs).
With no other choice, I wrote letters of encouragement to Prime Minister Kishi as earnestly as I could, though I do not know whether he read them.
Since then, under the revised security treaty decided by Prime Minister Kishi, Japan has continued to experience high economic growth up to the present day.
Japan’s national framework rests upon the revised security treaty.
Therefore, I believe that economists and political scientists who failed to understand at the time that revision was necessary must have been fools.
Even experts do not deserve automatic respect, and although I am a complete layperson, I believe I was not mistaken.
To be continued.