Hegemony status on Japan and Germany must be lifted in the light of document disclosure by Google Cultural Institute, which appeared in this very user’s gallery. The two-fold argument considers the logistic methods and telecommunication technology upon infrastructures were developed in secrecy and without regards to nowadays environmental norms. The claim states that in order to restitute to the occupied countries their patrimony and to compensate for damage to its art treasury and loss of authority upon their patrimony and art treasury, then hegemony on Japan and Germany must be lifted. The main argument in support to the main claim is that early responses were disproportionate with early warfare resistance against the Allies in their military intervention, and that unexpected delay in post mail delivery had made impossible to send the right information at the right time upon whether or not the use of force was legitimate as an instrumental means to the end of WW2. Firstly, without hearing this claim forwards hegemony on Japan and Germany must be lifted, actual Allies infrastructures cannot be removed from their location for their being substituted with modern technology, which must be in agreement with current environmental norms. Secondly, without hearing this claim forwards hegemony on Japan and Germany must be lifted, art treasury and patrimony that belong to the occupied countries cannot be restituted fully in the light of the jointed written records describing a technological process in the wake of three segments of wars: 18th century with the print matter and post-delivery implementation concerns, WW1 with the underground lines for telecommunication, and WW2 for the logistic methods that developed more fully the technological warfare was implemented, developed, and activated against the wills of occupied countries before WW2. To begin with managing the art treasures, the innovative development, the print matter for Post Office services, countries were hosts of conferences about the "End-of-War" treaties, and documents introducing explanation for the outcomes of early responses against resistance and upon the scheme for which art strategy loathing were directed towards slowing the Allies in their military intervention in occupied countries: one of the document specifies that any art treasures still belong to their genuine patrimony and that immovable cultural heritage must be administered by a particular office and organization for its patrimony protection. In that sense logistic methods are part of past history and neither the underground materials nor the surface telecommunication lines actually belong to the allies for having freed the occupied countries, but rather in rewards and compensation for having been damaged and having lost their art treasury while being in a state of occupied country in the invasion process by the German. Consequently, innovative development of artifacts of logistic technology for communication and its methods must be part of this patrimony heritage as an art treasure that must be restituted to the particular host country. Finally, always looking at color in some photographs, there may be some survivors upon which their warfare’s burden is involved in the measures were taken in the past, upon the process of hegemony that must be lifted for both Japan and Germany, as early responses commitment by the Allies against early resistance, upon the environmental convention that discriminate the use of logistic methods that are unsafe for the environment, and upon usage of print matters were used in secrecy and without sufficient documentation for the intellectual owner of biological treatment be asserting that their level of competency in scientific progress doing was high enough for the military treatment be appropriate, and thereof clearance for ownership of royalty upon these very technological concerns must be restituted to the host countries in which the infrastructure had been developed from the 18th century to WW1 and finally containing the technological issues of WW2. Consequently, hegemony must be lifted upon both Japan and Germany and these outcomes be dated backward from the date that appeared on the jointed documents forwards their public disclosure and so ruling in favor of my claim that hegemony must be lifted upon both Japan and Germany.Kevin Genest, 1986.
