I'm mirroring de Gaulle right now, in saying that the US have been blind-sided by not having had any real war on their homeland for more than a century (he was saying it in 1968), that's why they have all this messianic instincts. No, almost nothing is worth dying for en masse (which what a US vs China war would mean).
Famed critic of cultural and national sovereignty?
I think you got him wrong, he was in fact a supporter of national sovereignty (also see his NATO-related policies). I got that quote from a transcript of a discussion he had with Ceausescu (I'm from Romania myself), during his last visit outside of France as a president (in May '68).
He also did take some risks regarding his personal safety when it came to the sovereign future of Algeria. Granted, what his henchmen did in connection to Africa was definitely not ok (I'm right now reading a book about Foccart), but unfortunately that was par for the course for the big powers back then.
Whom you’re mirroring to argue Japan should submit to Beijing.
I don't think China would mirror France's policies against Guinea, it has never done so in, what? 1000+ years?. Saying otherwise is preposterous. But, hey, whatever gets the Western war machine going, I guess. Also, you're ignoring the part about de Gaulle being right about NATO and about its real meaning (US direct control over Western Europe).
It’s Western Europe that is unable to wean itself off the sweet sweet American funded protection.
It may be that the Japanese see hegemony of the US as a lesser evil than the CCP, and hegemony of the latter a risk well worth dying over. This may be quite rational.
I do wonder why there are so many western voices that seem almost giddy about the rise of China as a power. I imagine they don't like the west much. But unless they've also lived in China in recent years, it's just maligning the devil you know.