日清戦争 ・南京事件・従軍慰安婦・日韓併合・満州事変・日中戦争・東京裁判・GHQ・大東亜戦争(太平洋戦争)・歴史研究関係の書籍を翻訳

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２７　第八章　革命支那と共産主義　第２節　第一次国共合作

１９２１年７月、上海フランス租界で、コミンテルン代表のマーリンらの指導の下、中国共産党が設立されました。コミンテルンのアジア問題専門家であるマーリンは孫文に接触し、ソ連の新経済政策NEPを例に挙げて「ソ連は別に共産主義を実行しておらず、新しい経済政策をとることに改めた」と説明して、孫文に安心感を与えることに努め、孫文はこれを信じたのでした。
１９２３年１月「孫文・ヨッフェ宣言」が発表されました。そこでは、共産組織は支那では採用不可能であるが、支那の最大の課題である国民的統一の完成と国家的独立の達成にソ連は援助をすること、カラハン宣言は依然有効であり、ソ連は帝政ロシアが結んだ露紙条約を喜んで放棄することなどが謳われていました。これに次いで、ソ連は結党３年目の中共に対して国民党と合作を働きかけました。
１９２３年８月蒋介石は孫文の命を受け、訪ソし、その軍事、政治並びに党務を視察して１２月に帰国しました。その感想は、ソヴィエトの政治組織は専制且つ恐怖的なものであり、国民党の三民主義とは到底相いれない、ソ連の対華政策は満蒙やチベットをそのソヴィエトの一つとすることであり、中国本部についても侵略の意図がないとは言えない、など非常に的を射たものでした。しかし孫文は、中ソ両国の将来について蒋の見解は取り越し苦労にすぎる、中共を国民党の指導下に置くことによって、彼らが階級闘争で国民革命を妨害するのを防止することができるなどと述べて既定方針を変更しようとはしませんでした。
１９２３年１０月ソ連共産党からボロディンが派遣されてきました。彼は孫文に、国民党の重大欠陥として、組織の不完全と規律のないこと、さらに大衆組織形態をとるための民衆的基礎を欠いていることを指摘し、これら諸点を改編せねばならないと説きました。
孫文はボロディンの意見に全く同意し、彼を最高顧問にし、彼の意見に忠実に従って国民党組織改組を行いました。
１９２４年１月、国民党第一次全国代表大会が広東で開かれました。
（１） 国民党の改組：新しい組織はボロディンの指導の下、ソ連共産党の組織をほとんどそのままの形で模倣したものでした。
（２） 連ソ容共（国共合作）：「我が党がすでに遵奉している民主主義は、いわゆる社会主義、共産主義を悉くその中に包含しているのである」と反対派を説得しています。共産党員は個人の資格で続々入党し、要職につきました。中央執行委員２４人中３人、同候補１７名中毛沢東ら７人の共産党員が選出されました。
（３） 黄埔軍官学校：黄埔（広東省）軍官学校が第３インターの財政的支援とボロディンの指導、ソ連から多数の指導将校が派遣されて設立されました。校長は蒋介石でしたが、教務部副主任に葉剣英、政治部副主任に周恩来など共産党員が任命され、影響力を振るうようになります。
かくて、国民党の三民主義は孫文の革命理論と第３インターに至る中共の革命理論の最大公約数というべきものとなり、その後の国民党の混乱の基となっていくのです。
・その２７，第８章２節：https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road27.pdf
・　〃　　　第８章２節　英訳文：https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road27E.pdf
令和６年５月２１日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 27, Chapter 8: Revolutionary China and Communism – II

In December 1921 the Comintern directed Dutch operative Maring, an Asian specialist, to approach Sun Yat-sen.
When the two men met, Maring stressed the flexibility of Soviet policies, maintaining that their emphasis was not specifically on practicing communism, but on implementing a new economic policy (NEP). It is obvious that Sun believed Maring and that the NEP piqued his interest.

On January 26, 1923 the Sun-Joffe Manifesto was announced. It contained the acknowledgement that neither communism nor the Soviet system was suitable for introduction into China. The Soviet government offered its sympathy and support to China as it strived to accomplish its most pressing tasks: national unification and full national independence. Joffe reaffirmed the principles outlined in the Karakhan Manifesto, and promised Sun that the Soviet government was prepared to negotiate with China about the renunciation by Russia of all treaties, etc., imposed upon China during the Tsarist era.

Then work began on a scheme for collaboration between the CCP and GMD.

In August 1923 Chiang Kai-shek visited the USSR as a member of Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s Mission to Soviet Russia. Among his impressions of the USSR and the conclusions he reached about communism were: Soviet political organizations are “instruments of tyranny and terror, and basically incompatible with the Kuomintang’s political ideals;” the Soviet Communist Party’s China policy is first to “convert the Northern Provinces, Mongolia, Singkiang, and Tibet into parts of a “sovietized domain,” and may even harbor sinister designs on China’s other provinces; the tactics and purpose of the Soviet “world revolution” posed a greater danger to national independence and movements in the Far East than Western colonization policies.

However, upon hearing Chiang’s reports, Sun told him that his views about the future of Sino-Soviet relations were overly pessimistic and unsuited to the realities of revolution. Sun was convinced that the CCP could not succeed in sabotaging the national revolution by launching a class conflict if the GMD took control.

In October 1923 the USSR dispatched communist agent Borodin to China. He met with Sun and indicated several major flaws in the GMD: lack of a unified party organization, strict principle, and a popular support base. Sun agreed with every one of Borodin’s suggestions and immediately appointed him his adviser.

The 1st National Congress of the GMD took place in Guangdong from January 20 to 30, 1924. Some highlights follows:
(1) Reorganization of the GMD
The new GMD，fashioned under the guidance and influence of Borodin and his group of Soviet advisers, almost completely replicated the structure of the Soviet Communist Party.
(2) GMD-CCP United Front
Sun used the following argument to convince the United Front’s opponents: “The principle of livelihood, which our part already espouses, includes socialism, communism, and collectivism. The policies that Russia is implementing at this time are not pure communism, but simply policies intended to resolve problems relating to livelihood.”
More and more CCP members joined the GMD and ensconced themselves in important positions. The 24-member Central Executive Committee welcomed three communists. Among 17 alternate members were seven communists, including Mao Zedong.
(3) Founding of the Whampoa Military Academy
Under the leadership of Borodin and with Comintern financial aid, the military academy was established. A political department was created for the political education of soldiers. Zhou Enlai of the CCP became deputy chairman of this department; Chiang Kai-shek was installed as superintendent of the academy.

A noteworthy item in the platform of the GMD concerns foreign policy: “All unequal treaties, such as foreign concessions, extraterritoriality, foreign control of customs, and all categories of political power exercised by foreigners in China and prejudicial to her sovereignty should be cancelled, and new treaties based on the principle of equality and mutual respect for the sovereign rights of both parties should be negotiated to take their places.”

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2207/
PDF: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road27E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact
Phone: 81-3-3519-4366
Fax: 81-3-3519-4267

＜　書　評　＞
ジョン・マーク・ラムザイヤー（John Mark Ramseyer）著、李宇衍（Lee woo-youn）・柳錫春(Lew Seok-choon)訳『ハーバード大学教授が教えてくれる慰安婦問題の真実（副題：太平洋戦争における売春契約）（Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War）』（メディアウォッチ社　２０２４年）
ラムザイヤー論文集日韓同時出版の意義
国際歴史論戦研究所
上席研究員　松木國俊

ハーバード大学ラムザイヤー教授が、慰安婦性奴隷説を論破した論文の数々を一冊にまとめた本『慰安婦性奴隷説をハーバード大学ラムザイヤー教授が完全論破』（ハート出版　２０２３年）が、2023年12月13日に日本で刊行され、続いて2024年1月3日、韓国でも同様の書籍が出版されました。韓国語版のタイトルは『ハーバード大学教授が教えてくれる慰安婦問題の真実（副題：太平洋戦争における売春契約）』です。
韓国語版の構成及び内容は日本語版とほぼ同じで、最後の章でラムザイヤー教授と前早稲田大学教授の有馬哲夫氏との共著論文「北朝鮮とのコネクション」が付け加えられています。
韓国語への翻訳は、落星台経済研究所研究員の李宇衍氏、及び前延世大学教授柳錫春氏の二人によって行われております。李宇衍氏は、2019年に韓国で刊行された『反日種族主義』の著者の一人であり、経済学博士として韓国経済の発展段階を客観的に分析し、日本による統治を極めて肯定的に評価しています。2019年12月からは、毎週水曜日に日本大使館敷地前で「慰安婦像撤去、反日水曜集会中断、正義連（元韓国挺身隊問題対策協議会）解体」を要求するデモを単独で展開しており、大変行動派の人物です。
もう一人の翻訳者、柳錫春氏は社会学博士であり、「発展社会学」の見地から、日本統治時代を冷静かつ公平な視点で研究しています。彼は、延世大学の講義中に「日本統治時代の真実」を語ったために教職を追われ、反日勢力から告発されて現在係争中の身です。
今回『慰安婦の真実』を韓国内で出版することが出来たのは、歴史の真実を広めるべく奮闘している、両翻訳者の熱意と使命感に負うところが大であり、慰安婦の嘘を論破したラムザイヤー論文の内容を、一般韓国人が知るところとなる意義は限りなく大きいです。
本書の刊行は、慰安婦問題の根本的解決に向けた、最も画期的で重要なステップとなるとみることができます。
書評（日本語）：http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Ramseyerjk.pdf
〃　（英訳）：http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/RamseyerjkE.pdf
＊本書評は国際歴史論戦研究所のサイト（https://i-rich.org/　）に初出。
令和６年６月１１日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道

＜Book Review＞
Harvard Professor Tells Us the Truth about the Comfort Women Issue (Subtitle: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War), written by John Mark Ramseyer, translated by Lee Woo-youn and Lew Seok-choon, published by Media Watch Company
The significance of the concurrent publications of Professor Ramseyer’s papers in Japan and South Korea
By Matsuki Kunitoshi, Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories

The book titled Harvard Professor Ramseyer’s Complete Refutation of Comfort Women Being Sexual Slaves published by Heart Publishers, Seoul in 2013, contains the professor’s papers that completely refuted the theory of comfort women being sexual slaves. It was published on December 13, 2023, in Japan and the publication of the same book translated into the Korean language followed on January 3, 2024. The title of the Korean version of the book is Harvard Professor Tells Us the Truth about the Comfort Women Issue with the subtitle Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War.
The structure and contents of the book are nearly identical to Japanese version and the only difference is that in the last chapter of the Korean version, a paper entitled “Connection with North Korea”, co-authored by Professor Ramseyer and the former Waseda University Professor Arima Tetsuo is added.
The translation into the Korean language of Prof. Ramseyer’s papers was done by Mr. Lee woo-youn, researcher at Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research and Mr. Lew Seok-choon of Yonsei University. Mr. Lee woo-youn is one of the authors of the book Anti-Japanese Ethnicism published in Korea in 2019 and as an economist, he objectively analyzes the development stages of the Korean economy and highly praises the governance by Japan. From December 2019 onward, he has been single-handedly conducting regular demonstrations asking for “the removal of the comfort woman statue, the suspension of the anti-Japan Wednesday meeting and the dissolution of the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance (The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan). He is truly a man of action.
The other translator, Mr. Lew Seok-choon, is a sociology doctor. He studies the period of Japan’s rule of the Korean Peninsula from the perspective of “developmental sociology” while maintaining a balanced and impartial viewpoint. During his lecture at Yonsei University, he talked about the “truth about the Japanese rule,” and as a result, he was expelled from his teaching job, indicted by the anti-Japan forces and is now fighting his case in the court.
The successful publication at this time of The Truth about the Comfort Women Issue owes much to both translators for their passion and sense of duty. The significance of what Ramseyer papers say in refutation of the comfort women-related lies being known to the general Korean public is enormous. The publication of this book will be epoch-making and a significant step toward the complete resolution of the comfort women issue.
*This book review was first published in International Research Institute of Controversial Histories site (https://i-rich.org/).
URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/review-article/2203/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/RamseyerjkE.pdf
MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２６　第八章　革命支那と共産主義　第１節　混迷支那へ赤い爪牙

１９１９年３月、モスクワで開かれた各国共産党と社会党左派の代表者大会は、レーニンとボルシェビキの発議に従って、共産主義インターナショナル（Communist International）(略称コミンテルン Cominterun、第３インタ―ナショナルともいう)を創りました。レーニンはボルシェビキの指導の下にボルシェビキと全く同一の組織・戦略・戦術をもった世界革命組織をつくったのでした。
第３インターに加盟する各国共産党は２１ヵ条の綱領を承認することを絶対的な必要条件とされ、特に暴力革命とプロレタリアート独裁は不可欠の政策とされました。第３インターは形式的には各国共産党の国際組織でしたが、実質的にはボルシェビキの指導と制圧の下におかれ、ボルシェビキは第３インターを通して各国共産党をその支部としました。かくて、ボルシェビキはソヴィエト政権と第３インターという表裏一体の二つの組織、二つの武器を手に、世界赤化に着手することになったのです。
ドイツの共産化に失敗したボルシェビキが目を東方に転じたとき、そこには辛亥革命が発展せず、混迷を極める支那がありました。支那に接近し、篭絡するためにソ連が用いた手段は、「カラハン宣言」という甘言でした。（カラハンはソヴィエト政府の外務人民委員代理）
１９１９年７月の第一次カラハン宣言は、ソヴィエトは北京議定書を含む中国政府と結んだ過去の条約を廃棄し、ツアーの政府が満洲その他の征服物、東支鉄道、鉱山、森林、金鉱その他中国から奪ったすべてのものを返還する、というそれこそ革命的な宣言でした。翌２０年には第二次宣言を発しましたが、その中では東支鉄道については「ソヴィエト」共和国の必要を適当に尊重して特別条約を結ぶなどと後退した条項が入りましたが、基本的には過去の条約を一切無効とする提言を行いました。
しかし、これは全くの欺瞞宣言にほかなりませんでした。その証拠に、「東支鉄道」は１９３５年にソ連は満州国に売却していますし、最重要ポイントの領土問題では帝政ロシアがかつて愛軍条約（１８５８年）、北京条約（１８６０年）に武力を背景に支那から奪取した広大なアムール地方と沿海州を、それは今に至るも寸土も変換していません。
要するのカラハン宣言は友好のゼスチュアによって支那の対露不信を取り除き、やがて全支那を赤化するための欺瞞に満ちた手口でしかなかったということです。そしてソ連の支那共産化工作は着々と進んでいきます。
・その２６，第８章１節： http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road26.pdf
・　〃　　第８章１節　英訳文： http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road26E.pdf

令和６年３月２９日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 26, Chapter 8: Revolutionary China and Communism – 1

In March 1919 a founding congress, held in Moscow, was attended by communist party members and left-wing socialists from nations all over the world. It was there that the Communist International (usually shortened to Comintern), also known as the Third International, was established, in accordance with a proposal from Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It was Lenin’s intention to create a worldwide revolutionary organization under Bolshevik leadership whose members would form identical groups using the same strategy and tactics the world over.

In order to join the Comintern, each nation’s party was required to embrace the party platform, which comprised 21 conditions. Particularly noteworthy is the mention of two indispensable essentials: “propaganda and agitation” and the “dictatorship of proletariat” (Condition 1). The Comintern was formally an international organization to which communist parties of member nations belonged. But total control was in actuality in the hands of the Soviet Communist Party, which considered each nation’s communist party as a subdivision of itself through the Comintern. Consequently, the Soviet Communist Party, armed with two weapons, the Soviet government and the Comintern, two identical organizations, set out to create a communist world.

Having failed to transform Germany into a communist state, the Soviet communists turned their gaze toward the East and zeroed in on China. The Xinhai Revolution seemed to have stalled there and chaos prevailed. The Soviets chose flattery as their bait: the two Karakhan manifestos.

The first manifesto, dated July 1919, proclaimed that all the secret treaties concluded with Japan, China, and the former Allies would be annulled. The Soviet Government then proposed that the Chinese Government start negotiations to annul the treaty of 1896, the Peking Protocol of 1901, and all agreements concluded with Japan between 1907 and 1916. The Soviet Government renounced Tsarist Government conquests that deprived China of Manchuria and other areas. The Soviet Government would return to the Chinese people without compensation of any kind the Chinese Eastern Railway, and all mining concessions, forestry, and gold mines seized from them by the government of Tsars, Kerensky, and other outlaws.

Both Karakhan manifestos were nothing more than sugar-coated poison. For instance, the return of the Chinese Eastern Railways “to the Chinese people without compensation of any kind,” as promised in the first manifesto, was retracted and replaced with a reference to the conclusion of a special treaty relating to the railroad “for needs of the RSFSR,” in the second manifesto. Moreover, when it comes to territorial matters, the main focus of the manifestos, the USSR has yet to return even one square centimeter of Amur region and what is now known as Maritime province, lands wrested away from China by Tsarist Russia via the Convention of Peking (1858) and the Treaty of Aigun (1860), to China.

In any case, the Karakhan manifestos were, pure and simple, deceptive tactics intended to use gestures of friendship to dispel China’s distrust of the Soviets and lay the groundwork for the eventual communization of all China. Soviet efforts to communize China progressed steadily.

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2195/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road26E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２５　第七章　国際協調の幻想　第３節　「現実の支那」の暴状

ワシントン会議主催国のアメリカは、支那における日本の行動を拘束しておくならば、支那はすみやかに近代的な主権国家へ成長を遂げるであろうと楽観的な予想を立てていたのです。しかし、支那の実情はこのような希望的観測を見事に裏切ったのです。
まず軍閥抗争が激しく、１９２２年４月には第一次奉直戦争が行われ、破れた張作霖は満洲に退き、５月に東三省独立宣言を発し、支那はここに事実上３つの政府（北京・広東・奉天）を持つ事態に立ち至ったのです。支那の主権・独立の尊重・領土的行政的保全を謳った９か国条約が調印されてから３か月も経たないうちに、支那は早くにも３つの政権が分立したのです。ワシントン会議が夢見た「あるべき支那」は、支那自身によって、幻想たることが証明されたわけです。
１９２３年５月に発生した臨城事件は、当時の支那政府、軍がどのようなものかを象徴する事件でした。土匪が列車を襲撃し、外国人二十余名ほか旅客３００余人を拉致、近くの山塞に立てこもり、支那政府に対して土匪団の正規軍への改編策を要求しました。これに対して政府は同匪団中、銃器を有する２０００余人を改編して正規旅団として匪首以下に軍職を与え、その他匪賊には旅費を給し、且つ絶対に討伐しない旨の保障迄与えて人質全員を解放せしめました。正規軍と匪賊がほとんど差のない状況だからこそこんな処置がなされたのでした。
満州が事実上独立していたことを示す事件が、ソ連と北京政府との間に１９２４年５月に結ばれた東支鉄道のソ支共同運営の協定をめぐって起きました。９月になると奉天政府がソ支協定と事実上同一の協定をソ連との間に締結したのです。これは満洲の張作霖政府が中央政府から独立した政府であることをソ連が認めたことを意味するものです。
１９２５年１０月に「北京関税特別会議」が１３か国が参加して開催されました。支那側では、ナショナリズムの高潮に乗って、この会議で一挙に関税自主権の回復を図らんと画策しましたが、英国は勿論ワシントン会議で支那の国権回復の要求を一般的には支持してきた米国でさえこの要求には即座に賛成しませんでした。支那がまず内戦を終結し、外国人の生命財産の保護を全うし、統一ある独立国家推しての体制が整ったときに初めてこの問題は列国によって討議さるべきとしていました。日本は支那の関税自主権回復の要望を支持しました。すでにワシントン会議では普通品に対し２分５厘、奢侈品に対し、５分の不可税率を取り決めていましたが、関税会議で支那側は斯かる低率に満足せず、はるかに高い付加税を要求したため日本政府は受け入れない立場となりました。
会議は難航し、１９２６年４月、クーデタによって段祺瑞政権が瓦解し、北京が完全に無政府状態になった結果、会議は正統政府が樹立されるまで無期延期されることになりました。
治外法権委員会においても１９２６年９月に作成した報告書で、支那における治外法権撤廃は、統一した法律制度とか、法権の軍権・行政権からの独立とか、近代的法廷制度の確立とかが完備したうえで、初めて考慮されると結論付けました。
・その２５，第７章３節：http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road25.pdf
・　〃　　第７章３節　英訳文： http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road25E.pdf

令和６年３月２９日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 25, Chapter 7: The Illusion of International Cooperation – 3

The US, the host nation of the Washington Conference, had embraced an extremely optimistic presumption, i.e., if constraints were placed on Japanese activities there, China would suddenly transform itself into a modern sovereign nation. But post-Washington-Conference China, the “real” China, tore that rose-colored forecast to shreds.

The warlords were battling fiercely. In April 1922 the first Zhili-Fengtian War was fought. Wu Peifu of the Jilin militia defeated Zhang Zuolin’s Fengtian militia; Zhang fled to Manchuria. But in May, the undaunted Zhang issued a declaration of independence in connection with the three eastern provinces that comprise Manchuria. At this point China had three governments (one in Beijing, another in Guandong, and the third in Fengtian). Less than three months after the Nine-Power Treaty was signed in Washington, China had unraveled into three regimes. The “ideal China” that Washington Conference had envisioned proved to be a delusion, one of China’s own making.

Manchuria’s de facto independence: On May 31, 1924 two treaties between China and the USSR were signed: (1) the Sino-Soviet Agreement on General Principles for the Settlement of the Questions Between the Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Republics, and (2) Agreement for Provisional Management of the Chinese Eastern Railway. However, in September of the same year, Zhang Zuolin’s Fengtian government concluded an identical agreement with the Soviets pertaining to operation of the Chinese Eastern Railway. The fact that Zhang Zuolin’s Fengtian government signed an agreement exactly the same as that signed between China and the USSR tells us that Zhang was stating, in no uncertain terms, that the three eastern provinces (Manchuria) were independent of China.

The Special Conference on the Chinese Customs Tariff commence was held in October, 1926 in Beijing with 13 nations participating. The Chinese delegation, intoxicated by nationalistic fervor, was scheming to restore tariff autonomy in one fell swoop at this conference. But neither the UK nor the US, which had in principle supported Chinese demands for the restoration of Chinese national sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference and the Washington Conference, had any intention of agreeing immediately to the new Chinese demands. The UK delegation stated that they were opposed to the Western Powers’ addressing this topic until China had quelled internecine warfare. Japan approached the conference with a plan that agreed with the desires of the Chinese for tariff autonomy. The conference seemed about to dissolve any number of times. Then, in April 1926, the government led by Duan Qirui collapsed because of a coup d’état, and Beijing plunged into anarchy. On July 3 the conference was postponed until such time as a legitimate government was established in China.

The Commission on Extraterritoriality in China issued a report in September 1926, stating that it could not relinquish extraterritoriality until China established “a unified system of laws, judicial independence from military authorities and exclusive branches of government, and extension of system of modern courts, prisons, and detention houses.”

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2186/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road25E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

「慰安婦性奴隷説」論破本　日韓米で発刊

戦前、日本軍が朝鮮人女性を強制的に性奴隷にしていたという慰安婦性奴隷説を学術的、実証的に論破したハーバード大学ロースクールのマークラムザイヤー教授の著書が、日韓米の３言語で出版されました。２月１９日東京・内幸町のプレスセンターで国際歴史論戦研究所が記者会見で発表しました。
性奴隷説は朝日新聞が故吉田清治の言説に基づいて拡散しましたが、吉田説の嘘が明らかになり朝日も官憲記事をすべて取り消しました。日本ではその誤りが広く認識されていますが、韓国や米国など海外では依然として固く信じられています。そのためラムザイヤー氏の論文は、韓国や米国で強い批判がなされました。
ラムザイヤー氏はオンラインで記者会見に出席。米国ではいまだに「学問の自由、表現の自由が不寛容で偏狭性が高く、事実を認めようとしない」現実があることを伝えました。英語版の共著者ジェイソン・モーガン麗澤大学准教授は「米国はいつまで出版物の検閲制度を続けるのか」と批判しました。
・ジェイソン・モーガンン准教授　スピーチ
https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Morgan.pdf

日本語版論文集『慰安費性奴隷説をラムザイヤー教授が完全論破』を編訳した藤岡信勝元東京大学教授は「論文が出されて以来、３年間にわたる非難の嵐の中でも、論文の根幹にかかわる批判は一つもなかった」と指摘し、「ラムザイヤー教授の勝利宣言をしたい」と語りました。一方で、慰安婦の強制性を認めた「河野談話（１９９３年）」に象徴される外務省・日本政府の問題を指摘しました。
・藤岡信勝教授　スピーチ
https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Fujioka.pdf

韓国語版論文集の翻訳者で落星台経済研究所の李宇衍（イ・ウヨン）研究委員は「完韓国人は慰安婦強制連行説に篭絡され、強制連行説を否定すれば刑事罰を受ける」現状を嘆きました。
・李宇衍落星台経済研究所経済研究所研究委員　スピーチ
https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/LeeK.pdf

３著書は次の通りです。
https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/3books.pdf

令和６年３月１日　「史実を世界に発信する会」 茂木弘道　拝

“Mr. Ramseyer’s vicry” says Mr. Fujiwara Nobukatsu
Books completely refuting the theory of the comfort women being sex slaves published in Japan, South Korea and the United States

Professor Mark Ramseyer of Harvard Law School has completely refuted, academically and empirically, the theory that before the war, the Japanese military forcibly took Korean women as comfort women and made them sex slaves. A press conference to report that Professor Ramseyer’s books were published in Japan, South Korea and the United States was held on February 19 at Nippon Press Center at Uchisaiwai-cho, Tokyo.
The theory that the comfort women were sex slaves was disseminated by The Asahi Newspaper based on Yoshida Seiji’s story. However, Yoshida’s story turned out to be false and The Asahi cancelled all related articles. Although the fault of the sex slave theory is widely recognized in Japan, the fallacy is firmly believed to be true in South Korea and the United States. Due to these circumstances, Mr. Ramseyer’s paper was exposed to harsh criticism.
Mr. Ramseyer joined the press conference online. The fault of the forced abduction came to be widely known in Japan, but in the United States, he said, “Academic freedom and freedom of expression still suffer intolerance and people are highly narrow-minded.” Mr. Jason Morgan, associate professor at Reitaku University and the co-author of the English version book, said, “Alas, until when will the United States keep censoring publications?”
*Mr. Jason Morgan’s speech: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/MorganE.pdf
Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu, former Professor at The University of Tokyo, who compiled and translated Professor Ramseyer’s papers into the Japanese version of the book, “Complete Refutation by Prof. Ramseyer,” said, “Despite a barrage of criticism over the past three years, not a single criticism appeared against the logical foundation of Professor Ramseyer’s papers,” and “We would like to proudly declare Professor Ramseyer’s victory.” On the other hand, he mentioned that the efforts made by the Japanese Foreign Ministry and the Japanese Government were not enough, as symbolically shown by the “Kono statement” (1993) that acknowledged the alleged forced abduction of comfort women .
*Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu’s speech: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/FujiokaE.pdf
The translator of the Korean version of the book, Mr. Lee Wooyoun of the Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research deplored the present circumstances in South Korea, saying “Korean people are deceived into believing the theory of forced abduction of comfort women and subjected to criminal charges if they should deny the theory.” He said that it would probably take several more decades to have the truth about the comfort women issue established as the national consensus.
*Mr. Lee Wooyoun’s Speech: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/LeeE.pdf
Reference:
The Comfort Women Hoax:
A fake Memoir, North Korean Spies, and Hit Squads in Academic Swamp
By Mark Ramseyer, Jason Morgan
Published by Encounter Books
The Comfort Women Hoax: A Fake Memoir, North Korean Spies, and Hit Squads in the Academic Swamp: Ramseyer, J. Mark, Morgan, Jason M.: 9781641773454: Amazon.com: Books

Professor Ramseyer Completely Refutes the Fake Statement that
“The Comfort Women Were Sex Slaves”
―　Prostitutes/Comfort Women All Signed Contract of Indenture Agreement ―
By J. Mark Ramseyer
Edited & translated by Fujioka Nobukatu and Yamamoto Yumiko;
Translated by Fujiki Shunichi, Yano Yoshiyuki, and Moteki Hiromichi
Published by Heart Shuppan, Inc.
CONTENTS
Prologue: Scholars’ Crazy Attack on Ramseyer and Its Background
The 1st paper: Indentured Prostitution in Imperial Japan: Credible Commitment in the Commercial Sex Industry (1993)
The 2nd Paper: Comfort Women and Professors (2019)
The 3rd Paper: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War (2021)
The 4th Paper: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics (2022)

Harvard University Professor Reveals the Truth of the Comfort Women:
CONTRACTING FOR SEX IN THE PACIFIC WAR
By J. Mark Ramseyer and Arima Tetsuo
Translated by Lew Seok-Choon and Lee Woo-yeon
Published by Media Watch Publishers Inc.
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Indentured Prostitution in Imperial Japan: Credible Commitment in the Commercial Sex Industry (1993)
Chapter 2: Comfort Women and Professors (2019)
Chapter 3: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War
Chapter 4: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics
Chapter 5: The Comfort Women Issue: Connection with North Korea

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２４　第七章　国際協調の幻想　第２節　外蒙の赤化

ワシントン会議が開かれた１９２１年７月、ソヴィエト・ロシアの軍隊は白系ロシア人追撃に名を借りて、外蒙古に侵入、傀儡の蒙古人民党を利用して「蒙古人民革命政府」を樹立しました。１１月５日、ソ連・外蒙間に修好条約が締結されましたが、これは「蒙古政府はソヴィエト市民に対し蒙古における土地所有権を許与し、ロシアの費用を以て建築せられるべき建築物・鉄道に必要なる土地を占有せしめ、かつ最恵国人民に許与すべき一切の権限を与えると」として、帝政ロシアと変わらぬ特権をロシアに与えていました。
翌年これを知った、中国外交部はソヴィエト政府に対して「帝政ロシア政府が支那政府と結んだ一切の条約を無効とみなし、支那より獲得する一切の租借を放棄するとのカラハン宣言を食言するものであり、旧帝政政府の政策と何ら選ぶところはない。蒙古は支那版図の一部である。」と抗議しました。
ソヴィエト政府が外蒙への侵略を行ったのは、まさしく日本のシベリア出兵が米国の疑惑を招き、国際世論の師団を受けつつあったのと時期を同じくしていました。米国は赤色勢力の極東侵入を防止するために日本が行ったシベリア出兵に対しては猜疑と批判の目を向けつつも、その間ソヴィエトが外蒙に対して行いつつあった侵略と赤化に対してはその恐るべき意味を理解せず、一言の批判も加えることもせず、まして、これの防止を図るべく何等の措置も講じようとしなかったのです。
カラハン宣言（第２次）を出した翌年のこれを全く無視した中国領土であるはずの外蒙を衛星国化した事実があるのもかかわらず、孫文がソヴィエトの革命外交を評価して国共合作を行った（１９２４年）は、にわかに信じがたいことです。共産主義に見事騙されていたということでしょうか。
また、ワシントン会議における中国の主権尊重決議も外蒙のソヴィエト衛星国化に何もできなかったことも忘れることができません。

・その２４，第７章２節　日本語原文： https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road24.pdf
・　〃　　第７章２節　英訳文： https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road24E.pdf

令和６年２月２２日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 24, Chapter 7: The Illusion of International Cooperation – 2

When the Washington Conference began in January 1921, Soviet Rusian troops invaded Outer Mongolia, ostensibly in pursuit of Whtie Russians. The Soviets manipulated their puppet organization, the Mongolian People’s Party, to form the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary government.

On November 5, 1921 the Soviet Russia and Outer Mongolia Concluded the Agreement concluded the Agreement Regarding the Establishment of Friendly Relations. According to that agreement, “[t]he People’s Government of Mongolia declares that it recognizes in respect of Russian citizens possessing in Mongolia plots of land or buildings the same rights of possession, lease and occupation of building plots, and that it will apply the same methods of exacting taxation, rents and other payments in the same proportions as are recognized or applied, or shall be recognized and applied, in respect of citizens of the most favored State.”

The Mongolians were granting the exact same privileges to the Soviet Russia saterization of Outer Mongolia.as they had to Imperial Russia. The November 5 agreement was kept secret for a time. When it was made public in the spring of 1922, the Chinese Foreign Ministry sent a protest to the Soviets, which maintained that the Soviet government had broken the promises made to the Chinese government in a manifesto issued by Deputy Foreign Commissar Lev Karakhan, 1.e., that “all previous treaties made between Russian Government and China shall be bull and void, that the Soviet Government will unconditionally and forever return what has been forcibly seized from China by the former Imperial Russian Government and the Bourgeoisie.

Japan’s Siberian Expedition was practically coincidental with Soviet intrusion into Outer Mongolia. Though the objective of Japan’s mission in sending troops to Siberia was to prevent the infiltration of communist forces into the Far East, the US viewed it with jaundiced eye, and Japan soon became the target of international criticism. The Americans failed to comprehend the terrible significance of the invasion and communization of Outer Mongolia. They uttered not one word of criticism against the Soviets; o make the matter worse, they did not even attempt to check the Soviet menace.

Despite the fact that the Soviets satellited the Chinese territory Outer Mongolia only two years after manifesto was declared by Karakhan, Sun Wen decided to conduct “Kuomintang-Communist collaboration evaluation the Soviets’ diplomatic revolution policy. He was completely betrayed by the communist maneuver.

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2163/
PDF: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road24E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２３　第七章　国際協調の幻想　第１節　排日の軌跡

ワシントン会議は第一次大戦後の平和主義や国際協調をつくったものと見られていますが、その２年後の１９２４年にアメリカで排日移民法が成立したという事実は、その見方が幻想に過ぎないことを明白に示しています。
移民問題に対しては、日本は日米紳士協定によって、労働移民を禁止して対応してきました。ところが、１９１３年カリフォルニア州議会は、日本人の土地所有権を禁止し、且つ借地権を３か年に制限する法案を可決しました。１９２０年にはカリフォルニア土地法が成立し、「帰化不能外国人」には土地所有権のみならず３年間の借地権も禁止されることになりました。１９２１年には米国大審院が日本人は帰化による市民権獲得の資格なし（帰化不能）と最終判決を下しました。翌年これは全ての東洋人に適用されることになりました。
第一次大戦後、欧州、東欧、南欧諸国よりの移民が激増するに及び、１９２１年アメリカ議会は如何なる国民たるを問わず、１か年の入国者数を１９１０年に米国に居住していた外国生まれの各国民の３％に制限する法律を制定しました。１９２３年にアルバート・ジョンソン議員は、その比率を２％にするとともに、帰化不能外国人移民は再渡航者、布教使、大学教授又は学術的職業に従事する者並びにその妻子及び学生を除くの他、入国を禁止するという法案を提出したのです。
この明らかな日本人排斥法案を阻止するために、埴原正直大使はヒューズ国務長官と会談し、これは日米通商条約及び日米紳士協定と矛盾する条項を含んでいること、日本国民の自尊心を傷つけるものであり、文明諸国間の友誼的国交の基調に関わるものであることを訴えました。ヒューズ国務長官もジョンソン議員あての書簡で「①帰化不能外国人の入国を禁止することは、日本商人の入国を不可能ならしめるもので、日米通商条約に違反する、②帰化不能外国人に対する規定は単に日本人のみを目的とするものではないと弁明するのは、無益である。なぜなら支那人排斥も、他のアジア人に適用すべき移民法の規定もすでに存在しているので、帰化不能外国人の入国禁止条項は実際上、日本人のみの排斥を目標とすることになる。」とその不当性を述べています。しかし、下院も上院もこの「排日移民法」を賛成多数で可決したのでした。
日本で起こった反米世論の高まりはすさまじいものでした。東京所在の新聞１５社は排日法案の不正不義を断じ、共同声明を発表しました。憤った４０歳前後の男（身元確認できず）はアメリカ大使館近くで、「米国民に訴える」「日本国民同胞に与譜」との遺書を残し、割腹自殺を遂げたのでした。
１９２４年は、対日作戦計画であるオレンジ計画が確定された年でもありました。ワシントン会議によって軍備強化を凍結された西太平洋における対日作戦計画「陸海軍統合作戦計画―オレンジ」が作成されたのは、１９２４年だったのです。
ワシントン会議で日本が国際協調に協力した結果はこのような結果となったわけです。

・その２３，第７章１節　日本語原文： https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road23.pdf
・　〃　　第７章１節　英訳文： https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road23E.pdf

令和６年１月１９日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 3, Chapter 7: The Illusion of International Cooperation – 1

The Washington Naval Conference is generally perceived as a symbol of the tendency toward pacifism and international cooperation that followed the First World War. However, one conspicuous manifestation of the disintegration of the spirit of international cooperation as preached at the Washington Conference was the enactment of an anti-Japanese immigration law two years afterward, in 1924.
To help resolve the immigration problem, Japan complied with the Gentlemen’s Agreement, prohibiting laborers from entering the US. However, in 1913 the California State Legislature passed the California Alien Land Law, which prevented Japanese from owning land, and limited the period for which they could lease land to three years. In 1920, the California Alien Land Law became more draconian, not only preventing foreigners ineligible for US citizenship from owning land, but also from leasing land for any period of time. On November 13, 1922 the US Supreme Court reached a unanimous judgement to the effect that Japanese were ineligible for naturalization (obtaining US citizenship). The following year, this ruling was applied to all Asians.
After World War I ended, Europe suffered a recession, which brought about a sudden increase in immigrants from eastern and southern Europe seeking entry into the US. The US Congress enacted the Emergency Quota Act in 1921. This statute limited the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the US according to the 1910 census. In December 1923, Rep. Albert Johnson, of Washington submitted a bill to the House of Representatives, whereby aliens “ineligible to citizenship” would be prohibited from entering the US.
To block the proposed bill, manifestly anti-Japanese in intent, Ambassador Hanihara Masanao, representing the Japanese government, conferred with Secretary of State Charles Hughes. Hanihara brought to Hughes’ attention the fact that Johnson’s bill contained language that contradicted the 1911 Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Then Foreign Minister Ijūin Hikokichi instructed Hanihara to confer with Hughes to discuss the following points:

(1) The anti-Japanese immigration bill contradicts the Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, signed in 1911.
(2) Claims have been made to the effect that restrictions on immigration are applied equally to other Asians. However, within existing immigration statutes, limitations on the immigration of Asians have been imposed. Therefore, the new immigration legislation is intended specifically to discriminate against the Japanese.
(3) The discriminatory provisions in the new bill have, in an instant, destroyed policies that the Japanese government has self-sacrificingly implemented for many years by revising treaties, adhering scrupulously to the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
(4) Normally, suitability to become a citizen of a particular nation should be determined on a particular individual’s merits, not on the individual’s race. Deciding arbitrarily that Japanese are to be classified as aliens ineligible for citizenship is a huge blow to our pride.
(5) As Japanese residing on the Pacific coast have been deemed ineligible for citizenship, they have been divested of their rights. Consequently, they have lost their livelihood and are on the verge of poverty. The constitutional amendment proposal goes one step further. It will deprive Japanese immigrants’ innocent children of their public and private rights, leaving them without hope and causing their morale to plummet, relegating them to the unenviable status of a wretched minority in the United States.
(6) Since this same constitutional amendment proposal risks provoking antipathy among the Japanese public, and negatively affecting the amicable relationship between our countries, the Imperial government feels compelled to ask the United States government to give careful consideration to this matter.

Secretary Hughes strongly objected to the proposal and sent a letter to Rep. Albert Johnson, which stated emphatically that the restrictions in Johnson’s bill, besides being in conflict with the 1911 Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, would offend the Japanese and fail to benefit the US. But on May 5, 1924 the House of Representatives passed the immigration bill on a vote of 308 to 58, the Senate followed suit with a vote of 69 to 9.
Anti-American sentiment reached a boiling point in Japan. Tokyo’s 15 newspapers, having concluded that the anti-Japanese statute was unjust and immoral, issued a joint protest. On May 31, a man in his forties, infuriated at the US, committed seppuku, leaving behind suicide notes urging Americans to reconsider and his compatriots to rise up against injustice.
1924 was also the year when War Plan Orange, a strategy intended for use during a war with Japan, took shape. In spite of the fact that the naval arms race had been curtailed by the Washington Conference, the US formulated an anti-Japanese war plan only two years thereafter. The Japanese had opted for a policy of cooperation at the Washington Conference, but the events of 1924 proved that their expectations were illusory.
URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2157/
PDF: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road23E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２２　第六章　米国の報復―ワシントン会議　第２節　会議の結果

海軍軍縮協定の要旨は次の通りでした。
（１） 英米日仏伊の主力艦比率を５，５，３，１．７５，１．７５とする。（２）～（４）略。
（５） 太平洋前進基地の現状維持を約す。（即ち、新たな要塞又は海軍根拠地を建設せず、沿
岸防備を増大しないこと。）
現状維持の対象とされたのは、
① 米国が太平洋で、現在または相ら領有する島嶼。但し、米国海岸、アラスカ、パナマ運河近接の島、並びにハワイを除く。
② 香港並びに英国が東経１１０度以東の太平洋で現在または将来領有する島嶼。但し、カナダに隣接する島、豪州とその領土、ニュージーランドを除く。
③ 千島列島、小笠原諸島、琉球諸島、台湾及び澎湖諸島並びに日本が将来獲得することあるべき太平洋の島。（この結果米国はグアム、フィリピン及びアリューシャンの防衛を断念することになった。）
しかし、米国はハワイを前進基地として強化され、英国はシンガポールを東洋最大に要塞にすることができました。
日英同盟の廃棄は米国にとって最大の成果でした。同盟に代わる４か国条約は、某国外交官が言ったように、「我々はウィスキーを捨てて水を受け取った」と語ったように、耳且つ無力な盟約でした。日本はその後、極東情勢の混乱に単独で対処する他なくなりました。
さらに、「中国に関する９か国条約」が、重大の意味を持つものとなりました。これは中国の主権、独立、領土的及び行政的保全の尊重、門戸開放・機会均等の順守を訳したものです。ジョン・ヘイが提唱した門戸開放主義は、この条約によって拘束力のある国際条約として成文化されたのでした。日華の特殊関係を重視する日本の大陸政策を原則的に否認する性格をもつので、大東亜戦争に至るまで、米国は９か国条約を日本の大陸政策を非難する論拠として活用したのでした。９か国条約と関連して、石井・ランシング協定が廃棄されました。
しかし、９か国条約の根本的な問題は、その前提とされた、早晩中国に確固とした安定政権が出現し、中国が近代国家として統一されるだろうという期待が現実には実現されず、激烈な排外主義に向かったということでした。即ち、９か国条約は「現実の中国」よりも、「有るべき中国」が前提とされていたのでした。そのためその後の情勢変化に対して、９か国条約は何ら現実に有効なる対応を為しえなかったのでした。その被害を最も受けたのが日本でした。

・その２２，第６章２節　日本語原文： http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road22.pdf
・　〃　　第６章２節　英訳文：http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road22E.pdf

令和５年１１月２７日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 22, Chapter 6: US Retaliation: Washington Naval Conference-2

The Washington Naval Treaty (also known as the Five-Power Treaty Between the Five Powers Concerning the Limitation of Naval Armament) was signed at the Washington Conference. Its essential points are:

(1) Respective ratios of capital ships to be held by each signatory was set as follows:

Britain 5
United States 5
Japan 3
France 1.75
Italy 1.75

(Discussion of (2) – (4) omitted here.)

(5) The status quo, with regard to fortifications and naval bases, would be maintained; no new
fortifications, naval bases, or coastal defenses would be constructed in the territories listed
below:

(A) The insular possessions which the United States now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, except those adjacent to the coast of the United States, Alaska and the Panama Canal Zone, and the Hawaiian Islands;

(B) Hong Kong and the insular possessions which the British Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, east of the meridian of 110° east longitude, except those adjacent to the coast of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories, and New Zealand;

(C) The Chishima (Kurile) Islands, the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands, the Ryūkyū Islands, Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific Ocean which Japan may hereafter acquire.

But exceptions were made for the US (Hawaii) and Britain (Singapore). Both nations were permitted to fortify those territories at their discretion.

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the pillar of Japanese diplomacy for 21 long years, came to an end. This was a cause for rejoicing for the US. One Japanese diplomat, disappointed that the Four Power Treaty had replaced the alliance, said, “We have discarded whiskey and accepted water”. To the Japanese the　 new treaty had neither significance nor utility.

The new Nine-Power Treaty Concerning China had the most historical significance for Japan. Signatories agreed to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial and administrative integrity of China. They also promised to help establish and maintain the Open Door Policy and equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations. The Nine Power Treaty had incorporated the Open Door Policy into an international treaty.

The Nine-Power Treaty effectively rejected Japan’s China policy, which emphasized the special relationship between Japan and China. It constrained Japan to an excessive extent, and became the primary point of contention between Japan and the US, ultimately leading up to the Greater East Asian War.

The greatest flaw of the Nine-Power Treaty was its assumption that eventually a solid stable government would appear in China, and that China would unite and form a modern nation. But China became even more chaotic and headed toward violent exclusionism. Unfortunately, it was Japan that bore the brunt of China’s reality.

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2149/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road22E.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

日本軍慰安婦問題
全世界を騙した国際詐欺劇をいかに解決すべきか

韓国国史教科書研究所　所長　金柄憲（キム・ビョンホン）

金柄憲さんは、韓国の成均大学、中央大学の講師を務めた歴史学者です。現在、国史教科書研究所の所長をされてていますが。慰安婦問題について誤り、歪曲を発見したために、慰安婦法廃止国民行動の代表を務めて活動をされています。慰安婦像撤去、正義記憶連帯水曜デモへの抗議、慰安婦被害法の廃止を求めて街頭活動を行い、独ベルリンでの慰安婦像撤去活動、名古屋での「表現の自由展」抗議などその活動は国際的な広がりを見せています。
３０年以上も続いてきたこの慰安婦問題をどうするのか、金柄憲さんは解決策を本論文で提案しています。
その骨子は、１９６６年の韓国最高裁判決で、「日常生活において慰安婦とは売春行為をする女性を指すもの」と明確に定義しているように、「性奴隷」などというのは事実無根であるという明白な事実を認めることがその基本となるべきである、ということです。
韓国政府も正義連も「歴史の真相を明確にする」ことを主張しています。それなら、両者ともそのための徹底調査をし、「歴史的事実」を共有するとき、３０年間続いてきた難問の解決がなされ、それとともに日韓関係の完全な修復が可能になるというのが、金柄憲さんの主張です。

原文（日本語訳）: http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Issue.pdf
英訳文：http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/IssueE.pdf

令和５年９月１０日　「史実を世界に発信する会」 茂木弘道

The Issue of the Japanese Military Comfort Women
How to solve the farce of global fraud that deceived the entire world

Kim Byung-heon, President of the Korean History Textbook Research Institute

Dr. Kim Byung-heon, a history researcher, after teaching at Sungkyunkwan University and Central University and working as specialist for the Independence Hall of Korea, is now the President of Korean History Textbook Research Institute and a Representative of the Njational Action to Abolish the Comfort Women Act.
Since 2019 onward, he has been working on the street for removal of comfort woman statues, against Wednesday demonstrations staged by Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance, and for abolition of the Comfort Women Act. He also participated in overseas actions to remove the comfort woman statue in Berlin, Germany, and to protest “The Non-Freedom of Expression Exhibit” in Nagoya, Japan.
After his extensive research on the comfort women issue, he has concluded that this issue in Korea can be called a farce of global fraud staged by the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance and Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, putting forth poor, old women and deceiving Korean people and the entire world.
In 1966, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that “comfort women” were professional prostitutes who provided sexual services in exchange for fixed fee defining that “in daily life, comfort women refer to females who act as prostitutes.” There was not only no “Japanese military sexual slavery system,” but also the Japanese military were customers at the station and could not treat the comfort women like slaves.
The gist of his proposal for solving the comfort women problem is the true “investigation of the truth.” The Korean Council for Justice’s articles 2 and 4 of the standing rules clearly require “the investigation of the truth.” President Yoon Suk-yeon stated regarding the comfort women issue, “to correctly remember history, there is an issue of finding the real truth.” If the historical facts about the comfort women should be revealed through the thorough investigations of the both parties, the solution will be naturally discovered.

URL:　 https://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/2145/
PDF: 　 http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/IssueE.pdf

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村　粲
その２１　第六章　米国の報復―ワシントン会議　第１節　ワシントン会議の背景
４年４か月に及んだ第一次大戦は１９１８年１１月１１日休戦条約が調印され、１９１９年１月からパリ講和会議が開かれました。日本は英米仏伊とともに５大国の一員としてこれに参加しました。
日本は講和会議に（１）山東省の旧ドイツ権益継承問題、（２）赤道以北の旧ドイツ領諸島処分問題、（３）人種平等問題の３つの主たる要求をもって臨みました。
（１）は、中国の主張は通らず、ドイツ権益の日本移譲は条約の明文として承認されました。（２）は、日本の委任統治領として承認されました。（３）は白人諸国の強硬な反対にあいましが、委員会１７票中１１の賛成を得ました。しかし、委員長のアメリカ大統領ウィルソンは全会一致を主張してこれを葬り去りました。もしこれが通っていたなら、５年後にアメリカで排日移民法が成立するような事態にはならなかったと考えられますので、日米紛争の大きな火種の一つは消えていたはずです。残念なことでした。
中国では山東省のドイツ権益を継承し、在満特殊権益は石井・ランシング協定でアメリカの承認を得、太平洋方面では旧ドイツ領諸島委任統治するということで、日本は大飛躍を遂げることになったわけです。
第一次大戦後、ドイツは極東と太平洋から敗退し、ロシアは革命に続く内乱によって余力なく、フランスはインドシナを領有し、支那に租借地を存続してはいたもののその勢力は著しく低下していました。一人アメリカは大戦以来、世界の債権国として実力を示すに至り、又ヴェルサイユ条約を拒否してその関心を欧州から再び極東に転ずるに及んで、ここに日本と正面から対抗する事態が現出したのでした。
アメリカが日本に報復する機会は、パリ講和会議から２年有余の後、ワシントン会議という形で出現しました。日米対立関係の背景に３つの要素が考えられます。
＜日英同盟の問題＞アメリカは、独露の脅威が消滅した状況下では、日英同盟はアメリカを仮想敵国とする他存続の理由がないからと廃棄を望みました。それより、日英同盟が中国における日本の自由行動を許しているという理由の方が大きかったでしょう。
＜極東・太平洋問題＞石井・ランシング協定は日本を一時的に懐柔しようというものであったので、大戦が終わるとこれを廃棄しようとします。それどころか、シベリア共同出兵の時には、門戸開放を沿海州にまで拡大しようという主張をします。
＜建艦競争＞アメリカは第一次大戦中の１９１６年百五十余隻建艦の３か年計画を決定し、これに対抗して１９２０年日本は８８艦隊計画を立てざるを得なくなりました。日米の建艦競争で、金力を別にすれば、ドック、港湾の設備並びに造船技術の上から見て、日本は明白にアメリカを凌駕していました。またイギリスの海軍拡張を促すことにもなり、ここに３大海軍国の建艦競争とこれに伴う緊迫感とは世界政治の重大事実となったばかりか、当該国にとって財政負担も容易ならぬものになったのでした。

・その２１，第６章１節　日本語原文：http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road21.pdf
・　〃　　第６章１節　英訳文：http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road21E.pdf
令和５年１１月２日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長　茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授　小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎

THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 21, Chapter 6: US Retaliation: Washington Naval Conference-1

The Armistice of November 11 was signed in 1918, bringing the European war, which had persisted for four years and four months, to an end. As one of the five powers, Japan participated in the peace conference that commenced in January 1919, along with Britain, the US, France, and Italy.
Japan’s agenda for the conference included three main items: (1) continued control of former German interests in Shandong province, (2) conveyance to Japan of former German possessions north of the equator in the Pacific, and (3) a proposal for the abolition of racial discrimination.
As to (1), China’s demands for the return of Shandong were rejected; the transfer of German interests in Shandong to Japan was recognized in Article 156-58 of the Treaty of Versailles. Japan’s request for conveyance of former German possessions in the South Pacific was easily approved. Though the Japanese proposal for racial equality met with unyielding intransigence from the “white” nations, 11 of the 17 League of Nations Commission delegates voted in favor of it. However, Woodrow Wilson, the Commission’s chairman, ruled against its adoption, insisting that the vote be unanimous. If it had been adopted in 1919, the Immigration Act of 1924 would surely not have come into being, and one of the causes of conflict between Japan and the US might have been eliminated.
Japan took over German interests in Shandong, China, and German possessions in the Pacific. The Lansing-Ishii Agreement, signed in 1917, won American recognition for Japanese special interests in Manchuria. Japan’s influence in the Pacific region was significantly strengthened.
After World War I, Germany no longer had a Far Eastern or Pacific presence. The Russians needed to concern themselves with the civil war that followed the revolution. Although France had colonized Indochina and retained concessions in China, French influence in the region decreased pronouncedly. However, since the war, the US had demonstrated its strength by becoming the world’s creditor nation. It refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles, having shifted its focus from Europe to the Far East. It was at that point, after Japan had acquired more power in the Pacific region, that the US began to confront Japan head on.
The opportunity for the US to retaliate against Japan did not arrive for about two more years. The stage this time was the Washington Naval Conference, held in Washington, D.C. between November 1921 and February 1922. There were three major items to be discussed.

Anglo-Japanese Alliance
Given that threats from Russia and Germany had vanished, the US wanted the alliance discarded, since keeping it might place the US in the position of a hypothetical enemy nation. Also, if it continued to exist, Japan would have free rein in China.

Problems in the Far East and Pacific
The Lansing-Ishii Agreement was essentially an improvised affair intended to appease Japan for the duration of the war. When the conflict came to an end, the US attempted to dispose of it. Moreover, during the Siberian Intervention the US attempted to broaden the Open Door policy to include Maritime province.

Naval arms race
In August 1916 the US decided upon a three-year project involving the construction of more than 150 ships, aiming to build a navy second to none. Japan responded by coming up with a plan for an Eight-Eight Fleet in 1920. When we look at the naval construction race between Japan and the US, not in terms of monetary strength, but from the standpoint of facilities (docks and harbors) and shipbuilding expertise, we see Japan clearly had the advantage over the US. Moreover, the American naval program stimulated British naval construction, too. Not only did the naval arms race among three great naval powers and concomitant sense of urgency become important facets of world politics, but also imposed a crushing financial burden on the nations involved.

URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2141/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road21E.pdf
MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact