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

「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