Another View of Japan
Exception Is Taken to Statements In Dr. Brown's Letter
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
私はアーサー・J・ブラウン博士がNYTへの手紙で述べたことのいくつかに反論を試みようと思います。
私は東アジアでの騒乱についての報道が公正だったとの供述に同意することができません。
大まかに言えば、難民キャンプの女性への強姦を含むあらゆる種類の残虐行為によって日本軍が告発されていたのに、数日後にはそのような行為が中国人によって行われたことを示す十分に調査された詳細なレポートが現れました。
中国人には大佐など高ランクの役員が含まれていました。最初の供述が、ブラウン博士を含む多くの読者にとって、明らかに不完全なものであったことを意味します。
No Dictator
ヨーロッパの状況に言及する中で、日本の政府が軍事独裁政権であると示唆することは、まぎらわしいように思えます。
日本政府内の権限の分配は、私はこの場で説明することのできない、ヨーロッパとは異なる長い歴史にルーツを持っています。
ですが独裁者なしに独裁はありえず、そして日本に独裁者はいません。
海軍および陸軍の大臣は天皇への直接のアクセス権を保有しており、そのうえ文民の内閣が存在し、全ての内閣の長は文民への責任を常に負っています。
そのうえ、海軍と軍大臣が常に協力して行動すると仮定することは間違いです。
ブラウン博士は「天皇がどの程度の支配力を実際に行使するかは、数人の日本人だけしか知らないのである」と言います。
天皇の特権の行使はオプションであるという意味で、それを予測できないことは正しい。
しかし、その権力が行使された明治時代、および１９３６年２月の無秩序（二・二六事件）を終結させた提案によって、天皇の権力は偉大たりうることが示されています。
Close to War
繰り返しますが、私は「日本人は知的に判断する手段を持たない」などの供述には同意しません。
日本の報道機関の検閲は決して厳格ではありません。
シカゴでのルーズベルト大統領や、様々な場面でのハル長官の発言といった類は、日本では完全に出版されています。
さらに、日本人は、いつも紛争の舞台と隣り合わせに生活してきたのであり、その歴史を十分に熟知しているという利点を持っています。
その利点は、ここにいるほとんどの人々は持ち合わせていません。
ここで意見を表明している人々のうち９割は、紛争が発生し記事の見出しになるまで状況をほとんど知らなかっただろうと言うことは、おそらく控えめな表現でしょう。
ブラウン博士はそのカテゴリーの範囲内に来ることなしに、多分供述に同意するのでしょう。
私は日本の人々の全員または大部分は、軍隊をこれ以上、天皇以外の何者かに従属させることを望んでいないと思います。
これは卑屈な支配を示すものではありません。
日本人は従順で均質ですが威勢の良い民族でもあり、それを考慮に入れることができない政府は成功を望むことができません。
(Rev.) JOHN COLE MCKIM.
Always in an effort to limit the scope of the war, I decided in 1939 to do something ...
that you, my dear party comrades, know first band how difficult it was for me to do.
I then sent my Minister to Moscow.
That meant the most bitter triumph over my feelings.
But at such a moment, one men's feelings have to subside, when the welfare of millions are at stake.
I tried to reach an understanding.
You know best of all how honest and frankly I've kept our obligations and commitments.
Neither in our press nor at our meetings was a single word about Russia mentioned.
Not a single word about bolshevism.
Unfortunately, the other side did not observe their obligations from the beginning.
This arrangement resulted in a betrayal which at first liquidated the whole northeast of Europe.
You know best what it meant for us to look on in silence as the Finnish people were being strangled.
And how it felt for me as a soldier, to stand idly by as a powerful state tries to dominate a small one.
Yet I remained silent.
I took decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us..
..at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia..
..when twenty two Soviet divisions were assembled there.
We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up..
..and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.
I was then obliged to become anxious for there is no excuse in history for negligence..
..like claiming afterwords that I didn't think it was possible, or that I didn't believe it.
I now stand at the top of the Reich, and thus I am responsible for the present German people and its future.
I was therefore compelled slowly to take defensive measures.
But in August and september of last year, one thing was becoming clear.
A decision in the West with England which would have contained..
..the whole German Luftwaffe was no longer possible for in my rear there stood a State which...
...was getting ready to proceed against me at such a moment..
..but it is only now that we realize how far the preparation had advanced.
I wanted once again to clarify the whole problem and therefore I invited Molotov to Berlin.
He put to me the four well-known conditions.
1. Germany should finally agree that, as Russia felt herself again endangered by Finland, Russia should be able to liquidate Finland.
I could not help but to refuse such consent.
The second question concerned Rumania..
2. A question whether a German guarantee would protect Rumania against Russia.
Here, too, I stand by my word.
I do not regret it, for I have found in General Antonescu a man of honor who at the time blindly stood by his word.
The third question referred to Bulgaria.
3. Molotov demanded that Russia should retain the right to send garrisons to Bulgaria and thus to give a Russian guarantee to Bulgaria.
What this means we know from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
The fourth question referred to the Dardanelles.
4. Russia demanded bases on the Dardanelles.
If Molotov is now trying to deny this, that is not surprising.
If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he will be no longer in Moscow, he will deny that he is no longer in Moscow.
He made this demand and I reject it.
I had to reject it.
This made things clear to me and further talks were without result. My precautious were called for.
After that I carefully watched Russia.
Each division we could observe was carefully noted and counter-measures were taken.
The position in May had so far advanced that I could no longer dismiss the thought of a life and death conflict.
At that time i had always to remain silent, and that was doubly difficult for me...
...perhaps not so difficult with regard to the German people for they have to realize there...
...are moments when one cannot talk if one does not wish to endanger the whole nation.
More difficult...
...was silence for me with regard to my soldiers, who, division by division...
...stood on the eastern frontier of the Reich and yet did not know what was actually going on.
And it was just on account of them I could not speak.
(p.17)
Diplomatic Relations between China & Germany
中国とドイツは、1920年代と1930年代にかなり友好的かつ協力的な関係を維持した。
両国の協力関係は、第二次中日戦争に先立ち、中国の産業と軍隊を近代化させるのに役立った。
1912年に清朝を継承した中国（ナショナリスト・チャイナとも呼ばれる）は、派閥の軍隊や外国の侵略を抱えており、外国軍の専門知識や装備の需要が高かった。
1928年、国民党の北伐は名目上、中国を統一したが、帝国日本は外国の脅威であった。
軍備や国防産業を近代化する中国の緊急性と、ドイツの原材料の安定供給・完成品の広大な市場の必要性が相まって、両国は1920年代後半から1930年代後半にかけて緊密な関係を築いた。
しかし、熱烈な協力は、1933年にナチスがドイツを引き継いだ時から1937年の日本との戦争の始まるまでの期間にとどまった。
ドイツと中国の間になぜ良い関係が始まったのか、それが短命だったのか、理由は複雑で多様だ。
この章では、1920年代と1930年代の中国とドイツの関係の起源と経過を調べる。
それはドイツと中国がなぜ荒れ狂う1930年代の終わりに分かれたかについて説明するだろう。
History of Relations between China & Germany
1941年12月7日、日本が真珠湾を攻撃した時に、国民政府と合衆国は共通の敵に直面し、第二次大戦において密接な軍事同盟国となったことはよく知られている。
しかし、1920年代と1930年代の間に、1937年の日本の中国侵略まで、中国の最も重要で信頼性の高い西側のパートナーはドイツだったことはあまり知られていない。
何が中国とドイツを結びつけたのか？
近代中国（清国が1912年に崩壊した後）とドイツとの関係の改善は、第一次世界大戦の終わりまでさかのぼることができる。
ドイツは大戦で敗北し、中国租界と影響力を失った。
だがドイツ皇帝の除去というドイツの損失は、中独関係の改善に向けた障害を取り除いた。
中国はドイツを含んだ西欧の列強によって、半植民地化され、不平等条約と相まって、ほぼ一世紀の間、搾取された。
西欧列強に激怒した、中国の反帝国主義者からの抗議があった。
ドイツとの間の不平等条約が撤廃され特権が除去されるにつれて、中国人はもはやドイツを帝国主義の脅威とは見なくなった。
Failure of the German Mediation and the End of Sino-German Relations
上海、山西省南部、南京の前線の崩壊と、1937年11月15日のブリュッセル会議の失敗は、蒋介石がドイツの仲介案を検討することを余儀なくさせた。
1937年11月24日、蒋は個人的に、日本軍の進軍を遅らせるためにドイツの仲介を受け入れなければならないと認めた。
蒋や他の中国の指導者たちは、支那事変の終結を目指すドイツの動機に敏感に気付いていた。
中国はヨーロッパ外においてドイツの３番目に大きな貿易相手であり、戦争が起こったときには70人以上のドイツ軍顧問が蒋介石軍を近代化させ、軍事行動を指揮していた。
だが、ドイツは反ソ連のパートナーである日本を疎外させたくなかった。
日本の中国における戦争は、ソ連に対する抑止力を弱めるだろう。
したがって、ドイツは日中紛争を終結させる仲介者になろうとした。
他方でドイツは、中ソ間関係の改善と両国間の条約締結を認識していた。
ドイツもまた、中国が完全に親ソ連になることを望まなかった。
蒋の外交政策顧問の甘介侯は、ドイツは実際に中国の日本の侵略に反対していたと公然と述べている。
彼は、ドイツは日本が軍隊を中国で浪費することを望んでおらず、中国の広大な市場と原材料がドイツ経済に不可欠であると信じていた。
1937年7月26日・・蒋介石がドイツに紛争の仲介を依頼したとき・・ドイツ人との高水準の接触は早くも行われていた。
1937年11月初旬、中国大使オスカー・トラウトマンは、日本と合意に達するよう促しながら、蒋介石の南京政権に日本の平和条項を伝えた。
蒋は日本の条件を即座に拒絶した。
英米の大国が何もしないことが明らかになったとき、蒋は12月1日に再度トラウトマンと会い、彼が1ヶ月前に持ってきた日本の条件が交渉の基礎となることを認めた。
蒋は12月3日のトラウトマンとの会談で、交渉の間中、ドイツが立ち会うことを求めた。
蒋はまた、北支の主権と管理の完全性が保証されなければならないと述べた。
日本軍の進軍を遅らせるために、彼は交渉の前に停戦協定が結ばれなければならないとも主張した。
蒋はドイツの仲介をスターリンに十分に通知し続けることで、交渉が中露関係を危うくしないように注意した。
スターリンに知らせることによって、蒋はソビエトとの交渉の地位を高め、中国を支援するためのより積極的な行動をとるよう強いることもできただろう。
George H Earle, former Governor of Pennsylvania, made public yesterday a letter to him from the late President Frankrin D. Roosevelt, which, Mr. Earle charged, was an order tantamount to "political exile" in the South Pacific.
The President wrote the letter, he said, after receiving a message from Mr. Earle, then a commander in the Navy, requesting permission to expose Russia as "a greater menace than Germany".
Describing events leading to the exchange of letters, Mr. Earle said that while on several diplomatic missions from 1933 to 1945 he learned that Russia was issuing propaganda detrimental to the Allies.
In February, 1945, he returned from Turkey where he had served since 1943 as a special emissary on Balkan affairs for the President.
Although listed as a naval commander, he held diplomatic statue at the time, he said.
On his return, Mr. Earle added, he wished to speak to the President concerning Russia, but the Yalta conference interfered.
When President Roosevelt returned from the Yalta meeting, Commander Earle sent a message to him through Mr. Roosevelt's daughter, Mrs. John Boettiger.
That letter, according to Mr. Earle, charged that "Russia is a greater menace than Germany," and that "while they are posing as allies they are tearing the democracies to pieces."
Mr. Earle wrote that "I have seen this with my own eyes," and "unless I hear from you within a week I will make a statement to the American people."
Three days later, on March 24, Mr. Earle received the President's reply, forbidding him to publicize "an unfavorable opinion of one of our allies" which "might do irreparable harm to our war effort."
Soon afterward Mr. Earle was directed by the Navy to Samoa, where he spent four months as deputy commandant, he said.
After the death of President Roosevelt, Commander Earle appealed to the then Securetary of the Navy James Forrestal for discharge.
The appeal was denied, and Commander Earle wrote to President Truman.
He told Mr. Truman of the events and charged that "to my knowledge this is the first time the United States Navy has been used as an instrument of political exile."
Mr. Earle said yesterday was his first oppotunity of making known President Roosevelt's letter.
He was forced to do so, he said, because the existence of the letter was doubted on the Oct. 10, "Meet the press" radio program, when he faced four newsman.
He read the letter yesterday to a closed meeting of the Colonial Dames of America at their club-house, 421 East Sixty-first Street.
A spokesman for the organization said it was constitutionally non-poritical and did not endorse or condemn the former Governor's actions.
President Roosevelt's letter read:
Dear George,
I have read your letter of March 21 to my daughter Anna and I have noted with concern your plan to publicize your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies at the very time when such a publication from a former emissary of mine might do irresarable harm to our war effort.
As you say, you have held important positions of trust under your Government.
To publish information obtained in those positions without proper authority would be all the greater betrayal.
You say you will publish unless you are told before March 28 that I do not wish you to do so.
I not only do not wish it, but I specifically forbid you to publish any information or opinion about an ally that you may have acquired while in office or in the service of the United States Navy.
In view of your wish for continued active service.
I shall withdraw any previous understanding that you are serving as an emissary of mine and I shall direct the Navy Department to continue our employment wherever they can make use of your services.
I am sorry that pressure of affairs prevented me from seeing you on Monday.
I value our old association and I hope that time and circumstances may some day permit a renewal of our good understanding.
RUSSIA EXPOSE BAN CHARGED BY EARLE
ペンシルベニア州元知事のジョージ・H・アール氏は、昨日、フランクリン・D・ルーズベルト元大統領からの手紙を公開した。それは南太平洋への「政治亡命」に等しい命令だった。
ロシアを「ドイツよりも大きな脅威」として暴露するための許可を要求する、当時、海軍指揮官だったアール氏からのメッセージを受けて大統領は手紙を書いた、と彼は語った。
手紙の交換につながる出来事について説明し、アール氏は1933年から1945年にかけてのいくつかの外交任務に於いて、ロシアは連合国に有害なプロパガンダを出していたことを知ったと語った。
彼は大統領のためのバルカンの情勢に関する特別な特使としてトルコで勤務し、1945年2月に帰国した。
海軍司令官としてリストされていたが、当時は外交の彫像を握っていた（外交任務を負っていた、くらいの意味か）、と彼は言った。
A year ago yesterday the Japanese forces in Manchuria began a series of actions which culminated last Thursday in the recognition by Tokyo of the "independent State" of Manchukuo and an offensive and defensive alliance between the two.
Actually it means the establishment of a Japanese protectorate over China's four Manchurian provinces which an area of 400,000 square miles and a population of about 30,000,000, of which perhaps a quarter of a million are Japanese.
The outside world wonders whether Manchukuo is not headed for the same fate as Korea -- through a Japanese protectorate to annexation by Japan.
On Sept. 18, 1931, the Japanese forces in the Manchurian zone seized Mukden in retaliation for an alleged attack by Chinese soldiery on the railway.
Tokyo called this the last straw in a policy of Chinese provocation.
Acting professedly in self-defense against Manchurian bandits, who were supposed to be encouraged and financed by the Nanking Government and its ally, CHANG HSIAO-LIANG, the young Mukden war lord, the Japanese military operations carried from further and further north into Manchuria, toward the line of the Chinese Eastern Railroad and the Russian "zone" of influence.
That zone may how be regarded as a thing of the past.
Formerly Japan in Manchuria meant Southern Manchuria, the area up to Mukden; Japan in Manchuria now means the whole country.
The capital of Manchukuo has been moved from Mukden 150 miles further north to Changchun.
Railroads from the Korean coast are being projected into Middle and Northern Manchuria.
Toward the end of last January the second act of the drama, and by far the most exciting taken in itself, opened at Shanghai.
It is still hard to fit Shanghai into the general plot of the piece.
It was, in a way, only an interlude.
It certainly did little to advance japanese interests.
The savage fighting in Shanghai, the aerial bomberdment of Chinese civilians, the unexpectedly strong resistance put up by the Chinese Nineteenth Route Army, brought about a vast amount of unpopularity for Japan among the nations, while she gained no compensation in military prestige.
Because of Shanghai world opinion took the from of intervention by the League of Nations, which sent a commision to report on the whole situation, in Manchuria and at Shanghai.
From the first out State Department took a position sharply critical of the Japanese procedure.
This we have maintained to the present day.
The third act was laid against in Manchuria.
It entailed expulsion of CHIANG HSIAO-LIANG'S forces beyond the Great Wall into China and the swift succession of events which led to the establishment of the former Emperor PU-YI, ostensibly as the spontaneous act of the Manchurian people, really as a Japanese enterprise.
To world disapproval Japan opposes the accomplished fact, plus the open avowal that she is resolved in the course she has adopted, being driven thereto by her basic needs and justified therein by established treaty rights.
In the nearer future the creation of Manchukuo carries less meaning for China than for the rest of the world.
For China, with her population of nearly 500,000,000 and her internal anarchy, the separation of a Manchuria that was always virtually independent need not be a serious loss nor a permanent loss.
China can bide her time.
But Japanese relations with Russia, with this country, with the League of Nations, constitute a subject of immediate interest and of great moment.
Defending Japan's Position
To the Editor of The New York Times:
T.H.P. Sailer in a letter to The New York Times says that Japan is acting in violation of the Nine-Power Treaty and has no more right "to set up governments under her control in North china" than we would have to do the same in North Mexico.
This analogy is inexact.
We have annexed parts of Mexico and we would today exercise any "control" which might seem necessary to prevent its annexation, in whole or in part, by Russia, for instance.
Japan has not annexed any part of China, and it is by no means clear that its present operations violate even the letter of the Nine-Power Treaty, which the other signatories have not invoked.
This treaty was not intended to be interminable; it was related to other treaties which have lapsed, and it contemplated a situation radically different from that which now exists in the former Chinese Empire.
If all the territories embraced by that empire constituted the "China" of the treaty, then that document can scarcely be adduced in support of the pretensions of the Nanking regime.
A number of outlying regions -- Tibet, Turkestan, Sungaria, Singkiang, Mongolia, Manchuria, Chihli (with Shantung and Shansi), etc., acknowledged the sovereignty of the Dragon Throne, and this was their only political bond of union.
They were never subjects of China.
On this contrary, the ancestors of the present inhabitants of some of them helped subjugate China.
The cultural and ideological bonds of union enclose a much larger entity than that of the old empire.
They embrace, among others, Korea and Japan, which were never subject to it.
Japan has taken no steps incompatible with a desire to preserve the integrity of this larger orbit.
The Nanking politicians, on the contrary, have shown a willingness to imperil it with a view to strengthening their own positions.
Some of the evening papers carried a dispatch which stated that the "Chinese base their hopes" of Soviet military assistance on Russia's desire to regain "her old dominant position" in Manchuria, her "control" of Mongoria and "her penetration of the vast hinterland west of Peiping" which will be "checked and Soviet influence in Central Asia wrecked if the Japanese complete their plan."
A Shanghai dateline does not guarantee infallibility, but this report corresponds with known facts and much past experience.
So much for the "integrity of China."
Japan is certainly trying to preserve the integrity of something.
If the United States has been right in going to the verge of war, even with Britain, to maintain the Monroe Doctrine, then a fortiori, Japan is right in protecting the ideographic world against encroachments of Communist Russia.
JOHN COLE MCKIM.
Peekskill, N.Y., Aug. 4, 1937
MANCHURIA DRAWSMANY IMMIGRANTS
Thouthands of Chinese coolies Flock to Northern Area, Seeking Work.
With the advent of Spring, Chinese coolies are again arriving in Manchuria, some coming by steamers, others by Chinese junks, but most of them on freight trains on the Peiping-Mukden Railway.
Their destinations vary.
Some old-timers come to seek the jobs they had last year, plowing fields for the land owners; others have contracts to work for new land owners who have recently purchased fertile tracts from the new government at Mukden, and, last, are the helpless coolies who desire to find work anywhere, preferably in some uncultivated fields, where they can build shanties and work the ground for a bare but honest living.
Unexpectedly, they are coming by the thousands, with all their household paraphernalia, which consist mainly of blankets covered with dust, old clothing, and a few cooking utensils.
Guns Cease With New year.
The old Chinese year has passed.
The roaring of cannon, the spurting of machine-gun fire and the exploding of bombs, which are seldom heard today on the Manchurian fields, passed with the old year.
Yet the faces of the Chinese immigrants show anxiety.
They questioned the permanent Chinese residents whether they were wise in traveling north, where not many weeks ago firing was audible for miles around.
Were the bandits annihilated by the Japanese military, or did they escape to the hills far from the railways?
Some of those questioned stated that everywhere peace reigned, while others told tales of dangers.
But the poor immigrants continues northward.
According to survey made recently by Japanese officials, only a comparatively small number of Chinese farmers in Manchuria attempted to escape with the Chinese businessmen and officials.
Most of them sought safety in the Japanese railway towns or areas of protection.
Those that remained with their corps which had been or were about to be harvested suffered greatly from the bandits and Chinese refugee-soldiers.
The Japanese military did little damage to the Chinese settlers.
Occasionally large group of bandits or refugee-soldiers, who escaped after damaging or attempting to destroy Japanese railway tracks, entered a village occupied by peaceful Chinese farmers and their families.
They killed or chased most of the in habitants from the village, outraged the younger women and when Japanese airplanes found and destroyed them it was later discovered that many innocent young women had perished with the marauders.
Aid for Immigrants.
The new Manchurian Government, according to recent announcements, strongly favors Chinese immigration.
Full protection will be given to the immigrants, seeds and equipment will be distributed free to those who are without means, and taxation will be small.
Also, and this is very important, the farmers are promised real money for their products―money with a good valuation.
The old Manchurian Government, with Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang in power, paid farmers in worthless paper notes which were issued by the millions.
The farmers suffered hardships, were always kept in debt and had practically no means of escape because of the old government inspectors who delivered a small gain by squeezing them down to their last cent.
All this will now be changed, according to the officials of the new government.
No figures are available to indicate the number of immigrants expected in Manchuria this Spring and early Summer.
One official explained that this is the testing year and if continues to develop according to the plans, next year will witness a great migration to Manchuria and prehaps Mongolia to till the rich uncultivated areas.
Military situation in the Far East. のPart 4, 3590頁から3601頁にかけて訳してみます。
機械翻訳ベースのいい加減な翻訳です。
原文には、調べても良くわからない表現や、私には文章構造が良くわからない節もあります。
あくまで「大雑把に内容を把握するため」のものとしてご利用ください。 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001606736
