Re: EEE会議（ヒロシマ原爆の責任：Japan Times記事）.......................................................2003.8.5
先ほどご紹介したJapan Timesの記事"Responsibility for
Hiroshima"に関して、小生が関係している米国のEメール会議でも色々な意見が出てきております。これに対し、小生も私見の一端を披露しておきました。ご参考まで。小生の見方に異論のある方はどうぞご遠慮なく。--KK
**********************************************************
Just a short comment on today's Japan Times article "
Responsibility for
Hiroshima":
Frankly speaking, I tend to see a
similarity between Japan in August 1945
and DPRK in 2003.
The Japanese
government then was too busy sending diplomatic cables to
Washington (through
Swiss and Swedish governments) imploring the guarantee
of the maintenance of
the Imperial system to accept an unconditional
surrender under the Potsdam
Declaration. The PDRK today is desparately
continuing brinkmanship diplomacy to get an American
guarantee for the Kim
dynasty's survival. It seems to me that they would do
literally anything
and everything for that supreme objective; they would
not care even if half
of DPRK people would perish either by hunger or American
missiles.
You may not like such an analogy between the two, but it
may help
in clarifying the complicated situation sometimes.
Fiftyeight
years ago James Burns, then Secretary of State, recommended
President Truman
to withdraw the crucial paragraph guaranteeing "no regime
change"
("kokutai-goji") from the final draft of the Potsdam Declaration
(which Henry
L. Stimson insisted to be included) in order to gain the time
necessary for a
Hiroshima bomb, so it is said. Today who is withholding the
assurance of
non-aggression for Pyongyang,--Rumsfeld, Wolfowits, who else?
K.
Kaneko
---------------------------------------------
Sent:
Monday, August 04, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: Responsibility for
Hiroshima
> This is from today's Japan Times, a fair and balanced
article I
> believe.
>
> http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20030804a1.htm
>
>
Unfortunately, it seems too many in both Japan and the US refuse
> to see
it this way.
>
> James H. Catchpole