歷史課綱17項爭議他逐條打臉「全是鬼扯」

Aznsilvrboy wrote:
你不知道投降還要簽...(恕刪)

Aznsilvrboy wrote:
先釐清重點:'你'...(恕刪)

Aznsilvrboy wrote:
你不知道投降還要簽...(恕刪)

kantinger wrote:
那有?日本天皇終戰...(恕刪)

kantinger wrote:
那有?日本天皇終戰...(恕刪)

jwlin222 wrote:
宣言跟合約哪個效力較強？
老闆跟你喊五十
結果合約寫五萬
法官會判誰贏

這只能怪老蔣
...(恕刪)

jwlin222 wrote: 日本放棄，就是你的喔
就好像檢察官去接受強匪供詞，強匪說我這些珠寶是違法的，放棄不要了
檢察官就可以說那就是我的？

應該還是要經判決才能確定給誰
目前唯一有白紙黑字的
就是舊金山和約
裡面就點名 台灣不是中國的

peng321 wrote:
你自己提的東西裡面...(恕刪)

2. Statement of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko, at the Conference in San Francisco (1951)
以下是蘇聯外交第一副部長A.A. Gromyko在1951舊金山會議的言論:

... The peace treaty with Japan should, naturally, resolve a number of territorial questions connected with the peace settlement with Japan. It is known that in this respect as well the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union undertook specific obligations. These obligations are outlined in the Cairo Declaration, in the Potsdam Declaration, and in the Yalta Agreement.

...與日本的和平條約應該理所當然的解決與日本有關的領土問題。在這方面，美國，英國，中國和蘇聯都承擔了具體義務。這些義務在開羅宣言, 波茨坦宣言以及雅爾塔協定以及中概述。

These agreements recognize the absolutely indisputable rights of China, now the Chinese People's Republic, to territories severed from it. It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.

這些協議承認中國，現在的中國人民共和國對其失去的領土的絕對權利。毫無疑問的，這些原來從中國被割讓的領土例如台灣（福爾摩沙），澎湖列島，西沙群島等中國領土，應當歸還中國人民共和國。

The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable.

上面這一小段是關於蘇聯自己的領土的權益我就不翻譯了.

Thus, while resolving the territorial questions in connection with the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, there should not be any lack of clarity if we are to proceed from the indisputable rights of states to territories which Japan got hold of by the force of arms.

因此，如果我們從由那個國家對其被日本以武力搶奪的領土擁有無可爭辯的權利著手, 在透過與日本的和平條約解決的領土問題上，不應該有缺乏任何清晰度，。

... As regards the American-British draft peace treaty with Japan in the part pertaining to territorial questions, the Delegation of the USSR considers it necessary to state that this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands severed from it by the Japanese militarists. The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories. In reality, however, Taiwan and the said islands have been captured by the United States of America and the United States wants to legalize these aggressive actions in the draft peace treaty under discussion. Meanwhile the fate of these territories should be absolutely clear -- they must be returned to the Chinese people, the master of their land.

至於美英的和平條約草案，有關日本領土問題的那部分，蘇聯代表團認為有必要指出，這個草案嚴重違反了中國收回其不可分割的部分的領土台灣，澎湖列島，西沙群島的不容置疑的權利。該草案只包含一句日本放棄其對這些領土的權利，但有意忽略任何提及這些領土進一步的命運。但實際上，台灣和以上敘述的島嶼被美國佔領了. 並且美國希望在的這和平條約草案的討論中將這些侵略行動合法化。同時，這些地區的命運應該是絕對明確的 - 他們必須歸還給中國人，他們的土地的主人。

jwlin222 wrote:
宣言跟合約哪個效力...(恕刪)

arnestus wrote:
而且這些人最後一定是要模糊議題，而不跟你辯專業(話說這些人本來就沒專業可言)，
然後你就會被捉出來，鬥種族、鬥思想、鬥背景、鬥族群、鬥階級。
我不用看PTT就可以想像教授會被文革式批鬥到臭，
這些人要的不是"是非對錯"，他們要的是勝利