第二港湾, 华人休闲之家

 找回密码
 注册帐号
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友
查看: 1130|回复: 23

1941年日米谈判

[复制链接]
发表于 2014-12-10 16:29:14 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 宫本武藏 于 2014-12-10 16:46 编辑

老夫油灯下读史。1941年7月日本占领法属印度支那后,米国断了对日本的石油供应,冻结日本在米资产,cut off一切日米通商,组建ABCD包围网,日米开始谈判:

谈判中,日本已经做了很大让步,准备从中国和越南全面撤军,在满洲和内蒙古的军队保留25年驻扎权,然后撤退。美国说,no。

之后接着让步,宣布可以立即从中国全面撤军。满蒙也撤军,两年为期限,不过汪精卫政权的去留,这个容继续讨论。美国说,no。

日本说,好吧,我也不fund汪精卫,你美国也不fund蒋介石,OK?另外,日本保证不进入南洋,但是美国也别把军队开进南洋。美国说,no。

美国说,日本必须回到辛丑条约之前的事态,那就是连日露战争和日德战争的成果也付之东流了,一夜之间让日本回到甲午战争的时代。然后,日本必须立即结束日德同盟。日本必须保证永远不进入南洋。同时,美国的太平洋舰队已经进驻夏威夷(1941年从圣迭戈改到夏威夷的。)

日本说,等等,等等,容我考虑,能不能先签一个有效期为三个月的临时协定,部分恢复日美通商?小半年时间快过去了,日本储备的600万吨石油已经消耗了200万吨,这样下去日本就没有石油了。

美国说,no。必须立即接受我米的一切条件,否则一切通商免谈。

于是,开打。


 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 16:34:35 | 显示全部楼层
日不落和河南,本来打算和日本做磋商,看到米国如此态度坚决,于是就成米国的应声虫了。其中以丘胖子洁儿最意气风发,说,小黄皮也好意思来磋商,我大英帝国开两艘战列舰到马六甲海峡,小黄皮就五花大绑了。
发表于 2014-12-10 16:57:35 | 显示全部楼层
你看的是那本历史, 日本人写的秽史吧?
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/pearl.htm
Japanese Proposal of May 12

On the following day, May 12, 1941, the Japanese Ambassador handed to the Secretary of State, as under instruction from his Government, a proposal for a general settlement between the United States and Japan. This proposal served to reveal authoritatively for the first time what the Japanese Government had in mind as a basis for agreement.

The proposal contained in the beginning a statement expressing the hope that "our nations may establish a just peace in the Pacific". It stated that the Tripartite Pact was "defensive and designed to prevent the nations which are not at present directly affected by the European war from engaging in it". It included an undertaking by the United States forthwith to "request the Chiang Kai-shek regime to negotiate peace with Japan". The Japanese stated that the United States would be expected also to "discontinue her assistance to the Chiang Kai-shek regime" in case the latter should decline to enter into such negotiations. They explained also that Japan's attitude toward China would include the principles of neighborly friendship; no annexations and no indemnities; independence of "Manchukuo"; mutual respect of sovereignty and territories; "withdrawal of Japanese troops from Chinese territory in accordance with an agreement to be concluded between Japan and China"; and joint defense against communism, which would involve the right of Japan to station troops in Chinese territory. The Japanese proposal contained also a mutual undertaking by the United States and Japan that each would supply the commodities which the other required; a mutual undertaking that steps would be taken to bring about resumption of normal trade relations between the two countries; and an undertaking by the United States that as "Japanese expansion in the direction of the southwestern Pacific area is declared to be of peaceful nature, American cooperation shall be given in the production and procurement of natural resources (such as oil, rubber, tin, nickel) which Japan needs". The proposal also contained an undertaking that the United States and Japan should "jointly guarantee the independence of the Philippine Islands on the condition that the Philippine Islands shall maintain a status of permanent neutrality".

Japanese Proposal of August 6

Notwithstanding the President's proposal of July 24 for the neutralization of Indochina, Japanese forces continued to move into southern Indochina. Not until August 6 was a reply received to the President's proposal. On that day the Japanese Ambassador presented a counter-proposal, according to which his Government would undertake not further to station its troops in the southwestern Pacific areas, except French Indochina; would withdraw the troops then stationed in French Indochina after settlement of the "China incident"; would guarantee the neutrality of the Philippine Islands "at an opportune time"; and would cooperate with the United States in the production and procurement of such natural resources as were required by the United States. According to this counter-proposal, the United States on its part would suspend its "military measures" in the southwestern Pacific areas and, upon the successful conclusion of the conversations, would advise the Governments of Great Britain and of the Netherlands to take similar steps; would cooperate with the Japanese Government in the production and procurement of natural resources required by Japan in the southwestern Pacific areas; would take steps necessary for restoring normal trade relations between the United States and Japan; would use its good offices for the initiation of direct negotiations between the Japanese Government and "the Chiang Kai-shek regime" for the purpose of a speedy settlement of the China incident; and would recognize a special status for Japan in French Indochina, even after the withdrawal of Japanese troops from that area. On presenting this proposal the Japanese Ambassador explained that the Japanese measures taken in Indochina were absolutely necessary "to prevent from getting beyond control the Japanese public opinion which had been dangerously aroused because of the successive measures taken by the United States, Great Britain and Netherlands East Indies against Japan".

The Japanese counter-proposal disregarded the President's suggestion for the neutralization of Indochina and attempted to take full advantage-military, political, and economic-of the Japanese fait accompli in occupying southern Indochina. On August 8, 1941 the Secretary of State informed the Japanese Ambassador that Japan's counter-proposal could not be considered as responsive to the President's proposal. The Ambassador then inquired whether it might be possible to arrange for a meeting of the responsible heads of the two Governments to discuss means of adjusting relations between the two countries.



Japanese Proposal of September 6

On September 6, 1941 the Japanese Ambassador handed to the Secretary of State a revised proposal. In that proposal it was stated that: 1. Japan would not make any military advance from French Indochina against any adjoining areas, and likewise would not, "without any justifiable reason", resort to military action against any regions lying south of Japan. 2. The attitudes of Japan and the United States toward the European war would be "decided by the concepts of protection and self-defense, and, in case the United States should participate in the European war, the interpretation and execution of the Tripartite Pact by Japan shall be independently decided". (The Japanese Ambassador said that the formulae contained in points 1 and 2 represented the maximum that Japan could offer at that time.) 3. Japan would "endeavor to bring about the rehabilitation of general and normal relationship between Japan and China, upon the realization of which Japan is ready to withdraw its armed forces from China as soon as possible in accordance with the agreements between Japan and China". 4. The economic activities of the United States in China would "not be restricted so long as pursued on an equitable basis". 5. Japanese activities in the southwestern Pacific area would be carried on by peaceful means and in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination in international commerce, and Japan would cooperate in the production and procurement by the United States of needed natural resources in the said area. 6. Japan would take measures necessary for the resumption of normal trade relations between Japan and the United States. On its part the United States would undertake: to "abstain from any measures and actions which will be prejudicial to the endeavour by Japan concerning the settlement of the China Affair" (Ambassador Grew was informed by the Japanese Foreign Minister that this point referred to United States aid to Chiang Kai-shek); to reciprocate Japan's commitment expressed in point 5 referred to above; to "suspend any military measures" in the Far East and in the southwestern Pacific area; and to reciprocate immediately Japan's commitment expressed in point 6 above.

Some of the Japanese provisions were equivocal and ambiguous and some indicated a disposition by the Japanese Government to narrow down and limit the application of the fundamental principles with which the Japanese professed in the abstract to agree. The revised proposals were much narrower than would have been expected from the assurances given in the statement communicated to President Roosevelt on August 28.

On September 6 Ambassador Grew reported that it had been revealed in his talk with Prince Konoye on that day that the Prime Minister and therefore the Japanese Government wholeheartedly subscribed to the four points considered by the United States Government essential as a basis for satisfactory reconstruction of United States-Japanese relations. These had been set out in President Roosevelt's reply of September 3 to the Prime Minister's message. However, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Ambassador Grew some time later that although Prince Konoye had "in principle" accepted the four points, the Prime Minister had indicated that some adjustment would be required in applying them to actual conditions.

Throughout September 1941 the Japanese Government continued to urge upon the United States an early meeting between the President and the Japanese Prime Minister. On September 23 the Japanese Ambassador told Secretary Hull that such a meeting would have a psychological effect in Japan by setting Japan on a new course; that it would counteract the influence of pro-Axis elements in Japan and provide support for the elements desiring peaceful relations with the United States. During a conversation with Secretary Hull on September 29 the Ambassador said that if the proposed meeting should not take place it might be difficult for the Konoye regime to stay in office and that if it fell it was likely to be followed by a less moderate government. The Ambassador handed to Secretary Hull a paper expressing the views of the Japanese Government on the proposed meeting. In this it was stated that the meeting would "mark an epochal turn for good in Japanese-American relations"; that should the meeting not take place there might never be another opportunity and the repercussions might be "most unfortunate". It stated that the ship to carry the Prime Minister was ready; that his suite, including a full general and a full admiral, had been privately appointed; that the party was prepared to depart at any moment. Finally, it stated that any further delay in arranging for the meeting would put the Japanese Government in a "very delicate position" and again emphasized that there was urgent necessity for holding the meeting at the earliest possible date.

The reply of the United States to the Japanese proposal of September 6, 1941 was contained in a statement made by Secretary Hull to the Japanese Ambassador on October 2. After reviewing the progress of the course of the conversations thus far, the Secretary stated that a clear-cut manifestation of Japan's intention in regard to the withdrawal of Japanese troops from China and French Indochina would be most helpful in making known Japan's peaceful intentions and Japan's desire to follow courses calculated to establish a sound basis for future stability and progress in the Pacific area. The Secretary said that the United States Government had welcomed the suggestion for a meeting of the heads of the two Governments, but while desiring to proceed with arrangements as soon as possible, felt that clarification of certain principles was necessary to insure the success of the meeting. He remarked that from what the Japanese Government had indicated, it contemplated a program in which the basic principles put forward by the United States would in their application be circumscribed by qualifications and exceptions. Secretary Hull asked whether, in view of these circumstances, the Japanese Government felt that the proposed meeting would be likely to contribute to the advancement of the high purposes which the two Governments mutually had in mind. He repeated the view of the United States that renewed consideration of the fundamental principles would be helpful in seeking a meeting of minds on the essential questions and laying a firm foundation for the meeting.

The Japanese Ambassador, after reading this statement, expressed the fear that his Government would be disappointed, because of its earnest desire to hold the meeting. Secretary Hull replied that we had no desire to cause any delay but felt there should be a meeting of minds on the essential points before the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister was held.

The conversations between the Secretary of State and the Japanese Ambassador at Washington continued, but the issues between the Governments appeared no nearer settlement. The chief questions on which agreement seemed impossible were Japanese obligations to Germany and Italy under the Tripartite Pact; the question of adherence by Japan to a basic course of peace; and the terms of settlement of the conflict between Japan and China, particularly the matter of the evacuation of Japanese troops from China. In regard to the last point this Government throughout the negotiations maintained that any settlement involving China must provide fully for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country; otherwise there would be no prospect of stable peace in the Pacific area. With reference to the Tripartite Pact, there was implicit throughout the discussions a Japanese threat that if the United States should become involved in war with Germany the Japanese Government, in accordance with the terms of the pact, would make war on the United States.


Japanese Proposal of November 20

On November 20 Ambassador Nomura and Mr. Kurusu presented to the Secretary of State a proposal comprising mutual commitments: to make no armed advance into regions of southeastern Asia and the southern Pacific area excepting French Indochina (where Japanese troops were then stationed), to cooperate with a view to "securing the acquisition of those . . . commodities which the two governments need in Netherlands East Indies", and to undertake "to restore their commercial relations to those prevailing prior to the freezing of the assets"; commitments by the United States to undertake to supply Japan "a required quantity of oil" and "to refrain from such measures and actions as will be prejudicial to the endeavors for the restoration of general peace between Japan and China" (which, the Japanese orally explained, meant that the Government of the United States was to discontinue its aid to the Chinese Government); and a commitment by Japan to undertake to withdraw its troops then in Indochina either upon restoration of peace between Japan and China or upon "the establishment of an equitable peace in the Pacific area" and "upon the conclusion of the present arrangement" to remove to northern Indochina the troops that it then had in southern Indochina (which would have left Japan free to increase its armed forces in Indochina to whatever extent it might desire).

During a conversation on that same day with the Japanese Ambassador and Mr. Kurusu, Secretary Hull said that Japan could at any moment put an end to the existing situation by deciding upon an "all-out" peaceful course; that at any moment Japan could bring to an end what Japan chose to call "encirclement".

The Secretary said the people of the United States believed that the purposes underlying our aid to China were the same as those underlying our aid to Great Britain and that there was a partnership between Hitler and Japan aimed at enabling Hitler to take charge of one half of the world and Japan the other half. The existence of the Tripartite Pact and the continual harping of Japan's leaders upon slogans of the Nazi type, the Secretary said, served to strengthen this belief; what was needed was the manifestation by Japan of a clear purpose to pursue peaceful courses. He said that our people desired to avoid a repetition in East Asia of what Hitler was doing in Europe; that our people opposed the idea of a "new order" under military control.
In this conversation the Japanese representatives reiterated that their Government was really desirous of peace and that Japan had "never pledged itself to a policy of expansion". Secretary Hull remarked that the Chinese "might have an answer to that point". When Mr. Kurusu declared that Japan could not abrogate the Tripartite Pact, the Secretary observed that Japan did not take a similar view of the Nine-Power Treaty. Mr. Kurusu replied to the effect that the latter treaty was twenty years old and "outmoded".

During a conversation on November 22 the Secretary of State informed the Japanese Ambassador and Mr. Kurusu that he had called in representatives of certain other governments concerned in the Far East and that there had been a discussion of the question whether there could be some relaxation of freezing; that there was a general feeling that the matter could be settled if the Japanese could give some evidence of peaceful intentions. The Secretary said that if the United States and other countries should see Japan pursuing a peaceful course there would be no question about Japan's obtaining all the materials she desired.



 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:01:31 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 16:57
你看的是那本历史, 日本人写的秽史吧?
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/pearl.htm
Japa ...

靠,不是和我老说的差不多吗?你在悲愤什么?
发表于 2014-12-10 17:01:46 | 显示全部楼层
日本人根本就没说要从中国撤军, 他们说的是跟国民党达成协议后(中日战争结束后)才可以撤军, 这不等于没说一样,
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:10:15 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 17:01
日本人根本就没说要从中国撤军, 他们说的是跟国民党达成协议后(中日战争结束后)才可以撤军, 这不等于没 ...

靠,日本的意思是保留汪精卫政权,两年之内撤军。被美国否决了。日本退一步说,美国不fund蒋介石,日本不fund汪精卫,也被美国否决了。日本为了谈判,突然把汪精卫给卖了,这个不太好吧,其实是在给汪精卫留有空间。其实,如果日本撤军,最后肯定还是蒋介石战胜汪精卫文科生。
发表于 2014-12-10 17:14:48 | 显示全部楼层
宫本武藏 发表于 2014-12-10 17:10
靠,日本的意思是保留汪精卫政权,两年之内撤军。被美国否决了。日本退一步说,美国不fund蒋介石,日本不 ...

两年之后什么情况谁也不知道,发这种空头支票有鬼用,到时再拖两年又如何? 关键还是你的屁股问题。  
发表于 2014-12-10 17:14:53 | 显示全部楼层
宫本武藏 发表于 2014-12-10 17:10
靠,日本的意思是保留汪精卫政权,两年之内撤军。被美国否决了。日本退一步说,美国不fund蒋介石,日本不 ...

两年之后什么情况谁也不知道,发这种空头支票有鬼用,到时再拖两年又如何? 关键还是你的屁股问题。  
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:19:36 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 17:14
两年之后什么情况谁也不知道,发这种空头支票有鬼用,到时再拖两年又如何? 关键还是你的屁股问题。   ...

麻痹的,和美国谈判,敢不遵守?在1921年华盛顿和会上承诺撤出西伯利亚,还不是就真撤出西伯利亚了?而且这只是日米谈判的二级问题,主要问题还是日德同盟和南洋问题。中国撤军二年改成一年或者8个月都有可能。

关键是尼玛常校长就是一颗棋子,日米谈判讨论到这么重要的中国问题,居然没有中国代表参加,就一个胡适大使在那里发电报发来发去。
发表于 2014-12-10 17:22:07 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 17:14
两年之后什么情况谁也不知道,发这种空头支票有鬼用,到时再拖两年又如何? 关键还是你的屁股问题。   ...

随便抛弃附属国,会损失国际声望的。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:26:50 | 显示全部楼层
KingOfLunhui 发表于 2014-12-10 17:22
随便抛弃附属国,会损失国际声望的。

立即放弃溥仪和汪精卫之外,还要求立即放弃日德意同盟,五花大绑跪在九国公约面前,日本credit基本降为零了。

米国的条件非常苛刻,基本上就是等着日本来开战的。反正经济命门在米国手中,米国不着急。
发表于 2014-12-10 17:30:17 | 显示全部楼层
宫本武藏 发表于 2014-12-10 17:26
立即放弃溥仪和汪精卫之外,还要求立即放弃日德意同盟,五花大绑跪在九国公约面前,日本credit基本降为零 ...

的确是,两个强权相争,不可避免。

其实某种意义上,就是日、美之间的七年战争,争夺殖民地的战争。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:38:14 | 显示全部楼层
KingOfLunhui 发表于 2014-12-10 17:30
的确是,两个强权相争,不可避免。

其实某种意义上,就是日、美之间的七年战争,争夺殖民地的战争。 ...

美国的政策好呀,门户开放。反正它在门罗主义下,有美洲的基本盘,亚洲又有菲律宾。别的地方门户开放,不错。

日本穷逼国家,没有资源,急着和南洋做生意,买战略物资。本来英国和荷兰还打算卖给日本的,米国不高兴了,于是英国和荷兰都不卖了,ABCD包围网。

最搞笑的是荷兰,貌似本土已经被德国占领了吧,在南洋还是那么牛气冲天。
发表于 2014-12-10 17:38:36 | 显示全部楼层
KingOfLunhui 发表于 2014-12-10 17:30
的确是,两个强权相争,不可避免。

其实某种意义上,就是日、美之间的七年战争,争夺殖民地的战争。 ...

扯谈。美国在菲利宾以后就没有抢殖民地的欲望了。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:42:54 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 17:38
扯谈。美国在菲利宾以后就没有抢殖民地的欲望了。

巴拿马和古巴发来贺电。
发表于 2014-12-10 17:48:52 | 显示全部楼层
宫本武藏 发表于 2014-12-10 17:42
巴拿马和古巴发来贺电。

你学过历史没有, 哈哈哈
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 17:49:31 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 17:48
你学过历史没有, 哈哈哈

你喊口号没用,哈哈。
发表于 2014-12-10 18:07:11 | 显示全部楼层
宫本武藏 发表于 2014-12-10 17:49
你喊口号没用,哈哈。

古巴是菲利宾之前成为殖民地的,巴拿马运河是租借,根本不是殖民地。 你放空炮没有用。
 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 18:15:56 | 显示全部楼层
ssgo2008 发表于 2014-12-10 18:07
古巴是菲利宾之前成为殖民地的,巴拿马运河是租借,根本不是殖民地。 你放空炮没有用。  ...

擦,菲律宾是1898年,古巴是同时期,但是1902年允许其独立,1906年重新占领,成为次殖民地。巴拿马是1903年被美国策动独立,目的就是为了夺取巴拿马运河。没了巴拿马运河,巴拿马这个国家有个屁用?

你在热情讴歌米国之前,要加强历史学习。

 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-10 18:19:42 | 显示全部楼层
总之,米国还是牛逼。

在米洲,强力推出梦露主义,不许别的国家染指,干翻了西班牙,把米洲化为势力范围。

在别的地方,隆重推出门户开放政策,不许别的国家搞梦露主义。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册帐号

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|第二港湾

GMT-5, 2024-11-22 15:24 , Processed in 0.019101 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表