最近在忙其他事情。今天被提醒了，还有某些问题大家等待进展报告。 与所谓 NN无关的事情（如我与某些企业的知识产权争议）我无意在此讨论。 其他事情没有进展我暂不做评论。只谈谈多伦多杨文彬。 总的来说，法律上的事情，既然已经启动法律程序，大家都应该依法办事，摆事实、讲道理，心平气和。没有必要吵吵闹闹。诉讼人如此，其他人也是如此。 多伦多杨文彬案的主审法官 是日裔 Dennis Hayashi 。 杨文彬诽谤案中根本不涉及日本的内容。我与杨文彬也从未就日本问题发生过争论 。 杨文彬在其法律文件中大力揭发我岳某抗日，加州 刘牧野跟进，在其法庭文件中大量揭发我写过多少关于日本罪恶的文章，大事揭发告密之状。当然，杨文彬不会准确把我揭露日本军国主义罪行的论文翻译附上，而是用他们自己的语言进行歪曲性描述。 之后，我向该日裔法官提出他应该退出。按规定，该法官应该将这个判断交给其他法官处理。但他自行裁决不退出，写了一份六页纸的文件。于是，我向法院递交了一封给 HAYASHI 法官的信件，指出 A judge's ruling on the merits of a motion for the judge's own disqualification is in contravention of the Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c))(5) (Ann. Rept. (1998), Advisory Letter 5, p.27.) 。同时给法官寄出一封 CHAMBERS COPY。结果，法官书记员把这封 CHAMBERS COPY退回，说这是 ex parte communications。我立刻递交了声明，这封信完全是公开递交在法院案卷，并发给诉讼各方，属于公开文件，根本不是 ex parte communication。 另一方面，向杨文彬送递传票的努力仍在继续。之前，我查出 杨文彬使用地址 只是 UPS信箱。上次案件管理会议，我去了趟法院，我对法官说，杨文彬地址是UPS信箱，海牙公约不适应；即使海牙公约适用，按该条约条款10（a）, 美国联邦国务院的网站，加拿大政府的解释以及加州上诉法院的判决，在海牙公约下给加拿大被告发传票是可以的。 HAYASHI 法官称那你递交个动议。于是我递交了动议。内容如附件。 几天前， HAYASHI 再次拒绝动议。 杨文彬在网上曾声称等着美国的传票、他好扬名美国司法界。但据送达传票的人报告，多次敲门没有人应答。 根据加州法律，传票应该在三年内完成送达。 附件：动议 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT YANG SERVED PROCESS (Code Civ. Proc. §§417.20; 415.40) (Article 10(a) Hague Service Convention) Hearing Date: September 14, 2016 Hearing Time: 2:30 PM Department: 303 Reservation Number: R-1764865 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT YANG SERVED PROCESS UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE CIV. PROC. §§ 417.20(d) AND 415.40 OR ARTICLE 10(a) OF THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 14, 2016, at 2:30 PM., in Department 303 of the above-entitled court, located at George E. McDonald Hall of Justice, 2233 Shoreline Drive, Alameda, California, Plaintiff Dongxiao Yue will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order, to deem defendant Wenbin Yang ("Yang") served process under California Code of Civil Procedure §§417.20(d) and 415.40, or under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the Motion, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Dongxiao ("Yue Decl.") being filed concurrently, the pleadings and other papers on file in this case and any other information that may be offered. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION This is an internet defamation and bullying case, arose from Defendants' vicious, defamatory and intimidating web postings targeting Plaintiff and his family. Defendant Wenbin Yang is a resident of Canada. After numerous failed attempts of personal service at Yang's last known address, Plaintiff's process server sent the Summons and Complaint to Yang via international registered mail to an address that Yang provided to this Court. Yang acknowledged that he was properly served process in a recorded telephone conference with Plaintiff, at a Case Management Conference, and in papers Yang submitted to the Court. Plaintiff found that the address Yang provided to the Court was a UPS mailbox. Plaintiff now requests a Court Order to deem Yang served process. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As alleged in the Verified Complaint ("VC"), Plaintiff administers a Chinese language website at zhenzhubay.com ("ZZB"). Defendant Yang registered at the ZZB and engaged in wide ranging attacks on other persons on ZZB, often using sexually explicit, violent and insulting language. Yang's behavior was not limited to ZZB. Yang has been widely recognized as an online hooligan, banned or shunned by almost all the website he frequented. For instance, Yang had been permanently banned by XYS.ORG over 10 years ago. He was also banned by YEYECLUB.COM due to his abusive conduct towards women there. Yang's verbal assaults against women on YEYECLUB included statements that he would pull down their pants and that he would ride on their shoulder and ask them to count his public hair. As the "admin" of ZZB, Plaintiff repeatedly deleted Yang's offending posts and his accounts on ZZB. Eventually, Yang initiated vicious defamatory attacks on Plaintiff and others. Yang specifically challenged Plaintiff to sue him in California. Failing to dissuade Yang from his illegal conduct, Plaintiff commenced the instant action on June 10, 2015. (VC ¶¶ 6-36.) Despite Yang's previous online statement that he would be waiting for the American Summons, he played hide-and-seek and posted a message titled "Summons Dead Loop Theory" on ZZB, hinting that he will never be served summons . A Canadian process server made at least five attempts to serve Yang at his last known address: 119 Mintwood Drive, North York, Ontario, Canada, at around 7:05 AM on June 20th, 2015, at 9:30 PM on June 23rd, 2015, at 7:40 PM on July 10, 2015, and at 9:10 AM and 7:20 PM on July 11, 2015. But no one came to answer the door. Mouthon Decl. ¶¶ 2-6 .The process server also sent the Summons and Complaint via registered mail to Yang on June 28, 2015, Mouthon Decl. ¶4, with track number RN082491710CA. According to its online tracking service, the Canadian Post Office left two notices for Yang about the registered mail. The registered mail had not been picked up and had been returned to the sender. On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem service on Yang complete by email, citing various federal district and appellate court precedents. Under the threat of default, Yang filed a motion to quash on August 10, 2015. Yang provided the Court with the address of "123 - 5863 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario M2H 1J8". On September 24, 2015, the Court noted that Yang could be easily served under CCP §415.40. Plaintiff, through another process server, Alysa Demetre, sent the Summons and Complaint to Yang on September 25, 2015 via registered mail with return receipt requested. The USPS tracking record showed that this mail was delivered on October 1, 2015. (Yue Decl. ¶7.) On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff conferred with Yang via telephone regarding the upcoming Case Management Conference ("CMC") scheduled for October 27, 2015. During the meet-and-confer, which was recorded upon Yang's request, Yang acknowledged that he had been served by the registered mail of September 25 and he had no objections to the service of process.(Yue Decl. ¶3.) In the case management statement Plaintiff filed on October 12, 2015, Plaintiff noted that the parties agreed that "Defendant Yang had been properly served in accordance of CCP 415.40". O n October 13, 2015 , Yang served Plaintiff a set of discovery requests (Yue Decl. ¶ 4 .). Yang stated these discovery requests in the case management statement that he filed. On October 27, 2015, Yang appeared in the CMC by telephone and through an interpreter, and Plaintiff appeared in person. During the CMC, the presiding Judge asked Yang about the status of service, and Yang confirmed that he had been served process with effective date of October 5th. (Yue Decl. ¶5.) On October 29, 2015, Yang filed his second motion to quash on the ground that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. In Yang's reply brief, he admitted that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). On December 17, 2015, the Court granted in part Yang's motion, on the ground that " Plaintiff has not filed a sufficient Proof of Service of the Summons. " The Court noted that because Yang was a Canadian resident, the Hague Service Convention applied. On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed with the Court additional evidence about the delivery of the Summons and Complaint by registered mail. (Yue Decl. ¶7.) In 2016, Plaintiff found that Yang's address provided to the Court was a UPS mailbox. (Yue Decl. ¶¶9-11.) Plaintiff now moves to deem Yang properly served. ARGUMENT A. YANG HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER CCP § 417.20(d) Under CCP § 417.20, "Proof that a summons was served on a person outside this state shall be made ... or (d) By the written admission of the party." The word "or" indicates that subsection (d) is disjunctive of other subsections, including subsection (c). In his court filings, Yang admitted that " Defendant has been served easily when Plainti ff followed the instruction of the Court by using a new address. " (Def. Reply, Mot. to Quash, p.7:13-14 (December 14, 2015)). Yang further admitted that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). Since Yang has made written admissions to the Court that he has been properly served, his admissions serve as proof that he was served. CCP § 417.20(d). B. YANG HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER CCP § 415.40 1. The Hague Service Convention Does Not Apply Because Yang's Address is Unknown Article 1 of the Hague Service Convention states that " his Convention shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known." In Buchanan v. Soto , 241 Cal. App. 4th 1353, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2015), the defendant did not provide a current address in Mexico and attempted to "keep his exact whereabouts secret", the court held that "the Convention does not apply to situations in which the whereabouts of the defendant cannot be ascertained despite reasonable diligence." ( Id . at 1366.) Plaintiff's process server attempted five times to personally serve Yang at 119 Mintwood Drive, North York , Ontario , Canada without success. No one came to answer the door. In his paper, Yang admitted the place to be a property he owned, but effectively denied it to be his residential address. Yang provided a new address that he currently uses for Court communications. But it turns out that Yang's new address was only a mailbox at "The UPS Store #188", with website at http://theupsstore.ca/188/. Plaintiff telephoned the store and confirmed that its address is "5863 Leslie St, Toronto Ontario, M2H 1J8" and the number before this address is just the mailbox number. (Yue Decl. ¶¶9-11.) Thus, despite Plaintiff's best efforts, Yang's whereabouts cannot be ascertained, accordingly, the Hague Service Convention does not apply. ( Buchanan at 1366.) 2. Yang has been served under CCP § 415.40 On September 24, 2015, in the Court's order granting Yang's motion to quash, Judge Hayashi noted that Defendant was a resident of Canada, and "Defendant can be served relative easily" under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.40. Since the Hague Service Convention does not apply, Yang may be served under California rules, including CCP § 415.40. After receiving the Summons and Complaint from Plaintiff's process server, in Yang's submissions to the Court, Yang admitted that " Defendant has been served easily when Plainti ff followed the instruction of the Court by using a new address. " (Def. Reply, Mot. to Quash, p.7:13-14 (December 14, 2015)). Yang further stated that "he was properly served on October 5th, 2015." (Yang's Reply p.7:12-13, boldface original). Under CCP 417.20(a), " i f service is made by mail pursuant to Section 415.40, proof of service shall include evidence satisfactory to the court establishing actual delivery to the person to be served, by a signed return receipt or other evidence." Since CCP 415.40 is applicable and Yang admitted that he received the Summons and Complaint, he has been properly served. C. EVEN IF THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION APPLIES, YANG HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED UNDER THE CONVENTION 1. Service Of Canadian Defendants By Mail Is Authorized By the Hague Service Convention As argued above, the Hague Service Convention does not apply because the whereabouts of Yang cannot be ascertained despite reasonable diligence . Even if the Hague Convention applies, Yang has been served under Article 10(a) of the Convention, which states that " rovided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with ... the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad." Judicial interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention hinged on whether the word "send" includes "service". In Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 808 , the First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of California held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of process by mail in a signatory country which does not object to service by postal channels. The Court found that the language of Article 10(a) would be rendered "superfluous unless it was related to the sending of such documents for the purpose of service." ( Id . at 821-22). The Shoei Kako decision was relied upon by the federal second circuit in Ackermann v. Levine (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, holding that service of a German judgment on a New York defendant by mail was authorized by the Hague Service Convention "since the United States has made no objection to the use of 'postal channels' under Article 10(a)." Ackermann at 839. In the more recent case of Denlinger v. Chinadotcom Corp. (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 1396, 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 530, the Sixth Appellate District made a thorough analysis of Article 10(a) and reached the same conclusion as Shoei Kako . In so doing, the Denlinger court (1) applied the rules in interpreting treaties following U.S. Supreme Court precedent; (2) consulted the "Practical Handbook" on the Hague Service Convention authored by a special commission comprised of experts chosen by signatory governments; (3) referenced the treaty interpretations made by the Executive Branch (the U.S. State Department); (4) considered the understanding of the signatory countries. Id . at 1404-1404. Denlinger rejected Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043 in this regard, as " Honda did not have the benefit of considering the state department declaration, the Special Commission Reports, the understanding of the signatories, or the Handbook on the Convention." Id . at 1404. The Denlinger court specifically noted that "Canada does not object to service by postal channels" in its declaration. Id. at 1403 . The "Service of Process" web page of the U.S. Department of State, in a section titled "Service by International Registered Mail", states that " ervice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested is an option in many countries in the world." On the country specific page for Canada , the U.S. State Department states that "In its Declarations and Reservations on the Hague Service Convention, Canada did not object to the methods of service under Article 10, and does permit service via postal channels ." (boldface added.) In summary, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that service of process by mail on a Canadian defendant is authorized by Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. 2. Yang Has Been Properly Served Process Under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention. As shown above, the U.S. State Department declaration, the understanding of the signatories, and the Handbook on the Convention, and the California appellate court decisions based on them ( Shoei Kako, Denlinger , supra .) all concluded that service by mail is authorized under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention if the signatory does not object to service via postal channels. Canada does not object to service by postal channels. Denlinger at 1403 . The State Department unambiguously states that "Canada... does permit service via postal channels." Service of process on Yang by mail is proper under the Convention. Since service by mail on a Canadian defendant was authorized by Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention and the evidence established the actual delivery of the Summons and Complaint on Yang by mail, Yang has been properly served process under the Convention. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Yang has been properly served process, by written admissions in his court filings (CCP §417.20(d)), by actual delivery of the Summons with Yang's acknowledgement of receipt (CCP §415.40). Also, Yang has been served under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention if the Court found the Convention applicable. Plaintiff respectfully requests a Court Order to deem Yang served process. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=17 http://travel.state.gov/content/travell / en/legal - considerations/judicial/service-of-process.html http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/judicial/country/canada.html
《波茨坦公告》第十一条明确称：【Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. 】 （“日本将被允许保留维持其经济并作出赔偿的工业，但不包括能使她重新为战争而武装的工业”）。日本无条件投降时表示完全接受《波茨坦公告》。 如今日本已经通过 所谓新安保法，其关键内容是日军可以先发制人，在日本没有受到攻击时，抢先对他国发动攻击。 这一概念意味着日本已经撕毁其投降书，悍然向战胜国挑战。未来中国将险象环生。 最大的威胁当然是日本的核武化。一旦日本军国主义掌握大规模杀伤武器，以其凶残与冒险，对文明世界构成的生存威胁极大。中国必须严密监视日本在这方面的一举一动。在日本达到临界点之前及时予以制止。 在常规武力方面，日本在未来数年可能将大规模扩军备战。 中国应该在钓鱼岛附近采取更为强有力的维权措施，争取在日本军国主义完成全面武装之前彻底解决相关问题。
山本 五十六 曾经说过：”光是占领夏威夷与旧金山是不够的。要确保胜利，日军必须进入华盛顿首府，在白宫让美国人屈膝求和”。珍珠湾港一战，美太平洋舰队主力损失殆尽，整个太平洋成为日军横行的舞台。 下面ＹＯＵＴＵＢＥ上找到的这个时序地图显示了日军势力范围随时间的变化，红色表示日本及其盟国控制范围，蓝色表示盟军控制范围。图中清楚可见，日军的刀锋已经直指澳大利亚，而中国战场进行了相当的对日反攻。 那些曾经参与南京大屠杀的日军部分被派往南洋战场。当英美军节节败退之际，英美降兵大量被日军杀戮之际，中国却取得了长沙大捷的胜利。 如果不是中国坚持对日抗战，那么日军至少可以向菲律宾、新几内亚等战场增兵20万以上。日军解决菲律宾的时间可能提前两个月，这将使日本能够在美国尚未加强澳大利亚之际，对澳大利亚发起进攻并征服该地。如此一来，美国将完全丧失从海上反攻日本的起始基地。 中国同时也给美军提供了机场。没有这些机场，美国就不可能对日本本土及其海上力量维持持续的轰炸，正是这些轰炸大规模的中和日本工业产能并大大缩减日本的原材料运输能力。没有从这些中国机场起飞的轰炸，日本工业可以源源不断地为日军提供战争机器。 有美国人说，让日本投降的是两颗原子弹。他们按这个逻辑认为就算其他事情都不做，总之最后原子弹能造出来，所以日本最后总会投降。但这个分析忽略了非常重要的一点，那就是当时美国飞机的航程根本不足以从美国(包括夏威夷）起飞轰炸日本， 更没有能够提供如此远程护航的战斗机。如果美国没有将日本置于航程之内的机场，就必须设计、制造更大航程的飞机才可能对日本进行战略打击，而在这段时间，日本已经完成其国民的转移（如移民到亚洲大陆或者澳洲），甚至可能制造出自己的核武与美国抗衡。 World War II in the Pacific Every Day - YouTube.mp4
老黑鱼激动地谴责广岛原爆已经很多次了。用他的话说广岛原爆“无差别轰炸妇女特别是婴幼儿就是畜牲行为”，基于这种仇恨，老黑鱼多次表示要与美国人决一死战。 当年广岛原爆，中国人民放鞭炮庆祝，因为他们知道日本军国主义终于快失败了，千千万万中国人有救了。每年广岛原爆纪念日，中国网络上一片庆祝之声。即使是不相干的外国人，也认为日本遭受原爆是对其罪行应有的惩罚。今年广岛原爆纪念日，一位以色列的高官就表示日本在原爆日应该反省自己的罪行、向被日本伤害的人民谢罪，这位人士诚恳之言却遭到了日本人强烈的谴责。 我从来没见过老黑鱼情绪激动、言辞激烈地谴责日本人在中国的暴行。日本人残杀中国妇女，虐杀中国婴儿的罪恶，他似乎视而不见。为什么日本帝国遭受核爆他这么有情绪？为什么他这样死心塌地站在日本一边谴责同盟国？？ 广岛原爆真的是像老黑鱼说的那样“无差别轰炸妇女特别是婴幼儿 ”吗？ 当然不是！！ 1. 谴责广岛原爆 是日本人对盟军的诬蔑！ 对一座城市进行轰炸或者炮击，都可能伤到平民。林彪向长春城、锦州城内开炮，可能炸死了中国妇女儿童；对越反击战轰击越南的村庄，炮弹也没长眼，也可能炸死越南妇女、儿童。按老黑鱼的逻辑，这些岂不是“无差别轰炸妇女特别是婴幼儿的畜生行为”？换个立场，国民党、越南人也许确实会这么讲，就像日本人谴责广岛原爆一样。 但是老黑鱼这类的说法有着明显的歪曲性质。林彪炮击长春、解放军炮击越南村庄与美国人核爆倭寇一样，其目标都不是妇女儿童。 平民的伤亡固然可以预料，但却不是目的。 因此，这种平民的附带伤亡与日本人奸杀妇女、虐杀儿童具有完全不同的性质。日本人对中国妇女儿童的残杀是有意识的、有针对性的。当日本人用刺刀将婴儿挑起，当日本人把刺刀刺入妇女的下体（请老黑鱼查看相关照片接受教育），那是一种有意识地、有目的以妇女儿童为目标的犯罪。 当美国飞行员冒着生命危险义无反顾地飞向日本帝国上空，在高空按下投弹的按钮，他们想到的是消灭日本军国主义，结束日本的侵略战争、恢复世界和平。 当原子弹的蘑菇云在广岛升起，它代表的是人类正义对邪恶的惩罚，以及对和平的向往。 而日本人对广岛原爆的谴责是邪恶对正义的否定。 2. 广岛原子弹下无冤魂 广岛和长崎都是日本军国主义的工业重镇，支撑着日本的侵略战争。日本的侵略战全民动员，前方的倭兵在中国烧杀抢掠，后方的日本妇女一针一线支撑着他们的丈夫、儿子的罪恶；日本兵打死中国人、抢得的财富大多邮寄回日本给家里的妻子、儿女享用；日本兵甚至把在中国残杀中国人的照片寄回日本给家中妇孺娱乐欣赏。现存日军残杀中国妇婴的照片大部分是当年日兵的纪念照。 广岛是日本的工业城市，由广岛工人招募的日军格外凶残，他们在南京大屠杀中罪恶滔天，而他们日本的家人则在报纸上欣赏杀中国人的比赛进程，比分106:105是日本人津津乐道之事。 日本儿童从小就接受军国主义教育，长大了就是进行三光的侵略者。 即使今天，日本妇女儿童有多少为日本人犯下的残杀妇孺的罪行感到忏悔、羞愧？为什么他们在参拜靖国神社？因为在日本人看来那些战犯正是日本民族的英雄，他们屠杀中国妇婴的罪行正是日本民族的光荣历史。 这样一个罪孽深重、死不悔改的民族，有什么抱怨的资格？ 3. 同盟国对日本人极尽仁慈 日本人残杀中国妇婴的时候，从来没有给过后者生存的选择。 同盟国在原爆广岛前发布了波茨坦公告。这份由中国、美国、英国三国领袖共同签署的文件非常明确：日本必须无条件投降，除此之外是迅疾与彻底的毁灭 （“ We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces... The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”）。盟国给出了警告，日本军国主义悍然拒绝。在很多日军占领区，日本人知道局势不可挽回，开始了对当地人民的大规模屠杀，在马尼拉，日军失败前疯狂地屠杀了数千小学生。没有对日核爆，更多无辜的妇女儿童将惨死在日本人手下。 即使日本继续顽抗、继续犯罪，同盟国的核爆目标也没有选择在日本的人口中心。可以想象，对东京实施核爆可以更好地起到打击日本军国主义的效果，但是盟国选择了人口较少而军工工业较多的广岛、长崎。这足以证明同盟国是仁慈的、文明的。核爆的目的是劝阻日本停止侵略，而不是毁灭日本民族。 4. 结论 日本人不但不反省自己的罪恶，反 而否定罪行、美化侵略， 把自己打扮成受害者，谴责正义的广岛原爆。历史证明 同盟国农夫般的仁慈并没有感动日本这条毒蛇，日本已经露出毒牙。 未来中日战争，中国如何汲取历史教训，彻底消除日本军国主义对亚洲乃至世界的威胁，实现长久和平，是一个需要认真科学思考的问题。
对于那场如同硝烟一般逝去的历史审判，日本国内也许有人有不同的看法，但梅汝璈先生的一段话，或许能让人更深刻地理解什么是战争和历史： “我不是复仇主义者，我无意于把 日本 军国主义欠下我们的血债写在日本人民的账上。但是，我相信，忘记过去的苦难可能招致未来的灾祸。” 专题讲座Theme: “不能忘却的历史-东京审判”Lecture of An Unforgettable History of World War II: the Tokyo Trials 主讲人Lecturer: Professor Xiang Longwan“东京审判”研究所荣誉所长、“东京审判”期间中国检察官向哲浚先生之子向隆万教授 第一场： 时间Time: 12/8/2012 星期六 Satday 2:30pm-4:30pm 地点Location: 华美协进社China Institute125 E. 65 Street, New York, NY 10065 (btw Lexington Park Aves) 讲座免费，但须预约 Free, but advance registration required： To register and learn more about this lecture, please visit http://chineselectures. org/upcoming.html or call (646) 912-8861 第二场： 时间Time: 12/9/2012 星期日Sunday 4pm -6pm 地点 Location: Columbia Universiy, 哥伦比亚大学Pupin Building物理楼, Room 420教室, 地铁一号线116 Street站Broadway, New York, NY 10027 The presentation will be in both Chinese and English. 主办单位Sponsors: Columbia University Asia-Pacific Development Society哥大亚太发展学社、American Friends of Shanghai WRSA、大纽约地区上海交大校友会Jiao Tong (Chiao Tung) University Alumni Association in Greater New York 预定Registration: 王晓东博士Robert Wang, 551-580-4780, xiaodongrobertwang@gmail.com RSVP
16年前，我在《 钓鱼岛中日决战 》中写道，【中国应加强与俄国的军事合作，增加互相的信赖感。。。如果 能在未来的中日战争中借重俄国的力量，联合韩国，对倭寇三面围剿，必置军国主义于死地。 对于美国，则晓之以害、诱之以利可矣。 】 也就是说，钓鱼岛问题美国因素通过外交、经济手段即可排除。 两个星期前，针对各种美国是否会介入钓鱼岛争端的讨论，我在《 美国的战略模糊及其底牌 》中写道，【 假如中国自己被吓得软了，老美就可以出来对日本人说，嘿嘿，还不谢谢我罩着？如果中国人真发狠打了，老美可以站在一边， 说这是你们中日之间一衣带血几百年的恩怨，两个民族自己解决，我们美国给你们和平的祝愿 。。。】 中国对日本采取一系列强硬措施，并在联合国宣示立场之后， 美国在联合国发话表态了 ，不再提什么美日安保条约，而是下列容: 【"We have indicated quite clearly that this is a matter for diplomacy between the two countries, and the United States has no intention and we are not playing a mediating role. We have high confidence in the judgment and recognition on both sides of the importance of this relationship. We think it is appropriate. … We think it is a responsible view as well. So the United States is not going to play that kind of role going forward."】 简单翻译如下， 美国认为南中国海与东海的主权争议由来已久 ，日中关系对日中双方都很重要，相信中日双方都能认识到这一点，钓鱼岛争端是中日之间的事情，今后美国不会在中日之间担任调停角色。 http://v.ifeng.com/include/exterior.swf?AutoPlay=falseguid=97d67a11-aecc-4652-839c-9530843e7bb0fromweb=ZHVPlayer
标签: 军国主义
