Japan tampered with history textbooks.

Japan always tries to beautify the crimes of the war of aggression through history textbooks. The Japanese new history textbook submitted for trial was exposed in advance by the media and once again became the focus of public opinion.

According to the "Reference News" report, it's time for the examination and approval of Japanese four-year textbooks. Before the textbook approval results were released in early April, the contents of the "New History Textbook" submitted by the Japan New History Textbook Compilation Association were exposed in advance by the Japanese media and once again became the focus of public opinion.

Japanese new history textbooks seriously distort history, and some folk groups call them "fierce books" (the same is true of Japanese pronunciation of the word "textbook"). Looking at the content of this textbook, "Meng" can be described as appropriate. According to this exposure.

The content of the trial version is getting worse and worse, which is full of the view of home and country centered on the emperor, the view of history centered on Asia, superiority over other countries and nationality. At the same time, it concealed the facts of harm, was full of victims' consciousness, advocated the argument that aggression was justified, and used the Great East Asia War to affirm that Japan launched the war in self-defense and praised the dedication of Japanese nationals to actively participate in the war.

After the content of the textbook was exposed, it aroused strong repercussions, and South Korea has set off a wave of criticism. As for why the manuscript was exposed, there is a saying that the editorial board deliberately leaked it, because the disclosure of the textbooks submitted for review is unprecedented, which will trigger a strong reaction from public opinion, but will expand the influence of the editorial board in society, thus achieving the purpose of promoting their own textbooks. Editorial board and some right-wing media accused leftists and non-governmental progressive groups of leaking samples to prevent textbooks from being approved.

Judging from the content of the newly submitted version, history textbooks are more vague and retrogressive in the narrative of aggression history, and they dress themselves up as victims. Textbooks, as always, pay special attention to inciting hatred against China and trace this hatred back to ancient times.

For Japanese right-wing forces to beautify the war of aggression, some Japanese often say that this is the freedom of speech in a democratic society. However, if such textbooks are approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, it will clearly show that the Japanese government is in favor of such remarks and will inevitably cause protests from the injured countries.

200 1 Textbook has been revised to some extent, but it has not changed the essence of beautifying the war of aggression. It remains to be seen how the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology will formulate the examination and approval opinions and what the officially listed version will look like.

Interpretation of teaching material content

The Japanese new history textbook submitted in advance is even more ambiguous and retrogressive in the narrative of the history of aggression. Our reporter interviewed Mr. Rong Weimu, the executive editor of War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression Studies (Beijing) and an expert in the history of the Anti-Japanese War. The following is the description of historical events in the Japanese history textbook 200 1 edition (referred to as "200 1 edition") and the new Japanese history textbook (referred to as "submitted edition") in 2005, as well as Mr. Rong Weimu's explanation of relevant historical facts.

Cover up the plot to destroy China and completely shirk the responsibility for war.

1 on the causes of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895

Version 200 1 did not mention that Japan first attacked the Qing army off the coast of Toyota, but used the ambiguous statement that "the Japanese and Qing armies clashed and the Japanese-Qing war began".

The manuscript submitted for trial further distorted the facts: "Qing did not want to lose the last tributary country, North Korea, and began to regard Japan as an enemy. Japan has waged two wars, Japan's Qing Dynasty and Japan and Russia, because of this international relationship in East Asia. " Rong Weimu: The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1890 originated from the issue of the line of interest raised by the mainland policy formulated by the First Reich Conference of Japan in 1890, which directed the territorial expansion at the Korean Peninsula and northeast China. Under the guidance of this policy, Japan launched the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, China was defeated, and 200 million taels of silver was paid, and Taiwan Province Province and Penghu Islands were ceded to Japan. At the same time, Japan invaded Korea and tried to annex Liaodong Peninsula, but it was interfered by Russia, Germany and France. Finally, the Qing government paid 30 million taels of silver to "redeem" Liaodong.

2 About "Article 21"

Version 200 1 says: "The British and American protests, Article 21 requires that it be divided into five articles. Article 5 is the hope clause, which is confidential. The fifth paragraph requires accepting Japanese as political, financial and military advisers and buying weapons made in Japan in large quantities. "

The manuscript submitted for trial used the word "demand", deleted the meaning of compulsion and the contents of protests in Britain and the United States, and even misunderstood the legend: "China anticipated the intervention of the great powers, leaked the extremely confidential contents of negotiations at home and abroad, included matters that were not formally required in the five major clauses, and created the name" Twenty-one Requirements ",and anti-Japanese public opinion in China began to rise." In other words, the newly submitted version claimed that War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression at that time was entirely caused by lies fabricated by the Japanese government.

Rong Weimu: 19 15, the Japanese threatened Yuan Shikai's government with the "Article 21" of total destruction of China, in an attempt to exclude other imperialist powers from the rule of China in China. In order to gain the support of the Japanese, Yuan Shikai basically agreed to item 2 1.

3 About "September 18th Incident"

The 200 1 version said: "After the Kwantung Army killed the Manchu warlord Zhang, it hoped to strengthen its control over Manchuria. The Japanese anti-Japanese movement became more and more fierce, which constantly hindered the train operation. In addition, for Japan, there is a threat from the Soviet Union in the north and the strength of the Kuomintang in the south. Under this circumstance, some officers of the Kwantung Army made a plan to solve the problem by occupying the whole of Manchuria. "

The draft for review became: "With the approach of the reunification of China by the Kuomintang, the anti-Japanese movement of the Japanese people has intensified, and incidents of obstructing train operation and persecuting Japanese schoolchildren have occurred constantly. In addition, for Japan, there is a threat from the Soviet Union in the north, and the strength of the southern Kuomintang is approaching. " The sentence indicating that it was carefully planned by Kwantung Army was also deleted.

Rong Weimu:1In the spring of 927, an economic crisis characterized by financial crisis broke out in Japan, which made the Japanese government at that time eager to transfer domestic contradictions through external expansion. The Japanese attempted to further seize the northeast of China, which triggered the "September 18th Incident".

4 About the Lugouqiao Incident

200 1 version said: "1On the night of July 7, 937, someone shot at the Japanese army at Lugou Bridge in the suburbs of Beijing. Early the next morning, China entered a state of fighting against the Kuomintang army. Although people hoped to solve the problem on the spot at that time, the Japanese side quickly sent troops on a large scale, and the Kuomintang government immediately issued a mobilization order. Since then, it has entered the Japanese-Chinese war that lasted for eight years. "

The manuscript emphasizes: "The incident itself is just a small friction. Although people hope to solve it on the spot, conflicts with Japan continue to occur and are difficult to solve. " That is to say, the old version still admitted that the Japanese army sent troops on a large scale first, but the new version totally blamed China for the Lugouqiao Incident, and it was China who expanded the situation.

Rong Weimu: In fact, the Japanese troops in Fengtai are illegally stationed. Of course, the defenders of China also want to defend the territory. 1before July 7, 937, the Japanese army also fired a gun; So far, there is no historical evidence that China soldiers fired first.

5 About the Xi incident

In the chapter of Japan-China War, the version submitted for trial added a Xi 'an incident compared with the 200 1 version, which read: "* * * The production party gained a breathing space, and * * * produced party member to infiltrate into the Kuomintang and vigorously promoted the sabotage and provocation of leading Japan to participate in the war." That is to say, the newly submitted version says that the Sino-Japanese War was instigated by the conspiracy of the producers.

Rong Weimu: 1936 12 years, the "Xi incident" occurred in China. In fact, the Xi 'an incident happened under the background that Chiang Kai-shek agreed to "stop the civil war and unite with the outside world" and the two parties began to cooperate, thus the China national anti-Japanese United front was initially established.

Foreign aggression is not called "aggression", and Japan's losses are strongly emphasized.

About waging war abroad

From ancient times to the present, the word "aggression" has never been used in Japanese textbooks. Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea is also called sending troops. Right-wing scholars argue ridiculously that why not invade is because Hideyoshi doesn't care about North Korea at all, but borrows the road, and the real purpose is to conquer China for the Ming Dynasty. For the colonial rule of North Korea, both the old and new versions emphasize that North Korea reaches out to Japan like a hand, and if it is controlled by other countries, Japan will be threatened, and the logging field established by Russia in the north of North Korea is called a military base, creating an excuse for the justification of its annexation of North Korea. Only when the Soviet Union sent troops to the northeast of China in the late World War II did the textbooks use the words "invasion" and "invasion and attack" without stint.

About the Nanjing Massacre

In the 200 1 version of the text of the Japan-China War, a sentence was added in brackets: "(At that time, the Japanese army caused a large number of casualties, which was the Nanjing incident)", and the word "incident" was lightly mentioned, followed by a slightly smaller font: "As for the actual situation of the incident, I found that there were many doubts and opinions in the data. This further greatly discounts the sentences in brackets.

The submitted version deleted the sentence in brackets, but only repeated the above sentence with a small note on a photo entitled "Shanghai Urban Area Destroyed by Street Fighting". In other words, textbooks further deny the authenticity of the Nanjing Massacre, and hardly make readers pay attention to the issue of the Nanjing Massacre.

Rong Weimu: 1937 12 13 In the early morning, the Japanese army captured Nanjing City and committed heinous crimes against Nanjing citizens. After World War II, the Tokyo court has identified the criminal facts of Japan. At that time, the number was more than 200 thousand, but in fact, scholars' research was more than 300 thousand. Later, many historical documents proved the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in the Nanjing Massacre.

C. On the International Military Tribunal for the Far East

The draft continued to refer to the allied rule over Japan as occupation rule, and changed the 200 1 version to introduce the illegality of the Far East International Military Tribunal in small font, and introduced the illegality of the Far East International Military Tribunal in large font such as the text, which was wronged by war criminals and thought that "until today, the evaluation is still inconclusive", which was obviously an attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Tokyo trial.

About Japan's War Losses

In the chapter "The Tragedy of War", the 200 1 edition juxtaposes the losses suffered by Japan as an injuring country with those suffered by the injured country, but it has devoted a lot of space to introducing the air raid in Tokyo.

The submission no longer mentions the losses of the injured country, but simply emphasizes the losses of Japan, and juxtaposes the losses of Japan with the "two victims of totalitarianism", emphasizing that "at the end of World War II, the United States conducted indiscriminate air strikes on most cities such as Tokyo and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, the Soviet Union tore up the treaty of neutrality between Japan and the Soviet Union, invaded Manchuria, and plundered and killed Japanese civilians. About 600,000 Japanese, including Japanese prisoners, were forcibly taken to Siberia and forced to engage in harsh labor, and about 65,438+00% of them died. "

E. on Japan's war crimes

Version 200 1 says: "No country has not killed and abused unarmed people in war, and Japan is no exception. In the war, the Japanese army unjustly killed and abused captured enemy soldiers and civilians. " In other words, even if Japan does something bad, it just likes each other.

The manuscript only says: "No country has not killed or abused unarmed people in the war, and Japan is no exception." There is no mention of the crimes committed by the Japanese army.