日韓関係が正常なら「領有権は棚上げにして、将来の海底資源の共同開発についてのみ取り決めておく」という暫定解決案があるのですが、現状では夢のまた夢。韓国の実効支配の現状を変えることは事実上不可能なので、日本は「現状はおかしい」と言い続けるだけで良いと思います。 https://t.co/Hy9oA01u71
— 松本徹三 (@matsumotot68) 2019年9月1日
When the Wehrmacht marched into Austria in 1938 (and Austrian Nazis took over the country 'from below') they fulfilled one of Hitler's life-long ambitions, the 'return' of German-Austria to the Greater German Reich. The pictures of an ecstatic Führer announcing the event in Vienna, and the equally ecstatic crowds who were listening to him, went all round the world at the time. The contemporary impression that the vast majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss (the union of Austria and Germany in 1938) was reinforced by the overwhelming endorsement it got in the plebiscite held in April 1938.
Austria as victim?
In Moscow, in October 1943, the Allies decided that Austria should be reestablished as an independent state, once the war was won. At the same time they described Austria as the 'first victim of Hitlerite aggression'. Many of Austria's post-war leaders, after some initial hesitation, took this as a lifeline to help them in the foundation of a post-war project, in which Austria claimed it was not guilty for what had happened in the country during the Nazi years.
An investigation by the Austrian government in 1946 described Austrian suffering under German rule, and Austrian resistance to that rule. It also claimed that only a handful of traitors had collaborated with the Nazis. At the end it demanded 'justice for Austria', by which it meant the speedy end of the Four-Power occupation (in fact this occupation was to last until the State Treaty of 1955).
Using this logic, they suggested that justice - including compensation or reparation - for the victims of Nazi rule was a matter for Germany. The Austrian state could not be held liable. Under pressure from the west (the US in particular) post-war Austrian governments did, however, set up a legal administrative framework for returning some of the property taken from victims of Nazi rule in the course of their persecution.
The commission's findings run to 14,000 pages, including 53 individual reports and one volume of conclusions. This amount of research cannot be easily summarised. But broadly speaking it shows the involvement of Austrian individuals, groups and institutions in all facets of expropriation of assets from the Jewish community in the Nazi years; from daylight robbery to more subtle forms of expropriation in the name of economic rationality. It also shows how numerous individual Austrians and institutions - from Vienna's Dorotheum auction house to the state (federal, regional and local) - gained as a result of these activities.
However, an enormous number of Austrians had been involved with the Nazi regime: as many as 500,000. In a country of just six million people, this turned out to be a significant bloc. The dominant post-war parties, the Socialists and the Christian Socialists, began to actively court former Nazi supporters.
'Instead of the myth of Austria being Nazism's first victim, they moved instead to what is known as the co-responsibility, Mitverantwortung: that Austria had been in fact part of the Third Reich and therefore bore along with Germany some of the responsibility for what happened.'
So after 70 years, with most of the victims now dead, should Austria still be paying for its Nazi past?
'Can you say that these issues end? Well, I think in a legal sense there may be certain kinds of limitations, but these questions have remarkable longevity and they can continue to re-emerge again and again,' says Thomas Berger.
Anschluss (German: [ˈʔanʃlʊs] (About this soundlisten) "joining") refers to the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany on 12 March 1938.[1] The word's German spelling, until the German orthography reform of 1996, was Anschluß[2] and it was also known as the Anschluss Österreichs
WW2 commemorations expose differences at heart of Europe https://t.co/SZkGfaQRXy
— mozu (@mozumozumozu) 2019年9月1日
In many central European countries, governments are focusing on Nazi atrocities during the war and playing down stories of local Holocaust collaboration, while nativist politicians across the region indulge in airbrushed, heroic war histories.
Perhaps the biggest change at the museum was that of the final message given to visitors at the end of their visit. Previously, a four-minute video traced history since the end of the second world war and ended with images of wars in Ukraine and Syria and the refugees they created. This was replaced by a computer-generated video of stylised, heroic Polish soldiers in combat, changing the message from one of reflection on the horrors of war to one of patriotic glory.
Embattled at Home, South Korea’s Leader Turns on Japan, Stoking Old Hostilities https://t.co/e34eRIlTza
— mozu (@mozumozumozu) 2019年9月1日
With his presidency struggling, Mr. Moon is moving to rally his supporters by tapping into hostility toward Japan, refusing to back down in the trade fight and deploying the country’s military to assert its territorial claims, analysts say.
“As he struggled with domestic problems, he has opened a new front against Japan, inciting anti-Japanese sentiments in order to consolidate his core support base, which has shown signs of weakening” in recent weeks, said Yun Duk-min, a former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. “He is also using brinkmanship, putting pressure on Japan to back down and at the same time hoping that the United States will intervene.”
Mr. Moon saw his approval ratings in polls climb in July and early this month as tensions with Japan spiked. But those numbers have begun dropping recently after his appointment of Cho Kuk, one of his closest political allies, as justice minister. The domestic news media has been flooded with allegations of ethical lapses in Mr. Cho’s family.
Mr. Moon saw his approval ratings in polls climb in July and early this month as tensions with Japan spiked. But those numbers have begun dropping recently after his appointment of Cho Kuk, one of his closest political allies, as justice minister. The domestic news media has been flooded with allegations of ethical lapses in Mr. Cho’s family.
“His diplomacy is amateurish and emotional, emphasizing national pride only,” Professor Park said.
In stirring up resentment against Japan, Mr. Moon is reverting to a strategy that brought him to power in the first place.
In his 2017 presidential campaign, he lashed out at “chinil” — or pro-Japanese — Koreans who he said collaborated with Japanese colonial masters and later thrived under South Korea’s Cold War-era military dictatorship by rebranding themselves as “anti-Communist” or “industrialist” conservatives. To his supporters, a paragon of such Korean families was his impeached conservative predecessor, Park Geun-hye, a daughter of the military strongman Park Chung-hee, a former lieutenant in Japan’s imperial army.
When tensions escalated last month, Mr. Cho, then Mr. Moon’s senior presidential secretary for civil affairs, called those who criticized the president and the court ruling “chinil.”
“Progressive South Koreans wonder how long their country should be dragged around,” said Yang Ki-ho, an expert on Korea-Japan relations at Sungkonghoe University in Seoul, referring to a growing fatigue over the Trump administration’s heavy-handed treatment.
米国は「静観」せずに「批判」を継続。静観すると「米国は理解した」と嘘の情報を流されるし、米軍へのリスクが高まるからだ。静観すべき分野と反論すべき分野の峻別が必要。【韓国政府はハリス大使を通じ批判を辞めるよう米政府に要請したが米政府は、文政権批判を継続】 https://t.co/XEdNayCZhr
— 佐藤まさひさ (@SatoMasahisa) 2019年9月1日
buveryさんがリツイート
番組冒頭、田原氏は机を叩き大声で韓国擁護し日本政府批判「日本が兄貴分なのだから、韓国経済は弱いんだから」日本が我慢すべきという戦後長く日本を苦しめ縛ってきた考えだ田原氏のような考えこそが一人前の国とみなさない上目線の差別だということに多くの日本国民は気がついたんだけどね https://t.co/gu3fXSCsyX
— Chieko Nagayama (@RibbonChieko) 2019年8月31日
buveryさんがリツイート
