我就知道你不會去看日本跟美國官網原文出處寫甚麼?
不要在那邊自我解釋,
你的解釋不會比日本還有美國官方解釋正確.
美國官方相關報告顯示舊金山和平條約中台灣與澎湖的地位等同千島群島的地位,也等同
琉球的地位,
舊金山和平條約是精確履行波次坦公告條款包括開羅宣言在內.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v14p2/d595
在SFPT第2條,日本放棄對朝鮮,福爾摩沙,千島群島,庫頁島,南洋群島,南極區域,西沙群島
,南沙群島的權利,資格,和主張,這可推斷日本承認對於這些島嶼擁有最終的主權而她同意
置於託管制度.這個概念由杜勒斯和英國的委任代表楊格先生所承認(page 78,93,美國國
務院公報4392)杜勒斯談及日本當時的立場是"剩餘主權".
In Article 2 of the Peace Treaty, Japan renounced right, title and claim to
Korea, Formosa, the Kuriles, Sakhalin, the Mandated Islands, Antarctic area,
the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. It may be inferred that ultimate
Japanese sovereignty was recognized over the islands she agreed to place in
trusteeship. This conception was conceded by Mr. Dulles (page 78, Dept. State
Publication 4392)8and by Mr. Younger, the U.K. delegate (page 93, Dept. State
Publication 4392). Mr. Dulles speaks of the current Japanese position as 「
residual sovereignty」.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d13
在坡次坦公告第八段顯示"開羅宣言條款必須實行且日本主權應被限制在本州島,北海道島
,九州島,四國島,和我們決定諸如次要的島嶼."開羅宣言具體的只被提交於"這些領土是從
中國偷來的,例如滿州,福爾摩沙與澎湖",儘管他只增加"日本也將被驅趕從所有由暴力和
貪婪取得的其他土地."舊金山和平條約產生一個由盟軍"決定"的結果,至於提到日本放棄
的"次要的島嶼".在此款內日本放棄(a)確切以韓國為稱的島嶼;(b)福爾摩沙和澎湖;(c)千
島群島,南庫頁島和毗連的島嶼;(d)國際聯盟託管系統;(e)南極地區;和(f)南沙和西沙島
嶼.換句話說,條約顯露出一個精確履行的波次坦公告條款而不是企圖實踐開羅宣言中就領
土是由暴力和貪婪所取得而論的不明確之條款.
The Potsdam Proclamation, paragraph (8), reads 「The terms of the Cairo
Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to
the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as
we determine.」 The Cairo Declaration referred specifically only to 「the
territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and
the Pescadores」, although it did add 「Japan will also be expelled from all
other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.」 The San
Francisco Peace Treaty amounts to a 「determination」 by the Allied Powers as
to the 「minor islands」 which Japan is to renounce. By its terms Japan
renounced (a) certain islands off Korea; (b) Formosa and the Pescadores; (c)
the Kurile Islands, South Sakhalin and adjacent islands; (d) the League of
Nation’s Mandate System; (e) the Antarctic area; and (f) the Spratley and
Paracel Islands. In other words, the Treaty appears to be an implementation
of the precise terms of the Potsdam Proclamation rather than an attempt to
carry out the vague provision of the Cairo Declaration regarding territories
taken by violence and greed.
美國不能一貫的持有日本不再放棄千島群島的立場,較於它(日本)可以持有它沒有放棄福
爾摩沙與澎湖的立場.它必須,考慮到在國務院和美國參議院持有的立場,堅決主張他們的
處置是交由未來的國際行動.它將完美一致的符合美國支持日本在這些島嶼的爭議,或是他
們的部分,應該藉由國際行動歸還給日本,例如一個在同盟國包括蘇聯的協議.
The United States cannot consistently take the position that Japan has not
renounced the Kuriles, any more than she could take the position that she had
not renounced Formosa and the Pescadores. She must, in view of the position
taken by the Secretary and by the United States Senate, contend that their
disposition is for future international action. It would be perfectly
consistent for the United States to support Japan in the argument that these
islands, or part of them, should be returned to Japan by international
action, such as an accord among the Allied Powers, including the Soviet Union.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d89
國務卿提醒重光揆先生千島群島和琉球在投降條款的處理是相同的方式且當美國在和平條
約同意日本可能對琉球保留剩餘主權,我們也在26條規定假如日本給予蘇聯更好的條款我
們也可以要求對我們同樣的條款.這代表假如日本承認蘇聯是給予千島群島完整的主權,我
們主張對我們同樣給予琉球群島的完整主權.
The Secretary reminded Mr. Shigemitsu that the Kuriles and Ryukyus were
handled in the same manner under the surrender terms and that while the
United States had by the peace treaty agreed that residual sovereignty to the
Ryukyus might remain with Japan, we had also stipulated by Article 26 that if
Japan gave better terms to Russia we could demand the same terms for
ourselves. That would mean that if Japan recognized that the Soviet Union was
entitled to full sovereignty over the Kuriles we would assume that we were
equally entitled to full sovereignty over the Ryukyus.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p1/d89
○政府委員（倭島英二君） 今御審議を願つております中華民國との平和條約において
は、中華民國の領土はどこであるとか、中華民國の國民はどれであるとかということを
きめる目的で、これは交渉がせられたのではございませんで、その領土の問題並びに領
土の帰屬だとか、或いは中華民國の國民ばこういうものであるというような合意は、こ
の中には書いてございません。
倭島政府委員： 現在拜託各位審議的與中華民國的和約，並非以決定何處是中華民國的
領土，誰是中華民國的國民為目的而做談判的，在這裡面並沒有寫著關於其領土問題，以
及領土的歸屬，或是何者為中華民國的國民等這樣的協調。
※ 引述《godivan (加藤家的惠是我的!)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《saveme (hihi)》之銘言：
: : 日本跟美國的官方解釋是不是最正確的版本?
: : 我告訴你肯定是,
: : 而且狠狠的打你的臉.
: : http://ppt.cc/ophP
: : 難道你不曉得舊金山和平條約就是精確的實施坡次砍宣言,
: : 而非開羅宣言不明確的條款嗎?
: : 除非中國你證明台灣是日本偷走的.
: : 且台灣澎湖依據舊金山和平條約,
: : 其地位與千島群島等地跟琉球是一樣的,
: 能主張台灣是日本的是馬關條約
: 不過很遺憾的是,在1941年的時候正好是太平洋戰爭爆發之時
: ROC隨之宣告廢除該條約
: 從ROC宣告廢止後就等於主張台灣是中國的