珍珠港:解释、争论及其背后

The Pearl Harbor Incident: Its Interpretation,Dispute and Background

近年美国史学界围绕珍珠港事件和战前罗斯福政府对外政策进行解说、争论逐渐形成了三个流派:正统派、修正派、现实派,他们的基本观点都是为美国战后对外政策服务,而并非要想揭示历史的真实。修正派说想要参战的罗斯福迫于反对参战的"公众舆论"只得搞"阴谋",以太平洋舰队为诱饵,让日本先放第一枪;正统派说公众的"孤立情绪"捆住了罗斯福政府的手脚。两派论述问题的大前提其实是相同而又错误的,对外政策不是由"公众舆论"决定的;由统治上层的"舆论"诱导而有的"公众舆论",从根本上说有助于美国对外政策的推行而不是相反。

Through recent interpretation and disputes over the Pearl Harbor Incident and the Rooseveh＇s foreign policies before the War, the American historians have fallen into three groups, the orthodox school, the revisionist school and the realist school. An analysis of their basic viewpoints can reveal that they are all arguing for the American post-war foreign policies rather than telling the historical facts. The revisionist school holds that because Roosevelt wanted to enter the war but was under the pressure of the anti-war ＂public opinion＂, he had to devise the plot that lured the Japanese army to fire first at the American Pacific Fleet. The orthodox school holds that the ＂isolation feelings＂ of the public hindered the Roosevelt Administration. Their basic prerequisites for their argument are the same and wrong because the foreign policy was not determined by the ＂public opinion＂. ＂Public opinion＂ manipulated by the ruling class was in favor of the American foreign policy rather than the other way round.