dck
加入时间: 2004/04/02
文章: 2801
经验值: 4649
|
|
|
作者：dck 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
张良：说说新华社和它的“清样”
----《中国六四真相》编者张良对挑战者Alfred L. Chan的反驳
按：《中国六四真相》大部分是来自内参，小部分(最关键处比如邓小
平家会议记录)是作者的小说创造。黎安友教授在英文版《天安门文件》的
导言中牛B吹得太满，亲民运的人士和媒体看在眼里，不便明说，结果受到
学术界同行的攻击。这里张良替黎安友教授的反驳并无多少说服力。其实
，张良自己完全可以这样辩：老毛说了，用小说反党是一大发明嘛！(智叟)
对一位名叫Alfred L. Chan的中国人的“The Tiananmen Papers Revisited
”的反驳
Alfred L. Chan的原文照录：
The “Foundry Proofs of Domestic Developments”and“Reference Proofs
” are unavailable outside of China, but a careful check of Xiao
’s evidence against what can be collected outside China shows them to be mainly accurate. (The China Quarterly Volume 177, Issue 0 (pp 190 - 214) -
http://titles.cambridge.org/journals/journal_article.asp?mnemonic=CQY&pii=S0305741004000116 )
“萧何”原文：
资料来自新华社内参
虽然世界上不少大通讯社都有此类资料，为防止侵犯当事者权益或不
够准确仅限内部参考。但新华社这批资料对我们来说还是十分珍贵，循着
它提供的内容和线索，可以逐日写出八九'六四'时间的情况。《国内动态
清样》是媒体记者在各地采访情况的校稿，《参考清样》是各国媒体报道
的综述、转述。以上二种清样的内容一部分是供公开发表的，其他的作为
在一定范围内的参考阅件。但标有密级的《国内动态清样》、《参考清样
》毕竟不能等同于中共的'红头文件'。哗众取宠，试图以某某部门、某某
省委给中央报告的形式将有关内容推出，只能起到降低这些材料本身价值
的负面效果。既对不起学术良知，更对不起朋友的辛劳。
我的反驳和评析：
说说新华社和它的“清样”：
一， 新华社是党政部门中机构最庞大、人数最多的一个部级单位，约
28000多人，新华社中一些专门负责“内参”的人员有着极其特殊的背景，
相当一部分是安全部等特殊岗位的人员。他们有权列席各省自治区直辖市
、各大军区的一些核心会议，有权不经地方当局而通过一些特殊渠道直接
向中央反映情况，所以，一些内容相似或相同的报告通过不同渠道或不同
形式向上反映并不稀奇，这种情况的发生主要是为了强调信息的“及时和
重要”。举例说，某篇报告可以既出现在国家某部委的报告中，又刊登在
新华社“国内动态清样”上，或者一篇报告同时会出现在几个部委的内部
报告中，这也就是我们一直所说的“重复发文，文山会海”的一个主要表
现，还有一些部门可能因出现内容相同的报告而相互邀功或共同推卸责任
的情况。如果“萧何”有幸调阅国家教委、公安等部门有关六四事件的档
案资料，他们对这些资料与“清样”中的内容相似或几乎一样就不会感到
大惊小怪了，更不会轻率地作出“张冠李戴”的结论了。
二， 新华社“内参”有多种：最低层级的数各分社编印的“内参选编
”，发至科营级；新华社编印的“内部参考”则发至县团级；在1989年，
无论是“国内动态清样”还是“参考清样”则发至省军级，有的“清样”
则是增发给相关部门的第一把手。相比之下，“参考清样”比“国内动态
清样”发行的范围更小，它只发给在北京的部长，而很少发给各省区市的
书记省市长。我曾经向黎安友、林培瑞教授出示的文件中，就包含着上述
两种清样。毫无疑问，“国内动态清样”、“参考清样”的级别是非常高
的，一般的正部长级官员不可能看到全部的清样。当然，比上述两种清样
更重要的，还有“白头文件”、“会议纪要”，而“会议纪录”是所有文
件中最最重要，也是等级最高的，一般情况下不被允许流传。这两份“清
样”实际是比一般的“红头文件”高得多！“红头文件”从中央到省、市
、县、乡都可以发，而“清样”只有新华社发，并且在1989年，只面向省
部级以上官员！
“萧何”在这里故意混淆是非，欺骗读者，将新华社两个最高机密等
级的“清样”说成是一般的“内参”，并公然撒谎称“二种清样的内容一
部分是供公开发表的，其他的作为在一定范围内的参考阅件。”从两种刊
物创办至今，从来没有那一份清样上的材料被允许公开发表！“一定范围
”在1989年时实则是省军级！显然，在关于“清样”的问题上Alfred L. Chan
完全在人云亦云。他连“清样”是什么样的格式、形状都不知道，还要顺
“萧何”的论点大谈特谈，岂不令人发笑？在这一点上，Alfred L. Chan
是最没有资格谈这个话题的。
Alfred L. Chan的原文照录：
My research also shows that many similar passages in TS can also
be obtained from other collections that run to thousands of pages.
The following are a few examples: The Truth of Fire and Blood:
A Documentary on the Pro-Democracy Movement in Mainland China
1989 (1989), published by the Institute for the Study of Chinese
Communist Problems, Taiwan.
Zhang Jingyu, Ziyou zhi xue, minzhu zhi hua: Zhongguo dalu minzhu
de kankelu (The Blood of Freedom, the Flower of Democracy: the
Bumpy Road of Democracy on the Chinese Mainland)(Taibei: Guoli
Zhengzhi Daxue Guoji Guanxi Yanjiu Zhongxin, 1989).
Han Shanbi, Lishi di chuangshang: 1989 Zhongguo minyun ziliao
huibian (The Wounds of History: A Collection of Historical Materials
on the 1989 Democracy Movement in China, 2 volumes, (Hong Kong:
Dongxi wenhua shiye gongsi, 1989).
70 tian dashiji: Hu Yaobang bingshi dao Zhao Ziyang jiezhi (Major
Events Over 70 Days: From the Death of Hu Yaobang to the Dismissal
of Zhao Ziyang), ed. by Gongqingtuan Beijing Shiwei (Beijing:
Beijing chubanshe, 1990).
“萧何”原文：
此外，我们还尽已所能地搜集到了许多其他资料，包括陈小雅的论着
，〈天安门之变--八九民运〉、包遵信的回忆录〈六四的内情--未完成的
涅檠〉、陈一咨的〈中国：十年改革与八九民运--北京六四屠杀的背后〉
、许家屯老先生的〈许家屯香港回忆录〉、旁旁、金钟编辑的血沃中华--
八九北京学潮资料〉、国家教委编写的〈惊心动魄的五十六天〉及〈五十
天的回顾与反思〉、解放军出版社的〈平暴记实〉及戒严一日〉，以及〈
人民日报〉、〈北京日报〉、〈中国青年报〉和〈东方日报〉、〈明报〉
、〈世界日报〉等海内外出版的书籍和报刊。
我的反驳和评析：
“萧何”也好，Alfred L. Chan也罢，其实，关于六四的书远远不止
他们所提的那些。张良翻阅了Alfred L. Chan提及的全部书籍，几本书关
于六四决策中一些领导人的讲话内容都是一样的，这一方面说明，在中共
高层内部的确存在着严重分歧，所以才会透露出一些领导人的内部讲话。
如杨尚昆在军委紧急扩大会议上的讲话，李鹏在十三届四中全会上的讲话
，赵紫阳在十三届四中全会上的辩解，等。但是，翻阅这些书后，完全可
以断定：没有任何一本书汇编的文件中有任何关于政治局常委会议、政治
局会议、元老会议等的纪录！没有任何一本书有关于戒严部队在北京部署
的纪录！没有任何一本书有过关于六四死亡人数的纪录！没有任何一本书
有关于六四惨案后全国性逮捕行动的纪录！没有任何一本书有关于各大军
区对参与北京戒严反应的纪录！没有任何一本书有关于如此细致的各省区
市对六四事件部署的纪录！没有任何一本书有关于如此清晰地反映世界主
要国家对中国六四事件关注的纪录！难道这些情节可以随便地在《TAMP》
、《中国六四真相》中象写小说一样演绎出来的吗？《TAMP》、《中国六
四真相》中所涉及的将近700个有名有姓的人物是任何一部关于六四的书中
所没有的，这些被点名的人物中，除了中南海的当权者不会表态，那些身
历过六四经历的、在书中被点名的人没有一个说涉及纪录他们的那些资料
是假的，相反，他们全都肯定了涉及他们部分资料的真实性！而这些，是
“萧何”、Alfred L. Chan之流所提及的上述任何一本书中所不可能有的
，这也正是《TAMP》、《中国六四真相》的历史价值所在。
Alfred L. Chan的原文照录：
Taken together, these materials and those mentioned by Xiao (see
endnote 12) fall into four categories: detailed daily and hourly
chronicles of events in Beijing and the provinces published by
the Chinese government for“internal circulation only”(Fifty-six
Horrifying Days; Remembrance and Reflections; Major Events); memoirs
of participants (Inside Story); histories of the movement (Before
and After; Crisis; Beijing City; China: The Ten Years), and collections
of documents edited by Taiwan or Hong Kong organizations (Blood
of Freedom; Truth of Fire and Blood; Blood-Soaked China). They
represent some of the most important sources essential for any
serious research on the Tiananmen Movement. The availability of
these sources does not necessarily invalidate Zhang’s claim that
he obtained his documents contemporaneously with events. It does
show, however, that these documents had been either released
officially or obtained clandestinely so that many others are
able to draw on them in compiling their histories or fictions.
More importantly, the fact that the editors appear unaware of
these materials ?C not a word about them is mentioned in either
TS or TP ?C may have marred their judgement. If the editors
were aware of these materials, it was their responsibility to
inform their readers. At a minimum, since these sources contain
numerous identical or near-identical passages from TS, the editors
’assertion that TS could not have been reconstructed by research,
and that these materials were only available to a “tiny handful
of people in China”may have to be qualified. This lapse also
casts serious doubt on the validity of their authentication process.
我的反驳和评析：
事实上，在编写过程中，张良根本不需要也毫无必要去引用任何一本
内部或公开出版物，因此，根本不存在在《TAMP》、《中国六四真相》中
作出说明的问题。如果用“萧何”或Alfred L. Chan所提的那些书籍进行
写作，那就失去了出版本书的动机。如果连写《TAMP》、《中国六四真相
》那样的资料都不具备，以至于要到国外通过搜集各种出版物进行写作，
谁愿意冒这个危及生命的巨大风险？更有背于我们的宗旨和目的。在《中
国六四真相》的扉页上，清清楚楚地写着十个大字：对历史负责，对人民
负责！这清楚地昭示了我们的宗旨！如果连写一本书的资料都不具备，何
以要去做那么一件出力不讨好、弄巧成拙的蠢事？！
“萧何”或Alfred L. Chan都没有资格也不可能获得我们所拥有的那
些资料。Alfred L. Chan上述这个近乎荒诞的逻辑根本不值得一驳。非常
希望他能用中文将这篇文章转写出来，不然他就是真正的胆怯和懦弱。如
果Alfred L. Chan这样做仅仅是为了通过挑战黎安友教授为自己在加拿大
学术界捞取所谓的学术名份？他想得也太天真了！张良愿意针对任何挑战
，但对Alfred L. Chan这种类似外行汉的胡纠蛮缠的作为真的不屑一顾。
Alfred L. Chan的原文照录：
Another Formidable ChallengeA more damaging charge has been made
by an anonymous commentator on the Internet who claims that large
sections in TS and TP are plagiarized from the book, Gangtie de
budui: lujun di sanshiba jituanjun junshi (The Army of Steel: A
Military History of the Ground Force
’s Thirteenth-Eighth Army). This book, which is classified material,
is unavailable, but the relevant chapter was reproduced in the April
1994, issue of Beijing Spring. This chapter, entitled “Maintain order
at the capital, protect the venues of the Asian Games, return to the
barracks in triumph”describes how the 38th Army stationed in Beijing
had, between June 19, 1989, and October 26, 1990, maintained stability
and ensured the successful staging of the several major party meetings,
the commemorative celebrations of July 1, August 1, October 1, and
the Asia Games.
In TS and TP, however, this text has been transformed into a report
from martial law troops headquarters ????ted to the Politburo on June 1
to show that they were“spiritually and physically”ready to clear
Tiananmen Square, and that they“told the top decision makers that the
choice was now theirs.”Then many paragraphs are lifted from Army of
Steel to comprise the report in TP 349-353 (TS 866-869), with only
minor changes in wording.（张良：只是少量话语的改变！！！它本身就来自于
文件，是对原文件的加工，懂吗？！） For instance, the words“group army”
are changed to“martial law troops,”but the two were not the same,
since the martial law troops consisted of more than the 38th Army.
The charge of plagiarism is more credible here, as it is hard to
imagine that the martial laws quarters would forge a report to the
Politburo, or that the Literary Press of the People’s Liberation
Army would pirate a June 1 directive to describe events many weeks
later. This poses a serious challenge to Zhang’s TS, because in
academic work, one instance of plagiarism would have been sufficient
to discredit the entire project.
（张良：何为剽窃！请送出网友的全部材料！这是绝对的污蔑！！！恶毒
的指控！！！）
我的反驳和评析：
Alfred L. Chan用“Another Formidable Challenge”来作为第六部分的
标题，以此显示这是区别于“萧何”的属于他自己的重大发现，然而，被
他作为指控来源的则是“an anonymous commentator on the Internet”
，并且，Alfred L. Chan借这名匿名者之口称《TAMP》、《中国六四真相
》中关于戒严的部分是从那本书“plagiarized”来的。看起来，这位Alfred L. Chan
为了彻底否定《TAMP》、《中国六四真相》，真可谓不择手段。对于Alfred L. Chan
关于“plagiarized”的指控，张良只能用“嗤之以鼻”四字来表达。
第一， 作为专案组有意针对《中国六四真相》抛出的“萧何”系列文
章都不敢提这个问题，显然是想有意回避它，如果真如Alfred L. Chan所
称的“plagiarized”，那末，“萧何”是肯定不会轻易放过的。这由不得
发问，为什么“萧何”不抓住这一点进行攻击，他不可能忽视这一点，想
一定是有别的隐情而已。
第二， 这么一个被Alfred L. Chan称之为“Formidable Challenge”
的文章，只来自于网上，并且出自一位匿名者，本身就有很大的疑问，既
然是挑战《TAMP》、《中国六四真相》的一个强有力武器，那位匿名者为
什么不堂堂正正地署名并将它写出来发表在任何一家报纸上（我相信，如
果这位匿名者真的抓住了所谓“plagiarized”证据，完全可以署上他的大
名将这篇文章通过港台甚至中国内地的报纸刊登出来）？匿名者本身的行
为就令人有一种做贼心虚的感觉！他只是想在网上搅一把混水、攻击污蔑
而已。就是这样一位见不得人的匿名者，就是这样一篇流传在网上的文章
（张良从未在一些大型网站看到过那位匿名者的文章，相信此文在网上没
有进行广泛的传播），Alfred L. Chan却不分青红皂白将其拿来作为“Another Formidable Challenge”，这再次说明Alfred L. Chan不是一个甘心做学问的人。
第三， 如果真的要将这个问题搞清楚，Alfred L. Chan应该本着务实
的态度做一些脚踏实地的研究，随后再下结论不迟。Alfred L. Chan至少
应该可以与北京的解放军文艺出版社联系吧？问问出版社当时出版此书前
后的一些情况，并客观地向读者公布一些他亲自调查获得的信息，可是，
他连这最起码的调查都没有做，就匆忙地以那位匿名者的口将《TAMP》、
《中国六四真相》按上了所谓“plagiarized”的结论！这个结论不仅草率
、肤浅、甚至连一点说服力都不存在！这位Alfred L. Chan所说的论据完
全来自于那位恶意中伤的匿名者的逻辑，真是荒诞之极！
第四， 张良从来没有看到过那本书，更没有阅读过发表在《北京之春
》的那个摘要，到今天，张良还要求黎安友教授帮着找那篇文章呢！天地
良心，从未看到过这篇文章的张良居然会被扣上“plagiarized”的帽子，
真是荒诞不经。张良为此感叹：到六四档案解密的那一天，如果Alfred L. Chan
良心发现的话，他应该跪倒在张良的脚下。
毫无疑问，尽管张良没有读过那本书，但对那个事件的了解却要比Alfred L. Chan
清楚得多。张良断定Alfred L. Chan是连下面这样的一个情节都不了解的
。作为“内部发行”出版于1993年的解放军文艺出版社的那本关于38集团
军军史的书在出版不到一星期的时间内立即被收回并被禁止发行了。原因
何在？因为它泄露了有关六四戒严的某些机密，并且不适当地引用了戒严
部队指挥部的一些文件。这一事件，被总政治部进行内部通报批评。中南
海很多人都知道有这么一件敢于犯上的事。如果Alfred L. Chan不信，可
以专程到北京去跑一趟，相信解放军文艺出版社会告诉他关于此书出版前
后发生的经过。待知道了这个事件的前因后果，Alfred L. Chan不仅再不
敢提这个“Another Formidable Challenge”，甚至会因此而无地自容的
。由此看来，到底是《TAMP》、《中国六四真相》“plagiarized”了那本
书，还是那本书“不适当”地引用了有关文件并将它作了些许改动，明眼
人应该比较容易作出自己的判断。但是，不管怎样，张良将记住Alfred L. Chan
那个荒谬的指控，因为那样的指控是连“萧何”都不敢的！
Conclusion
The entire Tiananmen Papers project was fundamentally flawed from
the beginning.（张良：通读文章到此，根本得不出他所说的那样一个结论）
Since the documents were made available under such mysterious circumstances,
and since the editors had made the extraordinary claim that they were
restricted to a small group of top leaders, authenticity ought to be
the foremost concern. The simplest way to remain faithful to the original
documents would be for the editors to select and translate them individually
without alteration, but the editors opted for some questionable editorial
practices. They did not insist on having access to (let alone authenticate)
the original documents as a condition of cooperation with Zhang, but condoned
extensive editing and retouching that resulted in two significantly different
versions of the documents, TS and TP. Judging by TS and many articles Zhang
has written since 2001 (mostly available on the Internet), he is neither a
trained historian nor social scientist, and his style is closer to that of
a writer of historical fiction or a polemicist.
（张良：作为一名严肃的学者，他只提供事实，并以事实讲话，而不是轻
率地给人下结论。Alfred L. Chan连这个最起码的素质都不具备，他这样
评价张良，“he is neither a trained historian nor social scientist,
and his style is closer to that of a writer of historical fiction
or a polemicist.”这说明，他不具备作为一名合格学者的素质）Driven by
a strong conviction, he may have viewed the cut-and-paste method as
legitimate when used to buttress what he perceives to be a just cause.
The editors may not have been fully aware of the implications of Zhang
’s political agenda, expressed only as a desire to repudiate the
official ????uation of the 1989 events and to accelerate political
change in China.
（张良：黎安友教授不知道我们的动机？围绕着《TAMP》、《中国六四真
相》的出版，作为合作者，很少能象张良与黎安友教授、林培瑞教授那样
交流得广泛、深入。如果黎安友教授不清楚我们的目的和动机，就不可能
写出如此详细的前言）。
On the other hand, the editors present the documents as academics,
and therefore their standards must be set higher. Yet, their verification
efforts are undermined by their faulty editorial policies, their hazy
assumptions of authenticity, their unfamiliarity with key Chinese sources,
and their misplaced trust on the pseudonymous Zhang Liang. Clearly, it
is possible to reconstruct many of the documents, as we have demonstrated,
with open sources available outside China, not to mention those within
China itself. All things considered, we have little confidence regarding
the provenance of the documents contained in TS and TP, and we feel that
Zhang has misled his editors. However, since the final verification of
any of these is impossible until the Chinese government opens the archives,
Zhang owes it to his editors and the readers to unlock his trove for
scholarly scrutiny.
我的反驳和评析：
最后，也就是作为论文结尾的关键之处，Alfred L. Chan却不得不承
认，“we have little confidence regarding the provenance of the
documents contained in TS and TP”。这个看起来十分喜欢纠缠的Alfred L. Chan为什么一下子口气软弱下来？原因是，他实在找不到任何可以攻击关
于省级报告的部分，只能以“little confidence”承认下来。事实上，《TAMP
》、《中国六四真相》并不在乎Alfred L. Chan们的承认与否，因为《TAMP
》、《中国六四真相》本身已经成为历史的一部分，你承认它也好，污蔑
它也罢，历史最终将洗刷掉“萧何”、 Alfred L. Chan们泼在《TAMP》、
《中国六四真相》上的污水，还它本来的面目。因为，《中国六四真相》
本来就是完全依照自己的风格建立起来的，它的历史价值正在于它是建立
在充分的各类内部文件基础上。
Alfred L. Chan的原文照录：
. The Tiananmen Papers: The Chinese Leadership’s Decision to use Force against Their Own People ?C In Their Own Words (New York: Public Affairs, 2001). Compiled by Zhang Liang. Edited by Andrew Nathan and Perry Link, with an afterward by Orville Schell.
. TP has been reviewed numerous times. A good collection of reviews is Qin Ling, Liusi zhenxiang mingjia tan (Prominent People Discuss June Fourth: The True Story)(Edison, N.J.: Dajiyuan chubanshe, 2001).
. For instance, see Susan Shirk,“The Delayed Institutionalization of Leadership Politics,
”in Jonathan Unger, ed., The Nature of Chinese Politics: From Mao to Jiang (Armonk and London: M. E. Sharpe, 2002), p. 303. Nathan uses TP to confirm points made in a different publication, see Andrew J. Nathan and Bruce Gilley, China
’s New Leaders: The Secret Files (New York: New York Review Books, 2002), p. 24, 77, 109, and 151.
. Lowell Dittmer,“The Tiananmen Papers,”The China Quarterly, No. 166 (June 2001), pp. 476-483.
. Andrew J. Nathan,“The Tiananmen Papers: An Editor’s Reflections,
”The China Quarterly, No. 167 (September 2001), pp. 724-737.
. TP, p. xlii; Andrew J. Nathan,“The Tiananmen Papers,”p. 728. A brief comparison of TS and TP is in Peter Moody,
“Tiananmen: The Papers and the Story,”The Review of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 149-165.
. Zhang gave a similarly qualified response to CNN when questioned about the authenticity of his documents. He said,
“I can tell you frankly that all these materials have a solid basis. They are all reliable . . . The best answer to the question of authenticity is that time will tell.
”Only about half way into the interview and responding to a different question does he say that
“these materials are authentic.”www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tiananmen/TP.html.
. Mirror Books, now situated in New York, was founded originally in Canada by emigres. In 1993 I was approached by its editors to translate one of its first books on China
’s princelings into English. I declined the offer because of the impossibility of verifying the sources.
. Similarly, the reminiscences contained in the narrative reports made by Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng at the Fourth Plenum (June 1989) are extracted to reconstruct their private conversation made on May 4. This is then presented as ????s in TS (pp. 296-298) and TP ( pp. 116-118). This practice goes far in explaining the stilted and unnatural language of the alleged minutes contained in both books.
. The name Xiao He is a play on the name Zhang Liang, as Xiao, Zhang, and Han Xin were three most prominent strategists and ministers of the West Han dynastry.
. The major sources, according to Xiao, are: Jingxin dongpo di 56 tian: 1989 nian 4 yue 15 ri zhi 6 yue 9 ri meiri jishi (Fifty-Six Terrifying Days: A Daily Record of Events from April 4 to June 9, 1989), ed. by Guojia jiawei sixiang zhengzhi gongzuo si (Beijing: Dadi chubanshe, 1989); Wu????ian di huigu yu fansi (Remembrance and Reflections on the Fifty Days), ed. by Guojia jiawei sixiang zhengzhi gongzuo si, Beijing shi weigao deng xue xiao gongzuo weiyuanhui.(Beijing: Gaodeng jiaoyu chubanshe, 1989); Ding Wang. Liusi qianhou (Before and After June 4)(Taibei Shi: Yuanjing chuban shiye gongsi, 1995), 2 volumes; Chen Xiaoya, Tian
’an Men zhi bian: bajiu minyun shi (The Crisis at Tiananmen: A History of the June Fourth Democratic Movement) (Taibei Shi: Fengyun shi dai chuban gufen youxian gongsi, 1996; Bao Zunxin, Liusi de neiqing: Wei wan cheng di niepan (The Inside Story of June Fourth: The Unfinished Nirvana )(Taibei Shi: Fengyun shidai chuban gufen youxian gongsi, 1997); Xu Jiatun, Xu Jiatun Xianggang huiyilu (Xu Jiatun
’s Hong Kong Memoirs) (Hong Kong: Lianhebao youxian gongsi, 1994) 2 volumes; Pang Pang, Tang xue di Beijing cheng: Cong Hu Yaobang zhi si dao Tiananmen bei ju (Beijing City Dripping in Blood: From the Death of Hu Yaobang to the Tragedy at Tiananmen)(Taibei Shi: Fengyun shidai chuban gongsi, 1989); He Zhizhou, ed., Xue wo Zhonghua: 89 nian Beijing xuechao ziliao ji xu bian (Blood-Soaked China: A Collection of Materials on the Beijing Student Movement in 1989)(Hong Kong: Xianggang xinyidai wen hua hui, 1989); Chen Yizi, Zhongguo: shinian gaige yu bajiu minyun, Beijing liusi tusha de beihou (China: The Ten Years
’of Reform and the 1989 Democracy Movement, the Background to the Slaughter During June 4)(Taibei Shi: Lianjing chubanshe, 1990 Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, volume III, (1993). The editors seem to be aware of only the last item. No single library contains all of the above, but I had collected them from different libraries in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canada, and the US.
. Xingdao Ribao, 28, 29, 30, 31 May and 1 June.
. In 2001, Luo was a Politburo member and secretary of the CCP Secretariat in charge of public security.
. Zhang Liang’s rebuttal is in www.duoweiweek.com/53/Feature/4078.html.
. Andrew J. Nathan,“The Tiananmen Papers,”p. 732.
. Ibid.
. Xiao did cite someone who said that since many leaders’speeches, such as Zhao
’s May 4 talks, are in the public record, the most problematic ones are the alleged tran????s of Politburo meetings, conversations by the Elders, etc., and these comprise about 5% of TS. Then Xiao added the rider:
“Can this be believed”? (cihua xinran). Xindao Ribao, 20 May, 2001.
. Andrew J. Nathan,“The Tiananmen Papers,”p. 730.
. For instance, in Yuan Huizhang, Zhao Ziyang zuihou de jihui (Zhao Ziyang
’s Last Chance)(Hong Kong: Mirror Books, 1997), pp. 197-215.
. Zhang’s article is in www.duoweiweek.com/46/Feature3486.html and /gb/1/7/22/n111759.htm
. According to Renmin Ribao, May 19, 1989, Zhao, et al., visited the hospitals at 5 a.m. . Wu????ian di huigu yu fansi, pp. 72-85.
. Xu Jiatun, Xianggang huiyilu.(see n. 11)
. Xu Jiatun, Xianggang huiyilu., pp. ii-iii.
. A detailed textual analysis of Deng’s May 17 speech and other additional materials are available from the author by contacting [email protected].
. For examples of political novels (of varying qualities and seriousness) on the Tiananmen events, complete with detailed reconstructions of dialogue of the alleged meetings of the Elders, see Hu Zhiwei, Tiananmen xuean jingwei (The Many Facets of the Tiananmen Massacre)(Taibei Shi: Zhuanyi wen xue chubanshe, 1990); Chen Yizi, Zhongguo: shinian gaige. Shu Qi, Tiananmen yanyi (A Historical Novel of Tiananmen)(Hong Kong: Liyuan shubao she, 1989), and and Chen Xiaoya, Tian
’an Men zhi bian.
. For instance, the de????ion and wordings of Hu Yaobang’s collapse on April 8, 1989 contained in TS (pp. 106-107) and TP (pp. 20-22) are very similar to the dramatised and fictionalised scene found in Pang Pang, Hu Yaobang zhisi (The Death of Hu Yaobang)(Hong Kong: Dadi chubanshe, 1989) pp. 12-15. A disparate version can be found in Tian Guoliang and Sun Dafen, Hu Yaobang zhuan (A biography of Hu Yaobang)(Beijing: Zhonggong dangshi ziliao chubanshe, 1989), pp. 214-215. Very similar wordings about the intellectuals
’mediation on May 14 in TS (pp. 390-395) and TP (pp. 165-169) can be found in Dai Qing
’s memoir, Zai Qincheng zuolao: ziji de gushi er (Serving time at Qincheng prison: my own story 2) (Hong Kong: Ming Bao chubanshe, 1995), pp. 73-89. See also, Bao Zunxin, Liusi de neiqing, pp. 101-114.
. (Beijing: Jiefangjun wenyi chubanshe,1993). Cpcliusi in www.hjclub.com/TextBody/35530.asp, posted on 2 February, 2002.
. Pp. 7 - 12.
作者：dck 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
惊天骗局：开放主编金钟揭《六四真相》一书造假真相
