2015年8月2日星期日

1966.8.2中情局从中共某驻外使馆线人处获悉文革情况


1966.8.2 美国中央情报局(CIA)发出一份情报信息,内容是中共某驻外使馆内的线人提供的关于使馆内文化革命运动的进展情况。
情报内文附有若干“消息来源评论”(Source Comment),由此可判定这个线人(source)就是中共使馆内的人员。情报说大使在六月初召集使馆内全体中共党员,花了三个半小时宣读传达了四份文件。显然是线人听到了传达,然后把自己所记下的内容交给美国情报人员。这也能解释为何线人提供的文件内容中有多处小细节同文件原文不符,因为传达的内容太多,线人难免在做笔记时犯些小错误,但情报的主要内容确实都是准确的。
情报说:该使馆于19665月初接到第一份关于文革运动的指示文件。5月下旬大使召集全馆人员会议,宣布文革将分为两个阶段,先学习毛泽东思想,然后将其应用于调查、对比、改正自我思想。学习时间是每周六天的16301930,再加两个晚上的20302230。学习内容为毛泽东四篇文章和《人民日报》、《红旗》的社论。大使说外交人员参加文革的目标就是提升意识形态自觉性,国内文革的目标是揭露和斗争反共反社会主义分子。大使要求在学习阶段做到“四个不”:不写大字报、不写小字报、不暴露别人的严重错误、不点名批评他人。
线人所提供的四份文件分别是《批判文化革命汇报提纲》、《文化大革命大事记》、《关于军队生产自给的问题——毛泽东致林彪的信》、江青的《部队文艺工作座谈会纪要》。经查,前两份文件均来自1966519由中共中央办公厅机要室发出的中发[66267号文件,即大名鼎鼎的5.16《通知》。其中,《通知》的正文就是批判1966212日彭真发出的《文化革命五人小组关于当前学术讨论的汇报提纲》,而《通知》的附件之二就是《一九六五年九月到一九六六年五月文化战线上两条道路斗争大事记》。第三份文件是1966524日由中共中央办公厅机要室发出的中发[66271号文件,即《中共中央转发毛泽东同志给林彪同志的信(对军委总后勤部“关于进一步搞好部队农副业生产的报告”的批示)》。第四份文件是落款日期为1966410日的“中共中央批发《林彪同志委托江青同志召开的部队文艺工作座谈会纪要》及附件”。
关于线人提供文件内容中的若干小细节错误,列举部分如下:
关于《文化大革命大事记》,情报说
1. 19659月各省宣传工作会议在山东济南召开,彭真在会上说即便毛主席犯错误也应受到批评,陆定一在会上攻击斯大林(消息来源评论说陆实际在批评毛)”。线人弄错了这个会议的地点和名称,经查《一九六五年九月到一九六六年五月文化战线上两条道路斗争大事记》原文,该会议名称是“文化部召集的文化厅局长会议”而非各省宣传工作会议。原文没有提到该会是在济南召开的,实际上这个会应该是在北京召开的(19659月,福建闽侯县电影放映代表队赴北京汇报表演,观众包括全国文化厅()长会议代表,而且彭真、陆定一、文化部副部长肖望东等接见了汇报队。见《福州市志(第七册)第六章电影》http://www.fzdqw.com/ShowText.asp?ToBook=806&index=343&
2.情报说“(姚文元批吴晗的文章发表后)彭真求见毛泽东,见面后出来对人说三个月后再谈吴晗有无政治问题,现在只谈学术”。经查,《一九六五年九月到一九六六年五月文化战线上两条道路斗争大事记》至少四次提到“两个月以后再谈政治问题。”可见这是CIA的线人听传达时太紧张,没有记录准确,而不可能是CIA在使馆内监听或截获文件原文。
3.情报说“196511月,(上海)文汇报发表姚文元批吴晗的文章,彭真很不高兴,打电话给中共上海市委,问‘文章发表前为何未通知我?你们还是(中共)党员吗?文章的背后指使人物是谁?”经查,《一九六五年九月到一九六六年五月文化战线上两条道路斗争大事记》并没有提到196511月彭真因姚文元文章打电话给上海方面,而是到了19663月上海方面想了解《文化革命五人小组关于当前学术讨论的汇报提纲》中的“学阀”指向谁时,彭真命令中宣部副部长许立群打电话给上海。

关于《部队文艺工作座谈会纪要》,
1.情报说“陈伯达先改纪要,然后毛泽东改”。经查,原文是“请春桥、亚丁两位同志一起座谈修改,然后,送主席审阅。主席很重视,对纪要亲自作了修改,并指示请伯达同志参加,再作充实和修改”。可见在陈伯达修改纪要前,毛泽东就已经改过了,然后他指令交给陈伯达继续修改。
2. 情报说“林彪把文件批给贺龙,徐向前,叶剑英,萧华”,“纪要反驳了罗瑞卿、杨成武”。经查原文是送“贺龙、荣臻、陈毅、伯承、向前、剑英诸同志”。可见线人漏掉了聂荣臻、陈毅和刘伯承,妄增了萧华。原文提到萧华、杨成武是说“萧华同志和杨成武同志,对这次座谈都表示热情赞助和支持”,并没有批驳杨成武。批驳罗瑞卿倒确有其事。
3. 情报说“江青参观了某军队电影制片厂”。这不对,原文是说“江青同志又看了电影《南海长城》的样片,接见了《南海长城》的导演、摄影师和一部分演员。”没有提到江青去了电影厂。
4.情报说《纪要》以总政的名义发出。这不对,《纪要》是林彪以军委的名义报给毛,然后毛以中共中央的名义批转全国。

关于《毛泽东给林彪的信——关于军队生产自给》,这份文件比较短,而且从内容上看似乎和文革没什么关系,所以线人有点奇怪为什么这份文件和前三份文件一起传达,他的猜测是大使不想为宣读这份简短的文件而再麻烦一次召开全体中共党员会议。当年肯定有不少人也会有他这种猜测,直到很久以后人们才知道毛泽东写这封信的真实动机,史家王年一甚至认为这是理解毛泽东对文化大革命真实想法的两把钥匙之一,意义重大。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Intelligence Information Cable

  THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.

COUNTRY   CHINA 
DOI        MAY-JULY 1966
SUBJECT    CONDUCT OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVMENT AT THE CHINESE COMMUNIST EMBASSY

1. (SUMMARY:  THE CHINESE COMMUNIST EMBASSY RECEIVED ITS FIRST NOTICE TO IMPLEMENT THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT (CRM) IN EARLY MAY 1966. THE CRM WAS TO BE CONDUCTED IN TWO STAGES AT THE EMBASSY: STUDYING THE THOUGHTS OF MAO TSE-TUNG AND APPLYING THE KNOWLEDGE SO GAINED TO INVESTIGATE, COMPARE, AND CORRECT THE THOUGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. STUDY SESSIONS WERE HELD SIX DAYS A WEEK AND TWO NIGHTS A WEEK. IN EARLY JUNE ALL OF THE EMBASSY'S CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS ATTENDED A MEETING AT WHICH FOUR DOCUMENTS WERE READ INCLUDING "CRITIQUE OF THE 'REPORT ON THE IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION'" A CRITICISM OF A P'ENG CHEN CRITIQUE; "IMPORTANT RECORDS OF THE GREAT CULTURAL REVOLUTION". -A CHRONOLOGY OF THE CRM"CONCERNING THE PROBLEM OF THE MILITARY PRODUCING ITS OWN SUPPLIES" - A LETTER FROM MAO TO ARMY CHIEF LIN PIAO; AND "IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON LITERATURE AND ART PROBLEMS IN THE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY"- WRITTEN BY MAO TSE-TUNG'S WIFE CHIANG CH'ING.)

2. THE CHINESE COMMUNIST EMBASSY RECEIVED ITS FIRST NOTICE TO IMPLEMENT THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT (2106/0445/2429/ 0553/7425/0730/1743/1032/2251/4854) (CRM) IN EARLY MAY 1966. UNTIL THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN NO INSTRUCTIONS ON THE MOVEMENT OTHER THAN WHAT THE PEOPLE READ IN THE PEOPLE'S DAILY AND RED FLAG.  LATER IN MAY EMBASSADOR CALLED A MEETING OF THE ENTIRE EMBASSY STAFF AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE CRM WAS TO BE CONDUCTED IN TWO STAGES. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO STUDY MAO TSE-TUNG'S THOUGHTS AND THE SECOND WOULD BE TO APPLY THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED TO INVESTIGATE, COMPARE AND CORRECT ONE'S OWN THOUGHTS. HE SAID THEY WOULD BEGIN WITH A STUDY OF FOUR MAO TREATISES INCLUDING:  1) MAO'S TAIKS AT THE YENAN FORUM; 2) NEW DEMOCRACY; 3) MAO'S TALKS AT THE PROPAGANDA WORK CONFERENCE; AND 4)  ON THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE. THESE FOUR DOCUMENTS WERE TO BE STUDIED BY ALL CHINESE PERSONNEL ABROAD. EDITORIALS FROM PEOPLE'S DAILY AND RED FLAG ALSO WERE TO BE STUDIED. HE SAID THE GOAL OF THE CRM IN MISSIONS ABROAD WAS TO HEIGHTEN THE IDEOLOGICAL AWARENESS OF ALL DIPLOMATIC PERSNNEL; IN CHINA THE CRM WAS DESIGNED TO DISCLOSE ANTI-PARTY/ANTI-SOCIALISM ELEMENTS AS WELL AS TO STRUGGLE THEM AND HIGHTEN THEIR IDEOLOGICAL AWARENESS.

3.THE STUDY SESSIONS WERE HELD SIX DAYS A WEEK FROM 1630-1930 AND TW0 NIGHTS A WEEK FROM 2030-2230. DURING THESE SESSIONS EMBASSY PERSONNEL WERE TOLD TO OBSERVE THE "FOUR DON'TS". (SZU KE PU):  1)  DON'T WRITE BIG POSTERS;2)  D0N'T WRITE SMALL POSTERS; 3)  DON'T DIVULGE EACH OTHERS SERIOUS ERRORS;  AND 4) DON'T CRITICIZE EACH OTHER BY MAME.

4.IN EARLY JUNE ALL OF THE EMBASSY'S CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY (CCP) MEMBERS ATTENDED A 3 1/2 HOUR MEETING AT WHICH FOUR DOCUMENTS WERE READ. THESE DOCUMENTS INCLIDED:1) "CRITIQUE OF THE 'REPORT ON THE IMPORTANT POINT'S OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT'" (2106/0445/2429/0553/7425/0730/1743/1032/2251/4854);2) "IMPORTANT RECORDS OF THE GREAT CULTURAL REVOLUTION" (2429/0553/1129/?245/0730/1129/O657/6069); 3) "CONCERNING THE PROBLEM OF THE MILITARY PRODUCING ITS OWN SUPPLIES" (KUAN-YU CHUN-TUI SHENG-CH'AN TZU KEI WEN-T'I); AND 4) "IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE SYMPOSIUM OF LITERATURE AND ART PR0BLEMS IN THE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY (PLA)" (CHIEH FANG CHUN WEN-I TSO-T'AN HUI CHi YAO).

5. THE FIRST DOCUMENT, "CRITIQUE OF THE 'REPORT ON THE IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT'" HAD  BEEN ISSUED AT THE BEGINING OF MAY UNDER P'ENG CHEN'S NAME AND POSITION ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WRITE THE REPORT. THE "CRITIQUE" HAD BEEN DIRECTED  AGAINST THE "IMPORTANT POINTS" REPORT WRITTEN IN FEBRUARY 1966 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CCP PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT.THE DOCUMENT READ TO EMBASSY STAFF MEMBERS STATED THAT THE "CRITIQUE", HAD CONTAINED SEVERAL ERRORS IN THEORY.  THE ERRORS WERE:
 A. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE CORRECT DIRECTION INTENED IN THE CRM. MAO HAD SAID THAT THE IMPORTANT POINT OF THE CRM WAS THE CLASS STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE BOURGEOIS ELEMENTS AND THE CAPITALISTS FOR POLITICAL POWER AND SURVIVAL WHILE P'ENG CHEN HELD THAT THE AIM OF THE CRM WAS TO GIVE CORRECT CONTENT AND DIRECTION TO ART AND LITERATURE AND HAD NO POLITICAL ASPECT.   
B.  P'ENG HAD SAID THAT THE REPORT HAD INSTRUCTED ALL CCP MEMBERS TO CRITICIZE "THE DISMISSAL OF HAI JUI" FR0M A THEORETICAL RATHER THAN A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW.
C.  THE REPORT ACCUSED CERTIAN CCP MEMBERS OF HAVING A MONOPOLY OF CCP. TEESE PEOPLE HAD BECOME LITERARY WARLORDS (HSUEH-FA), ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WISHED WITH NO ONE DARING T0 CONTRADICT THEM. P'ENG SAID THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOICE THERI OWN IDEAS. HIS ULTERIOR MOTIVE WAS T0 LET TENG T-O AND OTHER BOURGEOIS ELEMENTS SPEAK OUT AND CRUSH THESE LITERARY WARLORDS. 
D.  IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE LEFT WING THEORISTS SUCH AS YAO WEN-YVAN, P'ENG'S REPORT ACCUSED THEM OF HAVING FAULTS AND COMMITTING ERRORS WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. HE DID THIS TO COVER RIGHT WING THEORISTS SUCH AS TENG T'O, SAYING THAT EVERYONE HAD COMMITTED ERRORS NOT JUST TENG AND HIS CLIQUE.
E. P'ENG USED THE NAME OF THE CCP TO ISSUE HIS REPORT WITHOUT POLITBURO APDROVAL AND HE "RAISED THE RED FLAG WHILE ATTACKING THE RED FLAG", I.E. MAO'S THOUGHT. 
F. P'ENG CLAIMED THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE EQUAL IN MAKING THEORY AND ALL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK.

6.  THE SECOND DOCUMENT, "IMPORTANT RECORDS OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION MOVEMENT", GAVE THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGY OF THE CRM:
A.  SEPTEMBER 1965 - P'ENG CHEN CONVENED THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL PROPAGANDA WORK CONFERENCE IN CHINAN, SHANTUNG. AT THIS MEETING HE RAISED THE VIEW THAT AS TO THEORY EVERYONE IS EQUAL, AND SAID THAT IF THE CHAIRMAN (MEANING MAO) WERE WRONG THEN HE SHOULD BE CRITICIZED. LU TING-I, AT THE SAME MEETING, MADE A STRONG ATTACK ON STALIN. (SOURCE COMMENT. IN REALITY, HE WAS CRITICIZING MAO.) 

B.  BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 1965 PUBLICATION OF YAO WEN-YUAN'S ARTICLE ON "HAI JUI," MAO CALLED IN P'ENG CHEN AND ASKED HIM IF WU HAN'S ARTICLE DID NOT CONTAIN PROBLEMS. P'ENG ANSWERED THAT IT DEFINITELY CONTAINS ERRORS BUT ERRORS IN THEORY ONLY.

 C.  LATER THE LEFT WING THEORISTS CLIQUE TOOK WU'S ARTICLE AND MADE IT INTO A POLITICAL PROBLEM. TO COPE WITH THIS P'ENG ASKED T0 MEET WITH MAO. AFTER THE MEETING, P'ENG TOLD PEOPLE THAT MAO HAD INSTRUCTED THAT THE PRESENT CRITICISIM SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THEORY AND THAT THEY SHOULD WAIT FOR THREE MONTHS BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT WU HAN'S ARTICLE WAS TO BE CRITICIZED AS A POLITICAL PROBLEM.

D.  LATER IN NOVEMBER 1965, THE WEN HUI PAO PUBLISHED YAO WEN-YUAN'S ARTICLE CRITICIZING "HAI JUI."P'ENG'S SECRETARY (SIC) WAS UNHAPPY AT THIS TURN OF EVENTS AND TELEPHONED THE SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL CCP COMMITTEE AND ASKED:  "WHY WASN'T I INFORMED FIRST BEFORE THIS ARTICLE WAS ISSUED?  AREN'T YOU STILL PARTY MEMBERS? WHO IS BEHIND THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ARTICLE?"

E.  THE PLA FOLLOWED UP BY REPUBLISHIN YAO'S ARTICLE IN THE LIBERATUIB ARMY DAILY AND THE CHEKIANG AND KANGSU PAPERS FOLLOWED SUIT. THE SHANGHAI PEOPLE'S PUBLISHING COMPANY EVEN ISSUED THE ARTICLE IN SMALL BOOKLET FORM AND TELEPHONED THE PEKING NEW CHINA BOOK STORE ASKING THE STORE HOW MANY OF THESE HANDBOOKS IT NEEDED.  (SOURCE COMMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MOVE WAS TO GET THE ARTICLE REPLAYED IN THE PEKING AREA.) THE PEKING NEW CHINA BOOK STORE THEN ASKED P'ENG WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD DISTRIBUTE THE HANDBOOK AND HE POSTPONED THE PROBLEM BY ANSWERING THAT THEY MUST HOLD A MEETING FOR A DECISION.  AFTER SOME TIME WHEN THE MEETING STILL HAD NOT BEEN HELD, CHOU EN-LAI HEARD OF THE MATTER AND URGED THAT A MEETING BE HELD.  P'ENG CHEN THEN CONVENED THE PEKING MUNICIPAL PROPAGANDA OPERATIONS CONFERENCE.EVERYONE FROM THE PEKING CCP COMMITTEE CONCERNED ATTENDED WITH P'ENG ARRIVING LAST. AS HE SAT DOWN HE SAID TO THE GATHERING "WHAT'S THE SITUATION REGARDING WU HAN?" SOMEONE ANSWERED THAT WU HAN WAS VERY FRIGHTENED AND UPSET. P'ENG REPLIED: "THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.  REGARDING THEORY EVERYONE IS EQUAL."  AFTER THE CONFERENCE THE PEKING DAILY PRINTED YAO'S ARTICLE BUT APPENDED TO IT WAS AN EDITORIAL COMMENT STATING THAT THE ARTICLE WAS BEING PRINTED FOP THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION AND THAT THE EDITORSE DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED THEREIN.

F. MAO LATER STUDIED YAO'S ARTICLE AND THEN CALLED AN INFORMAL MEETINC IN JANUARY 1966 ATTENDED BY K'ANG SHENG,CH'EN PO-TA, AT SZU-CHI AND MAO'S WIFE, CHIANG CH'ING.  MAO SAID THAT ALTHOUGH YAO'S ARTICLE WAS VERY GOOD IT STILL HAD NOT GOTTEN TO THE HEART OF THE PR0BLEM. MAO SAID THAT THE IMPORTANT POINT IN "THE DISMISSAL OF HAI JUI" WAS THE PART ALLUDING TO DISMISSAL FROM OFFICE.  MAO INSTRUCTED K'ANG THAT THE FIVE-MAN COMMETTEE WAS TO CHANGE THE FOCAL POINT OF THE CRITICISM AGAINST WU HAN'S ARTICLE TO CENTER ON THE PART CONCERNING THE DISMISSAL FROM OFFICE. (SOURCE COMMENT. AMBASSADOR SAID THAT THE PART CONCERNING DISMISSAL FROM OFFICE REALLY ALLUDED TO P'ENG TE-HUAI WHO SCOLDED MAO TSE-TUNG AT THE LUSHAN CONFERENCE IN 1959.)

G.  SOMETIME LATER K'ANG TOLD P'ENG CHEN OF MAO'S DECISION AND P'ENG OSTENSIBLY ACCEPTED THIS DECISION BUT APPARENTLY DID NOT ACCEPT IT IN HIS HEART. STILL LATER MAO CALLLD IN P'ENG AND ASKED HIM:"IS WU HAN ANTI-CCP?  IS HE ANTI-SOCIALISM?"  P'ENG REPLIED THAT HE HAD ALREADY INVESTIGATED AND FOUND NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN P'ENG T'E-HUAI AND WU, THEREFORE WU'S ARTICLE WAS NOT WRITTEN IN PRAISE OF P'ENG TE-HUAI.
IT WAS AFTER THIS THAT THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CCP PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT WROTE THE DRAFT OF THE "REPORT ON THE IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE CRM" IN THE NAME OF THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE, HEADED BY P'ENG CHEN, WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRM. (SOURCE COMMENT. THE DOCUMENT CITES P'ENG AND K'ANG SHENG AS MEMBERS OF THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OTHER MEMBERS WERE CHOU YANG, LU TING-I AND WU LENG-HSI.

H. P'ENG DID NOT OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE FOR HIS REPORT AND AT A POLITBURO MEETING GAVE ONLY THE GIST OF THE CONTENTS AND NEVER REQUESTED APPROVAL TO DISTRIBUTE IT NOR TO DISCUSS IT.  THE REPOR  WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE POLITBURO TO ALL PARTY COMMITTEES INCLUDING HSIEN LEVEL AND ABOVE.  AT THE SAME TIME P'ENG ASKED TENG T'O TO WRITE ARTICLES CRITICIZING WU HAN'S "HAI JUI" ON MORAL (TAO TE) GROUNDS. 

I.  SOME TIME AFTEP THE REPORT WAS ISSUED THE POLITBURO AGAIN MET, WITH MAO PARTICIPATING.  AT THE MEETING MAO WARNED P'ENG THAT IF THE CENTRUAL PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT (WHICH WAS UNDER THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE) COULD NOT GENUINELY IMPLEMENT THE CRM THEN MAO WOULD GET RID OF IT JUST AS HE HAD IN THE PAST GOTTEN RID OF THE "AGRICULTURAL  VILLAGES OPEPATIONS MIINISTRY"(NUNG TS'UN KUNG-TSO PU). (SOURCE C0MMENT. MAO DID NOT NECESSARILY MEAN HE WOULD ABOLISH THE ORGAN BUT MAY HAVE MEANT THAT HE WOULD DISMISS THE LEADERS OF THE DEPARTMENT.  IT APPEARS THAT THE POLITBURO WAS UNAWARE AT THE TIME OF THIS MEEETING THAT P'ENG CHEN HAD ALREADY ISSUED HIS REPORT OR IT SEEMS LIKELY THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED THIS FACT.)

J.  AFTER THE SHANGHAI CCP COMMITTEE RECEIVED P'ENG'S REPORT AND READ THE CONTENTS, IT TELEPHONED HIM AND TOLD HIM THAT IT DIDN'T AGREED WITH SOME OF THE VIEWS THEREIN.  AT THE SAME TIME THE C0MMITTEE ASKED P'ENG "WHO ARE YOUR LITERARY WARLORDS?"  P'ENG REPLIED. "WHOEVER HAS SCARS ON HIS HEAD, THEN HE IS AH Q." (HEADQUARTERS COMMENT. AH Q IS THE MAIN CHARACTER OF A STORY WRITTEN BY LU HSUN, AN AUTHOR ONCE ACCEPTED BY THE CHICOMS AS ONE OF THEIR LITERARY GREATS.  AH Q IN THE STORY WAS FOREVER SEEING VICTORY IN DEFEAT.)  (SOURCE COMMENT.IT PROBABLY WAS THE SHANGHAI CCP COMMITTEE WHICH NOTIFIED MAO OF P'ENG'S REPORT.)  LATER, IN MAY 1966 THE POLITBURO ISSUED ITS FIRST CRITICAL ARTICLE. P'ENG'S DISMISSAL FROM THE PEKING CCP POSITION FOLLOWED AND THE COMPOSITION OF THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE CHANGED WITH CHEN PO-TA BECOMING THE NEW LEADER AND T'AO CHU AS A NEW MEMBER. K'ANG SHENG REMAINS A MEMBER.

7.  THE THTRD DOCUMENT, "CONCERNING THE PROBLEM OF THE MILITARY PRODUCING ITS OWN SUPPLIES", A LETTER FROM MAO TO LIN PIAO.  (SOURCE COMMENT. IT SEEMS LIKELY THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN THIS YEAR.)  MAO'S LETTER WAs IN RESPONSE TO AN EARLIER LETTER FROM LIN PIAO IN WHICH THE LATTER STATED THAT THE "LOGISTICS MINISTRY" HAD PROPOSED THAT UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS THE MILITARY COULD ENGAGE IN PRODUCTION OF SOME OF ITS OWN SUPPLIES. IN HIS LETTER MAO RESPONDED BY PRAISING THIS PROPOSAL AND RECALLING THAT THE PLA HAD DONE THIS IN THE PAST. HE WENT ON TO STATE THAT THE PLA CAN DO IT AGAIN AND SO CAN ALL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS L0NG AS WORLD WAR III DOES NOT BREAK OUT. MAO THEN INSTUCTED THAT THE PLA SHOULD ENGAGE IN THREE-PRONGED ACTIVITIES: MILITARY TRAINING, POLITICAL INDOCTRINATION AND PRODUCTION.  OTHER ORGANS SUCH AS FACTORIES, GOVERMENT ORGANS, ETC.SHOULD EMULATE THIS EXAMPLE SUBSTITUTING THEIR OWN WORK FOR THE FIRST PRONG. (SOURCE COMMENT.  THIS DOCUMENT HAD NO APPARENT CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER THREE DOCUMENTS BUT WAS READ AT THE EMBASSY MEETING PROBABLY BECAUSE THE AMBASSADOR DIDN'T WANT TO CALL A SECOND MEETING JUST TO READ THIS SH0RT DOCUMENT.)

 8.   THE FOURTH DOCUMENT, "IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON LITERATURE AND ART PR0BLEMS IN THE PLA" WAS WRITTEN BY MAO TSE-TUNG'S WIFE CHIANG CH'ING (3068/7230). BEFORE MAY 1966, CHIANG CH'ING HAD PROPOSED TO DO A STUDY 0N THE PPOBLEM OF LITERATURE AND ART IN THE PLA. LIN PIAO SUPPORTED THIS PPOPOSAL AND INSTRUCTED THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS CONCERNED IN PLA HEADQUARTERS THAT MAO'S WIFE HAD A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF MAO'S THOUGHT, THAT SHE WAS AN EXPERT IN THE CULTURAL FIELD, AND THAT SHE WAS TO BE GIVEN EVERY POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE.  IN MARCH 1966 IN SHANGHAI, CHIANG CH’ING CONVENED A SYMPOSIUM ON THE PROBLEM OF LITERATURE AND ART IN THE PLA WHICH LASTED EIGHTEEN DAYS.  SHE VISITED PLA MOVIE STUDIOS, SCREENED SOME TWENTRY-TWO MOVIES, AND DISCUSSED THE PROBLEMS WITH CADRES FROM THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF VARIOUS MILITARY AREAS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SYMPOSIUM, SHE WROTE A DRAFT REPORT WHICH UNDERWENT REVISION FIRST BY CH'EN PO-TA AND THEN BY MAO TSE-TUNG AFTER WHICH SHE SUBMITTED THE REPORT TO LIN PIAO FOR HIS APPROVAL.  LIN APPENDED A RECOMMENDATORY COMMENT TO THE REPORT AND SENT IT TO HO LUNG, HSU HSIANG-CH'IEN, YEH CHIEN-YING, AND HSIAO HUA FOR THEIR C0MMENTS. AFTER THEY READ IT, THE REPORT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PLA POLITICAL DEPARTMENT. M0ST OF THE REPORT DISCUSSED PROBLEMS OF LITERATURE AND ART WITHIN THE PLA AND CONCLUDED WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLA USE MAO TSE-TUNG'S ESSAY ON TALKS AT THE YENAN FORUM AS A GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRM IN THE LITERATURE AND ART FIELDS. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCUMENT WAS ITS REFUTATION OF LO JUI-CH'ING AND YANG CH'ENG-WU'S CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS N0 PROBLEM OF CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE PLA AND SO NO PROBLEM IN THE CULTURAL FIELD.  LO CONTENDED THAT NO WRITERS IN THE PLA HELD BOURGEOIS CONCEPTS THUS NO PROBLEM EXISTED. THIS VIEW REFUTED MAO-S CONCEPT OF THE EXISTENCE OF CLASS STRUGGLE AND THE NEED TO CONTINUE THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE. CHIANG CH'ING'S REPORT STATED THAT WITHIN THE PLA THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES CONTINUES AND SO REVOLUTION IN THE CULTURAL FIELDS MUST BE CARRIED OUT.

9. FIELD DISSEM: CINCPAC   PACFLT   ARPAC   PACAF.

COPY
Lyndon Baines Johnson Library

出处:美国政府解密档案参考系统DDRS-204943








没有评论:

发表评论