1966.12.26北京街头所见大字报选
按：文革初期大字报一哄而起，也确实暴露了很多平时看不到的消息，驻华外交官们就从中获取了大量信息。当时英国外交官不定期（每10天或每两周）作一个专题报告，向英国外交部汇报近期值得注意的大字报。
本期档案选自1967年1月4日英国外交官上报的1966年12月24日至1967年1月3日间北京街头的大字报，其中最值得注意的就是自12月26日起终于出现了详细揭露刘少奇“错误”的大字报，其中篇幅最大的是由清华大学红卫兵12月25日所写的刘少奇十条罪状。
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
CONFIDENTIAL
The
Office of the British
Charge d'Affaires,
PEKING:
4 January, 1967.
Dear
David:
The
attached collection of posters seen in Peking between 24 December and 3
January contains a number of interesting items, of which we have already
reported some of the more important by telegram (Nos. 1061, 1073 and 1075).
2. The major event of the period was the outbreak of
violent and lengthy attacks on Liu Shao-ch'i. The amount of this material now
to be seen in Peking is almost overwhelming, and the items we have included (14, 17, 24, 26, 33, 50 and 60) are only a
sample, although we believe that they are representative and include all the
important points. The
detail in the posters accusing Liu provides many fascinating glimpses of
differences within the Chinese leadership in the past, even allowing for the
gross distortion which we must assume is contained 1 therein. The welter of
accusations seem to confirm that the clash between Liu and Mao is probably
based on personal grounds as well as differences over policy. The attacks on
Wang Kuang-mei, particularly that of Chiang Ch'ing in Item 59, suggest a very
bitter personal feud between the two families.
3. The main fire has thus been concentrated on Liu,
with whom Teng Hsiao-p'ing now seems to be automatically linked in a somewhat
cursory manner, but there are also some interesting sallies against other
Chinese leaders. T’ao Chu (32(v) and 35) has been under a certain amount of
criticism, but the attacks do not yet seem to have
reached serious proportions.
Those on Wang Jen-chung, his
sucessor in the Central South Region (19 and 17) do, however, seem
to be more serious. Given their previous relationship, one might have
speculated that Tao and Wang would have been close collaborators and therefore
been tempted to see attacks on Wang as indirectly affecting T'ao Chu. However,
I might here record a
piece of gossip that I recently heard from the East German correspondent, that in fact these
two are bitter rivals and are responsible for many of the poster attacks
against each other.
4. The attacks on Chou Jung-hsin and Hsu Ming (27)
also seem quite serious, particularly in view of the fact that they came
from Chiang Ch'ing
herself. Taking account of the posts both of them hold in the State Council,
one begins to wonder if they may have any relevance to Chou En-lai's position.
Such speculation is also stimulated by the curious reference to Lin I-hsan (2), who
is described as the 'time bomb’ by the side of Chou. The attacks on Po I-po (20
and 39) and Ch'en Yi (32(iv)) probably add nothing new, and that on Ch'en Yi at
least seems to be another rather random shot.
5.
As one would expect, in view of the new policy of bringing the workers into the
movement (the People's Daily new refers to them as the 'main force’ of the
Cultural Revolution), there is more evidence of workers' activities
to be seen in posters (5, 18 and 31). They still call themselves by a number of names,
but the terminology 'Red Rebels' (hung-se tsao-fan-che) seems to be emerging as
the standard nomenclature.
CONFIDENTIAL.
26 December
17 Liu
Shao-ch'i and Teng Hsiao P'ing:
Three posters attacking Liu Shao-ch'i as a
counter-revolutionary revisionist and right opportunist were seen near the
State Council. The longest, dated 25
December, was issued in the name of the Red Guards of the Chinghua
University, and demanded that Liu be "struck
down" and listed his ten crimes.
Liu was
said to have opposed the thought and leadership of Mao
for many years. At the time of the
Liberation he said "This is solely a victory for
Marxism-Leninism, and by no means a victory for the thought of Mao". In
1954 he was responsible for wide publicity being given in China to a letter by a Russian
(Ko-lieh-erh-tse-man) to Yang Hsien-chen, describing the study of the thought
of Mao Tse-tung as "simplification" and "vulgarisation".
In 1962 he was responsible for his own work "How to be a Good
Communist" being given a wide circulation, and this was in opposition to
Lin Piao's essay "Study Mao's Thoughts". In the same year
he was also responsible for preventing an item on the study of the thought of
Mao Tse-tung being included in a revised version of the Party Constitution. For
several years past, including his speech to the Eighth Plenum in 1956, Liu has
not mentioned Mao or his leadership.
Soon after Liberation he said it was too early
to speak of Socialism. He opposed land reform in 1951 and supported the idea
of a rich peasant economy, and said this "was not a temporary but a
long-term phenomenon". He was also a supporter of capitalist technology
and business methods, and attempted to sabotage the movement to collectivise
agriculture (in 1955). He approved the resurgence of capitalism in 1962. When Mao put
forward the "first ten points", Liu proposed the "last ten
points" (hou shih t'iao). Mao thereupon produced_the 23 Points (ch'ien
shih t’iao).
Liu is also accused of hostility to the Great
Leap Forward and of producing a critical report.
In the 1957 campaign he is said to have
supported the rightists. He has distorted history to denigrate the role of
Mao in the Chinese revolution. One example of this was his attempt to claim
authorship of the idea of "half work, half study", which was in fact
Mao's own. Wang
Kuang-mei had peddled her husband's claim around the country, and she is also
accused of other efforts to build up the prestige of the Liu family (Liu Chia
FU-0491 -1367-1650). She helped Liu's efforts to mislead Chinese youth.
Liu is said to be an ambitious careerist. He
had opposed Mao's ideas on the class struggle and had advocated "close
harmony and reconciliation", saying that “the class
question has already been solved"
He has opposed the Cultural Revolution, which
he wanted to limit to "a purely academic discussion". He was at a
loss when Teng To and Wu Han were weeded out (Liu is accused elsewhere of using
the People's Daily,
Peking Daily, Ch'ien Chin and the Youth Newspaper (Ch'ing Nien Pao) to attack
Mao), and tried to protect Teng. He gave publicity to T'an Li-fu's speech,
sent out the work teams to suppress the movement sent Wang Kuang-mei to Tsinghua
University, issued secret orders misusing the name of the Central Committee to
confuse the Party and direct it against the Cultural Revolution. When Mao
realised what was happening and Liu was uncovered he made a confession, but
this was false and insincere. He still has a certain influence and has been
"collecting material" (?). He is not ready to accept defeat and, as
Mao says, if the enemy will not surrender, he and Teng must be annihilated.
In 1962 a (counter-revolutionary) adverse wind
blew up in China,
and a lot of right opportunists became active - such as Yang Hsien-chen, etc. These
people would not have survived for a second without the support of Liu, P'eng
and the rest.
Liu and P'eng both tried to rewrite and distort
the history of the C.C.P. to downgrade the part played by Mao. In particular, Liu made a great
fuss about the celebrations of the "12.9" anniversary (9 December), especially last year when there were
articles in the People's Daily, Peking Daily, etc., and an exhibition, all
playing up the
role of Liu in the
"white areas" (during the war).
Liu was also opposed to the Four Clearances
campaign in 1964.
There are many large strip posters demanding
simply "Strike Down Liu", "Weed out the Evil Influence of Liu
and Teng", etc. It is of interest
that we have so far seen no detailed attacks on Teng in the recent wave. He is merely appended at the end of the catalogue
of Liu's crimes.
Public reaction to the posters was apathetic, although there was a fair
amount of (apparently aimless) activity in the city - columns of marchers, lorry-loads of students and
workers, etc.
18.Students and Workers
One
poster announced the formation of the "Middle School Students and Workers
Revolutionary Make-Rebellion Group" (? T'uan).
19.Wang Jen-chung
Posters
attack Wang Jen-chung (Acting First Secretary of Central South Region) as one
who is pursuing the bourgeois line and inciting the masses to struggle against
each other.
20.Po I-po
Po
I-po is again attacked for advocating bourgeois and revisionist economic
policies and for attempting to suppress the Cultural Revolution.
21.Public Security
Several
posters attack actions of the Public Security Forces in suppressing the
revolution. One tells of an incident in which Public Security Forces are said
to have attacked 600 workers at Peking No.
1 Cotton Factory. Others specifically condemn Li X
( ), who appears to
be head of a Public Security Bureau for his crimes.
22.Shanghai
Two
posters demand that the Public Security Forces should take action against the
"handful in the art colleges and institutes of Shanghai who have been
suppressing the students".
23.Ch'en Chih-yuan
Two
posters say "Ch'en Chih-yuan is a scoundrel who should be dismissed”
(according to our records Ch'en was Secretary General of the China Electrical
Engingeering Society in October, 1965).
D.
C. Wilson, Esq.,
FAR EASTERN
DEPARTMENT,
Foreign Office.
出处：英国外交部档案FCO_21_21
没有评论:
发表评论