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1966年5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16：30到19：30，再加两个晚上的20：30到22：30。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1966年5月19日由中共中央办公厅机要室发出的中发［66］267号文件，即大名鼎鼎的5.16《通知》。其中，《通知》的正文就是批判1966年2月12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1966年5月24日由中共中央办公厅机要室发出的中发［66］271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1966年4月10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. “1965年9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（1965年9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(局)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“1965年11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1965年11月彭真因姚文元文章打电话给上海方面，而是到了1966年3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