《近代史研究》2005年第1期
2020-10-07 16:39:13   来源：中国社会科学院近代史研究所    点击：

　　•专题论文•

　　20世纪中国近代史学科体系问题的探索 张海鹏(29)

　　论国共重庆谈判的政治性质 邓 野 (35)

　　1946年沈崇事件：南京政府的对策 左双文(39)

　　贵州企业公司研究(1939—1949) 莫子刚(33)

　　蒋介石、张学良与中东路事件之交涉 杨奎松(51)

　　外交、外债和派系

　　——从“梁颜政争”看20世纪20年代初期北京政府的外交运作 陈 雁 (24)

　　救时的偏方：戊戌变法期间司员士民上书中军事外交论 茅海建 (50)

　　•书评与文评•

　　一本质量不高的毛泽东文稿编年著作

　　——《毛泽东著述编年索引》校勘略记 周一平(36)

　　•读史札记•

　　南京参议院议员人数与《临时约法》的效力 刘劲松(7)

　　•学术综述•

　　“北洋时期的中国外交”国际学术讨论会综述 金光耀 郭秋香(7)

　　“孙中山与中国现代化”学术研讨会在武汉召开 (1)

　　“太平天国与中国农民问题”学术研讨会在南京召开 (1)

　　读者来信 谢本书(1)

　　本期执行编辑：徐秀丽 技术编辑：曾学白

　　2005年第1期内容提要

　　20世纪中国近代史学科体系问题的探索　　张海鹏

　　[内容提要]中国近代史作为20世纪中国历史学的一个重要分支学科，是中国近代社会转型和学术转型的产物。在几代学者探索、争鸣的基础上，确立了以半殖民地半封建社会大约110年的中国历史作为中国近代史学科的研究对象。这种认识，是在马克思主义基本原理指导下得出的，是以对近代中国的社会经济形态与近代中国的社会性质的考察为出发点的，是符合近代中国历史进程的科学的学科体系。运用现代化理论研究近代中国的历史，具有一定的积极意义，但简单地以“现代化范式”替代“革命史范式”，未必是正确的思考方向。近代中国的时代基调是革命，中国近代史上的政治、经济、军事、文化思想、社会变迁，以及中外关系的处理，区域发展，少数民族问题，阶级斗争的状况，无不或多或少与革命的进程相联系。中国近代史学科体系只能在“革命史范式”主导下，兼采“现代化范式”的视角，更多关注社会经济的发展与变迁及其对于革命进程的作用，使“革命史范式”臻于完善，这是我们今天需要努力的。

　　[关键词]中国近代史学科体系 革命史范式 现代化范式 半殖民地半封建社会

　　论国共重庆谈判的政治性质　　邓 野

　　[内容提要]重庆谈判就其政治范畴而论，是国共围绕联合政府与一党训政的政治对立，展开的若干次对抗中的一个回合。中日战争结束之际，由于美苏分别确认国民党政府的惟一合法地位，并分别决定由国民党接收日占区，为此，改变了原有的国共力量对比，从而打断了原有的国共关系调整进程。在此条件下，重庆谈判以中共收回联合政府要求作为政治基础，以交出解放区作为主题。结果，双方互有胜负。重庆谈判的政治性质表现为，联合政府口号在其推进过程中遭遇的一次严重的政治挫折。重庆谈判的知名度与它的历史地位并不对称。

　　[关键词]重庆谈判 联合政府 参加政府

　　1946年沈崇事件：南京政府的对策　　左双文

　　[内容提要]沈崇事件发生后，在中共的发动和支持之下，迅速发展成为一场席卷全国的反美反政府的政治运动。表面上是学生和社会各界对美军暴行的抗议与对政府的责难，实质上则是一种国共之间的政治角力，一场严重的民心争夺战。国民政府为应对此事件，蒋介石亲定处理方略，调动了党政军警宪特各种政治资源，但由于种种原因，并未能获致满意的结果，相反，一个看似偶然的突发性事件演变成了南京政府的一场严重政治灾难。

　　[关键词]沈崇事件 南京政府 对策

　　贵州企业公司研究(1939—1949)　　莫子刚

　　[内容提要]抗日战争爆发后，以吴鼎昌为首的贵州省政府为了完成“开发贵州，建设西南”的历史使命，根据战时经济形势和贵州财政状况，创建了我国抗战时期第一家省营大型企业，即贵州企业公司。该公司在投资办厂方面具有重调研、重引导、重工矿交通建设以及重时局需要和地方资源等特点。在经管方面的成功之处则表现为组织系统比较全面和严密、决策机制充满活力、生产经营分工合作、财务制度健全有力以及重视延揽和培训人才，讲究员工福利等方面。贵州企业公司不仅在开发产品与技术，探测黔省地下资源，带动和促进贵州近代经济等方面做出了重大贡献，其经管模式更是在全国产生了深远影响。此外，该公司本身的兴衰历程也给我们留下了十分有益的历史启示。

　　[关键词]贵州 贵州企业公司 下属单位 经济建设

　　蒋介石、张学良与中东路事件之交涉　　杨奎松

　　[内容提要]1929年，藉南京国民政府推动“革命外交”之机，年轻气盛的张学良在东北挑起了中东路事件，意图强行收回中方在中东铁路经营管理上应享之权。此举得到蒋介石和南京国民政府的鼎力支持，蒋并且试图藉机收回全部路权。对此，苏联方面以1924年中俄及奉俄条约为依据，亦不惜以武力相向。蒋则运用外交手段，希冀得到各国列强的支持而获得压制苏联的效果，却不料各国政府多不赞同中方的做法。结果，苏联大举兴兵，东北边防军损失惨重，张学良被迫单独与苏联订立了城下之盟。此举虽令南京不满，蒋却因顾虑到逐渐形成气候的反蒋风潮，而不得不曲予承认。

　　[关键词]中东路事件 蒋介石 张学良 “革命外交” 苏联政府

　　外交、外债和派系

　　——从梁颜政争看20世纪20年代初期北京政府的外交运作　　陈 雁

　　[内容提要]北京政府时期是中国近代外交制度成型的重要时期，一批主要由留学生构成的职业外交官活跃于北京外交界，并以“独立”和“超然”自居。但在派系纷争、军阀混战的20世纪20年代，他们能在多大程度上左右中国的外交政策与实践，又能在多大程度上保持自己的独立性呢?本文以华盛顿会议期间围绕山东问题而引发的“倒梁(士诒)风潮”和“梁颜(惠庆)政争”为例进行分析，在这一裹挟着北京政府赖以维系的两大重要支柱——外交和外债的重要案例中，颜惠庆在“梁颜政争”中不仅主动出击，把梁士诒拖入外交漩涡，还巧妙地利用军阀“电报战”，令梁内阁垮台。可以说，在这场“梁颜政争”中，颜惠庆成功地利用派系斗争，既争得了外交部对胶济铁路交涉案的控制权，也进一步提升了自己在外交界和政坛的地位。可以看出，在派系政治的文化环境中，20世纪20年代的中国外交官们虽然表面上标榜独立与中立，但常常不得不依靠非正式的社会关系和非正式的制度安排来推进外交实践，甚至主动参与到派系斗争中来。而当他们越来越深地卷入权力斗争的漩涡中，对于权力的迷恋也日渐加深，这个时候“独立”和“制度”都是可以搁置和牺牲的。

　　[关键词]梁颜政争 派系政治 外交运作

　　救时的偏方：戊戌变法期间司员士民上书中军事外交论　　茅海建

　　[内容提要]戊戌变法期间的一项重大改革举措，即是允许司员士民不受限制地向皇帝上书，在大约六个多月的时间里，共有457人次至少递交了567件上书，现存275件上书的原件和抄件。本文专论这批来自中下层的官员士民上书中军事与外交的内容，由此观察在历史过程中的观念与思想。如果以世界各国已有的军事改革、外交改革的成功经验为标准，如果用以后100多年来中国在军事和外交上所走的曲折道路相对照，不难看出，司员士民在上书中提出的军事、外交上的诸策，与历史发展的方向并不吻合，有些地方甚至背道而驰，在我看来，大多为救时的偏方。在阅读的过程中，我经常感受不到改革的方向，也不知道这些改革者究竟能行多远。

　　[关键词]戊戌变法 上书 军事改革 外交改革

　　Modern Chinese History Studies

　　No.1,2005

　　Probing the Structure of the 20th Century Field of Modern Chinese History

　　Zhang Haipeng (1)

　　As an important branch of 20th century Chinese historiography, modern Chinese history is the product of modern China’s social and academic transformations. Built upon the explorations and disputes of several generations of scholars, the field has established the 110 years of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism in Chinese history as its object of research. This recognition was attained under the direction of basic Marxist principles. It is based on research into modern China’s socio-economic forms and the nature of its society, and is a scientific problematic which accords with modern China’s historical process. There are certain benefits to using theories of modernization to study modern Chinese history. However, simply replacing “revolutionary history” with “modernization” is not necessarily the correct direction for our thinking. The epochal keynote of modern China was revolution. The politics, economy, military affairs, intellectual culture, social transformations, foreign relations, regional development, problems of minority nationalities, and conditions of class struggles in modern China were all related to the revolutionary process to a greater or lesser extent. It is only under the guidance of “revolutionary history,” by adopting at the same time the perspective of “modernization,” and by paying more attention to socio-economic development and transformation and their effects on the revolutionary process, that the field of modern Chinese history can bring “revolutionary history” closer to perfection. This is what we must strive for now.

　　On the Political Nature of the Chongqing Negotiations between the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party Deng Ye (30)

　　In its political aspect, the Chongqing Negotiations were a confrontation between the Guomindang and the CCP over the issue of united government versus one-party politics. Since the United States of America and the Soviet Union had separately recognized the Nationalist Government as China’s only legal government at the end of the Sino-Japanese War, and separately decided that the Guomindang should recover the Japanese occupied areas, the balance of power between the Guomindang and the CCP had changed, and the existing process for regulating their relations had been disrupted. Under these conditions, the Chongqing negotiations were based politically on the CCP’s withdrawal of the goal of united government, and centered around the theme of the CCP’s surrender of the liberated areas. In the end, both parties had gains and losses. The expression of the political nature of the Chongqing negotiations was that the “United Government” slogan’s push forward suffered a serious political setback. The reputation of the Chongqing negotiations does not correspond with its historical status.

　　The Shen Chong Incident of 1946: The Nanjing Nationalist Government’s Policies

　　Zuo Shuangwen (65)

　　After it broke out, launched and supported by the Chinese Communist Party, the Shen Chong Incident quickly developed into a nationwide anti-American and anti-government political movement. On the surface, it was a protest by students and all parts of society against the outrages of the U.S. Army, and a reprimand to the government. But in reality it was a political struggle between the Guomindang and the CCP, and a serious contest for the will of the people. Faced with this incident, Chiang Kai-shek personally took charge of deciding the strategies for handling it, and used all of his political resources, including party, government, military, law enforcement, military police and intelligence resources. However, these measures did not attain satisfactory results. On the contrary, a seemingly random incident grew into a serious political disaster for the Nanjing Nationalist Government.

　　A Study of Guizhou Corporation, 1939-1949 Mo Zigang (104)

　　Chiang Kai-shek, Zhang Xueliang and the Negotiations over the Zhongdong Railway Incident Yang Kuisong (137)

　　In 1929 the young and vigorous Zhang Xueliang took advantage of the Nanjing Nationalist Government’s promotion of “Revolutionary Diplomacy,” and provoked the Zhongdong Railway Incident with the aim of forcefully recovering China’s lawful rights in the management of the railway. Zhang’s actions received strong support from Chiang Kai-shek and the Nanjing Nationalist Government, and Chiang hoped to use this chance to recover all rights over the railroad. The Soviet Union did not hesitate to respond with military action, citing the stipulations of the 1924 Sino-Russian and Fengtian-Russian Treaties for justification. Chiang, on the other hand, relied on diplomacy and hoped to keep the Soviet Union in check by gaining the support of the great powers. But unexpectedly, most of the foreign governments opposed China’s action. Finally, the Soviet Union mounted a large-scale offensive, and the Northeastern Border Guards incurred serious losses, and Zhang Xueliang was forced to sign a separate peace agreement with the Soviet Union. Though the Nanjing Government was not satisfied with this step, Chiang had to recognize it out of concern over gradually mounting anti-Chiang unrest.

　　Diplomacy, Foreign Debt and Factions: Looking at the Beijing Government’sDiplomatic Operations in the Early 1920s through the lens of the “PoliticalStruggle between Liang Shiyi and Yan Huiqing” Chen Yan(188)

　　The Beijing Government period was an important period in the formation of the modern Chinese diplomatic system. During this period, a group of professional diplomats composed mainly of returned overseas students was active in Beijing diplomatic circles, and considered themselves to be “independent” and “detached.” However, in the factional struggle and warlord warfare-filled 1920s, to what extent could they master and control China’s diplomatic policies and practices, and maintain their independence? In the “Anti-Liang (Shiyi) Disturbance” and the “Political Struggle between Liang Shiyi and Yan Huiqing,” both of which arose out of the Shangdong problem during the Washington Conference, Yan not only took the initiative to draw Liang into the diplomatic vortex, but also cleverly used the warlords in a “telegram war” to overthrow the Liang cabinet. Successfully taking advantage of factional struggles in this political disturbance, Yan not only won for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the right to negotiate over the Qingdao-Ji’nan Railway, but also raised his status in diplomatic circles and on the political stage. It is clear that although the Chinese diplomats of the 1920s outwardly flew the banner of independence and neutrality, in the cultural environment of factional politics they always had to depend on informal social relations and informal institutional arrangements to help achieve diplomatic goals, and even actively joined in factional struggles. When they were drawn deeply into the vortex of power struggles, and when they had more and more passionate interest in power themselves, their “independence” and the “system” could be put aside and sacrificed.

　　Folk Remedies to Save the Nation: Opinions on Military and Diplomatic Affairs in Memorials Submitted by Middle and Lower Rank Officials, Intellectuals and Common People during the Reform Movement of 1898 Mao Haijian (212)

　　A Mediocre Chronology of Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts: Chronological Index of Mao Zedong’s Writings Zhou Yiping (262)

　　The Number of Senators in the Nanjing Senate and its Effect on the Temporary Law

　　Liu Jingsong (298)

　　Summary of the International Seminar on “China’s Diplomacy during the Beiyang Period” Jin Guangyao, Guo Qiuxiang (305)

　　Seminar on “Sun Yat-sen and China’s Modernization” held in Wuhan (312)

　　Seminar on “The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and the Chinese Peasant Question”held in Nanjing (313)

　　A Reader’s Letter Xie Benshu (314)

　　近代史研究 第1期 2005年 总第145期 1月出版

责任编辑：国强 最后更新：2021-05-30 19:44:06

特别说明：抗日战争纪念网是一个记录和研究中国人民抗日战争历史的公益网站。本网注明稿件来源为其他媒体与网站的文/ 图等稿件均为转载稿，本网转载，并不意味着赞同其观点或证实其内容的真实性。本网转载出于非商业性的文化交流和科研之目的，如转载稿侵犯了您的版权，请告知本网及时撤除。以史实为镜鉴，揭侵略之罪恶；颂英烈之功勋，弘抗战之精神。我们要铭记抗战历史，弘扬抗战精神，坚定理想信念,为国家富强、民族复兴,实现伟大的中国梦作出新的贡献。感谢您对抗日战争纪念网的支持。
纠错电话：0731-85531328、19118928111(微信同号)

上一篇：《近代史研究》2004年第6期

下一篇：《近代史研究》2005年第2期