倾听各国草根真实声音,纵论全球平民眼中世界
龙腾网首页 -> 精华推荐 -> 正文
[精华推荐] 老外讨论中国的尚武精神
2012-04-02 airil 48879 75 17
文章简介
一个没有脊梁的民族势必会被世界潮流所淹没,一个没有伟大精神贯穿的脊梁必将被外力所折断。中华民族正值赶超世界先进文明的机遇期,可谓是时不我待,而"科学技术是第一生产力"更是被我们叫的响天掣地,但是我们却为此忽略了一个生产力的倍增器--尚武精神(民族精神)。老外是怎样看待中国的尚武精神?
正文内容
原帖链接:http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/military-history/how-would-you-define-chinas-warrior-ethos-5784.html

How would you define China's Warrior Ethos?

你怎样看待中国的尚武精神

评论:

#1 ABC78
I say a presentation by the author of "The Warrior Ethos" and the author mostly western references. And I was wondering what would China's warrior ethos be built on beyond the Mao red era "Long March, Anti-Japan and Civil War" tradition.

我做了一个关于尚武精神的演讲,内容大部分来源于西方的资料。我想知道建立在毛泽东红色时代(长征、抗日和国共内战)传统上的中国尚武精神是什么样的。
(楼主在原帖一楼贴了那个演讲的视频,不过我打不开,懒得翻墙,有兴趣的tx可以去看看)

#2 paintgun
nationalism, patriotism and loyalty to the party
these are the pillars PLA can fall back to define this 'warrior ethos'
usually such thing evolve and stem from culture, like mentioned in the C-SPAN about duty and honor, but Chinese culture is currently in a limbo, and it has never emphasized much on warrior or war, in fact an averse subject, the core of chinese culture has always been family

民族主义、爱国主义和对党的忠诚,这些是解放军赖以形成尚武精神的支柱。这些东西植根于文化中并逐步演进,正如C-SPAN里(指一楼的视频)提到的责任和荣誉。但是中国文化现在固步自封,不再强调武力和战争,事实上正相反,中国文化的核心一直是家族。

#3 delft
It is remarkable how different the conduct of military with a similar background can be. During the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944-45 the Poles and Canadians had the reputation of waging their lives to reconnoiter places that might still be occupied by the German army and try to spare the lives and property of the people living there, while the US army had the reputation of pouting artillery fire into anything suspicious without such concerns.
In the next war the Netherlands was concerned with, the war against newly independent Indonesia, war crimes were committed that could not be acknowledged until a short while ago. There were complaints at the time, in the mid-fifties a cousin of my mother's said this unit had taken part in terrible things he didn't want to talk about, in 1969 someone wrote a book about those war crimes that led to a temporally loud discussion that died down pretty soon but only this year the Dutch government lost a court case in The Hague that forced them to pay compensation to survivors of a massacre on Java in 1949. In the late '90's a short article in my newspaper by a veteran from that war described how he was send out as an officer with a small detachment to retrieve the administration of a forestry company on Sumatra. He took prisoner a small number of members of the Indonesian army but because he had too few men to guard them he had them shot. Quite clearly he didn't recognize that he was a war criminal and the newspaper didn't notice it either.
So this presentation by Mr. Pressfield compares "the" US military ethics with those of antique Greeks and with the Japanese army of WWI and WWII, and wonders about those strange beings in South Asia with but little comprehension of the differences between Western armies at a given time and as they developed through time. It was altogether a rather shallow presentation, although not as shallow as paintgun's remarks.

在相似的战争背景下,军队行为准则的差异可能是显著的。在1944年到1945年的荷兰解放战争中,波兰人和加拿大人愿意不惜性命去侦察德占区并尽力保全当地民众和财产,而美军则不管这么多,他们会向任何可疑物体投掷炮火。
在涉及荷兰的另一场战争,即反印尼独立战争中,存在战争犯罪,但一直到最近才被承认。当时就存在谴责之声,上世纪50年代,我母亲的一位表亲说军队干的一些龌龊事连他也不愿意提起。1969年有人写了一本关于那些战争犯罪的书并引发了一场大讨论,然而很快便消弭于无声。直到今年荷兰政府在海牙法庭的一场官司中败诉,并被判向1949年爪哇大屠杀的幸存者支付赔偿金。上世纪90年代末,一位老兵的一篇短文刊登在我的报纸上,文章描述他作为一个军官如何带领一支小分队收回苏门答腊岛的一家林业公司的管理权。他俘虏过一些印尼士兵,但是因为没有足够看守兵力,他射杀了那些俘虏。很显然,他并未意识到他是一个战犯,报纸同样也没有意识到这一点。
普莱斯菲尔德先生的演讲比较了美军、古希腊人和一战二战日军的军队行为准则,对奇怪的南亚人感到疑惑,但对同一时期西方军队之间的差异和发展缺乏了解。总体来说,这是一个十分肤浅的演讲,虽然比paintgun(2楼的那位仁兄)的言论稍好一些。

#4 paintgun
hey i knew someone was gonna shoot at me i almost put a final sentence : just a ramble don't shoot, and it did happen lol
cmon delft, ABC78 was asking about what is the defining values of modern Chinese 'warrior ethos' in PLA
let us be honest, noone is a saint in war and as they say as well, all is fair in love and war, what we are really looking into is what motivates and becomes the basis for such warrior ethos, the C-SPAN video is certainly speaking from American perspective, and remember he is speaking in front of an audience of military professionals to promote his work
now try answering ABC78's good question about this interesting topic without trying to put anyone down

嘿,我知道有人想要揍我,让我先说完最后一句话:大家就是随便逛逛,别激动lol
拜托,Delft(3楼),ABC78(楼主)问的是现代中国解放军中的尚武精神的确切核心价值是什么。
我们都诚实点看问题吧,没有人能在战争中做圣人,所有人在爱和战争中都是一样的。我们所能判断的是这种尚武精神的动机和基础是什么。那个C-SPAN的视频(指主楼的那个视频)确实是从美军的角度,但是请记住他为了促进自己的研究,正面对着一众军事专家进行演讲。
现在回答ABC78提出的关于这个有趣话题的问题,而不要试图打压别人。

#5 montyp165
The traditional Chinese warrior ethos has basically been that of the intellectual soldier/warrior, i.e, one who uses intelligence and cunning moreso than brute force to achieve goals. In fiction the Romance of the Three Kingdoms has numerous examples of this sort listed, or the Water Margin for that matter, and a modern (albeit from a Japanese novel) example would be Yang Wen-Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Real life traditional warrior heroes would be people like Yue Fei or Qi Jiguang.

传统的中国尚武精神基本上是智将的特质。所谓智将,就是那些运用谋略和诡计而非武力来达到目的的人。在三国演义和水浒传里就有许多这样的例子。银河英雄传说中的杨威利是一个现代的例子(尽管是来自日本小说)。而真实存在的军事英雄就是像岳飞或者戚继光那样的人物。

#6 CottageLV
China is a messed up society since its birth, contradictory at every level. The general population is the most educated and the most uneducated in the world. The people are both most patriotic and least patriotic. Unlike other major civilizations, China was never really a violent culture. It's always about world peace and elevation of personal education. If you look into Chinese history, for the past 1000 years, it's always being China being the most powerful civilization in the realm of its reach. China neither dominate (not including Korea of Vietnam, both were protectorate) or conquer other countries. The mentality of "I'm the best, you don't worth my time" always existed. This creates a society that doesn't look to violence to solve problems.
China was the most developed civilization for the last few thousand years, there was law and order. Unlike Japan and Feudal Europe, no warriors or Samurais were needed. All disputes and violence were suppressed by the law and the political machine.
This is both good and bad for the country. In the modern time of integrated globe, this is a bad thing, because it is becoming more dog eat dog again, not different from jungle justice from few thousand years ago. This cultural tradition softened the people and makes it do nothing but just send out verbal complain, verbal condemnation at the worst. China's foreign affairs department is now nicknamed the complaining department.
So to word it a little more plainly, today's Chinese culture is a wussy culture, it could not and would not stand up for itself.

中国自始就是一个混乱的社会,冲突和矛盾充满了各个层面。那里的人们是世界上最有教养和最没有教养的,最有爱国心和最没有爱国心的。不像其他主要文明,中华文明从未真正崇尚武力,它崇尚的是天下和谐和个人修养的提升。如果你研究一下中国的历史,在过去1000年里,中华文明在它所能触及到的领域里一直是最强大的文明。但是中国没有统治(不包括朝鲜和越南,两者都是附属国)或征服其他国家。那种“我是第一,你们不值得我浪费时间”的心理一直存在。这种心理使整个社会不寻求用武力的方式来解决问题。
中国是近几千年来最发达的国家,那里有法律和秩序。不像日本和中世纪欧洲,中国不需要骑士和武士,所有的纷争和冲突都能被律法和政治机器所镇压。
这对国家来说既有好处也有坏处。在现代的全球化环境下,这是一件坏事,因为世界又变成一个与几千年前一样的弱肉强食的丛林时代。中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱,遇到不平除了口头谴责外一事无成。中国外交部现在有一个绰号叫做谴责部。
一言以蔽之,今天的中国文化就是一种懦弱的文化,它不能也不会保护自己。

#7 paintgun
certainly not a wussy culture, but modern Chinese culture is struggling to find it's identity and soul, ripped away from it by the Cultural revolution
most if not all military organization cultivates the same sense of honor, duty, and servitude or sacrifice as the core values of its members, each with their own methods and reasoning
the nature of conscription, volunteer and professional army also plays a significant effect in how to cultivate this values into a warrior ethos

虽然确实不是懦弱的文化,但是现代中国文化正竭力寻找它被文革撕裂的身份和灵魂。
绝大部分的军事组织都会采用各自的方法,根据士兵的特质将荣誉感、责任感和牺牲精神培养为成员的核心价值观。志愿军和职业军也在其中发挥了重大作用。

#8 montyp165
It would be misleading to characterize the idea of modern Chinese not having any clue about a warrior ethos, especially since the PLA's military conception of service draws not only from the KMT NRA but also the old Chinese military classics, moreso than some are able to recognize.

(回复#7)
认为现代中国的意识形态没有一丝尚武精神是一种误导,因为解放军的军队服务观念不仅汲取于国民党军队也汲取于古代中国的军事著作,(汲取的东西)比某些人认为的还要多。

#9 ABC78
In the author's presentation he mentions how militaries and warrior caste are forms of tribes.
Is there the possibility that the Chinese people and history had evolved beyond tribalism so long ago?
Without that bit of tribal mindset in existence to help forge the warrior ethos narrative.
Here is a presentation by the author of "The Origins of Political Order" it is about how people moved from tribes to nation states. The author those a brief history of early China and how it was established by war.

演讲提到军士和武士阶层怎样形成部族。
中华民族和中国历史早在很久以前就超越部族意识,他们的尚武精神的形成过程中是否可能不受部族心态的影响?
在一个关于政治秩序起源的演讲里,提到人们是如何从部落进化到国家。作者简要介绍了早起中国的历史以及中国如何建立于战争。

#10 montyp165
The Romans would be the best Western parallel to Ancient Chinese political development wrt dealing with scattered tribes to a cohesive unified political entity, and one can see certain similar trends in both.

(回复#9)
在将分散的部落整合成联合的政治体方面,古罗马是西方文明中最能与古中国的政治发展媲美的。大家都能看出这两者有某种相似的趋势。

#11 delft
I see nobody mentions the successful Chinese intervention in the Korean war about 60 years ago. While the British still delight in the honors won by regiments since the seventeenth century and worry about what will happen with tradition that while its army are reduced because of financial trouble, China will have its tradition dating from that war.

我发现没人提到60年前中国对朝鲜战争的成功干预。
当英国一边将十七世纪取得的军事荣耀作为常规沾沾自喜,一边担心因财务问题裁军会给这种常规带来什么影响时,中国将从那场战争开始建立自己的常规。

#12 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
IMO, every society is as what you described. Can you find any major society that is uniformly educated, or uniformly patriotic? Hardly so. In WWII during Nazi German occupation, many nations had their patriots forming resistance fighting the Nazis to the end while many others tried their best to become friends with the Germans, hence a combination of patriotic and un-patriotic. Every society has a mix of all kinds of different traits, especially those large ones, like China. In the case of China and even the US, which incorporate so many different cultures, you are bound to find many "contradictory" traits.

(回复#6)
在我看来,每个社会都像你所描述的那样。你能找到哪个主流社会有全民同等的教育水平或同等的爱国心吗?几乎不能。二战时的德国占领区,许多国家的爱国者们联合起来反抗纳粹到底,而这些国家的其他一些人则尽力成为德国人的朋友,这是一种爱国主义和非爱国主义的组合模式。每个社会都是不同个性和特质的混合体,尤其是那些规模大的社会,如中国。在中国和美国这种包含多种不同文化的社会,你很容易发现许多互相矛盾的特质。

Well, I have to say that the Chinese is a quite violent society. Your statement shows a serious lack of knowledge of Chinese history. If you look back on the Chinese history, it's filled with bloody conflicts, including bloody conquests and mass execution of POW's. Every change of dynasty has been accompanied by decades of bloody war. And in extreme case, hundreds of years continuing war. I would say that, out of 5000 years of Chinese civilization, the Chinese have spent half of that time fighting in wars. How do you think China got this big? No nation started out the size that China is now. It got to this size because of military conquests. The Spring and Autumn period in the Zhou dynasty was 400+ years of political/military struggle among hundreds of states while the Warring State period afterward was another 400+ years of continuing open war among teens of military states and warlords. Soon after Shi Huangdi unified China, another civil war broke out that led to the destruction of Qin dynasty and the establishment of Han dynasty. During Han dynasty, China had a series of major military conquests that led to the expansion of China to reach modern-day Afghanistan and central Asia on the West, Pacific Ocean on the East, Siberia on the North and Vietnam/Lao/Cambodia on the South, basically the most part of Asia belonged to China.
Then it lost some of the lands because of the decline of the Han dynasty and the subsequent rise of local cultures in those occupied lands, especially in the West. China then gained most of the land back in the Tang and Song dynasties, again through military conquest since no one will willingly yield their land to another civilization. China then lost some lands at the end of the Song dynasty. Mongols then, of course, gained a lot more land, including all of Asia and half of Europe. Of course, according to official Chinese history, the Mongolian empire is also part of China, the Yuan dynasty. Ming and Qing dynasties again saw some major military expansion in the West, Xinjiang and Tibet were mainly the result of those military conquests.
Many people in the West feel that China didn't conquer other nations because China has not conquered anything in the past couple hundred years. And this gives people an impression that China does not use its military a lot. However, the fact was China conquered HUGE amount of lands long long times ago. Ancient China was mostly located near the Central and Eastern end of the Yellow river, the size of a state in the US. And China grew to the current size through continuous military conquests. And since they have conquered pretty much everything they could see and touch, there was nothing left for them to conquer. To the ancient Chinese, they have conquered pretty much everything in the known world. They have reached the Siberia in the North, the desert in the West, and oceans in the East and South. Where else could they go? And unlike many other famous empires in the West, which conquered huge amount of land and only lost them all later on, China managed to hold on to most of its lands and integrate the people living there so effectively that most of them feel they are Chinese. So there was not many dramatic change in size of the Chinese territory later on.

(还是回复#6)
我不得不说中国是一个非常暴力的社会。你的言论显示你严重缺乏中国历史知识。如果你回顾中国历史,它充斥着流血冲突,包括血腥征伐和大量处死战俘。每一次朝代的更迭都伴随着几十年的流血战争。最极端的例子是上百年不断的战争。我敢说,5000年的中国文明史中,中国人花费了其中一半在打仗。不然你以为中国是怎么变成这么大的?没有国家从一建立就能据有像中国现在这么大的面积。中国的国土是通过军事扩张得来的。春秋时期,上百个小国间进行了超过400年的政治和军事斗争。其后400多年的战国时期在新兴国家和军阀之间又发生了持续的战争。秦始皇统一中国不久后,又一场内战爆发了,并最终导致秦朝的灭亡和汉朝的建立。汉朝时,中国又进行了一系列的军事扩张,并使当时中国领土向西延伸至今天的阿富汗和中亚,向东延伸至太平洋,向北延伸至西伯利亚,向南到达越南、老挝和柬埔寨,当时基本上亚洲大部分都属于中国。
后来由于汉朝的衰弱,中国失去了部分领土,而地方文明则占据了那些地方,特别是在西部。唐宋时中国又通过军事征服收回大部分领土,因为没有哪个文明会乐意将他们的土地献给其他文明。宋朝后期,中国又失去了一些领土。蒙古兴起,得到了大部分土地,包括整个亚洲和一半欧洲。当然,在中国的官史看来,蒙古帝国也是中国的一部分,即元朝。明清两朝又见大规模向西军事扩张。新疆和西藏就是这些军事征伐的主要战果。
西方许多人感觉中国不曾占领过其他国家,因为中国在近两百年没有占领过其他国家。这给人一种印象:中国不大使用军事力量。而事实是,中国在很久很久以前就已经占领了广袤的领土。古中国主要处于黄河的中段和东段,相当于美国一个州的面积。经过不断的军事扩张,中国才有了现在的面积。因为他们已经占领了可见可及的一切,没有什么还能让他们去征服了。对于古代中国人来说,他们基本上征服了他们已知世界里的一切。他们向北到达了西伯利亚,向西抵达沙漠,向东向南到达了海洋。他们还能去哪?而且,不像那些著名的曾经征服广阔领土又全部丢失的西方帝国,中国努力保留大部分领土并且有效地促进当地民族融合,以至于他们中的大部分人认为自己是中国人。所以后来中国的领土面积并未发生大的变化。

As I have pointed out above, warlord culture was not only present in China, but actually very prent. China spent 800+ years in the state of warlords in the Zhou dynasty. And warlords would appear again and again whenever old dynasty died and new dynasty was born. Most of the new dynasties were actually born from warlords in the old dynasties. And warlords were a huge factor in Chinese culture as late as 1940's

(依然回复#6)
就像我上面提到的,军阀割据在中国存在并且非常普遍。周朝时,中国有超过800年处于军阀混战时期。而且军阀割据还不断地出现在新旧王朝交替时期。大部分新王朝产生于旧王朝的军阀。甚至到了上世纪40年代,军阀仍是当时中国文化的重大特征。

Again, this is a completely wrong assessment of the Chinese culture. As I have described in painful detail, China does not have a "weak" history and is filled with bloody and violent conflict. As a matter of fact, Chinese history is written in blood. As a result, Chinese people are tough in terms of making hard decisions. China suffered over a million casualties in the Korean war. If any Western nation was in a similar boat as China was in the 1950's, they would have stopped the fighting and pulled out of Korea long ago because the casualties would simply be too unbearable for the public to take. Yet the Chinese kept fighting with the full support of the Chinese population back home. No one even thought about pulling out and people kept sending their own sons and husbands to the front willingly. This happened almost immediately after the Chinese civil war, which was after the WWII, which was after the Chinese revolution, which was after the two Opium wars. So pretty much the Chinese had been fighting wars non-stop since the 1840's. Until the beginning of the Korean war, China had lost close to half of its population to wars within 100 years. Can you imagine how many people that was in a nation the size of China?? Any nation with a questionable resolve would have cried out for help and run away long before that point. Yet, the whole population stood behind the govn't and continued fighting. Now, would you think a weak and wussy culture can do such thing?

(仍然回复#6)
这是对中国文化的又一个错误评价(指#6说的“中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱”一段)。正如我描述的那些苦难史,中国没有“软弱”的历史,而是充满了流血和暴力冲突。
事实上,中国史是用鲜血写就的。因此,中国人民下定决心后是坚韧刚强的。在朝鲜战场上,中国军队承受了上百万的伤亡。任何西方国家处于中国上世纪50年代的困难境地,他们早就会停止抵抗并退出朝鲜,因为伤亡已超出了公众所能承受的数量。但是在后方人民的全力支持下中国没有停止抵抗。没有人考虑过退出,人们不断地把儿子和丈夫送上前线。朝鲜战争发生在国共内战结束后不久,而国共内战紧随着二战,二战前是辛亥革命,辛亥革命前是鸦片战争。从十九世纪40年代起,中国人就没有停止过打仗。朝鲜战争开始前,中国在100年间失去了近一半的人口。你能想象在中国这么大的土地上有多少人吗?任何意志不坚定的国家早在那之前就会哭求援助并逃跑。而所有中国人都支持政府继续斗争。现在你还认为一个懦弱软弱的文明能够做这样的事吗?

What do you do if you are the leader of China? Sending bombers out every time someone upsets you? What the Chinese are doing now is purely strategic. They know fully well that their economic and military strength do not allow them to do things in ways that the superpowers do. In order to get there, they need to develop their economy, which needs a peaceful environment. And now, everything they do is for this purpose, i.e. maintaining a peaceful environment both domestically and globally. Once they achieve their build-up, they will do thing differently.
To illustrate my point, I will give you two examples. First one: 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict. China and India had an argument about who should be the leader in Asia. To "teach the Indians a lesson", Chinese leaders ordered an "invasion" into India. Chinese PLA pushed 200 miles into India to teach the Indian a lesson, in the words of the Chinese leaders. then again, 1970's and 80's, China went into Vietnam, again to teach them a lesson. Nothing more, nothing less. In both cases, there was no actual gain involved, only to teach a lesson. Why? Because the strategic goal of China at that time was vastly different from the current goals of China. China was not planning any economic development during those times and was in a mood of dominating Asia. Since India and Vietnam were in their way, they acted to clear the road, so to speak. Thus, the Chinese are not afraid of playing hard-ball if it fits their strategic goals. And the current goal is the develop economy, any military operation would interfere with their goals, so they don't do it. Plain and simply. They are doing a lot of complaining not because they are weak and afraid of budding heads with people, but because they want to make money to fund their build-up.

(继续回复#6)
如果你是中国的领导人你会如何做?每次有人惹恼你就送他一颗炸弹?中国人现在做的只是一种策略。他们充分了解自己目前的经济和军事实力不允许他们像超级大国一样行事。为了成为超级大国,他们需要发展经济,这需要和平的环境。现在,他们所做的一切都是为了这个。比如,维持国内外的和平环境。一旦他们强大起来,他们会以不同的方式行事。
为了证明我的观点,我举两个例子:一是1962年中印边界冲突。中国和印度当时对于谁是亚洲领导者存在分歧。为了“给印度一个教训”,中国领导人下命令“入侵”印度。中国解放军应言挺进印度200公里以教训印度。然后是上世纪70年代和80年代,中国打越南,也是为了给越南一个教训。不多不少,两次都没有什么实际的收获,只是为了教训一下。为什么?因为当时中国的战略目标和现在有很大差异。中国当时并未计划发展经济而是心怀统治亚洲的理念。因为印度和越南挡了道,所以他们清除了道路障碍,如此而已。因此如果强硬手段符合中国战略目标,中国不怕来硬的。当前的目标是发展经济,任何军事行动都会妨碍他们的目标,所以他们不会采取行动。显然,他们发出很多谴责不是因为他们软弱,而是顾及目前的经济萌芽,因为他们想要赚钱以支持国家崛起。

China would not stand for itself not because they are afraid. It's just the time is not right for them yet. A lion is the king the jungle. No one doubts that. But when the lion is still a cub, he better lay low and hide himself since a hyena or even a wild dog can kill him and eat him. A truly confident individual/culture knows when to lay low and when to stand up.

(一直回复#6)
中国不能为自己撑腰不是因为他们害怕,只是因为时机不对。没人能否认狮子是丛林之王。但是当这只狮子还处在幼年期,他最好放低身段以隐藏身影,因为这时一只土狼,甚至一只野狗也能杀掉并吃掉他。一个真正自信的个体/文明懂得什么时候该屈什么时候该伸。

#13 ToxSic
And in addition, using the 'lion metaphor', even the king of the jungle in his prime must know to respect the elephants, stay away from the hippopotamuses, and aware of the crocodiles in the river - at least.

(回复#12最后一段)
拿狮子来比喻的话,即使是正当盛年的丛林之王至少也必须懂得敬畏大象,远离河马,警惕河里的鳄鱼。

#14 Equation
...And stay away from poachers!

(回复#13)
……以及远离偷猎者!

#15 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
Talking about toughness of Chinese people and Chinese govn't, I think China is one of a few nations in the modern history to dare to initiate a war against an enemy who is at least equivalent or much stronger than itself. Note, I'm not talking about a nation that is defending itself against a coming attack, but someone who starts the attack. China is the only one that I am aware of in that category. In the Korean war, China decided to go up against a UN force that was way stronger than itself, not even considering the economic might of all the countries involved vs. China who almost completely lost its domestic economy through a century of wars. Then again, in 1962, China decided to attack India who was at least as strong as China at that time. In my opinion, daring to challenge someone their own size or even bigger shows some guts on China's part. None of the major Western powers has done anything close to that, meaning that none of the main Western powers has yet to challenge someone with comparable strength.

论及中华民族和中国政府的坚韧不屈,我认为中国是近代历史中少数几个这样的国家之一,他们敢于向与自身相当或强于自身的敌人开战。注意,我指的不是抵抗来犯敌人,而是主动出击。这类国家中,中国是唯一一个我清楚了解的。朝鲜战争中,中国决定站出来反抗比他强得多的联合国军队,而不顾那些参战国家与刚经历了一个世纪战争、国内经济完全崩溃的中国在经济实力上的悬殊差距。1962年,中国又决定攻击当时与自身相当的印度。在我看来,敢于向和自己一样强大的甚至是强于自己的国家叫板显示了中国的胆量。没有一个主流西方国家做过类似的事,他们之中没有一个挑战过可与他们相当的强国。

#16 PhageHunter
One of the reason I think it was because China had noting to lose but everything to gain. When you were dirt poor, you wouldn't need to worry about too many things, just do it. The nomads were doing it for thousands of years.
However, if you look now China's hands are tied, even those tiny countries can take a piss on China.

我认为其中一个原因是中国没有什么可失去的而非中国已经得到了一切。当你穷困潦倒时,你可以去拼去闯,而不必顾虑失去更多。就像几千年来游牧民族做的那样。
不过,看看中国现在束手束脚的样子,随便一个小国都可以在它头上撒野。

#17 advill 来自新加坡
PhageHunter, I think you are naive & probably emotional in your last sentence about China. No one in Asia wants to "rock the boat", even Mrs Clinton and President Obama are cautious/diplomatic in their remarks about China during the recent conferences (APEC, ASEAN, East Asia). "Gung Ho" attitude do not solve problems whether it is from the Chinese or the US side. What are Chinese Warrior Ethos? To me it is the same as the other Warriors of the past, including Lt-Gen Patton, Clauwitz, Tokugawa, and several others from the West & East. It's a good thing the Civilian Governments are in control of their Military, less the "Warriors" take things in their own hands. This goes for China too.

楼上,我认为你评论中国的最后那句话显得有些幼稚和情绪化。没人想要在亚洲“制造麻烦”,即使是希拉里和奥巴马在最近会议上(亚太经合会议,东盟会议,东亚峰会)发表的有关中国的言论也是谨慎圆滑的。无论是中国还是美国,“激烈”的态度不能解决问题。至于什么是中国的尚武精神?在我看来它就和以前的那些将军一样,包括巴顿将军、克劳塞维茨、德川家康和东西方的其他一些人。人民的政府掌控军队,而将士掌握的的权力较少,这是一件好事,对中国亦然。

#18 montyp165
There's a very strong reason why the strongest military powers in history always had civilian control over the military rather than the other way around, especially since it was the civilian economy that built up the basis for military strength to begin with. Even militarists in the west forget this point...

(回复#17)
这就是为什么最强的军事力量都是人民控制的而不是其他管理形式,尤其是在军队力量是由国民经济所建立的情况下。现在连西方军事家也忘了这点……

#19 PhageHunter
May be you misunderstood me, or I wasn't good at developing my thought.
I am just pointing out to vesicle's examples on Chinese toughness weren't the best ones.

也许你(指#17)对我有些误解,或者是我不够清楚地表达我的观点。
我只是指出vesicle(指#12和#15)举的中国坚韧不屈的那些例子不是最好的。

#20 solarz
Not the Mongols, or the Hun.
Medi Kings and Knights are arguably more of a "warrior" caste than "civilian". Both Charlemagne and Richard the Lionheart were strong military powers.
Napoleon was a general and gained power through a military coup. He also conquered most of Europe. Same thing for Alexander the Great.
There were no civilians in Sparta.
Perhaps it should be more accurate to say that the distinction between "military" and "civilian" is a rather recent one.

(回复#18)
撇开蒙古和匈奴,中世纪的国王和爵士更多地属于骑士阶层而非普通民众,但其中的查理曼大帝和狮心王理查都曾是强大的军事力量。
拿破仑是个将军,通过军事政变掌权,他也征服了大半个欧洲。亚历山大大帝也是这样,在斯巴达当时根本不存在市民阶层。
也许更准确地说,“军人”和“平民”差异是一个非常近代的概念。

No, they were very good examples. Plenty of nations are dirt poor. You don't see Ethiopia or Somalia challenging the US, do you? The idea that the Chinese in the 50's and 60's had "nothing to lose" is ludicrous.

(回复#19)
不,它们都是非常好的例子。许多国家都穷困潦倒。但是你见过埃塞俄比亚或者索马里挑战美国吗?没有吧。认为中国在五六十年代(的所作所为是因为)“没有什么可以失去”是荒谬的。

#21 PhageHunter
Why would Ethiopia or Somalia attack US? There is nothing to gain for them.
If they attacked US, would you call them tough? Or ......
According to vesicle, going to a war with someone stronger is a sign of toughness;
then my point being that since right now China is challenged by their smaller neighbors does that mean China is weak?

为什么埃塞俄比亚或索马里要攻击美国?这对他们又没有什么好处。
如果他们进攻美国,你会认为他们坚韧不屈?或者……
按vesicle(指#12和#15)所说,与比自己强的国家开战就是坚韧不屈的表现;
而我想指出的是因为中国被周边的小邻邦挑衅就意味着现在他是软弱的吗?

#22 montyp165
In the administrative sense it may be the case wrt the distinction being considered recent, but then again it is tied to the development of specific economic structures. The Romans and various Chinese dynasties are better examples of this than the Mongols and the Huns, and in terms of organizational sophistication and longevity it holds up better.

(回复#20)
从行政角度来说,也许确实到近代才需要考虑这种阶层差异,但是军事确实和具体经济结构的发展紧密联系在一起。古罗马和许多中国朝代在这方面比蒙古和匈奴更适合作为例子,他们在组织的严密性和延续性上表现得更好。

#23 solarz
Right, but it bears mention that economic power is only recently able to transform quickly into military power, as technology makes much more difference in modern warfare than in ancient warfare.
Take China for example: throughout its millenia of history, it has been an economic powerhouse much more frequently than it has been a military powerhouse. In the Song and late-Qing Dynasties, its military capabilities were certainly not on par with the size of its economy.

(回复#22)
没错,但是经济实力也仅是到了近代才能够迅速地转化为军事力量,因为科技在现代战争中的差异化影响大于古代战争。
比如中国:在它数千年的历史中,它作为经济大国的频率远远高于它作为军事大国。宋朝和晚清时期,中国的军事实力与其经济总量根本不相匹配

The example of Ethiopia is hypothetical. If we suppose that Ethiopia's national interest depended on it coming to a military showdown with the US, would they dare take that route? I very much doubt it.
As for your idea that China is being challenged by its smaller neighbors, I think you have a lot to learn regarding what "Strength" really means. Strength does not mean being a bully or an imperialist. The ability for restraint is also a sign of strength.

(回复#21)
关于埃塞俄比亚和索马里的假设:假设埃塞俄比亚的国家利益取决于它将与美国进行的决战,它们敢这样做吗?我非常怀疑这一点。
至于你说的中国正受到一众小邻邦的挑衅,我认为你需要学习一下真正的“力量”指的是什么。力量并不意味着恃强凌弱或霸权主义。克制的能力也是一种力量的体现。

#24 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
I think you misunderstood my point. the premise of my examples was that China acts according to their strategic goals. That was my point in my original post and my later post was simply an elaboration of my original point. Before the 80's, China's goals were to dominate Asia. Then if India and Vietnam challenged China, it was natural for China to act accordingly. China did NOT attack India or went into Korea to show how tough they are. They had a clear strategic plan and did everything to fulfill that plan.

(#12话痨君又来了,这次是回复#21)
我认为是你误解了我的意思。我举的例子是为了说明中国按照他们的战略目标来行动。这是我最早的留言的观点(指#12),而我后面的留言(指#15)只是对我前面留言的补充完善。上世纪80年代以前,中国的目标是统治亚洲,所以当印度和越南挑衅时,中国自然会按照目标行事。中国并非为了显示他们的坚韧而进攻印度或者进入朝鲜,他们制定清晰的战略计划并尽其所能实现之。

The current plan in China is completely different from what they had in the 50's and 60's. They want to develop their economy and THE thing that they don't want is their neighbors don't like them and don't want to do business with them. Further, ultimately, China also wants allies, just like the US has allies. Attacking whoever they want will not get them any allies. They want to be seen as responsible, not belligerent. And they certainly don't want to seen as a bully. So they don't want to attack the small nations, especially since none of them has done anything that warrant any military action.

当前中国的战略与上世纪五六十年代的完全不同。他们想要发展经济,所以不想让邻邦厌恶,不想失去邻邦的生意。更进一步来说,最终中国也需要盟友,就像美国也有盟友。攻击那些他们想要攻击的并不能带来任何盟友。他们希望看上去是有责任感的,而非好战的。他们更不想被视作恃强凌弱。所以在那些小国没有做出一些足以令中国采取军事行动的举动前,他们不会去进攻那些小国。

The US did everything they could to avoid military confrontation during the Cuban missile crisis when the Soviets moved missiles to the door step of the US. To anyone, that would be considered as a declaration of war. Yet, the US political leadership decided to avoid open war with the Soviets. And now this decision is considered as very wise by almost everyone. China has not met anything remotely close. So why should China attack anyone?

古巴导弹危机发生时,当苏联将导弹运至美国家门口,美国仍尽其所能避免军事对抗。(苏联的行为)对于任何人,都可视为宣战的举动。但是美国政府决定避免与苏联开战。现在这个决定几乎被所有人视为明智的决定。中国尚未碰到像古巴导弹危机这样严重的事件,那么为什么中国应该进攻别人呢?

About the question of whether China had things to lose in the 50's and 60's. In my opinion, China had everything to lose. In the 1951, CCP just gained control of most of China and had big plans for China. The CCP leadership was extremely ambitious and planned to develop the economy and the military so that one day in the near future, they would regain their place on top of the world. Losing a war in Korea would mean the end of all this.

关于中国在上世纪五六十年代是否还拥有什么可丧失的东西。在我看来,中国当时拥有可丧失的一切。1951年,TG刚取得中国大部分领土,刚为中国制定了一个宏伟计划。TG领导层怀着无穷的雄心,准备发展中国的经济和军事,以使中国在不远的将来可以重回世界的顶端。若朝鲜战争失败则意味着一切的终结。

First of all, the US would continue pushing into China and eventually occupy the entire China. That means the end of rule for the CCP. Merely 5 years before that, the US just used atomic bombs in Japan. Who would say the US would not use it again in China. In fact, this was exactly what MacArthur was planning to do. Secondly, if the war in Korea drags on for too long and they had to divert too much of their troops to Korea, the Nationalists in Taiwan might come back and attack them. This would also mean the end of CCP in China. This was also planned by Jiang in Taiwan. So these things are not simply possible scenarios, but something that has been seriously contemplated by China's enemies.

首先,美国将继续入侵中国并最终占领整个中国,这也意味着TG的下台。仅仅在朝鲜战争之前的5年,美国对日本使用了两枚原子弹,谁敢说美国不会对中国再用一次。其次,若朝鲜战期拉长,中国将不得不将更多的兵力投往朝鲜,在台湾的国民党军队则会乘机卷土重来。这也意味着TG的终结,这也正是蒋介石的如意算盘。虽然这些假设不是简单的排列组合,但这正是当时中国敌人的预谋。

In the 60's, China was in the middle of all kinds of political turmoil. To the outsiders, this looked like a disaster. In fact, it was. However, to the political leaders in China at the time, especially Mao, this was merely a step to his ultimate goal of complete control of China and the eventual dominance of China in the world. Attacking India who was backed by the Soviets would risk open war with India and possible with the Soviets. In fact, China and the Soviets were already at war at the time. the two nations already fought a number of battles for isolated islands in the north. Fighting two wars on two sides against India and the Soviets would mean the end of China as we know it. The Nationalists in Taiwan would also attack. In fact, even in 1965, Nationalist Navy planned an attack on the mainland, which was stopped short by the PLA Navy.

上世纪60年代,中国正处于政治骚乱之中。在外人看来,这像是一场灾难,实际上,这确实是。但是对当时中国的统治者们,特别是毛,距离完全并最终掌控中国仅有一步之遥。进攻苏联支持的印度存在与印度和苏联同时开战的危险。实际上,中国和苏联在那时已经处于交战中。两国已经在中国北边的一个小岛上交火过多次。正如我们所知,同时与印苏开战,两面受敌意味着中国的灭亡。台湾的国民党也会乘势进攻。在1965年,国民党海军确实准备反攻大陆,不过被解放军海军阻止了。

In the late 1970's and 80's, China had even more to lose as China just ended the Cultural Revolution and ambitiously started their economic development. A disastrous war with Vietnam and possibly the Soviets would end all this and China would not have its revival. China attacked Vietnam who was also backed by the Soviets. Even before the attack, China was seriously worried abut the Soviets attacking them from the north. They actually moved all their elite forces to the northern border in case of a Soviets attack and only used secondary units in Vietnam. This was not something that was merely in the heads of the Chinese leaders. Even now, the Sino-Russian border is still the most armed in the world with over a million troops from both sides guarding the border.

到了上世纪七八十年代末,中国有更多可失去的,因为中国刚刚结束文革,踌躇满志地开始发展经济。与越南甚至苏联发生灾难性的战争将使中国复兴的梦想破灭。进攻越南之前,中国非常担心苏联会从北边入侵。他们甚至将最精英的部队驻扎在北方边境以应对苏联可能的进攻,而仅将二流部队派往越南。不仅是中国领导层有这样的意识,为了守卫边疆,中苏两方分别派出世界上最严密武装的军队驻扎在中苏边境上。

Even without foreign invasions, Chinese leaders risked everything when they planned a war. In those political turmoils, various factions in CCP fought for political dominance and any weakness shown by a leader would be used by his political enemy to destroy him. In fact, many of the Chinese 1st and 2nd generation political leaders did not meet a good end. A lot of them were persecuted and tortured to death by their political opponents. Imagine what would happen if China actually lost a war. All the leaders who were in favor of the war would have been destroyed.

即使没有外国入侵,中国领导层计划开战时总是要冒失去一切的危险。在政治骚乱中,TG各派系争夺领导权,一旦领导者显示出任何弱点都会被他的政敌所利用而走向毁灭。实际上,TG的一二代领导层中有许多结局惨淡。许多人被他们的政敌迫害致死。想象一下,如果中国打输了一场战争,所有受惠于战争的领导人都将被打倒。

So in summary, China had a lot to lose when they decided to attack their opponents. In fact, if they lost the war, it would not simply be a loss of face, but loss of control of the entire nation and almost definitely the end of lives of those CCP political leaders. that's a lot more than what a typical political leader in any Western nation would have to face when losing a war. It's a lot more personal, so to speak.

总的来说,当中国决定进攻敌人时,他们总是有很多可以失去的。如果他们在战争中失败,并不仅仅是丢掉面子,同时也是整个国家的控制权和那些中国领导人生命的丧失。这比任何典型西方国家领导人输掉战争所要面临的严重得多。可以这么说,其中有更多涉及个人利益的因素。
多谢各位支持,很多地方我也拿捏不准,若有什么翻译不当的,欢迎指教哈{:lt06:}

#25 Equation
I don't think anybody in today's world could occupied China. The Chinese just have the advantages of number and history on their side. If say the CCP failed in their effort to reshape China, someone or some group will step up and take the lead, no matter how long it takes. Any generation that grew up under another power from another country would want to change it of course, therefore you get people in all kinds of class would conduct long term plans and strategy to meet their goals.

(回复#24)
我不认为当今世界上有人能占领中国。中国人有人口和历史的优势。如果说TG重整中国的努力失败,其他人或其他党派将站出来接手领导权,无论这将花费多久。成长在其他国家其他政权下的任何一代都会想要一些改变,因此管理来自各种阵营的人们需要建立一个长期的计划和战略以满足他们所有人的目标。

#26 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
Agreed. However, back in the 50's and 60's, that was not the case, at least not in the mind of every Chinese. Almost a dozen Western powers attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to occupy China from 1840's to 1940's and an 8-year Japanese occupation just ended not long ago. So in the mind of Chinese in the 50's and 60's, another occupation by a foreign power was very real.

(回复#25)
同意。不过回溯到上世纪五六十年代的话,就不是那么回事了,至少不是每个中国人都这么想。从十九世纪40年代到上世纪40年代间,虽然没人成功过,但许多西方强权都试图占领中国。还有在那不久前刚结束的持续八年日本的侵略。因此在五六十年代中国人的心目中,外国势力的又一次占领中国是非常可能实现的。

#27 hugga12
they are respectful of their enemies talent and therefore are capable of defeating them]

中国人对敌人的才能心存敬意,因此他们能够打败敌人。

#28 plawolf
I think some people are starting to mix and confuse political will and military culture.
Also, I think even with regards to the same military, different sides will hold vastly different opinions and views.
Imo, pretty much all militaries share a lot of very similar values and cultures, of things like duty, honor, pride etc. But the stand-out core values of the modern Chinese soldier for me are loyalty, determination, self-sacrifice and honor.

我认为有些人正开始混淆政治意志和军事文化。
此外,我认为即使面对相同的军事(文化),不同立场会持有差异显著的看法和观点。
在我看来,许多军队对事物抱有许多十分相似的价值观和文化,比如责任感,荣誉感和自豪感等。但是对我来说中国军队最出色的核心价值观是忠诚,决心,自我牺牲精神和荣誉感。

Loyalty is self-explanatory enough.
In terms of determination, Chinese war stories are full of stories of ordinary Chinese soldiers enduring unbelievable hardships and performing feats of endurance that even special forces will not take lightly. When you read the snippets of news about Chinese special forces training, you cannot help but doubt how reliable they are because of just how unimaginably tough the descriptions are. But I have seen enough evidence to feel that those reports are not exaggerated.
These stories of just how hard Chinese soldiers train are given more credibility when you see how well Chinese special forces teams are doing in international competitions and how amazingly well the Chinese soldiers performed when a visiting American marine unit trained with them - the slowest Chinese soldier finished the assault course faster than the fastest American marine.

忠诚就无须解释了。
关于决心,中国战争故事里有许多这样的故事:普通战士忍受人所不能忍的艰苦,成就英雄事迹,他们所表现出来的艰苦卓绝的精神连特种兵也无法轻松达到。当你阅读一些中国特种兵训练的新闻片段时,你不禁要怀疑这些内容的真实性,因为从这些描述看来(训练)艰苦得无法想象。但是我曾见过的那些事足以令我相信那些报道没有夸张。
当你看到中国特种部队在国际竞赛中的优异成绩和与来访的美国海军陆战队集训时令人惊叹的表现时——连最慢的中国战士都比最快的美国士兵更快地完成突袭任务,(你会感到)这些关于中国特种部队如何艰苦训练的报道更加可信。

The other stand-out feature of Chinese war stories are the kind of sacrifices Chinese soldiers are ready and willing to make. You have stories of men throwing themselves at fire slits to smother it and allow the rest of the unit to advance, you have stories of soldiers holding up explosive charges to take out bunkers etc.
This quality is again re-enforced by modern examples, most notable in the air force, as PLAAF pilots will regularly stay with a plane to try and save it in cases were all western pilots would have bailed out.

还有一种中国战争故事所展现出的引人注目的品质是中国战士甘于奉献的牺牲精神。你能看到战士们用身躯去堵枪口掩护部队顺利挺进的故事,以及战士手擎炸药包炸碉堡的故事等。
一个当代的榜样又一次强化了这项品质,这次引人注目的是空军,因为中国空军飞行员在所有西方飞行员已经跳伞逃命的情况下,还待在飞机上试图保全飞机。

All of those qualities can be interpreted as a positive or a negative depending on your POV, and the west only tend to look at things from the negative with regards to China.
So for loyalty, westerners will almost always interpret the Chinese sense of loyalty as the soldiers are all brainwashed drones and lack initiative or imagination.
They will look at self-sacrifice and suggest Chinese commanders don't care about the lives of their men and throw in some line about 'human waves' etc.

所有这些品质归类于积极或是消极都取决于个人看法,不过任何与中国相关的,西方人只愿意从消极的角度来进行解读。
看待忠诚也是这样,西方人几乎总是将中国式忠诚解读为战士们都是被洗脑了的工蜂,缺乏创造力和想象力。
他们审视这种自我牺牲精神,并认为中国的指挥官不珍视士兵的生命,轻率地采用“人海战术”等。

But then it is the same thing with regards to other militaries.
The Americans pride themselves on looking after their own, while others see them as being reckless and irresponsible in the lengths they will go to to minimize the risk to their own men no matter how much 'collateral damage' is inflicted.
Americans see themselves as aggressive, bold and decisive, others see them as trigger happy and irresponsible.
Same thing with the British. The British view themselves as noble and caring, with their soft hat patrols and hearts and minds winning tactics. The Americans view them as incompetent and 'soft' for not being able to crush insurgencies in their areas and all too often need American numbers and firepower to help bail them out.
You can do the same with every military in the world.
So the point I am trying to make is that the warrior culture of a nation is such a subjective matter that different people will hold vastly different views when looking at the same facts.

然而提到其他国家的军队也会发生同样的情况。
美军以善于保全自己为荣,而其他人则视他们为鲁莽和不负责任的:只会竭力降低己方人员的危险,不管“平民死亡率”会有多少。
美军自认为富有进取心,勇敢而果断,而其他人则视他们为好战和缺乏责任心的。
对英军也一样。英军摆出他们的呢帽巡逻队(皇家卫队?)和攻心术(精神胜利法?),自认为高贵仁慈,而美国人则视他们为软弱无能,甚至无力镇压本地骚乱而不得不经常寻求美国的军力和火力帮忙摆平。
对世上所有的军队你都可以进行负面评价。
所以我的看法是一个国家的尚武精神是一个仁者见仁,智者见智的话题,不同的人面对同样的事实会产生迥异的观点。

#29 Mr T 来自英国
Japan versus America?
Germany versus Russia?
Argentina versus Britain?
Iraq versus Iran?
Vietnam versus Cambodia?
Israel versus other regional powers?
There's quite a long list if you just try to think about it.

(回复#15前三句话)
日本对抗美国?
德国对抗俄罗斯?
阿根廷对抗英国?
伊拉克对抗伊朗?
越南对抗柬埔寨?
以色列对抗阿拉伯国家?
但凡你思考一下就能得出长长的一份(弱国对抗强国的战争)名单

The UN force was strung out across northern Korea and not prepared for a Chinese attack. The PLA leadership probably (and correctly) realised that a quick thrust could disrupt UN forces and force them into retreat. And China was fighting in its backyard, whilst the UN forces were from all over the world and couldn't exactly send reinforcements in overnight. So whilst obviously China couldn't match the rest of the world indefinitely, it was able to negate its enemy's advantages. And if the war had dragged on longer than originally planned, China again probably calculated correctly that whilst it could throw lots of extra troops in to the mix, countries like the US would find it harder and harder to do that due to voter concerns over the length of the conflict.
Let's not forget that in the 1950s, countries like China thought themselves to be psychologically stronger than "decadent" democratic countries.

(还是回复#15“朝鲜战争中……”)
联合国部队在朝鲜摆开阵势,并未防备中国的进攻。中国解放军统帅也许(正确地)认识到,快速进攻能够扰乱联军并迫使其撤退。而且中国是在自己的后院打仗,而联军由多国部队组成,无法一夜之间派出增援。因此在显然无法无限期对抗世界其他国家的情况下,中国能够使敌人(在一段时间内)丧失优势。如果与原计划相比战期延长,中国可能可以再次准确预估到,当它增投军队时,由于选民对冲突持续的顾虑,像美国这样的国家会发现他们越来越难跟着做。
别忘了在上世纪50年代,像中国这样的国家认为他们在意志上强过“堕落”的民主国家。

#30 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
What I'm saying has everything to do with the mentality, but actual strength. In WWII, Japan thought of themselves as the most powerful military on Earth. they felt like they could beat anyone in anywhere at anytime.

(回复#29“日本对抗美国”)
我想说的是力量对比主要是主观感觉而非真正的实力对比。二战时,日本自认为拥有世界上最强的军事力量,可以在任何时间任何地点击败任何人。

Again, when Nazis attacked the Soviets, they thought themselves as invincible and were simply finishing off the remaining of Europe. They were confident that they could win a war against the Soviets

(回复#29“德国对抗俄罗斯”)
还是如此,当纳粹德国进攻苏联时,他们自认为无敌,并单纯以为这只是扫平欧洲的残余部分。他们对赢得对苏战争充满自信。

All these cases were examples of the attacker feeling to be stronger than the attacked and was confident about winning. Especially with Israel which was and still is technologically much more superior than any of its neighbors.
China was never in that situation. They knew full well that they were in a disadvantage and weaker than their opponents.

(回复#29“阿根廷对抗英国……以色列对抗阿拉伯国家”)
所有这些例子都是进攻方自认为强过被攻击方,并自信能赢得战争。尤其是以色列,与任何一个邻邦相比,不管是当时还是现在都拥有明显的技术优势。
而中国不同,他们当时非常清楚与对手相比他们处于弱势地位。

These were tactical issues. Strategically speaking, China was in a much weaker position. All the points that you mentioned were simply the Chinese's way to get around their obvious weaknesses.

(回复#29第二段)
你说的属于战术范畴。从战略角度,中国当时确实处于一个极弱势的地位,你提到的那些只是说明中国是如何(扬长)避短的。

This was simply propaganda talk. The top leadership were fully aware of their actual strength and weaknesses. Before they went into Korea, most of the Chinese leaders, including many in the military, even including Lin Biao himself, disagreed with Mao about going into Korea. So they knew the obstacles they would face if/when starting a war against the UN force.

(回复#29最后一句话)
这只是舆论宣传罢了。中国最高领导层完全清楚他们的真正实力和弱点。他们进入朝鲜前,大部分中国领导人,其中许多也是军界的,甚至连林彪自己也不同意毛进入朝鲜的提议。所以他们是明白一旦与联军开战需要面对的困难阻碍的。

#31 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
I have to agree with Plawolf that I am mixing up the political will and military culture. However, I think the two are interconnected in a way. Between 1840 and early 20th century, China still had brave soldiers and generals and quite capable military, but very weak leaders who would sign whatever treaties thrown at them by foreign powers. In the Opium war, China was able to defeat the British on the battlefield. Without finding any solution to beat the Chinese on the battlefield, the British managed to bribed the corrupted Chinese officials who convinced the witless emperor to fire the commanding general and dismantled all the defense infrastructure along the coast line and invite the British military, or more precisely the East India Company, in.
In the 1930's, Japan was kept out of China all together because the governor of Manchuria, Zhang Zhuolin was firm about not allowing any foreigners into China. And there was nothing the Japanese could do about it with Zhang in command and his military standing firm. So they assassinated him. yet, his son was a lot more easily manipulated. He gave up the entire Manchuria to the Japanese without firing a single shot. All these feed into an overall impression by Chinese themselves and foreigners that Chinese were weak, hence "the weak man in the East" phrase.
Thus, a tough political leadership is connected to a tough military culture.

我勉强同意Plawolf(28楼)说的我混淆政治意志和军事文化。但是我认为两者存在某种程度的关联。从1840年到19世纪早期,中国仍然拥有勇敢的士兵和将军以及战斗力很强的军队,而当时的中央政府十分懦弱,不敢拒绝签署外国强权抛来的任何条约。鸦片战争中,中国能够在战场打败英国。感到无法通过打仗取胜,英国人转而贿赂中国官员,劝服昏庸的君主将指挥的将领革职,撤掉所有沿海防御工事,邀请英国军队,更准确地说是东印度公司进入。
到了30年代,因为满洲的统治者张作霖坚决不允许任何外国势力进入中国,日本当时被屏蔽在中国国门之外。张的部队严防死守,日本人拿他没办法,便刺杀了他。而张的儿子要容易控制得多,他退出满洲,拱手将其让给了日本人。所有这些给中国人自己和外国人留下中国人软弱的印象,才有了“东亚病夫”这个称谓。因此与坚韧不屈的中央政府相连的是坚韧不屈的军事文化。

#32 ABC78
Unfortunately I am not as well versed in Chinese military classics as you guy Heck I'm not too familiar with any of the pre-opiunm war military history of China.
Maybe we should breakdown it by dynasties on what each of them emphasized on the creation of an effective warrior.

很遗憾,我不像你们这么精通中国军事传统,我对鸦片战争前的中国历史也不怎么熟悉。
也许我们应该对每个朝代进行分析,看他们在培养合格的士兵时都注重些什么。

#33 Mightypeon
Not to mention the third Indochina war, where war with the at that time shockingly powerfull USSR, and likely the entire warsaw pact, was quite a possibility.

(回复#15)
怎么没提第三次印度支那战争(柬埔寨战争),这场战争与当时的超级大国苏联,很可能还包括整个华约作战,这是个很合适的例子。

#34 solarz
Whatever you might say of the CCP, they, unlike the late Qing dynasty and the KMT government, have never backed away from a fight when it was necessary.
I believe that their doctrine was influenced by the Korean War. Had the Chinese not pushed past the 38th parallel, they would not have suffered such heavy casualties, and their diplomatic position would have been far stronger. They applied this lesson in the wars against the Indians and the Vietnamese.

(回复#33)
无论你想说TG什么,他们不像晚清或国民党政府,不会在一场必要的战争中退缩。
我相信他们当时的政策受朝鲜战争的影响。如果中国没有跨过三八线,他们在朝鲜战场上就不会有如此严重的伤亡,他们的国际地位也会强得多。他们在对印度和越南的战争中吸取了之前的教训。

#35 montyp165
One other corollary to that was the disparity of logistics between Chinese and Soviet/US forces prior to the 21st century would make such limited actions be more fruitful, but with a stronger logistical capability the options increase significantly (e.g., the push past the 38th parallel in the Korean war would have become much more attainable and realistic in that case).

(回复#34)
在本世纪前中国与美苏军队后勤保障能力存有差距的情况下,只采取有限行动(指不跨过三八线)可能收获更多,但如果后勤保障能力再强一点,可选择的余地就会大很多(比如,如果这样跨过三八线会更加可取和实际)。

#36 solarz
It's not only logistics, but also a question of what you want to achieve with a military operation. The USA, despite having the best logistic system in the world, fell into the trap of having a poorly thought out objective in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
What would China gain by trying to push further into India and Vietnam? Absolutely nothing. Which is why the PLA withdrew after making their statement.
As for the Korean War, China should not have pushed past the 38th parallel even if they had secure supply lines. The most important objective for China in entering the Korean War was to keep NK as a buffer state against US influence. By beating the UN forces back to the 38th parallel, that objective was achieved. They should have stopped there. There was nothing to gain for China to sacrifice its own soldiers to help out Kim Il Sung. A united Korea is more likely to turn against China than anything else. Even in the best case scenario, Korea would seek to play off China against the other great powers (which NK actually does to a certain extent). In this, and many other matters, Mao was blinded by his ideology.

(回复#35)
这不仅关系军队后勤保障,也关系到采取军事行动的目的。
美国无疑拥有世界上最好的后勤保障系统,但由于未确定明确的军事目的,仍然陷入了伊拉克和阿富汗的战争泥潭中。
如果中国选择更深入地向印度和越南推进,他能从中得到什么?什么也得不到。这才是解放军发表声明后就从印度撤军的原因。
至于朝鲜战争,即使中国有安全的给养线路,他们也不应该跨越三八线。中国参与朝鲜战争主要是为了将北朝鲜变成阻挡美国势力的缓冲地带。把联军打回三八线,这个目的就已经达到,他们本应该在那时就停火。中国牺牲士兵去帮助金日成根本什么也得不到。一个统一的朝鲜半岛最可能做的事是掉转枪头指向中国。即便在最好的情形下,朝鲜也会伺机挑起中国和其他大国的争端(以趁机渔利)(这就是某种程度上北朝鲜现在正在干的)。在这件事和其他一些事上。毛被他的观念所蒙蔽。

#37 montyp165
Strategically it could be worthwhile to eliminate Vietnam altogether from the map, or change Indian government to something more ideologically compatible, but that's a can of worms that I'd rather discuss someplace else.
As for the Korea thing, even a unified Korea controlled by NK trying to look for other powers for support (just like how Myanmar is doing for example) would still be more in the PRC's political influence moreso regarding the US and Japan than otherwise, however.

(回复#36)
从战略上讲,把越南整个儿从地图上铲除,或者把印度政府变成一个与中国意识形态更相近的政府是值得做的,不过那就是一群害虫,我还是在其他地方再讨论这些吧。
至于朝鲜,即使是北朝鲜政府统一了整个朝鲜半岛,它也会寻求其他大国的保护(就像缅甸现在正在做的),受中国的政治影响还是会大过受美日或者其他国家的影响。

#38 solarz
I seriously doubt it'd be strategically worthwhile to annex Vietnam, considering just how much resistance you're going to encounter from the Vietnamese. And "regime change" never turns out the way you want it to.
Likewise, the risk and resources required to unite Korea simply isn't worth the gain compared to simply keeping NK as a buffer state. That's what I meant by keeping sight of objectives. There was a reason Mao refused to support Kim in his venture, causing Kim to seek the approval of Stalin. In the heat of the war, Mao seems to have forgotten that reason.

(回复#37)
我很怀疑吞并越南是否存在战略价值,考虑下你将遭遇的来自越南人民的强力反抗。而且“政权更替”结果并不总是你想的那样。
同样地,考虑到风险和花费的资源,统一朝鲜还不如单纯将其做为一个缓冲地带。这就是我所说的要时刻关注(军事行动的)目的。毛一开始出于某种原因(统一台湾?)拒绝支援金的激进行动,使得金转而寻求斯大林的支持。但是战争到了白热化阶段时,毛似乎已经忘记了这个初衷。

#39 advill 来自新加坡
Hypotheses based on past events like the Korean War etc. are irrelevant today. We have to examine geo-political events in the region, and the reactions of China to the current re-energised involvement of the US in East Asia re: TPP & Security. It would be useful for commentators to give their viewpoints of current China's Warrior Ethos re: the PLA, its Navy and Air Force in the face of challenges. My question is, would it be head-on to protect the Chinese territorial claims, or would it be cooperative? My guess is it would be the latter, as PRC's Politboro would have insights into global and regional issues. I hope I am not wrong.

基于历史事件的假设,如朝鲜战争等,与今天并没有关联。我们应该考察这个地区的地缘政治因素,和中国对美国重回东亚提出的“跨太平洋伙伴关系协议”的应对措施。这对评论者们评论当代中国的尚武精神是有用的:解放军,以及它的海军和空军正面临挑战。我的问题是,它会(选择)直接维护中国领土要求,还是进行合作?我猜会是后者,因为中央政治局对国际和地区形势有敏锐的洞察力。我希望没有猜错。

#40 AssassinsMace
Well I'm going to be the skeptic here and call this warrior's ethos just romanticism. It's a great motivator but how many people today actually do what it takes to live by it or is this just another superficial title to advertise.
Pressfield brings up the differences in values between the civilian and the military. He says civilians want everything easy and comfortable while the military likes adversity. Bull! Just look at the reactions to anything China does modernizing its military. China is no match from some who are complaining. Yet if you believe in the romanticism of honor here, they would be salivating at what China is doing. I know most of the criticism is from civilian governments but you've heard military leaders uncomfortable wondering why China needs all these new toys as if there was no potential adversary of China. True adversity is facing a superior foe. Expecting an adversary to be vigilant over themselves not be at the slightest offensive and be primitive so the "warriors" can be spoiled into an easy and comfortable victory is not honorable.
This book ironically perpetuates the "civilian" values.

呃,我想在此做一个质疑者,称其为尚武精神只是一种浪漫主义。它是一种强大的动力,但是今天有多少人还照此行事,或者这只是又一个用于宣传的空头口号。
普莱斯菲尔德(指主楼视频的演讲者)提到平民和军人阶层的价值观差异。他谈到平民希望生活轻松舒适,而军人喜欢冒险。瞎说!只要看看各方对中国促进军队现代化的反应。抱怨的国家认为中国并不是对手。如果你相信这楼里所说的罗曼蒂克的荣誉感,他们应该羡慕中国才对。我知道大部分批评来自于民主政府,但你也听过军事领袖们不安的质疑:中国似乎已经没有潜在敌人,为什么中国还需要这些新装备。真正(使视频演讲者的观点)陷入困境的是当面对一个更强的敌人时,指望敌人放松警惕漏洞百出,于是所谓的“勇士们”便能轻松取胜,(这种心理)本身就是不光彩和不浪漫的。
具有讽刺意味的是,这本书(主楼视频演讲者写的)主张了这种“平民”的价值观。

#41 ABC78
Do we have any vets to comment on this matter?

有哪个老兵来探讨一下这个问题吗?

#42 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
I doubt that. There is a philosophy in ancient China about how an emperor/overlord should rule his subjects. You don't want your subjects to be united in one group, meaning that once they align themselves together, you will lose your purpose as a leader as they can make up their own mind since their goals are in line with each other. You, as a leader, will slowly lose your influence and power. You, as a leader, want your subjects to be in different groups so that they'll need you to make the final decision and need you to be the mediator. So long as they fight each other, they will try to align with you. The same can be said of Korea. Once Korea is unified, they won't need anyone, China or the US, to help them mediate. They'll have their own goals and objectives. They won't reply on anyone else like how SK needs the US and NK needs China.

(回复#37关于朝鲜的那段)
我对此保持怀疑。在古代中国有一门哲学是关于一个皇帝/君主应该如何统治他的臣民。你不会想让你的臣民们形成一个联合的团体,一旦他们自行组成联合阵线,你将失去作为领导者的价值,因为如果他们目标一致,他们就可以自行做决定。而你,作为一个领导者,将逐渐丧失影响力和权力。作为一个领导者,你会希望你的臣民分属不同的派别,这样他们将需要你来做出决策,并扮演一个调停者的角色。只要他们相互斗争,他们便会尽力拉拢你。这对朝鲜也同样适用。一旦朝鲜统一,他们将不再需要任何人,(不论是)中国或是美国,来帮他们居中调解。他们会有自己的目标,也不必再回应诸如韩国多需要美国或者朝鲜多需要中国之类的问题了。

#43 no_name 来自奥克兰
So are you regarding NK as China's subject?

你这是把北朝鲜当做中国的臣民?

#44 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
That was the plan of Mao. As whether it worked as planned, I leave that to you to decide...

这是毛的计划。至于事实是不是如计划的那样,看你的判断了……

#45 eldarlmari
Interesting

有意思
 
发表评论
@

您还没有登录! 现在登录 立即注册 评论过百赞有奖励哦!
一键登录