返回正常中文阅读
想对这篇译文“指手画脚”吗？
大错 
小错 
不顺 
建议 Churchill the Author of "Tibetan Independence''
April 14, 2008 (LPAC)-- In papers belonging to T.V. Soong, the wartime (WWII) finance minister of China, released today by the Hoover Institution and Shanghai\\\'s Fudan University, it is clear that the myth of Tibetan independence was launched during World War II by Winston Churchill. The papers contain letters from Kuomintang Party (KMT) leader Chiang Kai-shek complaining about Churchill\\\'s attempt to rewrite history and to characterize Tibet as an independent country, something which it had never been.
\\\"In a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek, then Chinese leader and KMT chairman, dated May 21, 1943, Soong wrote:
\\\'Churchill said that recently it has been alleged that China has concentrated troops in order to attack Tibet. I replied that I have never heard of such a message.
And meanwhile, I said that Tibet is not an independent nation, as Churchill had claimed. All previous agreements between China and Britain have recognized that China possesses sovereign rights in Tibet, and I believe this fact has already been under your careful examination.\\\'
Chiang wrote back, saying:
\\\'By treating Tibet as an independent country, Churchill has denied the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. It\\\'s a great insult. I did not expect Britain would make such a statement Tibet is part of China\\\'s territory, and Tibetan affairs are China\\\'s domestic affairs.\\\'\\\"
To heighten the contrast between this welcome type of patriotic hatred of the British Empire, on the one side, as expressed by President Franklin Roosevelt and his allies, with the revolting proclivity toward British butt-licking, as espoused by Cheney-protecter Nancy Pelosi or Jello-Head Al Gore, on the other, is a very easy task. Nevertheless, we will do it here, only because these butt-lickers are still romping around, today, at the expense of civilization!
Contrast Churchill\\\'s approach to China, and that of Pelosi\\\'s, with President Franklin Roosevelt\\\'s 1944 criticism of imperialism:
[Memorandum of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, January 24, 1944 (from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Vol. II: Since 1944)]:
I saw [British Ambassador to the U.S. Lord] Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country -- thirty million inhabitants -- for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.
As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China.
Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.
藏独的始作俑者——丘吉尔
（LPAC 2008年4月14日电）今日，胡佛研究所和上海复旦大学发布了一批二战时期中国财政部部长宋子文的文件，里面隐藏着一个惊人的秘密——西藏独立正是在二战期间由英国首相丘吉尔一手发起的。这些文件里包括当时国民党领导人蒋介石写的一封信，信里指责丘吉尔妄图篡改历史，他的西藏是一个独立国家的的说法完全是无稽之谈。
“宋子文在1943年5月21日给国民党主席蒋介石的一封电报里写道：
‘丘吉尔称中国集中兵力欲攻打西藏，我回答他我还未曾听说。
并告诉他，西藏并非他所认为的那样，是一个独立的国家。因为正如你我所知，之前英国和中国签订的所有条约，皆承认中国拥有对西藏的治理权。’
蒋介石回信说：
‘丘吉尔若将西藏称作一个独立的国家，就是践踏吾民国领土完整与主权。士可杀，不可辱。我希望英方收回不实发言，西藏始终乃中国领土之一部分，西藏事务乃中华民国内政。’”
我很赞赏蒋介石和宋子文的做法，为了自己国家的尊严而敢于反抗英国人，就像我们的总统富兰克林罗斯福及其追随者所做的那样；同时我十分反感为讨好英国佬而诋毁中国的哈巴狗，比如Nancy Pelosi和Jello-Head Al Gore之流。正义在谁一方，显而易见。然而直到现在，这些哈巴狗们仍然在厚颜无耻地以“民主”的名义四处招摇，对他国内政指手画脚。
让我们把丘吉尔、Pelosi对华态度，以及富兰克林罗斯福总统在1944年对帝国主义的批评来作个比较：
[1944年1月24日，富兰克林 德拉诺 罗斯福总统对国务秘书Cordell Hull备忘录（选自《美国外交政策主要问题》Major Problems in American Foreign Policy第二卷：自1944年）]
上星期我见了Halifax（英国驻美大使勋爵）一面，我坦白地对他说，早在一年前，我就认为印度支那不属于法国，但有由国际托管的需要。一百多年来，法国的三千万移民的确已经深深地渗透进了这片土地，但是，难道你没看到印度支那人的生活比一百年前还要艰苦吗？
其实，关于民族问题，我是站在蒋介石总司令和斯大林先生一边的。我无法与英国外交办达成共识。英国不支持国际托管，因为那会损害他们与荷兰在印度支那的利益。之前就有例子，国际托管最后却促成了国家独立。我想，在印度支那，这种结果极有可能发生。
任何个体、民族，要存活，只有靠自立。印度支那的繁荣不能假手他人。法国与印度支那分享他们的文明，但是，对于印度支那人来说，这绝不是恩赐。
