您好,请 登录注册
轩辕梦
首页环境教育创业体育读书文化文学论坛比赛投票
当前位置: 主页 > 教育 > 课外教育 >

中外名人演讲之麦克阿瑟告别演说-老兵不死(中英文对照)

时间:2017-04-17 02:06来源:轩辕网原创整理 作者:道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟 点击:
老兵不死,他们只是凋零了。美国人是怎么看朝鲜战争的,麦克阿瑟从朝鲜战场下来又说了些什么,他为什么提到张作霖和蒋介石,总统为什么要将他免职?
       关于朝鲜战争沈志华教授已经利用了大量的事实提出有力的观点,现在学术界都基本承认,朝鲜战争是一场中美双方的误判,这是一场斯大林策划,毛泽东部署,彭德怀任前敌总指挥,而金日成坐得渔利的错误战争。这场战争的正确性是第一次将战火烧在国门之外,拒敌于国门之外是林彪的战略思想,但是他没有打这场战争。毛于是挑选了脾气暴躁的彭德怀进入朝鲜战场,这位经验丰富的将军给了轻视中国人的麦克阿瑟当头一棒,不得不说,麦克阿瑟打了败仗。然而打败仗并不是他被撤换的原因,他被撤掉的原因是他主张对中国扩大战争,他到底说了什么,请看这篇演讲。
      关于朝鲜战争多说两句,我们很难考证彭德怀到底有没有打伟大的金日成元首一个嘴巴,但是我们知道的是朝鲜人捣毁了志愿军陵墓,只字不提志愿军的作用,和彭德怀实际拥有的指挥权。要想避免下一场朝鲜战争,请听听美国人在说什么。一个值得注意的细节是当麦克阿瑟在国会批评总统时,频频赢得掌声,虽然不久之后他的支持者们就褪去了这种狂热。这种绅士的批评在中国的一个村里可能都没有。
      ”我即将结束我52年的军事生涯……老兵不死,他们只是慢慢凋零了。”

 
farewell address .Old soldiers never die,they just fade away 

1951.4.19
——Douglas MacArthur



 
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress: 
 
I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride -- humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American. 
 
I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe. 
 
Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia's past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom. 
 
Mustering half of the earth's population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started. 
 
In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support -- not imperious direction -- the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war's wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism. 
 
Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack. 
 
The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore -- with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore -- and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific. 
 
*Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort.* No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure. 
 
Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment. 
 
This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington. 
 
To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies. 
 
Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism. 
 
There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies. 
 
I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists' support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time. 
 
The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war's wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice. 
 
Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race. 
 
Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war's terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them -- as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited. 
 
On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines. 
 
With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we -- as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces. 
 
This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy. 
 
Such decisions have not been forthcoming. 
 
While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old. 
 
Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China's coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy. 
 
For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
 
I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory. 
 
We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution. 
 
Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows: 
 
Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter  destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh. 
 
But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. 
 
War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. 
 
In war there is no substitute for victory. 
 
There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative. 
 
"Why," my soldiers asked of me, "surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?" I could not answer. 
 
Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis. 
 
The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy's sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation. 
 
Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. 
 
They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: "Don't scuttle the Pacific!" 
 
I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way. 
 
It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety. 
 
Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always. 
 
I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." 
 
And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. 
 
Good Bye. 

麦克阿瑟告别演说,老兵不死他们只是渐渐凋零了

1951年4月19日于国会

道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟

总统先生、议长先生和尊敬的国会议员们:
 
  我站在这个台上,谦卑而自豪。
  谦卑,是因为在我之前,许多美国历史上伟大人物都曾经在这里发过言;
  自豪,是因为今天我们的立法辩论问题代表了人类解放最高尚、最纯洁的形式——人类自由。这是整个人类进程中的希望、热情和信仰的集中体现。
  我并不是作为任何一个党派的拥护者站在这里讲话,因为这些问题太重要,以至超越了党派的界线。
  如果要保证我们的方针是正确的,如果要保障我们的将来是有前途的,那么在制定关于国家利益的政策纲领时就必须考虑到它们。我相信,当我说完我为了陈述而经深思熟虑所得出的一个普通美国公民的观点之后,你们会公平地接受它。
  我已经步入人生的黄昏岁月,在我生命将逝之年做这个告别演说,无怨无悔。我心中只有一个信念——为我的祖国服务。
  这些问题是全球性的,而且环环相扣,任何的顾此失彼做法都会使整体造成灾难。亚洲被普遍认为是通往欧洲的门户,同样的,欧洲也是通往亚洲的大门,二者是息息相关的。有人认为我们的力量不足以同时保住两个阵地,因为我们不能分散我们的力量。我想,这是我听到的最悲观的失败主义论调了。如果我们潜在的敌人能够把他们力量分在两条战线上,那我们就必须在两条战线上与之抗衡。
  共产主义的威胁是全球性的,它在一个地区得逞,势必使其他地区有遭受毁灭的危险。你不可能对亚洲共产主义采取姑息态度而同时又不影响我们在欧洲阻止其发展。这是简单和不言而喻的道理。
  在亚洲地区,在对那里的形势作出客观估计以前,我们必须了解亚洲的过去,了解导致她上升到今天这种局势的革命性的变化。长期遭受殖民主义势力剥削而使亚洲人民没有机会获取任何程度的社会平等和个人尊严,也无法提高生活水平。与美国在菲律宾实施的统治方法不同,亚洲人民只是在不久以前结束的战争中才得以摆脱殖民主义的枷锁,得以感受到以前从未感受过的尊严和自重。
  亚洲有占世界一半的人口和百分之六十的自然资源,他们正迅速成为一股道德和物质的新兴力量,并藉此提高他们的生活水平,创立适合他们特有的文化环境和现代化进步样式的成果。不管你是不是坚持殖民主义的观点,这是亚洲前进的方向,而且势不可挡,这是世界经济向新领域转移的必然结果。在这种情况下,我认为,我们国家在政治上必须与其发展的形势保持一致,执行一种符合现实的政策,这个现实就是,亚洲人民有权决定自己的命运。这一点十分重要。他们需要的是友好的指引、理解和支持,而不是蛮横的指挥;是平等的尊严,而不是被征服的耻辱。他们战前已经低得可怜的生活水平,遭遇战争之后更加低落了,世界意识形态对亚洲人的思想命运没有多大影响,他们最关心的问题是肚子吃得饱一点、身上穿得好一点、头上的屋顶结实一点,并且使政治自由这个迫切的民族主义要求得以实现。
  这些政治和社会方面的情况,对美国安全产生的影响只是极其间接的,但是如果我们不想陷入非现实主义的陷阱,就必须针对这些情况慎重地制订当前的计划和政策。
  对我国安全更直接和密切相关的是在太平洋战争以后所形成的那些变动。在此之前,美国西部战略上的国境线位于美洲的海岸线上,包括从夏威夷岛、中途岛、关岛一直延伸到菲律宾群岛的无掩护的岛屿凸起部分。那些凸起部分证明并非是一个强有力的前哨,而只是暴露弱点的通道,敌人可以沿着这一带进攻,而且已经这样进攻过。对于任何蓄意打击大陆边沿地区的侵略势力来说,太平洋倒是一个可以进攻的潜在地区。
  由于我们在太平洋取得了胜利,这一切都改变了。这样一来,我们的战略前线转移了,它包含了整个太平洋,只要我们能把它守住,它就成了保卫我们的一条巨大的护城河。事实上,它起了保卫整个美洲和太平洋地区所有的自由国家的作用。一连串的岛屿,形成了从阿留申群岛一直到马里亚纳群岛的一个弧形,使我们得以控制这条战线远至亚洲海岸。从这一连串岛屿,我们可以凭借海军来控制从符拉迪沃斯多克到新加坡的亚洲每一个港口,并且阻止敌人进入太平洋。任何来自亚洲的敌人必须依靠水陆两栖作战,敌人如不能控制海上和空中的通道,就不可能取得两栖作战的胜利。我们掌握着海空的优势,只要我们投入适当的兵力,任何来自亚洲大陆对美国或太平洋上我们盟邦的大规模进攻都将注定失败。在这种情况下,太平洋不再成为入侵者的袭击通道,相反,它将以和平湖的友好面貌出现。
  我们的防线是一条天然防线,只需用最小的兵力和费用来维持,它就可以成为一条抵抗侵略者入侵的坚不可摧的防线。
  要守住西太平洋防线,就必须守住这条防线上的所有部分。因为这条防线的某一部位被突破的话,其他部分在敌人的攻击面前,都将变得无能为力。这是我从军事角度做出的判断,迄今为止,我没有发现不同意这一观点的军事领导人。所以我认为,在任何情况下我们都不能让台湾陷入共产党手中。如果一旦出现这样的情况,我们就会丢失菲律宾和日本,甚至可能迫使我们后退到西部防线的加利福尼亚州、俄勒冈州及华盛顿州的海岸线。
  为了了解中国大陆目前发生的各种变化,我们必须了解中国人的性格和文化在过去五十年中所起的变化。五十年以前,中国虽然被分割为若干互相对立的军阀集团,处于分裂状态。但他们当时仍然遵循儒家文化的思想,没有侵略好战倾向。本世纪初,在张作霖统治时代,中国人开始了要求民族主义的统一。在蒋介石的国民党政府领导下,这种要求得到了进一步和较为成功的发展,到了目前的中共政权下,统一得以实现。但共产党控制下的中国,人民的观念和思想上已经变得军事化了,中共训练出了一流士兵,有着胜任的参谋人员和司令官,成为了一个新的军事强国。中共与苏俄结成联盟,有了侵略和扩张的强烈欲望。
  在中国人的性格中,没有这一方或那一方的意识形态,中国人民的生活如此低下,而且连年战火不息,老百姓的生活处于极端贫困,他们追随新的统治者只是希望藉此改变贫困的生活。
   然而中国共产党人的利益是与苏联的利益一致的,从一开始我就相信,中共对北朝鲜的支援是最主要的支援,我还相信不仅在朝鲜,而且在印度支那和西藏中共都表现出了其虎视眈眈的侵略性。同中国古代皇帝自封为征服者一样,共产党人对权力扩张充满了贪欲。
  第二次世界大战以后,日本经历了近代历史上最大的改革。他们以一种值得称赞的意志,好学的迫切心情和惊人的理解能力,在战争留下的废墟上,把日本建设成一座奉献给人类自由和人格尊严的大厦,并在以后的进程中创立了致力于促进政治开明、经济自由和社会正义的一个真正的代议制政府。从政治上、经济上和社会上来说,现在日本已与世界上许多自由国家并驾齐驱,而不会再辜负全世界对他的信任了。日本人民平复了战争、骚乱和混乱的挑衅,并成功地遏制了共产势力的蔓延而继续其发展的步伐,这一切足以证明,可以指望日本在亚洲发挥其深远而有益的影响力。我把占领军所有4个师全部派遣到朝鲜战场,对此造成在日本的兵力空虚并没有丝毫不安。结果完全证实了我的信任。我没有看见过一个民族比日本民族更为可靠、有纪律和勤劳,对人类进步作出贡献而能寄予更高的希望者,无过于它了。
  至于过去受我们监护的菲律宾,我们可以有信心地指望目前的动乱终将被克服,一个强盛而健全的国家必将在受到战争创伤以后慢慢成长起来,我们必须有耐心、能谅解,并且不辜负他们,正如我们有困难时他们不曾辜负我们一样。作为一个基督教国家,菲律宾共和国作为基督教的一个坚强堡垒巍然屹立于远东,它在亚洲的崇高道义领导能量是无可匹敌的。
  在台湾,中华民国政府本来有机会用行动来驳斥中共许多的恶意诽谤,这种诽谤已经严重损害了其在中国大陆的声誉。台湾人民正在得到公正而开明的行政管理,在政府机构中有多数代表制,他们正在政治、经济和社会各方面沿着稳健而富于建设性的路线向前迈进。
  简述了关于周围地区情况的看法以后,我把话题转到朝鲜战争方面。
  在总统决定介入战争之前虽然没有向我征求过意见,但其决定无疑是正确的。从军事角度来看,我们消灭了北朝鲜的大部分军队,把入侵者赶了回去,取得了圆满的胜利,我们的目标已唾手可得。但就在这时,赤色中国以绝对优势的地面部队进行了干涉,由此引发了一场新的战争,出现了一个完全没有考虑到的新的局势,而这种局势需要我们作出新的决定并在战略上作出新的调整——遗憾的是没有作出这样的决定。
  虽然没有一个头脑清醒的人会主张把我们的地面部队派到大陆中国作战,这种事连想也不会去想,但如果我们的目的是要击败这个新的敌人,就像我们打败北朝鲜军队那样,那么,这个新的局势迫切需要我们在战略上作一番重大的修订。
  除了必须使鸭绿江北岸中国军队庇护所失去效用以外,我们还必须做到:
  1. 加强对中国的经济封锁;
  2. 对中国沿海实施海军封锁;
  3. 取消对中国沿海地区和满洲的空中侦察限制;
  4. 取消对台湾中华民国军队为抗击共同敌人而提供后勤支援的限制。
  以上的这些观点,目的在于从军事方面支援在朝鲜战场艰苦作战的联合国军队,减少美国及其盟国士兵在战场上的伤亡,以便尽快结束战争。由于我的这些观点,曾遭到许多外行人士,主要是外国人士的严厉批评。尽管我心里十分清楚,朝鲜战场上的每一位军事指挥官,包括美国参谋长联席会议在内,都曾完全同意上述这些观点。
  我请求过增援,但被告知没有可供增援的部队。我清楚的指出过:如果不准破坏鸭绿江以北的敌人军事集结地;如果不准利用60万在台湾的中华民国军队;如果不准封锁中国沿海以阻止赤色中国从外部取得的援助以及联合国军自身不能取得大规模增援的话,那么从军事上来说,就等于把指挥官放置在无法取胜的境地。在朝鲜战场我们可以通过运动战来保持我们的防线,但充其量也只是一场没完没了的消耗战。
  我一直要求(杜鲁门政府)做出解决朝鲜战争新的、必不可少的政治决策,但结果都遭到费尽心机的歪曲,一些人指责我是战争贩子,没有比这更为荒诞不经了。现在依然活着的人当中,没有人比我更了解战争,也没有人比我更厌恶战争。很久以来,我一直在倡导废除战争。因为战争给敌我双方带来的都是一样的破坏,丝毫无助于解决国际争端。1945年9月2日,在“密苏里号”巡洋舰举行的日本投降签字仪式上,我就提出过如下警告:
  人类自古以来一直在寻求和平,在长时间里人们曾尝试许多方法来设置一种防止和解决国与国之间纠纷的程序。但人们所能找到的只限于解决公民个人纠纷的方法,而解决国于国之间纠纷的方法,至今没有成功。军事同盟、国际力量均衡、国际联盟都一一失败了,剩下的只有战争之路。如果我们不能建立更广大、更公平、更合理的制度,我们就不得不面临最后的战争。这实际上是神学问题,它包含“精神复活”与“人类进步”。这种进步是与两千年来人类在科学、艺术、文学以及物质和文化的发展同步进行的。如果要拯救人类的“躯体”,必须首先拯救人类的“灵魂”。
  但是,战争一旦强加给我们,那么只有用一切手段去尽快结束战争。除此之外,没有任何选择的余地。战争的目标就是胜利,而不是旷日持久的迟疑不决。在战争中,不可能有胜利的替代物!
  有人提出各种理由要求对赤色中国让步,他们无视历史的教训,因为历史明确无误地告诉我们:姑息,只能招致新的、更加残忍的战争。
  历史上没有一个事例证明,因为目的正确,所以手段也应该是正确的。姑息只能带来虚假的和平,就像面对讹诈一样,一味的姑息,只能为新的、一次比一次更大的勒索打下基础,直到讹诈被暴力制止为止。
  我们的士兵问我,为什么在战场上把军事优势放弃给敌人呢?我无言以答。
  有些人说,为了避免把冲突扩大为对中国的全面战争;
  另一些人则说,为了避免苏联的干涉。
  这些说法没有一句是正确的。因为中国已经投入了它最大的兵力,而苏联也没有保证对我们的行动不作出相应的反应。共产主义就像眼镜蛇一样,只要它觉得世界范围内他们在军事或其他方面力量对他们有利,就会毫不犹豫地扑向我们。
  我们本来的目的是去拯救朝鲜的,但由于军事行动被局限于朝鲜国境线之内,致使这个国家遭受了海空力量的毁灭性打击,而中共的庇护所却完全受到保护而免遭攻击,以致使朝鲜的灾难愈发悲惨。到目前为止,在全世界所有的国家中,只有朝鲜是冒着一切危险奋起反抗共产主义的唯一国家。朝鲜人民英勇顽强的精神是无法用语言来形容的,他们宁死不做奴隶。他们给我的离别赠言是“不要放弃!”
  我刚离开你们在朝鲜作战的儿女们,在那里,他们正经历着各种严峻的考验。我可以无愧地告诉你们,他们一切做得都很出色。我所有的努力就是为了保护他们,也为了以最少的时间和最小的伤亡来体面地结束这场野蛮的战争。战争中,越来越多的流血让我感到深深的痛苦和忧虑。那些勇敢士兵的形象在我的脑海中挥之不去,我将永远为他们祈祷。
  我即将结束我五十二年的军旅生涯。我在世纪之前就已加入了军队,它满足了我孩童时所有的希望和梦想。自从我在西点军校的草坪上宣誓以来,这个世界已发生了巨大的变化,童年时代的希望和梦想早已消失得无影无踪。但我依然记得当年那首流行军歌中的骄傲词句:“老兵不死,只是悄然隐去。”
  就像歌曲中的老兵一样,我作为一名在上帝指引下尽心尽职的老兵,开始结束我的军旅生涯,淡出人生的舞台,悄然隐去------
  再见!

顶一下
(2)
100%
踩一下
(0)
0%

论功行赏

取消

您的支持是我们创造的最强动力

扫码支持
论功行赏,值多少就给多少

打开支付宝扫一扫,即可进行扫码打赏哦

发表评论
这一刻,我们都是中国人,请不要地域攻击
评价:
用户名: 验证码: 点击我更换图片
最新评论 进入详细评论页>>