二二八史觀與歷史真相─反正合試論

Abstract

本論文淺論二二八事件，行政長官公署與國府主席兩者之責任。蒐集反對者意見與支持者意見，並作出整理。行政長官公署制度並未專制，陳儀也無排擠台人，通貨膨脹肇因於日本殖民與戰爭因素，陳儀盡力打擊貪腐，然而推行地方自治，實行選舉，種種放鬆管制，造成了政治衰敗與暴動空間，加以陳儀寬愛台人將軍隊調走，就給了有心人士的可乘之機。蔣中正當時所接受到的資訊多是奸黨作亂，故而還兵台灣，鎮壓奸黨暴徒。台灣方面的陳情與不要還兵的電報皆在其還兵之後才收到，而其多次下令「不得報復」，亦可見其寬愛台人。目前沒有任何證明蔣「屠殺」台人的證據，暫時否決撤職陳儀的條件僅是另有安排。本文又從政治責任、行政責任等方面判斷，在二二八事件上，蔣中正不須負責。 本文整理二二八事件後，當時政府與現今國民黨與民進黨之論述。二二八事件絕少與台獨有關，故民進黨將二二八與台獨掛鉤並不正確，此外，本論文透過簡單地量化分析，證實了民進黨炒作二二八以獲取政治利益。民進黨對二二八的論述在近數十年成為台灣輿論主流，近代國民黨亦附和之認為二二八是官逼民反。本文另指出國民黨此一策略之失敗，而郭冠英的文章引述論理正確，原本有空間使得事發當時的政府觀點重新回歸社會大眾討論，卻因郭冠英的文筆奇險，不僅喪失了翻轉二二八論述的機會，也讓郭遭到慘痛代價。

This paper discusses the 228 Incident, and the responsibility of both the Chief Executive Office of the President of the State.And collecting the 228 Incident of opinion with supporters and opponents to organize.The Chief Executive Office did not authoritarian,and the President of the State, Chen Yi did not marginalized politically Taiwan people,Inflation prompted by Japan's colonial and War, Chen Yi tried to combat corruption.However, the implementation of local self-government, and the implementation of the election, all kinds of deregulation, resulting in a decline and political opportunities for advocacy riots. Chen Yi is the kindness to the people of Taiwan to mobilize the army, they gave advocated riots opportunity.Chiang Kai-shek at the time the information received mostly rebels rebellion, so sent troops to Taiwan to suppress the rebels.Taiwan's petition and not send troops telegram was received after the troops are, and repeatedly ordered their 'No Retaliation' is also reflected in its care for the people of Taiwan. Currently no evidence that Chiang Kai-shek 'massacre' Taiwan people, temporarily veto the dismissal of Chen Yi only condition is otherwise arranged.In this paper, from the political responsibility and administrative responsibility to prove, on the 228 Incident, Chiang Kai-shek not be responsible. In this paper, organize the 228 Incident, the government, the KMT, the DPP's exposition.The 228 Incident and rarely related to independence, so the DPP and Taiwan independence linked to the 228 Incident is not correct.In addition, the paper simply through quantitative analysis confirmed the DPP speculation the 228 Incident for political interests.The DPP to discuss the 228 incident in recent decades become the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan, the KMT also echoed consider the 228 incident is forcing people to rebel. This paper points out that a failure of the KMT's policy, while Guo Guanying articles reasoning is correct, had the opportunity to make the incident was the Government's views reintegration public discussion, but Guo Guanying writing odd risk, not only lost the flip the 228 Incident discussed opportunities as well,but also let Guo was paid a painful price.