罗伯特·谢弗：民国“沈崇”案与美国的外交政策
**【原文刊载2000年《太平洋历史评论》****（The Pacific Historical Review），**科技从业者 林行简/译】
醉酒的美国士兵在亚洲强奸了一位少女，触发了大规模的反对美军持续占领的示威游行。这些亚洲的示威者们除了以美国为目标，抗议其冒犯了一位女性的尊严和一个国家的主权，还以本国政府为目标，抗议它允许美国在他们的国家里驻军。美国政府官员们手忙脚乱地修补损失，但抗议在美国大兵被判有罪后仍然继续。
这是1995年和1996年的日本冲绳？是的，但同时也是1946年和1947年的中国。1946年12月发生在北京的一起强奸案，与最近发生在日本的事件 有着惊人的相似。该起强奸案激发了大规模的游行示威，并明确了许多中国人对美国在二战结束一年多之后仍在他们的国家里驻军的憎恨。正如其他的历史研究正开始做的那样，本文展示了军国主义、对女性的暴力、以及国际关系之间的爆炸性联系。3
1946年圣诞前夜发生于中国的强奸案和随后的抗议示威构成了一个案例研究：性别关系和性行为是如何损害美国在海外的形象，并因此复杂化了美国外交关系的行为。这一强奸案本身，并未导致美国防止中国共产党在1949年取得胜利的政策的失败。但是，它同时成为了一些问题的症状和象征。
这些问题是美国试图通过军事存在，塑造中国的政治发展的努力所固有的。这一案例也展示了在对华政策上，美国在华和在华盛顿的国务院官员们之间的分歧，以及美国国务院和军事官员们的分歧。美国新闻媒体在国内对此事的报道，也让我们能够审视，美国人是否被给予足够的机会，去了解另一个社会的人民是如何看待美国人及其军事代表们的。
除此之外，仔细检视被指控的强奸犯所经历的军事法庭审判，也说明了美国武装力量在1947年是如何处理性暴力的问题的。虽然这一特定的强奸案已经受到了研究中国内战的学者们的关注，并出现在中华人民共和国最近研究学运在共产主义胜利中的角色的学术文章上，该案在公开发布的美国海军陆战队历史和美国方面对那一重要时期美中关系的主流研究中，却被忽视了。4
苏珊·布朗米勒（Susan Brownmiller）在她的名著《违背我们的意愿》一书中，讨论了对强奸的最新历史学研究。虽然这本书最为人所知的，是其挑衅性的声明：强奸“只是所有男人使所有女人处于一种恐惧状态的有意识的恐吓过程”，布朗米勒也在书中展示了战争与强奸的联系。她断言，强奸不但表达了男人对女人的强势，也表达了一个国家或种族对另一个国家或种族的强势。
2013年，波兰但泽街头出现了俄军士兵强奸波兰孕妇的雕像，引发了俄驻波兰使馆的抗议（图片来源：德国明镜周刊）
类似地，黑泽尔·卡尔比（Hazel Carby）最近也论证说，强奸不应该被看作是一种“跨越历史的、对女性的压迫机制，而应被看作一种在历史的不同时段，获取具体的政治或者经济意义的机 制”。所以，强奸不应该仅仅通过性别视角予以分析，发生在中国的这起强奸案还佐证了女性主义历史学中，关注性别关系与种族民族关系之间的互动的趋势。5
在二战之后的余波中，性侵犯对于美国在欧洲和亚洲驻军的指挥官们，都是一个问题。**1946年4月，一位美国陆军军官在从欧洲发出的信件中写道：“如果在人类历史上存在着一个完全不讲廉耻、不守纪律、性行为不成熟的男性，那他就是在欧洲的美军官兵”**6。1946年6月，驻日美军的指挥官针对美国大兵所犯下的数量惊人的罪行，下令对如下行为加强纪律处罚：偷盗、酗酒、殴打日本人、以及“对女性的攻击“。
《纽约时报》以头版头条报道了这一消息：”爱彻尔伯格将军（Gen. Eichelberger）说美军的行为正危及占领的使命”。1946年，在驻韩美军指挥官约翰·霍奇将军（General John Hodge）呼吁美军改善在该国的行为之后，三名美军士兵因强奸罪被判终身监禁。7
但是在中国，美国占领军的行为才引发了最大的危机。美国的左翼杂志《美亚》（Amerasia）在1946年12月警告说，中国人不再把美国士兵看作是解放者，而是看作在中国日益激烈的国共内战中，蒋介石一方的支持者。该杂志引用了北京燕京大学的一位教授的话；该教授指控美军犯有如下罪行：“酗酒、赌博、追逐女人、非法出售政府财产、鲁莽驾驶杀人、侮辱和冒犯中国女性”。杂志的编辑们最后下结论说，“美国在华政策正在把我们的士兵转变成传递恶意的大使”。8
这一预测的准确性，在1946年圣诞前夜的强奸案之后，变得显而易见了。被强奸者是19岁的北京国立大学学生沈崇，强奸者是来自南卡罗来纳州的23岁的海军陆战队下士威廉·皮尔逊（Corporal William Pierson），协助强奸者是列兵沃伦·普里查德（Private Warren Pritchard）。皮尔逊在1941年7月报名入伍，并在1945年延长其服役期两年。在1946年12月那寒冷的一天里，皮尔逊和普里查德从下午开始，就在北京的曼哈顿俱乐部，和海军陆战队的战友们在一起喝酒。
在晚上八点他们出来的时候，皮尔逊和普里查德在一家电影院外拦住了沈崇搭讪。沈崇是一位中 层政府官员的女儿，刚到达这个城市不久。皮尔逊和普里查德强迫沈崇陪着他们到附近的一处当晚空置的跑马场。一队中国军队的工人打断了这起袭击，但明显出于对替皮尔逊站岗的普里查德的恐惧，这队工人没有直接袭击皮尔逊，而是离开去找中美联合警所（Joint Office Sino-American Police）的巡警。直到当晚11点半，这支特别警察力量才把皮尔逊交给了美国宪兵队，而美国宪兵队随后很快释放了皮尔逊。沈崇则被带往市警察局接受问讯。9
沈崇
强奸的消息迅速传遍了北京为数众多的学生团体。该城市三所主要大学的学生们宣布进行为期三天的罢课抗议，一万学生参加了12月30日长达7英里的游 行。抗议者不但要求惩罚强奸者和赔偿受害的年轻女性，而且要求美国从华撤军。在众多的标牌和海报中，有如下话语：“你们很孤独，你们很想家——回家去”， “美国士兵除了杀戮和强奸，什么也不会”。10
社论和读者来信填满了中国的新闻媒体，它们把对强奸受害者的“侵犯”等同于对中国主权的“侵犯”。这一联系在反对欧洲（后来是日本）帝国主义的现代中国民族主义运动兴起之后，屡见不鲜。11一个典型的例子是一位“有血性的年轻中国男子”的来信：他把这次强奸称作“对中国女性无与伦比的侮辱”， 并认为强奸象征着美国试图把中国作为对抗苏联的殖民地的意图。上海的30位教授签署声明，呼吁美国从华撤军——历史学家盖尔·赫尔萧注意到，战后上海的美 国士兵在光顾中国妓女时制造的喧嚣、酗酒、和骚乱，已经引起了当地居民的广泛抱怨。
上海的这些教授论证说，美国驻华军事人员犯下的强奸和其他罪行，“源自于美国把中国看作殖民地的错误政策”。北京清华大学的学生会也在传单里指控这一事件构成了“对我们学生同胞们最严重的威胁，以及对一个独立民族最严重的轻蔑”。12该传单已被译成英文，包括于美国外交信函之中。
学生会列出了一长串枪击和殴打的具体例子，以及牵涉美军车辆的交通事故所造成的伤害和死亡。这是这一时期的中国人所不断抱怨的。沈崇强奸案被放在了 这个清单的首位。学生们不认为这些问题是因为美国海军陆战队缺乏个人纪律，而认为是带着殖民者心态、“看不起中国人民的海军陆战队士兵的心理反应的流露”。13
学生的罢课和示威迅速传播到中国的其他主要城市。5000人于1月1日在上海和徐州举行了游行，第二天是南京的1500人游行，几天之后则是偏远的昆明的万人游行。广州的学生们据报道突破了铁丝网，在美国领事馆前举行了示威。教会支持的燕京大学的13名教授（包括两名美国教授），也支持了学生们的要求。清华大学的一位美国教授否认了说他反对学生抗议的报道，并声明说如果他及时知道的话，也会加入游行示威。14
1946年12月25日，北京大学的民主墙上就贴满了表示要誓雪耻辱的壁报
到 1947年初，根据中国受尊敬的独立报纸的两次民意测验，中国城市中产阶级广泛支持美国撤军。在一家报纸的民意测验中，18907名读者中有 18716名赞成立即撤军。15在抵抗日本殖民中国的企图超过十年之后，在1937年的“南京大屠杀”（Rape of Najing）成为日本恐怖统治的主要象征之后，中国人令人理解地对外国驻军和强奸都感到敏感。16虽然一位同情学生抗议和中国共产党的美国记者也争辩说，示威中说美军比日本人更坏的标牌“不公平”。17
强奸案的受审被安排在美国军事法庭而非中国法庭，以及美国限制中国记者出席的努力，令人痛苦地复活了中国人关于帝国主义力量长久以来强加于中国的“治外法权”的记忆，而美国最近才刚刚正式宣布放弃这一特权。18在长达一个世纪的中国反西方情绪中，“治外法权”处于核心地位。在这一问题上的看似倒退，为抗议示威活动火上浇油。不但如此，由于受害者是一位学生并来自于一个“上等家庭”，美国人将之描绘成妓女的企图和努力让中国人更加怒火中烧。19
阶级偏见在抗议运动中也清晰可见。当一名对蒋介石持批评态度的美国领事馆官员，询问一个游行示威的参加者，是否中国士兵也放荡不守纪律时，他被告知：“他们的确如此，但他们只骚扰农民，不会骚扰中国知识分子”。20 学生们保护他们中的一员的愿望非常的强烈，这使得沈崇案在他们眼中不同于以前对更平民化的中国人的袭击，虽然学生们也把沈崇案同以前的类似“暴行”联系了起来。强奸发生在北京这一事实，也使得问题更加的复杂化——北京是中国的知识文化首都，受来自西方的影响相对较少；许多受过教育的中国人长久以来认为自己在文化上比西方人更优越，强奸案使得这一态度浮出了水面。
不但如此，美国海军陆战队在北京的一所医学院的驻军，也毫无疑问地使中国学生们感到不安——在结束抗战的流亡之后，他们渴望一切回到“正常”。21
北平学生举行游行后，位于南京的中央大学和金陵大学也加入声援行列
位于上海的《中国每周评论》的美国编辑们，对皮尔逊强奸案进行了全面报道，他们注意到了这种阶级偏见和选择性的愤怒。这些编辑数月之后批评中国媒体忽略了中国士兵奸杀一位农村女教师的事件。编辑们补充说道：“在美国，女性无助、受庇护的维多利亚时代形象，虽然通常被方便地遗忘掉了，但在符合某些人的利益诉求时，也可以重回公众的视野。同样地，我们也许可以怀疑，中国古代关于女性贞洁的概念，在适当的场合下，也可以被有政治动机的人重新唤醒。”22
正如这些评论所暗示的，学生们的示威游行也可以被诠释成女性主义政治学家辛西娅·恩罗伊（Cynthia Enloe）最近所说的、在许多对强奸的抗议中“妇女权利对民族主义话语的从属”。示威游行也可以看作是一个斯派克·彼得森（Spike Peterson）和安妮·西森·鲁尼恩（Anne Sisson Runyan）所说的“性别民族主义”的例子。23 例如，毕业于耶鲁并且长久以来都是国民党党员的民族主义经济学家马寅初，就利用对强奸的愤怒，代表那些担心被便宜美货的潮水所淹没的中国商人，在上海协助发起了抵制美货的运动。24
但中国妇女组织对抗议活动的积极参与，提醒我们不要下结论说，中国人的愤怒主要是保守势力重新强调传统性别关系的努力。广州国立中山大学的女学生们发起了抗议活动，并且有报道说，北京最初的学生示威者中有三分之一是女性，这一比例远远高于她们在学生总人数中的比例。属于自由主义的民盟的妇女运动委员会，在号召参加反对美军的运动时，把强奸称作“帝国主义践踏殖民地人民的习惯性动作”。在上海，包括基督教妇女戒酒联合会在内的六个中国妇女组织，据报道在1月底，就维持在华驻军对两国人民的伤害，致电罗斯福总统夫人埃莉诺·罗斯福及其他人士。25
在场的美国外交官们注意到了美国大兵和中国人之间的互动对美国对华政策制造的困难。所以，此类事件也许扩大了美国国务院和美国军方的分歧——前者在1947 年的时候倾向于反对长期驻扎地面部队，后者则赞同驻军。26 就在强奸发生之前一周，在重庆的美国总领事罗伯特·斯特里普（Robert Streeper），命令该地区的美军指挥官威廉·厄普豪斯上校（Captain William Uphouse）及其随从搬出美国领事馆，因为士兵们不断地把妓女带进领事馆，并在重庆街头酗酒。
这些行为“负面地反映了领事馆的声誉”，而这一问题“在一波排外主义正在全中国酝酿的当前时刻”，正变得“尤其重要”。这些轻率的行径并非只是美军士兵一时头脑发热的狂乱；斯特里普对厄普豪斯抗议说，在12月 15日“五个女人在领事馆过夜，我被告知，其中一个是和你过的夜，另一个是和韦伯中校（Lieutenant Webber）过的夜”。27
美媒的报道
在华的海军陆战队军官们也对强奸和示威游行的影响表示了忧虑。1947年1月6日，A. D. 切瑞基诺少校（Major A. D. Cereghino）让他的军官同伴们通知在华北的美军，关于学生示威者殴打甚至私刑处死了美国大兵的谣言“绝对没有任何根据”。切瑞基诺尤其担心这些谣 言会导致美军对中国人民的“敌对”态度，从而危及美国在华驻军的首要理由。四天之后，切瑞基诺表达了如下的恐惧：如果沈崇因强奸而获取赔偿，那么许多和美军有染的“道德低下的女孩子”就会谎称强奸。他随后命令士兵们“避免所有可以为强奸指控提供理由的行为和情况”。28
在天津出版的海军陆战队官方周报，《华北海军陆战队》，在1947年1月整个月里，都刻意避免了所有关于强奸和学生示威的评论。只是在2月1日一篇讨论美军未来撤离事宜的长文的一段话里，该起强奸案被提及。作为对比，该报纸正面报道了，并且极力夸大了，3月间一次由国民党组织的学生抗议活动的出席率。该次抗议是反对所谓的苏联对中国事务的干涉。但强奸案的湍流最终还是进入了视野。
漫画周刊《勺子和咸食》（“Scoops and Salty”）以一种直白的方式讲述了一个名为“阿福小姐”的年轻中国风月女子的故事——她用她的性诱惑力扰乱了两个美国大兵的军事任务。这个故事想要对美军传递的信息清晰无误：和中国女人的性行为会导致麻烦。虽然没有明确提到强奸事件，一位海军陆战队神父在1947年1月底为基地报纸撰稿时可能想着此事：“在华传教士们告诉我们，美国海军陆战队已经无意中对教堂的传教工作造成了难以弥补的损害”。他补充说道，中国人“无法理解我们许多士兵的轻率行径”。29
就强奸案本身，驻北京的美国总领事敏锐地观察到，“无论皮尔逊和普里查德是被定罪判刑，还是被无罪开释，学生们都能以此证明他们反美示威和继续抗议的合理性”。也就是说，判定有罪将证明美国大兵们的道德败坏，而无罪开释将会证明美国官员的背信弃义。30 美国大使司徒雷登（John Leighton Stuart）在1947年4月对中国“反美主义”的一份评估中，注意到对中国局势和美国角色的“普遍不满”，导致了特定事件可以成为全国范围内的抗议的基础。在他看来，强奸案和类似事件没有导致普遍的反美情绪。相反的，它们成为了更深层次问题的方便的象征和导火索。31
美国驻华外交官和华盛顿的国务院官员对示威游行的最初反应有所不同。在他关于沈崇案的最初两份电报里，驻北京美国领事馆的迈尔·迈尔斯（Myrl Myers）看起来在责备被强奸的年轻妇女，“教养良好的中国女子”不会在无人陪伴的情况下从晚场电影回家（事实上，沈崇是在晚上8点左右被美国陆战队员们拦下的）。但他很快就切换到对示威游行一个更为政治性的评估上，强调中国政府把抗议活动归罪于共产党是不对的。
他的线人告诉他，大多数的示威者是自由主义的民盟的支持者。32 虽然有少数领事馆官员强调共产党也参与了游行示威，司徒雷登大使对迈尔的评估表示了支持。甚至司徒雷登的副手，一位强烈的反共主义者，也注意到南京示威活动的领导人“智力出众、有责任心、与共产党毫无瓜葛”。33 国务卿詹姆斯·贝尔纳斯（James Byrnes）和战争部的情报分析，则简单地假定抗议示威是共产党煽动的，这可能是因为中国共产党在12月中旬又重新开始对美国干涉中国事务进行舆论攻击，并升级了要求美军撤军的呼吁。34
与此同时，贝尔纳斯敦促大使馆的官员们和中国政府展开非正式的合作，以“控制事态”；这种措辞放到国民党试图取缔学生们对强奸案的示威游行的语境中，就带上了不详的含义。贝尔纳斯还想要大使馆协助限制美国在华新闻记者可能的破坏性报道。华盛顿的官员们起初试图淡化示威游行，他们告诉媒体说，示威很快就会过去，中国学生“历史上就存在着一有机会就沉溺于示威的倾向”，尤其是将之作为一种逃避课业的手段。
当然，这一声明对中国学生在该国的民族主义和反对帝国主 义的运动中（例如1919年的五四运动）所扮演的重要角色，是一种严重的侮辱。与此相反，司徒雷登则强调了示威的非暴力性，并且想要国务院避免对中国政府施加压力，使中国政府在他正努力鼓励国民党和其反对者展开更有建设性的合作的时候，对游行示威采取更严厉的措施。35
抗议示威在多大程度上影响了美国的政策？抗议示威当然发生在美中关系的关键时刻。作为对来自于国内和中国的批评的回应，哈里·杜鲁门（Harry Truman）总统刚刚在1946年12月18日宣布，美国在华军事力量正在从1945年底巅峰时期的10万人削减到约1万2千人。随后，在1947年1 月7日，正在中国以杜鲁门的个人代表的身份试图调解国共关系的乔治·马歇尔将军（General George Marshall），宣布他的任务已经失败，准备回美国。他把失败的原因归咎于国共双方的强硬派。36
至少部分中国人相信在抗议示威和马歇尔的归国之间存在着联系。受人尊敬的《大公报》驻纽约市的通讯员报道说，美国的消息来源相信“学生游行使得马歇尔将军感 到，美国应该重新考虑她的中国政策，否则她将不再为中国人民所欢迎”。37 国务院（现在马歇尔是新的国务卿）在1月29日宣布，2000名直接和马歇尔在北京的任务相关联的海军陆战队员，包括强奸者的部队，将很快撤离。38
1 月2日，马歇尔协助起草了美国驻南京大使馆对抗议的反应，允诺对涉案的海军陆战队员进行调查，并在判定有罪时予以惩罚。马歇尔还和司徒雷登大使以及陆战队指挥官塞缪尔·霍华德（Samuel Howard）会面，讨论强奸案和示威游行；彼时数千学生正在外集会。39 但马歇尔在其1月7日的声明中，并未讨论强奸案和抗议示威；他在归国后的 公共场合发言中，也鲜有提及这些事。40
不但如此，在马歇尔从中国直接致函杜鲁门的所谓“黄金电报”（Gold telegrams）中，也没有什么关于强奸案及其后果的讨论；这些电报显示，即使在强奸发生之前，就存在着把驻华陆战队数目削减至5000人的计划。马 歇尔明显意识到美军的存在加剧了中国的紧张局势，但他最担心的，还是这些部队和中国共产主义者之间发生冲突的可能性。马歇尔1946年12月28日的电 报，用一种急迫的口吻谈到了“马上为陆战队从天津和北平撤军作准备”的必要性。
这份电报在强奸发生四天之后发出，时间上晚于北京最早的示威，但在大规模示威游行和全国范围内的运动开始成形之前。马歇尔的助手，哈特·（Colonel J. Hart Caughey），的确注意到在1947年1月4日，司徒雷登从中国官员那里感到了迅速处理强奸案的“严重压力”，并且马歇尔的工作人员随时向他报告事态发展。但出自马歇尔的另一位助手，G. V. 安德伍德上校（Colonel G. V. Underwood）的电报，则否认了中国媒体关于撤军声明源自对强奸事件的反应的报道。安德伍德还否认了抗议示威是针对马歇尔在北京的“行政总部”，虽 然他表达了对“任何由（皮尔逊的）无罪开释所引发的、可能会偶然涉及我们的人员的暴力”的忧虑。41
1947年，美国海军陆战队撤离北平。火车上写着：“不再有中国任务！顶好！”
所以，证明强奸案的后果促使了美军撤离的具体文档并不充分。但是，一个看起来合理的推论是，强奸、抗议、以及美国对美军和中国平民之间发生进一步冲突的恐惧，都对美国减少驻华地面部队数目的决定有所贡献。抗议示威还限制了美国军方在中国实施它所赞成的政策的能力，这一政策依赖于公开使用军事力量42。在这方面，《新闻周刊》的报道说，在天津的海军陆战队员对学生们的示威报以欢呼，可能是因为他们没搞明白游行标牌的意思；但这也可以有非常不同的解释。很有可能，这些思乡心切的陆战队员们非常明白要求他们回家的呼吁，并且相信这些抗议示威会加速他们从中国的撤离。43
正如华盛顿的国务院官员们普遍未能意识到强奸案对美中关系的影响一样，美国媒体对学生抗议的报道，也展现了大多数美国报纸不情愿从挑战或者偏离美国官方政策的角度呈现材料的情况。事实上，回顾美国媒体对该次事件的报道，我们可以发现，贝尔纳斯的观点占据了主流。美国媒体不顾美国驻华记者发来的数量充足的电报，把强奸受害者和学生抗议者的痛苦做了最小化处理。示威游行因此看起来离谱、不理性、并且充满威胁性。
例如，《华盛顿邮报》在1947年1月1日对抗议示威的首次报道中，把示威者简单地描绘成反对美国，而未能提及他们正在对一起强奸指控作出反应。第二天， 《邮报》引用了合众社的一封快报，以“学生们该负责：中国人在上海殴打美国军官”为标题，把注意力完全集中到了抗议示威中一个美国人受到伤害的事情；只是在文章的第九段，这些抗议示威的原因才被说明。直到第四天的报道，《邮报》才把强奸的指控放到了第一段。44
《邮报》最近才刚刚在社论里，对杜鲁门实行普遍的男性军事训练的计划表示了赞赏。这部分是因为要解决《邮报》所称的“国家的男子汉气概的大问题”：这一概念清晰地把军事力量和性能力等同了起来，并且可能预兆着“对共产主义太软弱”的冷战忧虑。然而，《邮报》也发表了专栏作家马尔韦纳·林赛（Malvina Lindsay）的文章，警告年轻美国大兵的性行为可能会使欧洲人和亚洲人对美国性格以及美国社会的幻想发生破灭。
在没有特别提及皮尔逊强奸案和学生们的抗议的情况下，林赛指控美军军官们在这些问题上为他们的部队树立了恶劣的先例。林赛还关注了海外性乱交的后果：“被占领国数千没有名字、身无分文的混血儿，将会在未来对离开的征服者的自私和淫荡作出证词”。45
**一些报纸，包括《费城问询报》、《洛杉矶时报》、以及《基督教箴言报》，甚至拒绝使用“强奸”和“涉嫌强奸”等词汇；它们把事件用“袭击”、“亲密”、以及“涉嫌行为不检”等委婉说法加以掩饰。**一位《洛杉矶时报》的专栏作家承认“我们有的士兵可能越过了举止端正的边界”，但除此之外，他却未能向读者给出学生抗议示威的根本原因。 有些报道把抗议完全归咎于中国共产主义分子的组织，但这忽略了示威所受到的广泛欢迎，以及非共产主义的中国媒体对示威的支持。其他媒体，在诸如“中国学生联合起来与大学里的反美情绪作斗争”这样非常不准确的标题之下，夸大吹嘘了中国学生一个支持国民党和美国的小规模“反运动”，似乎这些人更能代表中国的观点。47
《新闻周刊》没有把事件描绘成美国士兵虐待当地人的例子，反而把事件描绘成当地人虐待美军的例子。类似地，持孤立主义立场的《芝加哥论坛报》把中国人的“下流语言”和暴徒般的行为，与驻华美军的“伟大自制”做了对比；《华尔街日报》的一位专栏作家则和许多人一起，把抗议示威看作是对美国在战时对华慷慨援助的忘恩负义的明证—— “‘反向租借’的一种特殊形式”。48
可能最带偏见的报道出现于亨利·卢斯（Henry Luce）主办的、支持蒋介石的《时代》杂志。《时代》杂志刚刚用弗雷德雷克·格鲁恩（Frederick Gruin）替换掉了它的战时驻华通讯员，西奥多·怀特（Theodore White）；杂志的外国新闻则通常由在纽约的惠特克·钱伯斯（Whittaker Chambers）撰写，此人是著名的反共人士。在1947年的第一期里，《时代》杂志把蒋介石的政府描述成日益稳定、受欢迎、民主、并且值得接受美国的军事援助。
1945年日本投降后，蒋介石成为某期《时代》周刊的封面
发生在中国的大规模反美反国民党的抗议示威，对这一看法提出了挑战。《时代》杂志绕来绕去令人费解的逻辑则解释说，在中国和其它国家里，那些要求美军撤离的人，嘴上说的和心里要的不是一回事。恰恰相反，他们真正想要的，是美军在他们国家更强烈的存在。49 这个论证的基础，看起来是一个没有说破的把国际关系比作家庭的隐喻：智慧的爸爸（美国）知道孩子（在此案例中，是中国）的反叛只是一种要父母予以更大指导的请求。50
《纽约时报》和《纽约先驱论坛报》都有自己的驻华记者。他们的报道比绝大多数媒体都全面，并且更广泛地引用了中国出版物和谈论政治的人物。他们还把示威游行与学生联系了起来。中国学生在中国民族主义的历史上、以及反对外国的运动中，扮演了重要的角色。《纽约时报》和《先驱论坛报》的报道还注意到了对美军行为的其他不满，以及军事法庭作为治外法权重新开始的信号所带来的更广泛的问题。51 但即便是这些报道，也费尽周折地称赞了美军士兵的行为，尤其是与满洲的苏军士兵相比较。据《纽约时报》报道，满洲的年轻中国女子伪装成男孩子，以避免苏军士兵的性掠夺。到了1月6日，《先驱论坛报》开始强调抗议示威带着 “清晰的左翼影响的记号”；通讯员阿奇博尔德·斯蒂尔（Archibald Steele）把来自延安的共产主义分子对强奸的宣传，同最近摧毁掉的纳粹宣传机器相提并论。52《先驱论坛报》最后用中国学生与美军士兵之间相互不信任和憎恨的原因，作为社论的结尾。这篇文章还算深思熟虑，除了要求美国继续在华驻军，以应对苏联侵犯的呼吁——这最终会落实学生们对美国利用中国实现自己目的的指控。53
美国共产党的《工人日报》不令人意外地对抗议和军事审判提供了前后一致和具有同情心的报道，其报道的基础主要是电传报道。早期的一篇社论否认了中国和其他国家要求美国撤军的人是“反对美国”；该社论论证说，这些对民主和独立的要求与美国的原则一致。54
在纽约市的左翼-自由主义日报《画刊》，也在1月初对沈崇案给予了重点报道，但关于抗议的两篇专题文章提出了不同的观点。詹宁斯·佩里（Jennings Perry）是一位从田纳西发稿的《画刊》常驻专栏作家。他把对跨种族强奸感到愤怒不已的中国“暴徒”，与他所见过的美国南方白人暴徒相提并论；这些南方白人会被白人女性为黑人所强奸的宣称刺激得暴跳如雷。对于佩里而言，美国人在国内外对待有色人种的方式，值得所有在海外承担义务的白种人模仿学习；这几乎就是某种诗意般的正义。
他警告说，在对中国学生们作出太过严厉的判断之前，美国人应该将心比心地审视他们自己的行为。他也意识到，在中国的学生示威者并非滥用私刑的暴徒，因为“没有私刑发生”。但他的主要观点是，中国人对强奸指控的利用和美国南方白人类似，他也明确声称他知道这些指控。这一观点也许反映了一个由苏珊·布朗米勒所提出的、更为普遍的模式：自由主义者对跨种族强奸的指控感到怀疑。这种怀疑的背景，是进步主义者长期坚持的、对三四十年代大加渲染的黑人强奸白人妇女的指控的抗议。这些被定罪的强奸案包括斯科茨伯勒小伙（the Scottsboro Boys）强奸案和其他一些案子。55
美国某报纸在150年代对跨种族强奸的报道
《画刊》还刊登了合众社发自中国的专题报道。该报道从中国学生的角度看待抗议示威，虽然一个未说的假设是“这个中国学生”是男性。这篇文章注意到了学生们在中国20年代抗议英国和30年代抗议日本中的重要性；文章随后解释说，对强奸的抗议示威在当时是一种能够为人所理解的反应——当时中国学生的生活条件非常糟糕，宿舍里没有暖气，食物也不够，而相对宽裕的外国士兵们则在他们的城市里横冲直撞，并且有中国裔的“吉普女郎”或其他女性中国同伴陪伴。
年轻的中国人对持续内战所造成的国家发展的停滞而郁闷沮丧；他们自然地把憎恨发泄到了外国士兵身上。56《画刊》的若干读者对这两篇文章作出了回应。一位读者攻击说这些学生是种族主义分子，而另外两位读者——其中包括一位居住在麻省剑桥市的中国人——则谴责把中国学生当作南部私刑暴徒的类比；他们强调说，学生们是在抗议美军的存在，而后者在当时的中国并无用处。57
宾夕法尼亚州一个小城市的报纸，激情四溢的《约克公报》，也对中国学生的抗议进行了全面而富有同情心的报道。该报纸也是主要依靠电传报道获取信息。这再次显示了是美国国内的编辑们，而非来自中国的报道，决定着故事的倾向。没那么耸人听闻的标题会造成巨大的不同。例如，《洛杉矶时报》把一条报道作为头条：“中国学生殴打美国人”，但报道忽略了示威的原因。
《约克公报》把同样的故事也作为头条：“中国学生要求美军撤出中国”，报道还清楚地解释了强奸事件。《约克公报》的另一篇文章注意到了上海的教授们反对美国对华“半殖民地”政策的集体声明。这在纽约市以外的报纸中，是为数不多的严肃对待中国公众观点的报道。58
更重要的是，《约克公报》是极少数仍然在刊登欧文·拉铁摩尔（Owen Lattimore）的每周专栏的报纸之一。拉铁摩尔曾是蒋介石的顾问，但到1947年时，他对国民党已经非常不满了。拉铁摩尔对抗议示威发表了机智狡黠的评论，把某些人的自我欺骗轰得粉碎——这些人自从20世纪早期以来，就把中国学生的抗议归罪于“外来教唆者”。虽然对示威游行是针对美国“感到警觉”， 拉铁摩尔仍然把它们称作增进中国批评自由的“健康”趋势。他下结论说，运动“对国务院的行为构成了严重警告”。59
于是，除了少数值得注意的例外，美国媒体对强奸案和中国抗议活动的报道，未能解释为什么中国学生相信这起案件是如此的重要。中国学生们的声音一般不会被原貌报道（这是拉铁摩尔试图做的），而是透过严重过滤的美国视角而呈现。美国媒体在很大程度上错过了一个解释问题的机会。这个问题就是马尔韦纳·林赛所说的， 美国大兵作为“美国使者”，可能给美国政策和民间交流理解所带来的问题。60
1 月17日，对皮尔逊下士的军事审判在北京开庭。负责审判的，是一个由七名美国军官组成的小组，他们都是男性。皮尔逊审判的庭辩全文会使大多数读者确信，强奸的确发生了。61 海军中校保罗·菲茨杰拉德（Marine Lieutenant Colonel Paul Fitzgerald）以一种严肃和避免冒犯的态度，执行了公诉。他质询了一连串的中国军队雇员和警方目击者；这些证人作证说，他们看见皮尔逊压在沈崇身上，并听见沈崇在哭泣。这些证人还说，来自另一个海军陆战队员普里查德的威胁，阻止了他们援助这位年轻的女性。直到中美联合警所的警员到达之后，他们才能够把皮尔逊从沈崇身上分开，并逮捕了他。62
对皮尔逊的辩护，包括了隐射沈崇为了钱而同意发生性关系。这一说法在沈崇证明了她从家里得到了足够的资助，并愿意提供银行记录予以证明之后，变得不具说明力。不但如此，有两位医生都作证说，沈崇生殖器部位的情况表明她之前很少有或者没有过性经历。这两位医生包括一位强奸发生几个小时后，在警察局检查沈崇的中国医生，以及一位第二天检查沈崇的美国军医。沈崇阴道口的损伤，尽管相对不严重，但和一个妇女被醉汉在低于冰点的夜晚强奸的情形相符合；虽然两位医生都承认说，如果沈崇是处女，那么这种伤害在自愿的性行为中也可以发生。63
2014年12月16日，漫画家丁聪先生的夫人沈峻在北京因病辞世。沈峻正是当事女生沈崇。
在庭辩中，一个更重要的发现，是美军宪兵在从中国警方手中接手皮尔逊时，未能把警方记录在案的强奸指控，清楚明白地翻译成英语。64
而对皮尔逊下士的辩护，则在沈崇没有做出太多的身体抵抗这一点上大作文章。辩护词说，如果沈崇不是同意了发生性行为，而是作出抵抗，她的生殖器部位和身体其他部位就会受到更为严重的伤害。两位陆战队员也提供证词说，强奸发生的地区距离一个交通繁忙的大马路只有65码； 皮尔逊的辩护律师说，如果沈崇大声哭喊， 就应该会有人过来救助她。代表皮尔逊的海军中校约翰·马斯特斯（Lieutenant Colonel John Masters），一开始试图把沈崇描绘为性经验丰富的人，以打击沈崇的可信度；但在有证据显示沈崇缺乏性经验之后，他又试图把这些证据用来为自己服务， 论证说沈崇的伤正是因为她首次性交没有经验而造成的。
在质询沈崇时，马斯特斯竭尽全力地要把沈崇诱入供词前后矛盾的陷阱里；但在总结陈词时，他又论证说，沈崇证词的前后一致性恰恰说明了沈崇编造事实，并预先进行了演练。马斯特斯最后下结论说：
“被告（皮尔逊）承认发生了性交，但该行为是在双方都同意的情况下发生的……我们对这一案件的一个方面感到难以理解：为什么任何人愿意呆在那片寒冷不舒服的跑马场长达三个小时，并且性交两到三次……这一独特的情形也许可以归结于这样一个事实：关于一个男人和一个女人会做哪些事情，来满足他们自从人类诞生以来就有的一种原始冲动，我们现在还不能真正理解。”65
菲兹杰拉德代表125磅 的沈崇对6英尺高的皮尔逊提出了控诉。菲兹杰拉德反驳说，“（关于强奸的）法律并未要求一位女性为了表明她对一个男子的性侵犯的反对，做出超过她的年纪、力量、周围的事实、以及所有伴随条件所能允许合理的事情”。他接着强调了“同意”和“屈服”在法律上的区别——身体上的抵抗可能会 对女性造成更大的伤害。 菲兹杰拉德在总结陈词中说道：“我认为被告很难解释，为什么一个年轻的、受庇护的中国女孩，出身于上等家庭，却愿意在零下8度的晚上，在一片荒凉的操场上，和一个她随意认识的醉汉待上三个小时。只有一个符合逻辑的解释——她留了下来，因为她被迫如此。”67
主持军事法庭审判的军官们判定皮尔逊犯有强奸罪，他的共谋犯有袭击罪。在华北陆战队基地的美国大兵们，对皮尔逊被判服刑15年感到愤怒，并开始把此事称作“华北的德雷福斯案件” 。他们声称，皮尔逊是为了平息中国的民族主义抗议示威而被牺牲掉的。68
但审批的最终结果却在事实上证实了中国学生们对“治外法权”复活的恐惧，因为华盛顿的政府官员很快就推翻了判决结果。虽然驻华海军陆战队的指挥官塞缪尔·霍华德将军（General Samuel Howard），在1947年2月的一份备忘录中坚持原有的判决，美国海军军法长 O. S. 科尔克拉夫（O. S. Colclough）在1947年6月发布的一份报告中，表态支持将皮尔逊无罪释放。在该报告中，科尔克拉夫歪曲了军事法庭审判中的一些呈堂证供，尤其是沈崇衣裙的情况。
他还系统地淡化了首次遭遇皮尔逊和沈崇的中国军队雇员以及警察的证词，而对皮尔逊喝酒的同伴和后来才抵达现场的美国宪兵们的证词予以更多的重视。尽管美国海军审判评论和宽赦委员会在7月份的结论是，“证据足以毋庸置疑地支持法庭关于强奸的指控”，科尔克拉夫的建议最终获得了胜利。美国海军执行秘书长约翰·沙利文（John Sullivan）逆转了有罪判决，并下令将皮尔逊和普里查德从位于加州终端岛（Terminal Island）的海军驻地释放，送返原部队继续服役。时任美国国防部长、总领美国武装力量的詹姆斯·弗雷斯特尔（James Forrestal），在8月份签署了将皮尔逊无罪释放的最终命令，但他的日记（公开的或未公开的）并未直接提及皮尔逊案件。69
对军事法庭判决的这一逆转，当然使中国人对美军及其政策的敌视更甚。事实上，即使是支持国民党的中国报纸和官员也对判决的翻盘表示了震惊和沮丧。70曾担任中国驻美大使，并在1947年担任国立北京大学校长的胡适，对无罪开释的判决进行了大力抨击——他此前用他的名誉向学生们担保军事法庭的公正性。司徒雷登大使除了将胡适的执着抗议转交其在美国国务院的上司之外，并无良策；他谈到了胡适的抗议的重要性，并补充说，新的裁决“将无疑为反美磨坊提供谷物”。71
1947年初，《芝加哥论坛报》对沈崇案审判的报道
1946 年12月和1947年1月重新开始的独立学生运动，不但威胁到了美国在中国的地位，也对战后的国民党政府提出了挑战：国民党政府进行内战非常不得人心，更别提在学生和知识分子中间了。事实上，一位北京学生向一个美国领事馆官员报告说，抗议主要是针对国民党，但日益增加的示威“公开针对国民党而非美国，这可能对许多卷入的学生是致命的”。72
在重庆的抗议示威遭到了严厉的镇压；根据美国领事馆的报告，在有些案例中，警察伪装成学生和示威者混在一起，随后毒打他们。这引发了完全针对当地政府而非美国的新抗议。73 另一方面，汉口的美国领事馆则声称，当地的国民党政府默许了那里的示威；领事馆的官员们猜测，这是因为中国人民对时局普遍感到不满，从而可能使得“当地官员欢迎人民的注意力被反美示威所分散”。74
在华的美国官员们注意到了1月份的示威有效地把中国的学生们联合了起来。751947年2月，作为对强奸的抗议的直接后果，国民党政府在北京抓捕了数千的学生和知识分子；与此同时，美国领事馆官员迈尔·迈尔斯（Myrl Myers）和小詹姆斯·斯皮尔（James Speer II）在电报和文章中对国民党政府发表了非常严厉的批评。
一份海军陆战队的情报备忘录也注意到，那些上了抓捕黑名单的人，不但包括共产主义分子，还包括那些秘密警察所称的“危险的自由主义分子”。76 这些逮捕最终标志着受过教育的城市中国人和政府的最后决裂。逮捕并未阻止学生抗议（这些抗议迅速开始囊括诸多议题），反而帮助把国民党的所有反对者都推向了中国共产党一边，这对蒋政府在1949年的倒台起了推波助澜的作用。77
中国学生对强奸的激烈反应可以部分被特定的中国国情和传统所解释：对中国的“强奸”所引发的该国半殖民地地位的联想；传统上学生阶层的精英主义；中国学生在 1946-1947年冬天所面临的严峻经济困境；以及受教育中国人对任何民族的普通士兵的轻蔑，这体现在“好男不当兵，好铁不打钉”这一说法上。也许我们 还可以补充一条：即使是皮尔逊的辩护律师也在军事法庭的审判中将之描绘为“沉闷而智力低下”；中国报纸则称皮尔逊“粗俗”。78
但在分析中国局势的具体情形时，我们还应记得如下一个贯穿世界历史的观念：“强奸”和一个民族的从属地位之间的联想，以及对异族士兵或武士作为潜在的或事实上的强奸犯的猜疑。格尔达·勒纳（Gerda Lerner）最近论证说，古时候，在战争中捕获并强奸女性标志着奴役的开始。她对战争中强奸的社会涵义给出了一个解释：“对于被征服者来说，女性被强奸有着双重影响：强奸羞辱了女性，并象征着男性的被阉割”。79
圣经旧约《朱迪斯之书》和荷马的《伊利亚特》都是很好的例子，说明了女性的被绑架和被强奸，以及对此的抗议反抗，在许多社会的创始神话中都占据了中心位置。尼可罗·马基雅维利（Niccolo Machiavelli）在16世纪谴责了异国士兵对意大利的“强奸”，他所遣用的词句也是中国学生们可以很容易借用的。80
当然，抗议“外来者”强奸的男性抗议者们也并非全无问题。对非裔美国人或土著印第安人强奸白人妇女的恐惧，深刻地塑造了美国白人社会和美国白人的种族主义。对强奸的这种恐惧也类似地影响了美国社会在20世纪20、30年代对中国人的形象塑造，以及在20世纪40年代早期对日本人的形象塑造。81 正如我们所看到的那样，一些自由主义的美国人不情愿支持发生在中国的对强奸的抗议，正是因为他们反感于美式思维对跨种族性行为的陈见。82
1946 年发生在北京的强奸，以及最近发生在冲绳的暴行，并不是作为一项军事政策而被故意怂恿鼓励的，但它们提醒了我们，士兵们的施暴对象并不局限于“敌人”或“被征服的”妇女。83然而40年代的中国人和90年代的冲绳人有理由看到在军事占领、袭击妇女、以及侮辱他们的国家之间的联系。除了战争和征服， 军事占领用例子证明了前美国国防部副部长弗雷德·埃克尔（Fred Ikle）一句令人震惊但分外坦率的评论：“军事生活可能正确地培养了倾向于强奸的态度”。84
即使呼吁对强奸者施予惩罚，中国妇女协会在1947 年也注意到了继续军事占领所涉及到的更广泛矛盾：“这一事件……反映了美国士兵们在不再有战争的情况下，对驻扎于一个陌生国家所感到的厌倦和悲伤”。85 军事官员、外交官、以及外交关系的历史学家们忽略了占领军士兵们在国家之间所产生的不可避免的紧张关系：正如《纽约时报》在1946年关于日本的头条报道中富有预见性地所说的那样，士兵们对当地人民的行为“危及了占领的使命”。
（译文完）
译后记
“《血管》带有鲜明的第三世界知识分子标记。书中大量引用其他拉美作者的资料、分析和结论，甚至尚未发表的著作；透过其中，我们似乎感到一个具有同样感受、同等觉悟并互相支持的知识分子群体。在首次披露的资料处，作者一一注明‘为了写这一段，我查阅了……’，或者直接叙述自己的大量亲历——我注意到他都是乘坐底层人的长途公共汽车去旅行、访问的。作者还
引用了不少欧洲、美国学者的原文著作。这种‘我有证据’的话外音使人微微有一点伤感。欧美知识分子不需要这样做，他们的国籍就是权威。如果他们为受害者说话，那是要人感激涕零的。他们的每一点新发现都属于赫赫有名的‘新历史主义’，而受害者的切肤感受从来就令人怀疑。”
——《拉丁美洲：被切开的血管·人的命运，书的命运》 (加莱亚诺, 2001, p. 7)。
这篇译文的缘起，是谢泳2001年5月18日发表于中国报道周刊的文章《重说沈崇案》。《重说沈崇案》的重心，落在如下几段话上：
“关于沈崇事件，当时无论是国民党政府还是民间都认为，中共有意识地参预了这一事件。还有人认为，这一事件本身就是中共有意制造的。当时就有传言说沈崇是延安派来的人等等。但在没有确切证据的情况下，我们不能轻易下一个结论。还有一种说法是：‘文化大革命后据中共党内披露，原来沈崇事件完全是一宗政治阴谋，而美军士兵强奸北大女生则根本为莫须有罪名。原来沈崇本人为中共地下党员，她奉命色诱美军，与他们交朋友，然后制造强奸事件以打击美军和国民党政 府，结果证明相当成功。
据悉沈崇在中共建政后改名换姓进入中共外文出版社工作，已婚，现大陆不少七、八十岁左右的文人名流都知道其人。另一说法是，改了名的沈崇在文革期间被红卫兵批斗时揭穿身份，她向红卫兵承认，她并未遭美军强奸，之所以这样说是为了党的事业。
文革中还有传言，说沈崇在山西五台山出家，并说有人曾见过等等。这些说法都没有提出足够的证据，所以它只能帮助我们在分析沈崇案事多一种历史视角，如此而已。虽然现在找不到沈崇案是由某一党派故意制造的证据，但中共有意识地参预和利用了沈崇案，确是事实。”
我个人认为，谢泳的文章有两个问题。
第一、 有利用含沙射影的方式打擦边球的嫌疑。文章用“有传言说”、“有一种说法”、“另一说法”、“文革中有传言”等方式，于不经意间将污名扣于他人头上；然后再用“没有确切证据，我们不能轻易下一个结论”、“所以它只能帮助我们在分析沈崇案时多一种历史视角，如此而已”这样貌似公允的语句，试图将自己撇清。这种用晦暗不明的词句进行心理暗示的手法，实在谈不上光明磊落，更不是诚实做学问的学者态度。
第二、 在引用历史资料时，故意混淆各事件发生的先后顺序，只从某一特定角度和立场引用史料，试图利用细节的“翔实”，坐实前文对读者的心理暗示。
使用心理暗示玩暧昧的曲折技巧，西方学界从心理学、大众传媒学、公共关系学等各方面都有过系统总结。篇幅所限，我们先略过不提。我只想在此略谈一条历史研究的常识：谢泳那一堆“据说”和“如此而已”貌似公允，实则并未将自己撇清，因为他违反了做历史研究的基本要求。
历史研究有一套经过实践检验的方法，这些方法从本科开始就会反复强调。美国大学大约是在本科三年级的时候开始系统的训练，其代表作是一本流行的教材：《究根溯源：历史研究与写作指南》（Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing）。
这样一套系统的历史研究方法，我们从谢弗教授的学术论文中可见一斑：史料要尽量采用原始资料（论文中引用的美国政府官员的电报、日记等）；每一个结论都要反复推敲，用史料作支持（论文中讨论“抗议示威是否是保守势力重新强调传统性别关系的努力”）；当有互相冲突的史料时，要仔细甄别比较，找出较为可信者（论文中对马歇尔两位助手不同看法的比较）。
谢弗教授的论文篇幅不长，但注解就有85条，几乎每一两句话就有一条论据支持，正方反方的史料都有顾及。这是史学界所遵循的严谨治学方法的一个例子。而细观谢泳文章，通篇都在引用同一立场的人的话语：这些人说话是在什么背景之下？有多大的可信度？与他们立场对立的人又是怎么说的？谁的话更符合实际？这些问题在谢泳的文章里都没有体现。所以受过历史学基本训练的人，读了谢泳的文章应该马上产生一种违和感：文章缺乏立体感，没有给读者一副完整的全景图（panorama）。相比之下，谢弗教授的论文就全面多了。
可能有读者觉得我小题大作：“怎么搞得像破案似的？不至于吧？”其实按照正统的治史方法，读史写史就应该像破案。西方学者甚至直接以此为名——《事实之后：历史侦破的艺术》（After the Fact: the Art of Historical Detection） 。
中国作为史书大国，治史的传统更是严谨。历史学家严耕望先生对史料的选取尤其谨慎，他告诫后辈说：
“研究一个问题，在最初刚刚着手的时候，自己可能毫无意见；但到某一阶段，甚至刚刚开始不久，自己心中往往已有一个想法，认为事实真相该是如何。此时以后，自不免特别留意与自己意见相契合的证据，也就是能支持自己意见的证据；但切要记着，同时更须注意与自己意见相反的证据。这点极其重要，不能忽略。换言之，要注意关于这个问题的所有各方面的史料，不能只留意有利于自己意见的史料，更不能任意的抽出几条有利于自己意见的史料。有些问题，史料很丰富，若只留意有利于自己意见的史料，那么几乎任何问题都可以照自己意见的方向去证明，这可说是抽样作证。现在某方面人士利用史学作为政治的工具，为政治服务，他们的主要方法之一就是抽样作证！ ”——严耕望：《治史三书·治史经验谈》 (严耕望, 1998, pp. 30-31)。
将谢泳的文章和谢弗的论文相比较，谁在抽样取证，一目了然。如果读者还嫌谢弗教授选取的中国方面的资料太少，不妨细读陈郢客的文章：《温故知新沈崇案》。
从若干史学前辈的文章，从谢弗教授的这篇小文，我们都可以看到严肃的历史研究与“据说、传言”毫不相容。为了政治目的而玩弄暧昧，用文学手法代替辛苦严肃的考证，末了又用“多一种历史视角，如此而已”想把自己摘干净，多少有些有辱斯文了。
谢泳的《重说沈崇案》出炉10年有余，影响不小。用百度随手搜一下，“一场毫无暴力痕迹的‘强奸’”赫然在列（见下图）：
其他难听的话还包括“奉命被强奸”、“政治仙人跳”、“色诱”，等等，林林总总，不一而足。
人皆有父母兄弟妻女，论身处地，何忍如此？
本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。
（翻页为尾注）
1 “Beijing,” which means “Northern Capital;” was not the capital of China in the 1930s and 1940s, and was then called “Beiping,” or “Peiping” in the Wade-Giles transliteration. I refer to this city as Beijing for the sake of consistency. I use pinyin transliterations, except when quoting directly from sources transliterated in the Wade-Giles format, although I give both transliterations the first time I refer to Chinese places or names.
2 For a sampling of press coverage of the recent rape and protests in Okinawa, see Andrew Pollack, “Rape Case in Japan Turns Harsh Light on U.S. Military,” New York Times, Sept. 20, 1995; Pollack, “Okinawa Governor Takes On Both Japan and U.S.,” ibid., Oct. 5, 1995; Sheryl WuDunn, “Rage Grows in Okinawa Over U.S. Military Bases,” ibid., Nov. 4, 1995; Nicholas Kristof, “Welcome Mat Is Wearing Thin for G.I.’s in Asia,” ibid., Dec. 3, 1995; “The Women of Japan Again Appeal to the Peace-Loving People of the World,” ibid., April 12, 1996, A25. For documents, in English translation, of the protests of Okinawana women against the rape and against the continued presence of GIs, see Takazato Suzuyo, “Enough is Enough!” AMPO: Japan Asia Quarterly Review, 26 (Sept. 1995), 3-5; “An Appeal for the Recognition of Women’s Human Rights,” ibid., 27 (May 1996), 48. See also Rick Mercier, “Lessons from Okinawa,” ibid., 27 (May 1996), 24-31; Muto Ichiyo, “The LDP’s Election ‘Victory,’” ibid., 27 (Jan. 1997), 2-7; and Nicholas Kristof, “Okinawa Vote Rejects New U.S. Military Base,” New York Times, Dec. 22, 1997. On protests in response to an earlier rape in Okinawa, see “Offenses by GIs Stir Okinawans,” New York Times, June 21, 1970, p. 8, and U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, Political Section, Daily Summary of Japanese Press, Jan. 6, 1971.
Elizabeth Heineman, “The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany’s ‘Crisis Years’ and West German National Identity,” American Historical Review,1 01 (1996), 354-395; the special issue of October,72 (Spring 1995) on “Berlin 1945- War and Rape”; Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge, Mass., 1995), chapter 2; Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II (Boulder, Colo., 1996), chapter 3; Nicoletta Gullace, “Sexual Violence and Family Honor: British Propaganda and International Law During the First World War,” American Historical Review, 102 (1997), 714-747; Cynthia Enloe, Does Khaki Still Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives (Berkeley, forthcoming), chapter 4.
On sexual relations more generally between U.S. soldiers and civilian women outside the continental United States, see Petra Goedde, “From Villains to Victims: Fraternization and the Feminization of Germany, 1945-1947,” Diplomatic History, 23 (1999), 1-20; John Willoughby, “The Sexual Behavior of American GIs During the Early Years of the Occupation of Germany,” Journal of Military History, 62 (1998), 155-174; David Reynolds, Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945 (New York, 1995); Sonya Rose, “Sex, Citizenship, and the Nation in World War II Britain,” American Historical Review, 103 (1998), 1147-1176; Beth Bailey and David Farber, The First Strange Place: The Alchemy of Race and Sex in World War II Hawaii (New York, 1992).
On the involvement of U.S. soldiers in a postwar culture of prostitution in Asia, see Saundra Pollock Sturdevant and Brenda Stoltzfus, eds., Let the Good Times Roll: Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia (New York, 1993), and Katharine H. S. Moon, Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations ( New York, 1997).
An investigation of the Chinese protests of 1946-1947 also provides important background for the Chinese nationalist upsurge that followed the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in the spring of 1999. For one of the better articles in the U.S. mass media on those more recent protests, see Melinda Liu, “Wounded Pride: Rage in Beijing,” Newsweek, 133 (May2 4, 1999), 30-32.
4 Suzanne Pepper, Civil War in China: The Political Struggle, 1945-1949 (Berkeley, 1978), 52-58; Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Student Protests in Twentieth Century China: The View from Shanghai (Stanford, Calif., 1991), 139-142, 261-263; Lincoln Li, Student Nationalism in China, 1924-1949 (Albany, N.Y., 1994), 131-135; Jessie Lutz, “The Chinese Student Movement of 1945-1949″ Journal of Asian Studies, 31 (1971), 89-110; Joseph K. S. Yick, “The Communist-Nationalist Political Struggle in Beijing During the Marshall Mission Period,” in Larry Bland, ed., George C. Marshall’s Mediation Mission to China, December 1945-January 1947 (Lexington, Va., 1998), 357-388; Yick, Making Urban Revolution in China: The CCP-GMD Struggle for Beiping-Tianjin, 1945-1949 (Armonk, N.Y., 1995), esp. 96-102; Zhiguo Yang, “U.S. Marines in Qingdao: Society, Culture, and China’s Civil War 1945-1949,” in Ziaobing Li and Hongshan Li, eds., China and the United States: A New Cold War History (Lanham, Md., 1998); and especially James Cook, “Penetration and Neocolonialism: The Shen Chong Rape Case and the Anti-American Student Movement of 1946-47,” Republican China, 22 (1996), 65-97, but note that Cook rendered the names of the rapist and his accomplice incorrectly. For analyses of recent Chinese publications on these issues, especially through memoirs of participants, see works by Wasserstrom and Yick cited above.
5 For a contemporary pamphlet that analyzed this case, see Thurston Griggs, Americans in China: Some Chinese Views (Washington, D.C., 1948), esp. 7-14, 25-30. For memoirs by U.S. diplomats that discuss it, see John Robinson Beal, Marshall in China (Garden City, N.Y., 1970), 344-346; John F. Melby, The Mandate of Heaven: Record of a Civil War, China 1945-49 (Toronto, 1968); and John Leighton Stuart, Fifty Years in China (New York, 1954), 44-45.
For treatment of postwar Marine Corps activities in China, see Henry Shaw, Jr., The United States Marines in North China, 1945-1949 (Washington, D.C., 1960), and Benis Frank and Henry Shaw, Jr., Victory and Occupation: History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II (5 vols., Washington, D.C., 1968), vol. 5. For the standard overviews of U.S.-China relations during this period, see Michael Schaller, The United States and China in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1990); Warren Cohen, America’s Response to China: An Interpretative History of Sino-American Relations (New York, 1980); Dorothy Borg and Waldo Heinrichs, eds., Uncertain Years: Chinese-American Relations, 1947-1950 (New York, 1980); Tang Tsou, America’s Failure in China, 1941-1950 (Chicago, 1963). For recent historiographical surveys of this period, see the essays by Nancy Bernkopf Tucker and Chen Jian in Warren Cohen, ed., Pacific Passage: The Study of American-East Asian Relations on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century (New York, 1996).
Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (New York, 1976), 5, 31, and 23-118 passim. Hazel Carby is cited in Atina Grossman, “A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers,” October, 72 (1995), 43-63, at 47. On interconnections between gender, race, and nationalism, see Vicki Ruiz and Ellen DuBois, eds., Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women’s History (New York, 1994), esp. xi-xvi, and Chandra Talpade Mohanty, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” in Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres, eds., Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism (Bloomington, 1991), 51-80.
6 Renwick Kennedy, “The Conqueror,” Christian Century, 63 (April 17, 1946), 495-497; see also Oswald Garrison Villard, “Our Military Disgrace Abroad,” Christian Century, 63 (June 26, 1946), 804-806; Albert Jolis, “Were GIs Good Ambassadors?” Common Sense, 15 (Jan. 1946), 28-30; and Ashley Montagu, “Selling America Short,” Saturday Review of Literature (July 26, 1952), 22-23.
7 New York Times, July 14, 1946, p. 1; ibid. (editorial), July 15, 1946, p. 24; “Army Acts to Improve Conduct in Japan,” Christian Century, 63 (Aug. 7, 1946), 956; New York Times, March 6, 1946, p. 7. On sentencing in separate cases of GIs for the rape of Japanese women, see Pacific Stars and Stripes (Tokyo), July 12, 1946, p. 4, and New York Times, Dec. 25, 1946, p. 30. Eichelberger’s earlier order banning GIs from walking on the streets with their arms around Japanese women seems to have been based partly on prudery, partly on a desire to avoid inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment, and partly on the unseemliness to Americans at home of literally embracing our recent enemy; see Eichelberger, memorandum to 8th Army commanders, March 23, 1946, box 433, Records of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Record Group 331, National Archives, College Park, Md. Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 103, presents evidence from Japanese sources of mass rape by U.S. soldiers in Okinawa and elsewhere in Japan as the war was ending. For a different view, see the thoughtful comments on GIs, prostitution, and sexual relations in Theodore Cohen, Remaking Japan: The Occupation as New Deal, ed. by Herbert Passin (New York, 1987), 119-136.
Novelist Pearl Buck made the theme of sex and war central to her description of the American occupation army in Japan in The Hidden Flower (New York, 1952). In a passage that anticipated Brownmiller’s analysis, Buck wrote of her main character: “[T]he subjection of a conquered country had changed him as it changes all men. There are men who feel compelled to force conquered women to submit to them, it is the final phase of war, the completion of personal victory” (p. 224); Brownmiller, Against Our Will, 27: “rape is the act of a conqueror.” See also J. Glenn Gray, The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle (1959, New York, 1967), 66-67.
8 “GI Welcome Mat Wears Out in China,” Amerasia, 10 (1946), 173-174. For similar comments and concerns, see Melby, The Mandate of Heaven, 229; Pearl Buck, “Our Last Chance in China,” Common Sense, 13 (1944), 265-268; and Harold Isaacs, No Peace With Asia (New York, 1947), chapter 1. For a positive interpretation of the interaction of GIs and the Chinese people, see William Lockwood, “The G.I. in Wartime China,” Far Eastern Survey, 16 (Jan. 15, 1947), 9-11.
9 See “Record of Proceedings of a General Court Martial Convened at Headquarters, Fifth Marines, Peiping, China: Case of William G. Pierson, January 17, 1947” (811.32/1-1748 [sic]), box 5044, General Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, National Archives, College Park, Md. (hereafter Court Martial, Pierson), and “Marine Faces Life for Rape if Finding Stands,” New York Herald-Tribune, Jan. 23, 1947, p. 24.
10 For an accessible account of the initial student demonstrations, see “Chinese Paraders Ask Marines To Go,” New York Times, Dec. 31, 1946, p. 6. This dispatch quoted a headline in an independent Shanghai newspaper: “What Japanese Troops Did Not Do, American Troops Are Doing.” For translations of early accounts in the Chinese press, see U.S. Embassy, Nanking, Chinese Press Review, #196 (Dec. 31, 1946), 3, and U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #232 (Dec. 31, 1946), 2. See also Jack Belden, China Shakes the World (1949; New York, 1970), 11-13.
11 See Cook, “Penetration and Neocolonialism,” and Dorothy Ko, Teachers of the Inner Chambers: Women and Culture in Seventeenth Century China (Stanford, Calif., 1994), 1-2. For related comments on prostitution and China’s weakness in the international arena, see Gail Hershatter, Dangerous Pleasures: Prostitution and Modernity in Twentieth-Century Shanghai (Berkeley, 1997), 265-267. Imperial Russian and German troops engaged in widespread raping as well as looting in putting down the Boxer Rebellion; see Stuart Creighton Miller, “Ends and Means: Missionary Justification of Force in Nineteenth Century China,” in John King Fairbank, ed., The Missionary Enterprise in China and America (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), 249-282, at 275.
On the prewar identification in the Western mind of Shanghai with sexual licentiousness, prostitution, and the availability of Chinese women for Western soldiers, sailors, and other travelers, see Hershatter, Dangerous Pleasures, 55-56, 234; Frederic Wakeman, Jr., Policing Shanghai, 1927-1937 (Berkeley, 1995), 109-110; and the contemporary source, All About Shanghai and Environs: A Standard Guide Book, Edition 1934-35 (reprint edition, Taipei, 1973), 73-77.
12 Letter, China Weekly Review (Shanghai), Jan. 25, 1947, pp. 207-208; U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #239 (an. 3, 1947), 5; “Students’ Strike in Protest Against American Marines’ Violent Act…” enclosure to M. S. Myers to J. Leighton Stuart, Jan. 25, 1947 (811.22/1-1547), box 4607, State Department Papers, 1945-1949, RG 59, NA; Hershatter, Dangerous Pleasures, 293-294. See also U.S. Embassy, Nanking, Chinese Press Review, #198 (Jan. 3, 1947), 4.
13 “Students’ Strike in Protest Against American Marines’ Violent Act…” RG 59, NA. On other actions of GIs that caused injury or death to Chinese civilians, see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #229 (Dec. 27, 1946), 1, 3; #230 (Dec. 28, 1946), 3; #231 (Dec. 30, 1946), 6; and #242 (Jan. 13, 1947), 3. For efforts by the U.S. Marine Corps to reduce such traffic injuries and fatalities, see “Tientsin Safety Drive Underway,” North China Marine (Tientsin), Dec. 14, 1946, p. 1; “Caution Costs Little, Saves Lives,” ibid., Dec. 14, 1946, p. 3; and “Drivers’ Licenses to be Reviewed,” ibid., March 8, 1947, p. 1. On similar problems in the Philippines that complicated U.S. efforts to obtain long-term military bases, see U.S. War Department, Intelligence Review, #38 (Oct. 31, 1946), 17, and #51 (Feb. 6, 1947), 12-13, and William Winter, “Military Bases in the Philippines,” York Gazette, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 17. On a more recent U.S. Marine Corps aircraft “crew error” that caused the death of twenty people in Italy, see New York Times, Feb. 12, 1998, A7, and March 13, 1998, A3.
14 See the mimeographed translations under the title Chinese Press Review prepared by the U.S. Embassy in Nanjing and the consulates in Beijing, Shanghai, and Kunming, from Dec. 26, 1946, to Jan. 20, 1947. See also Frank Tsao, “A Review and Study of the Student Demonstrations,” China Weekly Review, Jan. 18, 1947, p. 194. On the actions of the American professors, see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #232 (Dec. 31, 1946), 3; #233 (Jan. 2, 1947), 5; and #236 (Jan. 6, 1947), 4.
15 Reported in China Weekly Review, Feb. 22, 1947, p. 323.
16 For a contemporary account, see H. J. Timperley, What War Means: The Japanese Terror in China (London, 1938); see also Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (New York, 1997).
17 Israel Epstein, The Unfinished Revolution in China (Boston, 1947), 394-395.
18 “Extraterritoriality” was a system, established in the 1840s after the British victory over China in the Opium Wars, in which foreigners accused of crimes in China would not be subject to Chinese law but to foreign courts in the treaty ports. The United States gave up this privilege in a well-publicized wartime treaty with China signed in January 1943, although within a few months a new agreement quietly exempted U.S. military personnel from the treaty’s provisions. See John King Fairbank, The United States and China (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 167, 337.
19 U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #243 (Jan. 14, 1947), 3, #245 (Jan. 16, 1947), 4, and #246 (Jan. 17, 1947), 3. See also Charles Canning, “Peiping Rape Case Has Deep Social, Political Background,” China Weekly Review, Jan. 11, 1947, p. 166; New York Herald-Tribune, Dec. 30, 1946, p. 3; ibid., Jan. 1. 1947, p. 8, which reported that the accused claimed his sexual relations with the young woman were “on a professional basis”; ibid.,
Jan. 3, 1947, p. 8; U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #242 (Jan.7 , 1947), 6, in which Hu Shi (Hu Shih) denied such claims.
20 James Speer II, “Memorandum,” Jan. 3, 1947, attachment to Myers to Stuart, Jan. 15, 1947 (811.22/1-1547), box 4607, RG 59, NA. For a contemporary account of GMD Army rapes and sexual harassment of peasant women by landlords, see Belden, China Shakes the World, 155-156. For reports that differentiated between treatment of peasant women by the Red Army from treatment by the GMD, see Belden, 334; Edgar Snow, Red Star Over China (1938; New York, 1968), 259; Helen Foster Snow (Nym Wales), Inside Red China (1939; New York, 1979), 39-40. For a U.S. Marine Corps report from China that noted that “moral standards among Communist troops are exceptionally high” regarding sexual issues, see Ernest Price, “Memorandum for the Commanding General: Communists and Communism in Shantung,” typescript, Nov. 30, 1945, in box 22, World War II Geographical Area Files, Records of the U.S. Marine Corps, Record Group 127, National Archives, College Park, Md.
21 U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review,# 233 (Jan. 2, 1947), 7-8, quotes a professor at Beijing National University, “who had recently returned from America, [and] said that in his opinion, the Americans are less cultured people than the Chinese.” See also T. M. Chao to Stuart, June 26, 1948, in box 23, RG 127, NA, for complaints about marines occupying the National University of Shandong.
22 “Rape Cases and Rape Cases” China Weekly Review, June 28, 1947, pp. 103-104. On the relationship between chastity and rape in imperial China, see Vivien Ng, “Ideology and Sexuality: Rape Laws in Qing China,” Journal of Asian Studies, 46 (1987), 57-70.
23 Cynthia Enloe, “Spoils of War,” Ms., 6 (March-April 1996), 15; V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues (Boulder, Colo., 1993), 132ff.; Katha Pollitt, “Cultural Rights and Wrongs: Whose Culture?” Boston Review (Oct.- Nov. 1997), 29. For a case study of these ideas in the Chinese context, see Gael Graham, “The ‘Cumberland’ Incident of 1928: Gender, Nationalism, and Social Change in American Mission Schools in China” Journal of Women’s History, 6 (1994), 35-61.
24 Ma Yinchu (Ma Yin-chu), “The People Demand Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops,” China Digest (Hong Kong), 1 (Jan. 28, 1947), 10.
25 U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #242 (Jan. 6, 1947), 9, and #239 (Jan. 3, 1947), 5; “Chinese Paraders Ask Marines To Go,” New York Times, Dec. 31, 1946, p. 6; Far East Spotlight, 2 (March 1947), 8.
26 See, e.g., Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, Driven Patriot: The Life and Times of James Forrestal (New York, 1992), 304-309, and Secretary of War Robert Patterson to Dean Acheson, Dec. 17, 1946 (893.00/12-1746), microfilm LM069, reel 4, RG 59, NA. Of course, the positions of the War, Navy, and State departments were by no means static in these years. General Joseph Stilwell had major differences with Jiang that had led to his recall in October 1944, and he opposed continued military aid to Jiang after the war with Japan ended, while Ambassador Patrick Hurley had strongly backed military aid to Jiang against the CCP until his resignation in November 1945; see Michael Schaller, The U.S. Crusade in China, 1938-1945 (New York, 1979), 173-174, 286-288, 300.
27 Robert Streeper to William Uphouse, Dec. 17, 1946, copy, enclosure no. 2 in dispatch, W. Walton Butterworth to Secretary of State, Jan. 10, 1947 (811.22/ 1-1047), box 4607, RG 59, NA. Of course, some U.S. military officials were also concerned about prostitution’s impact on the venereal disease rate of American soldiers and sailors; see Lt. Gen. Louis Woods, Oral History Transcript, 318-319, U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington (D.C.) Navy Yard; and Hershatter, Dangerous Pleasures, 301.
28 A. D. Cereghino, memoranda, Jan. 6, 1947, and Jan. 10, 1947, box 23, World War II Geographical Area Files, RG 127, NA.
29 “Marine Corps, Army in China to Be, Withdrawn,” North China Marine, Feb. 1, 1947, p. 1; “Peiping Sees Students in Mass Protest,” ibid., March 22, 1947, p. 3; “Scoops and Salty,” ibid., Feb. 1, 1947, p. 5, and Feb. 15, 1947, p.. 5; William Summers, “The Chaplain Speaks,” ibid., Jan. 25, 1947, p. 8.
30Myers to Stuart, Jan. 15, 1947 (811.22/1-1547), box 4607, RG 59, NA. A U.S. Army official made a strikingly similar comment to Brownmiller twenty-six years later. No matter what information he gave her on GI rapes in Vietnam, he said, “some people will say the Army is a bunch of criminals and the rest will say we run kangaroo courts”; see Brownmiller, Against Our Will, 102.
31 Stuart to Secretary of State, April 22, 1947, U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947 (8 vols., Washington, D.C., 1971-1973), 7: 105-107. Stuart had earlier been president of Yanjing University, whose students actively participated in the demonstrations.
32 Compare Myers to Secretary of State, Dec. 29, 1946, and two telegrams of Dec. 30, 1946, Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 1-4. Dagong Bao lampooned the “panic” that the incident unleashed in the U.S. Consulate in Beijing, with frantic efforts by radio listening posts to detect broadcasts from the CCP directing the protests; see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #233 (Jan. 2, 1947), 6.
33See especially Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 8, 1947, Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 13-15, and Butterworth to Secretary of State, Jan. 9, 1947 (893.00/1-947), microfilm LM069, reel 5, RG 59, NA. While couched in more moderate language, some of the consular reports tended to agree with Charles Canning, who in the China Weekly Review, Jan. 11, 1947, pp. 166-167, argued that the CCP was not so powerful “that they were able to ‘instigate’ in a few days a nation-wide mass movement, which had the participation and backing of the majority of Chinese students and intellectuals.”
34 Secretary of State to Stuart, Jan. 4, 1947, and Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 8, 1947, in Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 5-6 and 7: 12-15; see also Stuart to Secretary of State, Dec. 17, 1946 (893.00/12-1746), and Dec. 19, 1946 (893.00/12- 1946), microfilm LM069, reel 4, RG 59; U.S. War Department, Intelligence Review, #47 (Jan. 9, 1947), 13-15. The CCP did, in fact, laud the student demonstrations; see Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 16, 1947 (893.00/1-1647), and Jan. 21, 1947 (893.00/1-2147), microfilm LM069, reel 5, RG 59, NA; and U.S. Consulate,
Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #239 (Jan. 9, 1947), 7. Yick, Making Urban Revolution in China, 96-102, emphasizes the leadership of communist urban underground students in this movement.
35“American Officials View Demonstrations Lightly,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, Jan. 4, 1947, p. 4; “Soong Orders Demonstrations in China Halted,” New York Herald-Tribune, Jan. 5, 1947, p. 6; Secretary of State (Byrnes) to Stuart, Jan. 4, 1947, Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 8, 1947, both in Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 5-6 and 7:12-15.
36 On the history of student protests in China, see Wasserstrom, Student Protests in Twentieth Century China; Vera Schwarcz, The Chinese Enlightenment: Intellectuals and the Legacy of the May Fourth Movement of 1919 (Berkeley, 1986); and Hans Schmidt, “Democracy for China: American Propaganda and the May Fourth Movement,” Diplomatic History, 22 (1998), 1-28. For a first-person account of the 1935 anti-Japanese protests, see Helen Foster Snow, My China Years (New York, 1984), 160-164. For contemporary accounts of student activities and attitudes in the post-war years, see Robert Payne, China Awake (New York, 1947), esp. 199-280, and Derk Bodde, Peking Diary, 1948-1949: A Year of Revolution (1950; New York, 1967), esp. 55-57. For two of the many comparisons in the Chinese press between the 1946-1947 protests and previous student activities, see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #238 (Jan. 8, 1947), 5, and U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #258 (Jan. 29, 1947), 5.
37 See “Statement by President Truman on United States Policy Toward China, December 18, 1946,” and “Personal Statement by the Special Representative of the President (Marshall), January 7, 1947,” both in Lyman Van Slyke, ed., The China White Paper, August 1949 (1949; 2 vols., Stanford, Calif., 1967), 2: 686-694. On Chinese press reaction to Truman’s speech, see Stuart to Secretary of State, Dec. 23, 1946 (893.00/12-2346), microfilm LM069, reel 4, RG 59, NA.
38 U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #244 (Jan. 9, 1947), 7; see also ibid., #243 (an. 8, 1947), 6. An early overview of U.S. policy in China agreed that the rape case influenced Marshall; see Griggs, Americans in China, 14, 25-30.
“Press Release Issued by the Department of State, January 29, 1947,” China White Paper, 2: 695. Some American conservatives in Congress, who undoubtedly interpreted Marshall’s abandonment of his mission in the context of this Chinese movement against the presence of U.S. troops, and who feared that his statement presaged continued
military pullout, called for the United States to keep its soldiers in China; see the Washington Post, Jan. 12, 1947, p. 5M.
39 Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 2, 1947, Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 4-5; United Press dispatch, Washington Post, Jan. 4, 1947, p. 5. Forrest Pogue, in George C. Marshall: Statesman, 1945-1949 (New York, 1987), 137, states that Marshall, confronted by demonstrators, asked for an interpreter so that he could talk with them. When the interpreter, a U.S. marine in uniform, appeared, Marshall reportedly fumed, “What are you thinking about, getting a Marine up here to be an interpreter for an anti-Marine demonstration?” Unfortunately, neither of the footnotes Pogue supplies discuss the incident in this fashion.
40 See “Personal Statement by the Special Representative of the President, January 7, 1947,” China White Paper, 1: 686-689. For a typical U.S. press account of Marshall’s return, see New York Times, Jan. 12, 1947, sec. 4, p. 2; for one account in which Marshall commented on the demonstrations and refused to blame the CCP for instigating them, see Pacific Stars and Stripes, Jan. 13, 1947, p. 4.
41 See especially Gold telegrams #1902 (Jan. 4, 1947), #1924 (Jan. 10, 1947), and #1962 (an. 20, 1947), and Ming telegram #115 (Jan. 14, 1947), George Marshall Archives, George Marshall Research Foundation, Lexington, Va. For selections, see Dennis Merrill, ed., Documentary History of the Truman Presidency, Volume 6: The Chinese Civil War: General George C. Marshall’s Mission to China, 1945-1947 (7 vols., Bethesda, Md., 1995), especially Gold telegrams #1804 (Nov. 23, 1946), 306, and #1891 (Dec. 28, 1946), 335-338. See also “Marine Corps, Army in China to Be Withdrawn,” North China Marine, Feb. 1, 1947, p. 1.
42 See also Dean Acheson to Truman, July 30, 1949, in China White Paper, 1: xvi, that one reason the United States did not commit large numbers of ground forces to the civil war against the Chinese communists was that “Intervention of such a scope and magnitude would have been resented by the mass of the Chinese people.”
43“China: Nasty Words” Newsweek,29 (Jan. 13, 1947), 40-42; see also Pacific Stars and Stripes (Tokyo), Jan. 20, 1947, p. 2, on departing Marines who said that the Chinese people gave them a “hearty send-off.” One Marine Corps
commander later recalled that the GIs in North China “didn’t know why they were out there,” and “they all wanted to go home-the officers and the men.” See Woods, Oral History Transcript, 318-319.
44 “Anti-American Cries Heard in China as 1947 Arrives,” Washington Post, Jan. 1, 1947, p. 4; “Students Blamed: Chinese Beat U.S. Officer in Shanghai,”ibid., Jan. 2, 1947, p. 3; “Students Demand Yanks Leave China,” ibid., Jan. 4, 1947, p. 5. In several newspapers the “beating” of the American (he was struck several times with his own cane) was the first mention at all of the case and the demonstrations; see “Officer Beaten, Anti-U.S. Feeling Grows in China,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 10A; “China Students Beat Americans,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 1.
45 “National Virility,” Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1946, p. 4B, but see response by “Outraged Veteran,” ibid., Dec. 27, 1946, p. 6; Malvina Lindsay, “American Emissaries,” ibid., Jan. 9, 1947, p. 10. For an analysis of Cold War ideology that notes this perceived crisis of virility, see Geoffrey Smith, “National Security and Personal Isolation: Sex, Gender, and Disease in the Cold-War U.S.” International History Review, 14 (1992), 307-337.
The resolutely anti-CCP Washington Post also editorialized against military aid to Jiang; see “China’s Constitution,” Washington Post, Jan. 5, 1947, p. 4B; “Marshall’s Statement,” ibid., Jan. 9, 1947, p. 10; “China Mission,” ibid., Jan. 30, 1947, p. 6.
46 “Chinese Students Beat U.S. Officer,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 8; “Chinese Repeat U.S. Protest,” ibid., Jan. 3, 1947, p. 6; “Chinese Students Oppose Marines,” Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 13; Ronald Stead, “Marshall Exit Tests China Factions,” ibid., Jan. 7, 1947, p. 12; “China Student Marchers Call Yanks Beasts,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 31, 1946, p. 5; “Chinese Students Intensify Rallies Against U.S. Troops,” ibid., Jan. 4, 1947, p. 1; Polyzoides, “Chinese Student Riots Against U.S. Shocking,” ibid., Jan. 3, 1947, p. 4. Ironically, “Inflammable China,” Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 3, 1947, p. 18, was among the U.S. editorials most sympathetic to the students, and “U.S. Under Fire As China Gets New Constitution,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 1, 1947, p. 4, was one of the more historically informed analyses of the protests. But the unwillingness to print the word “rape” blunted the impact of such coverage.
47 “Chinese Reds Blamed for Anti-U.S. Wave,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 4, 1947, p. 5; “Chinese Students Unite to Fight Anti-U.S. Feeling in Colleges,” Washington Post, Jan. 5, 1947, p. 9M; “China Prohibits Demonstrations,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, Jan. 5, 1947, p. 1. The first article here gave no evidence to back up the headline and included misleading statements that stemmed from the refusal to acknowledge that the incident was based on the charge of rape. See also the coverage in Pacific Stars and Stripes, which gave extensive and fairly accurate coverage, but which on Jan. 4, 1947, at 4, predicted that the protests would soon subside, on Jan. 5, at 4, retracted that claim in the face of larger protests, and on Jan. 6, at 4, exaggerated the importance of the pro-American Chinese student faction.
48 “China: Nasty Words,” Newsweek, 29 (Jan. 13, 1947), 40-42; “Chinese Beat Yank; Try to Disrobe Girl,” Chicago Tribune, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 1; William Henry Chamberlain, “Post War Ironies,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 14, 1947, p. 4; Chamberlain, “Foreign Affairs in Review,” ibid., Jan. 3, 1947, p. 6. Chamberlain insinuated that Chinese anti-Americanism was one legacy of Japanese wartime antiwhite propaganda.
49 “China: New Constitution,” Time, 49 (Jan. 6, 1947), 30, 33; “Painful Surprise,” Time, 49 (an. 13, 1947), 28; see also “Foreign Relations,” Time, 49 (Feb. 10, 1947), 22-23.
50 On Henry Luce’s “paternalism” regarding China, see also T. Christopher Jespersen, American Images of China, 1931-1949 (Stanford, Calif., 1996); on his China policy more generally, see Robert Herzstein, Henry R. Luce: A Political Portrait (NewYork, 1994) and Thomas Griffith, Harry and Teddy: The Turbulent Friendship of Press Lord Henry R Luce and His Favorite Reporter, Theodore H . White ( New York, 1995).
51 See Henry Lieberman in the New York Times, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 11, and Archibald Steele in the New York Herald-Tribune, Dec. 29, 1946, p. 15, and Dec. 30, 1946, p. 3.
52“Chinese Students Again Assail U.S.,” New York Times, Jan. 1, 1947, p. 15; Archibald Steele, “Reds in China Reach a Climax in Abuse of U.S.,” New York Herald-Tribune, Jan. 6, 1947, p. 9. See also Steele, “Marine Faces Life for Rape if Finding Stands,” ibid., Jan. 23, 1947, p. 24, in which he summarized his analysis: “The Christmas Eve affair has done more than any other incident to stir up Chinese resentment against the presence of American troops in China. It was ready-made for the Communists and other groups who have been demanding American withdrawal from China, and they have exploited it to the utmost.” On Steele more generally, see Stephen MacKinnon and Oris Friesen, eds., China Reporting (Berkeley, 1987).
53Whether the sexual double entendre of the New York Herald-Tribune Jan. 6 headline was intentional is impossible to say, but such linguistic excesses in the U.S. press on this case did not correlate with political viewpoints. The New York Times, Jan. 19, 1947, sec. 1, p. 44, described certain court martial testimony as the “climax” of the case, while the Communist Daily Worker, Dec. 30, 1946, p. 2, proclaimed that “Chinese Students, Aroused by Rape, Demonstrate for U.S. Troop Withdrawal.” On gendered discourse in the Cold War, see Frank Costigliola, “The Nuclear Family: Tropes of Gender and Pathology in the Western Alliance,” Diplomatic History, 21 (1997), 163-183; for responses, consult the H-Diplo internet site at http://www.h-net2.msu.edu/-diplo/Costiglioga/htm.
54“Chinese Student Protests,” New York Herald-Tribune, Jan. 4, 1947, p. 12.
55See, e.g., “Furious Peiping Demands U.S. Get Out of China,” Daily Worker, Dec. 31, 1946, p. 2; “‘Anti-American?’ Says Who?” ibid., Jan. 2, 1947, p. 7; “Chinese Students Take Protest to U.S. Envoy,” ibid., Jan. 4, 1947, p. 12; “Bare Third-Degree of Raped Chinese Co-Ed,” ibid., Jan. 22, 1947, p. 2. The leftist U.S. Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, while attentive to events in China, did not highlight the rape or these protests; see Far East Spotlight, 2 (Feb. 1947), 8, and 2 (March 1947), 8.
Jennings Perry, “Stranger Than Fiction,” PM, Jan. 1, 1947, p. 24. For a sampling of news coverage of the case in PM, see “Peiping Sore at U.S. Marine,” Dec. 30, 1946, p. 8; “Chinese Protests Against GIs Go On,” Jan. 5, 1947, p. 9; “Foreign Round-Up,” Jan. 6, 1947, p. 8. On the impact of the Scottsboro case, see Brownmiller, Against Our Will, chapter 7, and James Goodman, Stories of Scottsboro (New York, 1994).
Some Chinese at the time also connected the Pierson rape to interracial sexual relations in the United States, but in different ways. Economist Ma Yinchu noted in a speech to the Chinese Writers’ League that American blacks would be hanged or burned for raping a white woman, and he asked rhetorically what punishment the GI in this case would receive; see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #232 (Dec. 31, 1946), 3-4. Randall Gould, the
American editor of the Shanghai Evening Post and Mercury, was quoted in Time, 49 (Feb. 10, 1947), 22-23, as saying “We are beginning to understand what our minorities in the States feel like 24 hours a day.”
57 James White, “Suppose You Are a Chinese Student…” PM, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 6. (None of the other newspapers among the dozen that I surveyed published this AP story.) For a similar analysis, see Epstein, The Unfinished Revolution in China, 396. The phrase “jeep girls” is from 56 “Chinese Students Again Assail U.S.,” New York Times, Jan. 1, 1947, p. 15. For a visual representation of a “jeep girl” from an American military source, see the cartoon by Machin in North China Marine, Dec. 14, 1946, p. 3. For a Chinese editorial asserting that China bore part of the blame because of the “inglorious women” who associated with GIs, see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #236 (Jan. 6, 1947), 2.
Letters, PM, Jan. 8, 1947, p. 21.
58 “Chinese Students Ask U.S. Troops Quit Country,” York (Pennsylvania) Gazette, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 2; “China Students Beat Americans,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2, 1947, p. 7; “Chinese Students Call on U.S. Envoy to Discuss Uproar,” York Gazette, Jan. 4, 1947, pp. 1, 28.
59 Owen Lattimore, “Students Are China’s Hope,” ibid., Jan. 11, 1947, p. 15. On Lattimore’s career, see Robert P. Newman, Owen Lattimore and the “Loss” of China (Berkeley, 1992).
Lindsay, “American Emissaries.”
60 Court Martial, Pierson; “Marine Faces Life for Rape if Finding Stands,” New York Herald-Tribune, Jan. 23, 1947, p. 24. See Cook, “Penetration and Neocolonialism” for the initial Chinese police reports on the case.
Court Martial, Pierson, 4-25 and passim.
61 Ibid., esp. 39, 54, 58, 89-93. The prosecution’s case was weakened by a report by the Chinese doctor that minimized Shen’s injuries. Many Chinese believed that GMD pressure, exerted to avoid conflict with the U.S., was responsible; see a statement from the China Daily News
62 quoted in Daily Worker, Jan. 22, 1947, p. 2, and U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #410 (Aug. 14, 1947), 3. For alleged mistreatment of Shen while being questioned by the Chinese police,
63 see U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #238 (Jan. 8, 1947), 5, but for Hu Shi’s denial of such charges, see ibid., #237 (Jan. 7, 1947),
64 3.Court Martial, Pierson, 32-36, 82-84.
65 Ibid., 62-70 and J1-J5. Key items of contention, as in the more recent O. J. Simpson trial and in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky case, respectively, were a “bloody glove” and a stained dress. The defense contended that the glove was bloodied when Pierson, on a four-hour drinking bout just prior to the incident, cut his hand on a liquor bottle; see ibid., 14, 79-80, and Exhibit 2. The stained dress was taken as evidence by the police before the trial and, incredibly, was introduced at the trial with holes cut out where the stains had been; see ibid., 100, and Exhibit 7.
【译文】皮尔逊的审判记录，第62-70页，以及J1-J5。类似于最近的辛普森审判和比尔•克林顿—莫妮卡•莱温斯基案件，争论的关键证物有两件：一副 “血手套”和一件带污渍的衣裙。辩词争辩说，皮尔逊喝了四个小时的酒，然后就在案件发生前，手被一个酒瓶子割伤了，手套上的血就是这么来的；参见皮尔逊的 审判记录，第14页，第79-80页，以及证物2。带污渍的衣裙在审判前被警方当作证物拿走，但令人难以置信的是，当这件衣裙在审判中被拿出来的时候，有污渍的地方被剪掉了；参见皮尔逊的审判记录，第100页，以及证物7。
66 Ibid., 12-13. One difficulty for Shen was that at least eight Chinese army employees witnessed the rape, but all claimed to have been deterred from acting by threats from Pritchard, Pierson’s accomplice. Fitzgerald argued with some plausibility, at ibid., K2, that Chinese culture did not encourage people to “interfere in the affairs of others” not of their family. He might have argued, but did not, that the Chinese army command would have looked unfavorably on its members confronting an American soldier.
67 Ibid., K1-K2 (emphasis in original). Masters had charged, at ibid., J2, that the fact that Shen kept her heavy gloves on throughout the sexual encounter demonstrated consent, since removing them would have allowed her to scratch Pierson. Fitzgerald responded, at ibid., K2: “[H]ad the girl consented to the intercourse, she would have removed her gloves to assist him and the fact that she kept them on shows she did not want to assist him.”
68 Ibid., 102-103, and addendum (memorandum from Gen. Samuel Howard, Feb. 21, 1947); on Pritchard’s court martial, see “Marine is Convicted Of Peiping Assault,” New York Times, Feb. 1, 1947, p. 6. On GI response, see “Guilty Verdict Displeases EM [Enlisted Men] in Peiping Area” Pacific Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1947, p. 1.
69 O. S. Colclough, “Pierson, William G.,” June 6, 1947, and attached memorandum from John Sullivan, July 3, 1947 (811.32/1-1748), box 5044, RG 59, NA; Howard, memorandum, Feb. 21, 1947, R. H. Cruzen to Acting Secretary of the Navy, July 8, 1947, and memorandum from SECNAV (JAG) [Sullivan] to CO NDB Terminal Island, Calif., Aug. 11, 1947, all in Pierson file, docket #47-156116F, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, Washington (D.C.) Navy Yard. See also “Service Men Exonerated,” New York Times, Aug. 12, 1947, p. 5. Forrestal had lunch on July 3, 1947-the same day as Sullivan’s first memo reversing the conviction-with Howard, who in February had sustained the verdict, but whether the two men spoke about the case cannot be determined; see James Forrestal Diaries (7 vols., typescript), Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University, 6, 7: 1709, and Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries (New York, 1951), 289. Pierson’s Congressional representative from South Carolina, John Riley, had also made inquiries about the case, but the impact of those inquiries on the reversal of the verdict cannot be determined; see Helen Lamberson, memorandum, March 31, 1947, in Pierson file, Washington Navy Yard.
70 Available Navy Department records for the year ending June 30, 1946, indicate that it was not unusual for court martial sentences for rape to be reduced by the Judge Advocate General or by the General Court Martial Sentence Review Board, but overturning convictions for rape was uncommon. Sentences for assault with intent to rape were frequently reduced on review, with intoxication of the assailant often given as a reason for such reduction. See “General Court Martial Sentence Review Board, Interim Report, for period ending 30 June 1946,” esp. 36-38, and “General Court Martial Sentence Review Board, 19 Sept. 1946,” esp. 53-55, both in box 64, Records of Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, Records of the Department of the Navy, Record Group 80, National Archives, College Park, Md.
71 See U.S. Consulate, Peiping, Chinese Press Review, #410 (Aug. 14, 1947), 3; ibid., #411 (Aug. 15, 1947), 3; ibid., #412 (Aug. 18, 1947), 3; U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #423 (Aug. 13, 1947), 4; ibid., #424 (Aug. 14, 1947), 5.
See Stuart to Secretary of State, June 21, 1947 (811.32/6-2147), June 22, 1947 (811.32/6-2247), June 24, 1947 (811.32/6-2447), box 4662, RG 59, NA. See also the protest by the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy: ‘Justice For All?” Far East Spotlight, 2 (July 1947), 4.
72 Speer II, “Memorandum,” Jan. 3, 1947. See also Stuart to Secretary of State, Jan. 8, 1947, Foreign Relations, 1947, 7: 13-15: “Embassy considers that, on the whole, demonstrations may best be interpreted as a manifestation of general discontent and unrest caused by overall political-economic situation existing in China.” The resentment against the Chinese government “which cannot be openly expressed is being turned almost entirely against the U.S.”
73Stuart to Secretary of State, Feb. 12, 1947 (893.00/2-1247) and Feb. 15, 1947 (893.00/2-1547), including cables from Consul-General Streeper, in microfilm LM069, reel 5, RG 59, NA.
74Stuart (paraphrasing Krentz) to Secretary of State, Jan. 10, 1947 (893.00/1-1047), ibid.
75Paul Meyer and Fern Cavender, U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, “Memorandum,” June 7, 1947 (893.00/6-1847), ibid., reel 7.
76Myers to Stuart, Feb. 20, 1947 (893.00/2-2047), ibid., reel 5; James Speer II, “Liquidation of Chinese Liberals,” Far Eastern Survey, July 23, 1947, pp. 160-162; Col. George McHenry and J. A. McNeil, Intelligence Memorandum No. 58 (March 10, 1947), in box 22, World War II Geographical Area Files, RG 127, NA.
77See Pepper, Civil War in China, and Yick, Making Urban Revolution in China.
78On the Chinese aphorism about soldiers, see Edwin Moise, Modern China: A History (New York, 1994), 32; see also Court Martial, Pierson, 105, and U.S. Consulate, Shanghai, Chinese Press Review, #253 (Jan. 20, 1947), 7-9.
79Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York, 1986), 76-80.
80Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. David Wootton (Indianapolis, 1995), 42.
81 The literature on the myth of the black rapist is voluminous; see, e.g., Joel Williamson, A Rage for Order: Black-White Relations in the American South Since Emancipation (New York, 1986), and Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, Revolt Against Lynching: Jessie Daniel Ames and the Women’s Campaign Against Lynching (New York, 1979). On the racist use of such charges by Germans after World War I and the impact on U.S. foreign policy, see William Keylor, “‘How They Advertised France’: The French Propaganda Campaign in the United States During the Breakup of the Franco-American Entente, 1918-1923,” Diplomatic History, 17 (1993), 351-373, esp. 369- 371. On the myth of Native Americans as rapists, see James Axtell, “The White Indians of Colonial America,” in Axtell, The European and the Indian: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America (New York, 1981), 181-182; William Truettner, ed., The West as America: Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier 1820-1920 (Washington, D.C., 1991), 162-165; Susan Jeffords, “Protection Racket,” Women’s Review of Books, 8 (July 1991), 10; Annette Kolodny, “Among the Indians: The Uses of Captivity,” New York Times Book Review, Jan. 31, 1993, pp. 1, 26-29.
82 On American perceptions of Chinese as rapists of white women, see John B. Powell, My Twenty-Five years in China (New York, 1945), 156-157, and the film Shanghai Express (1932), discussed in Jonathan Spence, “Shanghai Express,” in Mark Carnes, ed., Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (New York, 1995), 208-211. On the representation of Japanese troops as a sexual threat to white women, see John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York 1986), esp. 189, and Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, chapter 3.
Perry, “Stranger Than Fiction.”
83 On the varied forms and purposes of military rape, see Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? and Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 105-109.
84 Quoted in Richard Raynor, “The Warrior Besieged,” New York Times Magazine, June 22, 1997, pp. 24-29, at 29, emphasis in original.
85 U.S. Consulate, Peiping, China Press Review, #236 (Jan. 6, 1947), 4. For statements by U.S. officials indicating the desire of U.S. soldiers in Asia to return home after World War II, see Forrestal Diaries, April 25, 1947, 7: 1593, Mudd Library; and Rep. Mike Mansfield to Harry Truman, Nov. 7, 1945, Harry S. Truman Papers, Official File, Truman Library, Independence, Mo. See also the later comments of a U.S. Army official that “There is more rape during an occupation because soldiers have more time on their hands,” quoted in Brownmiller, Against Our Will, 78.