专访孙经先：他戳破了二十世纪中国最大的谎言（汉英 bilingual ）

- "Thirty Million Starved to Death"

https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDgyOTQ0 

作者: 星火(齐.园.黑.石) [2377058:18715], 23:56:54 12/14/2019:

- 论剑谈棋 豪杰尽聚 - 华岳论坛 - http://huayue.fatcow.com/ [已停刊]

http://huayue.fatcow.com/HuaShan/BBS/shishi/gbcurrent/2377058.shtml [已停刊]

图片说明：“抬头仰望北斗星，心中想念毛主席”。

即《我以一个学术工作者的良心做我应当做的正义的事业》

2019-12-12 03:36| 发布者: redchina| 查看: 1322| 评论: 4|原作者: 孙经先|来自: 进步文化网

http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=40759

参阅：《孙经先和曹树基关于“饿死三千万”的激烈辩论》

我的文章发表以后，出现了疯狂的谩骂甚至以死亡相威胁的情况。对此我一点也不后悔，一点也不害怕。彻底的唯物主义者是无所畏惧的！我是在以一个学术工作者的良心做我应当做的正义的事业。我们坚定不移地相信，历史是站在我们这一边的！真正胆怯和害怕的不是我们，而是蒋正华、杨继绳、曹树基这些编造谎言的人。面对我们的揭露和批驳，他们的“鸵鸟政策”表明了他们连做出辩护的勇气都没有！

进步文化：孙老师您好！大约在2012年左右，您发表了《关于我国20世纪60年代人口变动问题的研究》等一系列文章，对“饿死三千万”的说法进行驳斥，引起舆论广泛关注。请问，作为一个数学教授，是什么原因使您踏入这个充满风险的研究领域的呢？可否简要介绍一下您的履历？ 

孙经先：首先介绍一下我的简历。我出生于1948年，1966高中毕业后于1968年分配到工厂工作了10年。1977年恢复高考以后，我考取了山东大学数学系本科，1978年春天入校学习。仅用一年时间基本完成大学本科学业，第二年考取本校研究生，1981年获得理学硕士学位，1984年获得理学博士学位。毕业后留山东大学数学院工作，1991年破格晋升教授职称，1992年获国务院政府特殊津贴。1995年起任博士生导师，2001年受聘江苏师范大学特聘教授。我长期以来从事数学及其应用领域中的教学、科研和培养研究生的工作。先后发表（含合作发表）学术论文200余篇，出版（含合作出版）专著四部，多次获得省部级科研奖励，多次主持和参加国家自然科学基金项目。许多研究成果在国内外获得高度评价。 

马克思曾经说过：

【“一种科学只有在成功地运用数学时，才算达到了真正完善的地步。”】

许多著名数学家都主张：数学家应当关注和研究各个自然科学和社会科学领域中出现的重大数学问题。我在长期的数学研究中对许多领域（包括社会科学领域）中所出现的各种与数学有关问题都始终保持了浓厚的兴趣。我从自己的研究经历中深切体会到：现代数学，提供了一整套严谨的思维方法和工具，完全可以研究和正确处理各个领域中出现的各种复杂的数据系统。

关于“饿死三千万”的说法，我是从网络上知道的。开始接触这个说法时，我的第一感觉是根本不相信。因为我经历过那个年代。我的亲身感受与“饿死三千万”的说法完全不符。这样我就开始关注这个问题。

我阅读了一些资料后发现，“饿死三千万”的说法是在国家统计局1983年公布了我国1949—1982年期间的户籍人口统计数据（以下简称“1983年人口数据”）以后才出现的。1983年人口数据中存在着许多难以解释的重大矛盾。一般来说，在没有国际移民的前提下，一个国家某一年的人口总数增长数应当等于人口自然增长数。但是1983年人口数据中却出现了在许多年份中，这两个应当相等的数字之间出现了巨大差异的反常现象。特别是在1960年—1964年期间，我国户籍人口统计的人口总数数据在扣除了人口自然增长之后，出现了巨量的异常减少高达2644万人的现象。这就是1983年人口数据中的重大矛盾。正是由于这一重大矛盾在长达半个世纪中都始终没有得到科学的解释，国内外某些学者都认为我国三年困难时期大量人口（数量在1700万至3000万、甚至更多）非正常死亡是造成这一重大矛盾的根本原因，这样就出现了“饿死三千万”的说法。

因此，要想解决“饿死三千万”的问题，关键是必须对1983年人口数据（这是一个复杂的数据系统）中的上述重大矛盾做出科学解释。以我长期从事数学研究的经验，我敏锐地意识到，这应当是一个数学问题，是可以、也必须使用严谨的数学思维方法才能加以研究和解决的。这样在做了一些准备之后，我从2010年开始利用数学思维方法对这一问题进行了研究。 

通过研究，我最终得出结论：1983年人口数据中产生上述重大矛盾的原因与人口的出生和死亡、及其户籍登记活动无关，这一重大矛盾是由人口迁移过程中的迁移重报、迁移漏报及其对这些行为的纠正造成的。这一结果对1983年人口数据中的重大矛盾做出了完整的系统解释，从根本上推翻了“饿死三千万”。详情可见我已经发表的文章。

这一结论是在2010年年底得到的。2011年1月的一天，我到新华书店，看见了刚刚出版的《党史二卷》，就拿下来翻看。这样我就看见了《党史二卷》中记载的下面这段话：

【“由于出生率大幅度大面积降低，死亡率显著增高。据正式统计，1960年全国总人口比上年减少1000万”。】

这一说法把“1960年全国总人口比上年减少1000万”与人口死亡联系在一起，而“减少1000万”又是1983年人口数据中重大矛盾的具体表现。根据我当时已经得到的研究结论，《党史二卷》的这一说法是非常错误的。当时我意识到这一说法（进而“饿死三千万”的说法）很可能因此被写进历史。而我已经发现了这一说法的根本性错误。这样一种强烈的历史责任感使得我当时就做出了一个决定：立即把自己的全部精力投入到批驳“饿死三千万”的研究中，搞清这一重大历史问题的真相。几个月后，我在《马克思主义研究》发表的文章中说： 

【“20世纪60年代初，我国是否有数千万人口非正常死亡，这已经成为中华人民共和国历史上一件重大的历史公案。这一历史事件过去已经整整半个世纪了，这一事件的真相应当在当代解决，我们不应当把它留给历史，留给后人。”】

这是我当时真实心态的反映。既然历史已经把解决这一重大问题的机遇给了我，我必须担当的一个义不容辞的责任就是解决这一重大课题，搞清这一重大历史问题的真相，并且把真相告诉历史、告诉人民！这样从这个时候开始，我就把全部精力投入到了这一课题的研究。 

进步文化：根据您的研究，所谓的“饿死三千万”之所以流布海内外，著名人口学家蒋正华起了至关重要的作用，您曾撰文对蒋正华相关论文的错误观点提出质疑，还写了一封致蒋正华的公开信。请问，蒋后来公开答复您了吗？

孙经先：关于这个问题，具体情况是这样的。我在研究三年困难时期人口变动问题的过程中，认真阅读了蒋正华关于这一问题的全部研究论文，并对其全部论证过程都进行了检查，确认了他的研究在学术上出现了一系列重大的根本性错误。为此我在2011年写了两篇论文，对蒋正华的重大学术错误进行了严肃地学术批评。 

*1

2011年北京大学巩献田教授先后举行了几次关于三年困难时期人口变动问题学术研讨会，李成瑞先生和一些老同志参加了这几次会议。我在会议上介绍了自己的研究成果和对蒋正华的学术批评意见。李成瑞先生认为我的研究是一个重大突破，并且对蒋正华研究中的错误非常重视，他多次向我提出建议，希望我能够和蒋正华就这一问题进行直接对话，以利于搞清这一重大问题的真相。其他一些老同志也提出了类似建议。 

我接受了李成瑞等老同志的建议，于2011年年底向蒋正华发出邀请（由李成瑞先生转交），明确表示愿意在他认为适当的时间、适当的地点，和他就这一问题进行直接对话。我的几篇论文李成瑞先生都交给了蒋正华。

李成瑞先生是蒋正华这一研究的建议人和支持者。无论从哪个角度讲蒋正华都不应当拒绝李成瑞先生建议。但是遗憾的是，蒋正华拒绝了这一建议，对我的邀请和学术批评采取了完全不回应的“驼鸟政策”。这就使得李成瑞先生的遗愿在生前无法实现。 

李成瑞先生逝世以后的2017年，我向蒋正华发出公开信，再次建议与他进行直接对话。在这封公开信中，我向他严肃指出：

【“您的研究是三年困难时期我国‘非正常死亡1700万到3000万'这一说法的最重要、最权威的学术依据之一。我对您的研究提出了严肃的学术批评。显然，如果您还是一位严肃的学者，您就应当本着对历史负责的精神，对我的学术批评做出公开答复。如果我的学术批评是错误的，您显然应当公开做出答复，反驳我的错误，以维护学术研究的严肃性和科学性，同时也维护自己的学术声誉。如果您的研究是错误的，作为严肃的学者您也应当公开承认错误。从这个角度讲，您在长达几年的时间内对我的学术批评不做任何回应，显然不是一个严肃的学术工作者应有的态度。”】

在公开信中我提出四点建议：(1)我愿意在蒋正华认为适当的时间、适当的地点，和他就这一问题进行直接对话；(2)建议蒋正华对我的学术批评做出答复（如果他年事已高，也可以由他的学生代他做出答复。）（3）蒋正华虽然公布了他的研究结论，但是在长达三十年的时间里他始终都没有公布数值计算过程。为了对历史负责，我建议他公布全部数值计算过程。(4)由于这一问题的极端重要性，并且具有高度的数学专业性，我建议：组织由数学家和人口学家组成的学术审查委员会，对蒋正华的研究论文从学术上进行审查。

但是蒋正华始终没有对我的公开信做出任何答复。

那么蒋正华为什么拒绝答复呢？这里有两方面的原因：

（1）他的研究在本质上是数学的，他的错误是数学错误。对于数学问题来说，无论是理论推导过程、还是计算过程，判明其正确与错误的标准在全世界学术界都是统一的、明确的，是不存在分歧的。所以对于数学问题来说，错了就是错了，不存在任何辩解的余地。对蒋正华来说，如果我们错了，他完全可以理直气壮的反驳我们的错误，为自己辩护；如果他错了，他也没有任何辩解的余地。从这个角度讲人们完全可以从“蒋正华敢不敢和我直接对话”这一点来判定究竟是谁对谁错。蒋正华在长达八年多的时间里采取“鸵鸟政策”，不敢和我们对话，这就已经充分说明了他的心虚和胆怯，这是他拒绝对话的第一个基本原因。 

（2）蒋正华的研究严重违反了学术研究中必须遵循的“可重复性原则”（关于这一点，我们后面还要谈到）。如果他同我们进行直接对话，我势必要求他按照“可重复性原则”，公布他的完整计算过程。而只要这些内容一公布，人们就可以通过实际的计算机计算对他的结果进行重复和验证。通过这种“重复和验证”，人们就可以揭露他的这一研究的全部虚假性。他没有任何理由拒绝我们的这一要求。这是他拒绝对我们对话的第二个基本原因。 

进步文化：您和蒋正华先生在研究方式上存在哪些差异？或者说，您和他对1960年代初期人口锐减数量得出不同结论的真正原因是什么？

孙经先：关于这个问题，我想说的多一些。在学术研究中，“可重复性原则”是最重要的原则之一。所谓“可重复性原则”是指研究者在发表他们的研究成果时，必须保证其他研究者能够对他们的研究进行“重复”和“验证”（即其他研究者可以按照作者发表的论文所提供的方法“重复”和再现这一成果）。许多人认为：如果一项学术研究成果不能被别人重复，则这项成果就可能就是错误的或者是伪造的。研究结果的不可重复常常成为学术丑闻爆发的导火线。

原国家统计局局长李成瑞先生指出：蒋正华的研究“是在国家统计局的要求和支持下进行的，但国家统计局经过反复考虑，认为这一问题研究的难度较大，当时的研究成果尚不成熟，所以并未将此项研究列为正式科研课题，没有拨付课题经费，没有正式的‘课题研究报告'及其‘鉴定书'。”蒋正华“研究的初步成果始终是作为学者个人的学术论文，在本校学报和自行联系的有关书刊上发表的。”这就说明：蒋正华的成果只是“初步成果”，他的这一研究“没有正式的‘课题研究报告'及其‘鉴定书'。”

蒋正华“研究”最诡异的地方就是他始终没有公布他的计算过程，严重违反了“可重复性原则”，即读者无法按照蒋正华叙述的方法“重复”和“验证”他的基本结论（我国三年困难时期非正常死亡1700万人）。

那么他为什么在长达三十多年的时间里始终都不公布他的计算过程呢？这里的理由很简单。他已经发表的论文仅仅是一个纯理论的推导，其中充满了现代数学的符号、术语和公式。只有数学专业工作者和具有很高数学造诣的学者才能看懂并指出其中的本质错误，而绝大多数关心这个问题的读者都难以从数学理论的角度对这一研究的正确与错误作出判断。如果蒋正华公布了他的完整计算过程，人们就可以很容易通过计算机重复他的计算过程来对他的全部研究进行验证，由此就看出他的这一研究的虚假性。这就是蒋正华在长达三十多年的时间里不公布（实际上是不敢公布）他的计算过程的根本原因。 

前不久，中国科技大学的黄卫东教授按照蒋正华提供的数学模型进行了数值计算，这一计算表明，按照蒋正华的数学模型，根本得不到他所公布的结果。黄卫东教授指出：从他（黄文东）的计算结果来看“丝毫看不到非正常死亡年份的过多死亡，也看不出1960 年前后死亡人口的大幅度增加。”“按照蒋（正华）的算法，我们没能重现蒋给出的出生率和死亡率特征，尤其是 1960 年前后三年巨大的死亡率增加。”蒋正华的方法“难以很好地模拟1953-1964 年的人口分布”。这就说明，按照蒋正华的方法，人们得不到蒋正华所公布的结论。 

根据我们的研究结果和黄卫东的实际计算，我们有充分理由认为，蒋正华所公布的数据是“伪造的”。这就表明他的研究实际上是一起重大的学术造假事件！

*2

进步文化：除此之外，前《炎黄春秋》执行主编杨继绳的《墓碑》一书对“饿死三千万”的谣言也发挥了举足轻重的作用。您曾跟杨本人面对面地交锋过，对《墓碑》一书中的若干谬误进行了有力驳斥和揭露，杨虽然承认其著作中存在一些“失误”，但仍然坚持其基本判断，并反指责您用未经公认的数学公式“对六十年代人口锐减”进行推断研究，是不严谨和荒谬的。对此您怎么看？ 

孙经先：杨继绳于2008年5月在香港出版了《墓碑》一书，该书宣称“从1958—1962年期间，中国饿死3600万人”。这部书在国内外产生了巨大影响，使得杨继绳成为“饿死三千万”这一说法的最重要的代表性人物之一。

我2013年6月在《世界社会主义研究动态》上发表《

当年12月杨继绳在《炎黄春秋》上发表了《驳“饿死三千万是谣言”——再答孙经先对《墓碑》的指责》，为我所指出的《墓碑》中的一系列错误进行了辩护。仅仅一个多月以后的2014年1月，我在《红旗文稿》发表了《“饿死3600万”的重大谬误是怎样产生的？——对杨继绳两篇文章的答复》（以下简称《对杨继绳的答复》），对杨继绳的辩解进行了系统全面的反驳，强调指出他为《墓碑》所做的所有辩护都是不能成立的。

2014年7月我和杨继绳都参加在在武汉举行的一次国际学术会议（以下简称“武汉会议”），这就实现了我和杨继绳之间面对面的直接对话。

武汉会议是一次国际学术会议，会议给了与会人员平等的发表意见的机会。我在发言中对“饿死三千万”进行了系统的批驳，并当着杨继绳的面直接指出了《墓碑》的一系列重大错误。在我发言后，会议主办方专门留出充分的时间进行讨论，主持人也多次邀请杨继绳发言，为他留出了充分的发表意见和为自己辩护的时间。所有与会学者、包括国外的学者也都非常希望听到他对我的发言做出反驳和辩护。如果杨继绳真的掌握了真理，他就应当在会议上理直气壮的对我的发言做出答复，对我指出的《墓碑》的一系列重大错误逐条作出辩护。但是他不但没有这样做，反而在会后公开发表声明，宣布对我的批评他“不回应”、“不理睬”。以一种阿Q方式退出了和我们的辩论。因为他自己也非常清楚，如果继续辩论下去，就只能更加暴露他的错误和谎言。 

在武汉会议的发言中他指责我们的数学推导有一处错误。实际上我们的数学推导是完全正确的，是他自己的数学推导出现了一个非常不应该出现的中学数学错误。这恰好验证了列宁说过的一句著名的格言：

【“几何公理要是触犯了人们的利益，那也一定会被推翻的。”】

杨继绳自称他查“查阅了12个省级档案馆”，每个档案馆他“都复印了300个档案夹”，因此他“总共处理过3600个档案夹的信息”。他所以这样说，就是想给读者造成一种错误的假象：他的“饿死3600万”以及各个省、市、自治区、专区和县的那些饿死人数，都是从大量历史档案所提供的数据和资料中得到的。我们对《墓碑》中所叙述的全部省、地、县级行政单位的非正常死亡人数都进行了全面查证，发现了除了极少数的几个县之外，他的几乎所有的数据都是错误的。这就是说，尽管杨继绳查阅了3600个档案夹的档案，但是他根本无法从这些档案的记载中获得可以证明“饿死3600万”的证据。因此，他就只能用“杨继绳公式”、“人口统计数字减少数等于死亡人数”这类荒谬的公式和逻辑编造饿死人数；这样得到的数字依然满足不了他的需要，他就只好篡改、伪造数据，编造和使用诸如“涪陵专区饿死350万”这一类离奇的谎言，甚至不惜制造“周恩来销毁大饥荒证据”这样的重大谣言，为“饿死3600万”拼凑所谓依据。

正因为这样，当我们揭露了他的那些荒谬数字、谎言和错误之后，他根本无法做出辩解，就只好宣布“不回应”、“不理睬”了。这也就从一个角度说明了“饿死三千万”是一个没有实际依据的谎言！

进步文化：您关于“饿死三千万”的辟谣和研究文章发表后，支持您观点的人称赞您是一个勇敢、正直和有良知的学者，是中国知识分子的良心；反对您观点的人骂您是“无良教授”“反人类份子”“畜生”“无耻之极”“法西斯数学家”等等，甚至对您发出死亡威胁。面对巨大的压力，您是否感到过后悔和害怕呢？ 

孙经先：我的文章发表以后，出现了疯狂的谩骂甚至以死亡相威胁的情况。对此我一点也不后悔，一点也不害怕。彻底的唯物主义者是无所畏惧的！我是在以一个学术工作者的良心做我应当做的正义的事业。我们坚定不移地相信，历史是站在我们这一边的！真正胆怯和害怕的不是我们，而是蒋正华、杨继绳、曹树基这些编造谎言的人。面对我们的揭露和批驳，他们的“鸵鸟政策”表明了他们连做出辩护的勇气都没有！

进步文化：“饿死三千万”被人称为二十世纪中国最大的谎言，但匪夷所思的是，自出笼以来一直在舆论场上畅通无阻，甚至受到主流学界乃至某些政界要人的采信和默认，很少有人提出过质疑。因此，有人说您是以一己之力同整个主流知识界斗争。请问您这种勇气从何而来？ 

孙经先：我要稍微修正一下您的说法。我不是一个人“以一己之力”在“斗争”。

从“饿死三千万”出现以后，国内外都有一些正直学者对这一说法进行反驳。在互联网出现以后，就有更多的学者（特别是民间学者）以各种形式批驳“饿死三千万”。但是，在2011年以前，由于1983年人口数据中存在的重大矛盾始终没有得到科学地解释，上述这些对“饿死三千万”的批驳无法与主流意见抗衡。

2011年，我发表文章，对1983年人口数据中的重大矛盾做出了全面系统地科学解释，这就击中了“饿死三千万”的要害。从这以后，围绕着“饿死三千万”的辩论出现了根本性的变化，反对“饿死三千万”的一方从防守转入了反击！越来越多的学者（包括许多体制内的学者）、干部和群众支持我们的观点，包括《中国科学（内部文稿）》、《世界社会主义研究动态》、《马克思主义研究》、《红旗文稿》、《中国社会科学报》在内的许多体制内的重要媒体都发表了我们批驳“饿死三千万”的文章。“饿死三千万”的荒谬性和危害性已经被越来越多的人们所认识。 

您问我的勇气来自于哪里？我在前面已经说过，“既然历史已经把解决这一重大问题的机遇给了我，我必须担当的一个义不容辞的责任就是解决这一重大课题，搞清这一重大历史问题的真相”，我的勇气就来自于这强烈的历史责任感；同时，我的勇气还来自于越来越多的学者、干部和群众的坚决支持！在这里，我向一切支持我的朋友们表示衷心地感谢！ 

进步文化：俗话说，谎言重复一千遍就成了真理。这句话对于“饿死三千万”的谣言尤其合适。因为直到今天，在中国的舆论场以及西方国家，特别是海外反共人士中，“饿死三千万”仍然是他们攻击和否定新中国前三十年以及抹黑毛主席的一把“大杀器”，像念经一样经常挂在嘴边，许多公众也笃信不疑。然而，除了您的研究，主流媒体或某些权威部门从未公开反驳过，这在客观上为“饿死三千万”谣言的传播起到了推波助澜的作用。对这种奇葩现象，您怎么看？ 

*3

孙经先：在毛主席去世之后出现了一股全盘否定毛主席的历史虚无主义思潮。“饿死三千万”就是这股思潮的产物。正像您所说的那样，“直到今天，在中国的舆论场以及西方国家，特别是海外反共人士中，‘饿死三千万'仍然是他们攻击和否定新中国前三十年以及抹黑毛主席的一把‘大杀器'”。只要这股全盘否定毛主席的社会思潮还存在，这种“奇葩现象”就还会继续存在。 

但是谣言终将是谣言，它再重复一万遍，也还是谣言。我们坚定不移地相信，随着我们不断地揭露和批驳，随着历史档案的进一步解密，历史的真相必将大白于天下。“饿死三千万”这一重大谣言最终必将被扫进历史的垃圾堆！ 

这里我想对《党史二卷》的作者们说几句话。编写党史是一件极其严肃的事情，把“据正式统计，1960年全国总人口比上年减少1000万”这样有明显错误的话写进党史，是非常不严肃的。这会在历史上留下重大隐患的。我衷心希望《党史二卷》的作者们本着对历史高度负责的精神，改变这一错误说法。 

进步文化：网上有文章揭露，“饿死三千万”是蒋经国和美国中央情报局策划的一个阴谋。您觉得这种传言真实可信吗？

孙经先：我所了解的情况与这种说法不同。我所了解的情况如下：八十年代初，我国国内出现了一股全盘否定毛主席的社会思潮。在这股社会思潮的影响下，国内有少数学者以三年困难时期的人口死亡率为依据，认为我国三年困难时期比正常年景“多死亡了1600万人”，他们中有一些人混淆“多死亡人数”与“非正常死亡人数”这两个概念之间的本质区别，并以此为依据认为我国这一期间非正常死亡1600万人左右。在1980年国内有人在国际学术会议上向国外透露了我国三年困难时期的人口死亡率数据。在这之后国际某些势力敏锐地觉察到我国国内的这一动向。一些国外学者对我国三年困难时期的人口变动问题产生了异乎寻常的特殊兴趣。在洛克菲勒基金会和美国全国研究理事会的资助下，美国普林斯顿大学教授Ansley J.Coale（科尔）教授在很短的时间里就出版了《从1952年到1982年中国人口的急剧变化》一书，宣布中国在1958年—1963年期间超线性死亡2700万人左右。美国人口及人口学委员会于1984年7月10日特别为科尔这一著作的出版举行了记者招待会。合众社、美联社和西方其他大通讯社都报道了上述超线性死亡数字。李成瑞先生指出， 

【“美国有关当局在Caole这部著作出版发行时，匆忙地举行了记者招待会，以扩大宣传书中缺乏科学根据而提出的中国曾发生高达2700万人‘超线性死亡'的敏感性数字，显然是包含了抹黑社会主义中国的政治企图的。”】

随后，国外其他一些人口学家（例如艾德、班妮斯特等人）也研究了这一问题，他们利用与科尔相类似的方法得到了与科尔大致相同的结果。我在对这些学者的研究进行了仔细的分析后，发现他们的研究方法和结论都是完全错误的。关于这一点，我将另行发表文章予以论述。

在这些研究之后，我国三年困难时期非正常死亡三千万人的说法就已经在西方广泛流传。国外的上述研究，再加上我国国内蒋正华的研究，是“饿死三千万”的这一说法的主要源头。从八十年代开始“饿死三千万”的谎言就在全世界范围内广泛流传，并且成为学术界和舆论界的主流观点。 

您提到的那个说法我也见到了。那个说法指得是香港大学冯客所写的《毛泽东的大饥荒——1958-1962年的中国浩劫史》一书，这部书出版于2011年，这时“饿死三千万”的说法已经在全世界广泛流传近三十年了。这部书对“饿死三千万”的进一步流传起了十分恶劣的影响，但它不是“饿死三千万”的源头。 

进步文化：您的回答翔实严谨，体现了一个知识分子的良知和担当。谢谢您接受我们的专访！

【本文原载微信公众号“进步文化网”】

跟帖目录:

官媒：中国2019共有30位两院院士去世。 难道不诡异吗？ - postgroup81 02:32:26 12/15/2019

附：

Mark Wain 1 second ago  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsc7EglNspY

播主竟然相信了特色党中修叛徒复辟盗国集团及其非法伪政权是跟毛主席时代的真共产党有关，说什么习近平自比毛主席，等等自欺欺人之谈。这是不对的。特色党根本与真共产党毫无关系。它是个彻头彻尾的假共产党。不要再继续编下去了，适可而止吧。[Mark Wain 2020-07-13]

*

回复

leeliang

...反毛杂蓄们从各个角度攻击毛主席，无非是借此想拖跨中国，饿死人 只是其中之一，大家警惕！

总而言之，邓小平早死，中国就早超生。

清邓，是当前中国的唯一道路，舍清洗邓小平这个祸源，别无它途！

Dongping Han

其实李承瑞这个人也是有问题的。 他主政国家统计局的时候，为了迎合邓小平否定毛泽东时代的政治需要，改动国家统计局的数字，将一九六零的出生人口减少了一千万。 但统计数字是该动不得的。 改动是要被打脸的。 于是的统计数字就出现了一个奇特的现象。 一九九三年统计的一九六零的出生人口，居然高过一九八三年公布的一九六零年的出生人口，就是说一九九三年统计出来的一九六零年出生的人口，经过三十年，不但没有减少，反而增加了，说明一九八三年公布的一九六零年出生人口减少一千万的数字，是个伪造的数据。可惜大部分人是不会看到这些揭露真相的文章，所以至今谬种流传。

李承瑞后来是反对饿死三千万的谣言的。 我一直期望他在死前出面说明国家统计局是否受到上面的压力，改动国家统计局数字的事情，不然何以六零年的出生人口不多不少，正好比上一年少了一千万。但是他最终没有做出这种说明。

在美国出版的台湾支持的《世界日报》上，右派们曾经说，嘴长在他们脸上，愿意怎么说就怎么说，任何人想澄清，都像在用搅屎棍在粪桶里搅，越搅越臭。 我曾称这种做法为谎言恐怖主义。 不过，现在越来越多的人，开始摈弃谣言了。东屏

Translation from the Chinese into English

Attachment: "Looking up at the Big Dipper, I miss Chairman Mao in my heart.”

Exclusive interview with Sun Jingxian: He exposed the biggest lie in China in the 20th century

https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NDgyOTQ0 

Author: Xinghuo (Qi.Yuan.Hei.Shi) [2377058:18715], 23:56:54 12/14/2019:

- Discuss swords and chess, heroes gather - Huayue Forum - http://huayue.fatcow.com/ [folded]

http://huayue.fatcow.com/HuaShan/BBS/shishi/gbcurrent/2377058.shtml [folded]

That is, "I do the just cause that I should do with the conscience of an academic worker"

2019-12-12 03:36| Publisher: redchina| Views: 1322| Comments: 4|Original author: Sun Jingxian|From: Progress Culture Network

http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=40759

See: "The Fierce Debate between Sun Jingxian and Cao Shuji on "Thirty Million Starved to Death""

After my article was published, there were crazy abuses and even death threats. I do not regret it at all and I'm not scared at all. A thorough materialist is fearless! I am doing the just cause that I should do with the conscience of an academic worker. We firmly believe that history is on our side! It is not us who are truly timid and afraid, but those who fabricate lies such as Jiang Zhenghua, Yang Jisheng, and Cao Shuji. In the face of our exposure and criticism, their "ostrich policy" shows that they do not even have the courage to defend themselves!

Progressive Culture: Hello, Teacher Sun! Around 2012, you published a series of articles including "Research on my country's Population Changes in the 1960s", refuting the statement that "30 million people died of starvation", which aroused widespread public attention. As a professor of mathematics, what made you enter this risky research field? Can you give us a brief introduction to your resume?

Sun Jingxian: First, let me introduce my resume. I was born in 1948. After graduating from high school in 1966, I was assigned to work in a factory in 1968 for 10 years. After the college entrance examination was resumed in 1977, I got a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Shandong University and entered the school in the spring of 1978. It took only one year to basically complete his undergraduate studies. In the second year, he was admitted to the graduate school of the school. He received a master's degree in science in 1981 and a doctorate in science in 1984. After graduation, he stayed in the School of Mathematics of Shandong University to work. In 1991, he was promoted to the title of professor, and in 1992, he received a special government allowance from the State Council. He has been a doctoral supervisor since 1995, and was appointed as a Distinguished Professor of Jiangsu Normal University in 2001. I have long been engaged in teaching, scientific research and training graduate students in the field of mathematics and its applications. He has published (including co-published) more than 200 academic papers, published (including co-published) four monographs, won many provincial and ministerial scientific research awards, and hosted and participated in many National Natural Science Foundation projects. Many research results have been highly praised at home and abroad.

Marx once said:

[“A science is truly perfect only when it successfully uses mathematics.”]

Many famous mathematicians have argued that mathematicians should pay attention to and study major mathematical problems that arise in various fields of natural science and social science. During my long-term mathematical research, I have always maintained a strong interest in various mathematics-related problems that arise in many fields (including social sciences). I have a deep understanding from my own research experience: modern mathematics provides a set of rigorous thinking methods and tools, which can fully study and correctly handle various complex data systems that appear in various fields.

Regarding the saying "30 million people starved to death", I learned about it from the Internet. When I first came across this statement, my first feeling was that I did not believe it at all. Because I experienced that era. My personal experience is completely inconsistent with the statement that "30 million people starve to death". So, I started paying attention to this issue.

After reading some information, I found that the statement "30 million people died of starvation" only appeared after the National Bureau of Statistics released my country's household registration and demographic data from 1949 to 1982 in 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "1983 population data"). of. There are many major contradictions in the 1983 population data that are difficult to explain. In the absence of international migration, the growth of a country's total population each year should be equal to the natural growth of the population. But the 1983 population data showed an anomaly in which in many years there were huge differences between the two supposedly equal figures. Especially during the period from 1960 to 1964, after deducting natural population growth, my country's household registration census showed a huge abnormal decrease of 26.44 million people. This is the major contradiction in the 1983 population data. It is precisely because this major contradiction has never been scientifically explained for half a century. Some scholars at home and abroad believe that the large population (numbering 17 million to 30 million or even more) during my country's three-year difficult period is very large. Normal death is the root cause of this major contradiction, so the saying "30 million people starve to death" has emerged.

Therefore, to solve the problem of "30 million people starving to death", the key is to provide a scientific explanation for the above-mentioned major contradictions in the 1983 population data (which is a complex data system). Based on my long-term experience in mathematical research, I am keenly aware that this should be a mathematical problem that can and must be studied and solved using rigorous mathematical thinking methods. After making some preparations, I began to study this issue using mathematical thinking methods in 2010.

Through research, I finally concluded that the cause of the above-mentioned major contradictions in the 1983 population data has nothing to do with the births and deaths of the population and their household registration activities. This major contradiction is caused by the re-reporting of migration and migration during the population migration process. caused by underreporting and their correction of these behaviors. This result provides a complete and systematic explanation for the major contradictions in the 1983 population data, and fundamentally overturns the "30 million people died of starvation". Details can be found in my published articles.

This conclusion was reached at the end of 2010. One day in January 2011, I went to Xinhua Bookstore and saw the "Party History Volume Two" that had just been published, so I picked it up and looked through it. In this way, I saw the following passage recorded in "Party History Volume Two":

[“Due to the sharp and widespread decline in the birth rate, the death rate has increased significantly. According to official statistics, the total population of the country in 1960 decreased by 10 million compared with the previous year.”]

This statement links "the total population of the country in 1960 to be 10 million less than the previous year" with population deaths, and "a decrease of 10 million" is a concrete manifestation of the major contradiction in the 1983 population data. According to the research conclusions I had obtained at that time, this statement in "Party History Volume Two" is very wrong. At that time, I realized that this statement (and thus the statement "30 million people starved to death") would probably be written into history as a result. And I have discovered the fundamental error in this statement. Such a strong sense of historical responsibility made me decide at that time: I would immediately devote all my energy to research on refuting "30 million people starved to death" and find out the truth about this important historical issue. A few months later, I said in an article published in Marxist Studies:

["Whether tens of millions of people died abnormally in our country in the early 1960s has become a major historical public case in the history of the People's Republic of China. It has been half a century since this historical event. The truth should be resolved in the contemporary era, and we should not leave it to history or to future generations."]

This reflects my true state of mind at the time. Since history has given me the opportunity to solve this major issue, it is my unshirkable responsibility to solve this major issue, find out the truth about this major historical issue, and tell the truth to history and the people! From this moment on, I devoted all my energy to the research of this topic.

Progressive Culture: According to your research, the famous demographer Jiang Zhenghua played a crucial role in the spread of the so-called "30 million people who starved to death" at home and abroad. You have written an article questioning the wrong views of Jiang Zhenghua's related papers, and wrote an open letter to Jiang Zhenghua. Please tell me, did Jiang publicly reply to you later?

Sun Jingxian: Regarding this issue, the specific situation is as follows. In the process of studying the issue of population changes during the three-year difficult period, I carefully read all of Jiang Zhenghua's research papers on this issue, and examined all his argumentation processes, confirming that his research had a series of academic consequences. Big fundamental mistake. To this end, I wrote two papers in 2011, conducting serious academic criticism of Jiang Zhenghua's major academic mistakes.

*1

In 2011, Professor Gong Xiantian of Peking University held several academic seminars on population changes during the three-year difficult period. Mr. Li Chengrui and some old comrades participated in these meetings. I introduced my research results and academic criticism of Jiang Zhenghua at the meeting. Mr. Li Chengrui believes that my research is a breakthrough, and he attaches great importance to the mistakes in Jiang Zhenghua's research. He has made suggestions to me many times, hoping that I can have a direct dialogue with Jiang Zhenghua on this issue to help clarify this important issue. the truth. Some other old comrades also made similar suggestions.

I accepted the suggestions of veteran comrades such as Li Chengrui and sent an invitation to Jiang Zhenghua (delivered by Mr. Li Chengrui) at the end of 2011, making it clear that I was willing to have direct dialogue with him on this issue at a time and place that he deemed appropriate. Several of my papers, Mr. Li Chengrui, were handed over to Jiang Zhenghua.

Mr. Li Chengrui is the proposer and supporter of Jiang Zhenghua's research. No matter from which perspective, Jiang Zhenghua should not reject Mr. Li Chengrui's suggestion. But unfortunately, Jiang Zhenghua rejected this suggestion and adopted the "ostrich policy" of not responding at all to my invitation and academic criticism. This made it impossible for Mr. Li Chengrui's last wish to be realized during his lifetime.

In 2017, after the death of Mr. Li Chengrui, I sent an open letter to Jiang Zhenghua, again suggesting direct dialogue with him. In this open letter, I solemnly point out to him:

["Your research is one of the most important and authoritative academic bases for the statement that China's "abnormal deaths" were between 17 million and 30 million during the three difficult years. I have made serious academic criticism of your research. Obviously, If you are still a serious scholar, you should respond publicly to my academic criticism in the spirit of being responsible for history. If my academic criticism is wrong, you should obviously respond publicly to refute my academic criticism. Make mistakes to maintain the seriousness and scientific nature of academic research, and at the same time maintain your own academic reputation. If your research is wrong, as a serious scholar you should also openly admit your mistakes. From this perspective, you have been doing it for several years. Not responding to my academic criticism within a year is obviously not the attitude a serious academic worker should have."]

In the open letter, I made four suggestions: (1) I am willing to have a direct dialogue with Jiang Zhenghua on this issue at a time and place he deems appropriate; (2) I suggest that Jiang Zhenghua respond to my academic criticism (if He is old, and his students can also answer on his behalf.) (3) Although Jiang Zhenghua published his research conclusions, he never published the numerical calculation process for thirty years. To be responsible for history, I suggested that he publish the entire numerical calculation process. (4) Due to the extreme importance of this issue and its high degree of mathematical expertise, I suggest that an academic review committee composed of mathematicians and demographers be organized to academically review Jiang Zhenghua's research paper.

However, Jiang Zhenghua never responded to my open letter.

So why did Jiang Zhenghua refuse to reply? There are two reasons for this:

(1) His research was mathematical in nature and his errors were mathematical errors. For mathematical problems, whether it is a theoretical derivation process or a calculation process, the standards for determining correctness and error are unified and clear in academic circles around the world, and there is no disagreement. So, for mathematical problems, if it is wrong, it is wrong, and there is no room for excuse. For Jiang Zhenghua, if we are wrong, he can confidently refute our mistakes and defend himself; if he is wrong, he has no room for excuse. From this perspective, people can judge who is right and who is wrong based on "Does Jiang Zhenghua dare to talk to me directly?" Jiang Zhenghua has adopted the "ostrich policy" for more than eight years and has not dared to talk to us. This fully demonstrates his guilty conscience and cowardice. This is the first basic reason for his refusal to talk.

(2) Jiang Zhenghua's research seriously violated the “principle of reproducibility” that must be followed in academic research (we will talk about this later). If he had a direct conversation with us, I would ask him to publish his complete calculation process in accordance with the "principle of repeatability." And as soon as these are published, people can repeat and verify his results through actual computer calculations. Through this kind of "replication and verification", people can expose all the falsity of his research. He has no reason to refuse our request. This is the second basic reason why he refuses to talk to us.

Progressive Culture: What are the differences in research methods between you and Mr. Jiang Zhenghua? In other words, what is the real reason why you and he came to different conclusions about the sharp population decline in the early 1960s?

Sun Jingxian: I want to say more about this issue. In academic research, the "reproducibility principle" is one of the most important principles. The so-called "reproducibility principle" means that when researchers publish their research results, they must ensure that other researchers can "repeat" and "verify" their research (that is, other researchers can follow the instructions provided in the papers published by the authors). method of "repeating" and reproducing this result). Many people believe that if an academic research result cannot be replicated by others, it may be wrong or fake. The irreproducibility of research results is often the trigger for academic scandals.

Mr. Li Chengrui, former director of the National Bureau of Statistics, pointed out: Jiang Zhenghua's research “was conducted at the request and support of the National Bureau of Statistics. However, after repeated consideration, the National Bureau of Statistics believed that the research on this issue was difficult, and the research results at that time were not yet sufficient. mature, so this research has not been listed as a formal scientific research topic, no project funds have been allocated, and there is no formal 'project research report' and 'certificate of appraisal'." Jiang Zhenghua "The preliminary results of the research are always academic papers written by individual scholars., published in the journal of the school and related books and periodicals that he contacted by himself." This shows that Jiang Zhenghua's results are only "preliminary results", and his research "does not have a formal 'project research report' and its 'certificate of appraisal'."

The strangest thing about Jiang Zhenghua's "research" is that he never published his calculation process, which seriously violated the "principle of repeatability", that is, readers cannot "repeat" and "verify" his basic conclusions according to the method described by Jiang Zhenghua (my country Three 17 million people died abnormally during difficult times every year).

So why did he Why has his calculation process not been published for more than thirty years? The reason here is simple. The paper he had published was merely a purely theoretical derivation, filled with the symbols, terminology, and formulas of modern mathematics. Only mathematics professionals and scholars with high mathematical attainments can understand and point out the essential errors. However, most readers who care about this issue have difficulty judging the correctness or error of this research from the perspective of mathematical theory. If Jiang Zhenghua publishes his complete calculation process, people can easily verify his entire research by repeating his calculation process on a computer, thus showing the falsity of his research. This is the fundamental reason why Jiang Zhenghua did not publish (did not dare to publish) his calculation process for more than thirty years.

Not long ago, Professor Huang Weidong of the University of Science and Technology of China conducted numerical calculations based on the mathematical model provided by Jiang Zhenghua. This calculation showed that according to Jiang Zhenghua's mathematical model, the results he published could not be obtained at all. Professor Huang Weidong pointed out: Judging from his (Huang Wendong's) calculation results, "there are no excessive deaths in abnormal death years, nor a substantial increase in the number of deaths around 1960." "According to Jiang (Zhenghua) Using the algorithm, we failed to reproduce the birth rate and death rate characteristics given by Jiang, especially the huge death rate increase in the three years before and after 1960." Jiang Zhenghua's method "is difficult to simulate the population distribution of 1953-1964 well." This shows that according to Jiang Zhenghua's method, people cannot get the conclusions announced by Jiang Zhenghua.

Based on our research results and Huang Weidong's actual calculations, we have every reason to believe that the data published by Jiang Zhenghua is "fabricated." This shows that his research is a major incident of academic fraud!

*2

Progressive Culture: In addition, the book "Tombstone" by Yang Jisheng, the former executive editor of "Yanhuang Chunqiu", also played a decisive role in the rumor of "30 million people starving to death". You once had a face-to-face confrontation with Yang himself, and effectively refuted and exposed several fallacies in the book "Tombstone". Although Yang admitted that there were some "mistakes" in his work, he still insisted on his basic judgment and counter-accused you. It is imprecise and absurd to use unrecognized mathematical formulas to conduct inferential research on the sharp population decline in the 1960s. What do you think for this?

Sun Jingxian: Yang Jisheng published the book "Tombstone" in Hong Kong in May 2008, which claimed that "from 1958 to 1962, 36 million people starved to death in China." This book had a huge impact at home and abroad, making Yang Jisheng one of the most important representatives of the saying "30 million people starved to death".

In June 2013, I published "Tombstone's conclusion that "36 million people starved to death in China" is ridiculous" in "World Socialist Research Trends", exposing a series of major academic errors in "Tombstone" (including tampering with Fabricating data and creating rumors to fabricate lies). On September 9, "China Social Sciences Journal" published a condensed draft of this article.

In December of that year, Yang Jisheng published "Rebutting the Rumor that "Thirty Million Starved to Death"—Another Reply to Sun Jingxian's Accusations of "Tombstone"" in "Yanhuang Chunqiu" to elaborate on the series of errors in "Tombstone" that I pointed out. defended. Just over a month later, in January 2014, I published "How did the major fallacy of "36 million people starve to death" arise in "Red Flag Manuscript"? ——Reply to Yang Jisheng's Two Articles" (hereinafter referred to as "Reply to Yang Jisheng"), conducted a systematic and comprehensive refutation of Yang Jisheng's defense, emphasizing that all the defenses he made for "Tombstone" were untenable.

In July 2014, Yang Jisheng and I both participated in an international academic conference held in Wuhan (hereinafter referred to as the "Wuhan Conference"), which enabled direct face-to-face dialogue between Yang Jisheng and me.

The Wuhan Conference is an international academic conference that gives participants an equal opportunity to express their opinions. In my speech, I systematically criticized "Thirty Million Starved to Death" and directly pointed out a series of major errors in "Tombstone" in front of Yang Jisheng. After my speech, the organizer of the conference set aside sufficient time for discussion. The host also invited Yang Jisheng to speak many times, giving him sufficient time to express his opinions and defend himself. All participating scholars, including foreign scholars, also very much hope to hear his refutation and defense of my speech. If Yang Jisheng really grasps the truth, he should confidently respond to my speech at the meeting and defend the series of major errors I pointed out in "Tombstone" one by one. But instead of doing so, he issued a public statement after the meeting, announcing that he would "not respond" and "ignore" my criticism. He withdrew from the debate with us in an Ah Q way. Because he himself knows very well that if the debate continues, it will only expose his mistakes and lies even more.

In his speech at the Wuhan meeting, he accused us of an error in our mathematical derivation. In fact, our mathematical derivation is completely correct. It was his own mathematical derivation that made a middle school mathematics mistake that should not have occurred. This just proves a famous motto said by Lenin:

[“If the axioms of geometry offend people's interests, they will definitely be overturned.”]

Yang Jisheng claimed that he "consulted 12 provincial archives" and that he "copied 300 file folders" in each archive, so he "processed a total of 3,600 file folders." He said this because he wanted to give readers a false impression: his "36 million people who died of starvation" and the number of people who died of starvation in various provinces, cities, autonomous regions, regions, and counties were all provided from many historical archives. obtained from data and information. We have conducted a comprehensive verification of the number of abnormal deaths in all provincial, prefecture, and county-level administrative units described in "Tombstone" and found that except for a very few counties, almost all his data are wrong. of. Although Yang Jisheng consulted the files in 3,600 folders, he was unable to obtain any evidence from the records in these files that could prove "36 million people died of starvation." Therefore, he could only use absurd formulas and logic such as "Yang Jisheng's formula" and "the number of population decreases is equal to the number of deaths" to fabricate the number of people who died of starvation; the numbers obtained in this way still did not meet his needs, so he had to tamper with, They falsified data, fabricated and used bizarre lies such as "3.5 million people starved to death in Fuling Prefecture", and even went so far as to create major rumors such as "Zhou Enlai destroyed evidence of the Great Famine" to piece together the so-called basis for "36 million people starved to death".

Because of this, when we exposed his ridiculous numbers, lies and mistakes, he was unable to offer any defense and had no choice but to declare "no response" or "ignore". This also shows from one perspective that "30 million people starve to death" is a lie with no actual basis!

Progressive Culture: After your refutation and research article on "30 million people starved to death" was published, those who supported your views praised you as a brave, upright and conscientious scholar and the conscience of Chinese intellectuals; those who opposed your views praised you Calling you an "unscrupulous professor", "anti-human element", "beast", "shameless", "fascist mathematician", etc., they even issued death threats to you. Have you ever felt regret or fear in the face of tremendous pressure?

Sun Jingxian: After my article was published, there were crazy abuses and even death threats. I do not regret it at all and I am not scared at all. A thorough materialist is fearless! I am doing the just cause that I should do with the conscience of an academic worker. We firmly believe that history is on our side! It is not us who are truly timid and afraid, but those who fabricate lies such as Jiang Zhenghua, Yang Jisheng, and Cao Shuji. In the face of our exposure and criticism, their "ostrich policy" shows that they do not even have the courage to defend themselves!

Progressive Culture: "Thirty million people starved to death" has been called the biggest lie in China in the 20th century, but what is incredible is that it has been unimpeded in the field of public opinion since its release, and has even been accepted and accepted by mainstream academic circles and even some political figures. By default, few have questioned it. Therefore, some people say that you single-handedly fight against the entire mainstream intellectual community. Where does this courage come from?

Sun Jingxian: I want to revise your statement slightly. I am not "fighting" alone.

Since the emergence of "30 million people starved to death", some honest scholars at home and abroad have refuted this statement. After the emergence of the Internet, more scholars (especially folk scholars) have refuted "30 million people starved to death" in various forms. However, before 2011, because the major contradictions in the 1983 population data had not been scientifically explained, the above-mentioned criticisms of "30 million people starved to death" could not compete with mainstream opinions.

In 2011, I published an article that provided a comprehensive and systematic scientific explanation for the major contradictions in the 1983 population data, which hit the key point of "30 million people starved to death." Since then, the debate surrounding "30 million people starved to death" has undergone fundamental changes. The party opposed to "30 million people starve to death" has shifted from defense to counterattack! More and more scholars (including many within the system), cadres and the masses support our views, including "Science in China (Internal Manuscripts)", "World Socialist Research Trends", "Marxism Research", "Red Flag Manuscripts" ", "China Social Sciences Journal" and many other important media within the system have published our articles criticizing "30 million people starved to death". The absurdity and harm of "30 million people starving to death" have been recognized by more and more people.

Where does my courage come from; you ask? I have said before, "Since history has given me the opportunity to solve this major issue, it is my unshirkable responsibility to solve this major issue and find out the truth about this major historical issue." I My courage comes from this strong sense of historical responsibility; at the same time, my courage also comes from the firm support of more and more scholars, cadres, and the masses! Here, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the friends who support me!

Progressive Culture: As the saying goes, a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth. This sentence is especially suitable for the rumor that "30 million people starved to death". Because to this day, in China's public opinion field and Western countries, especially overseas anti-communists, "30 million people starve to death" is still a "big killer weapon" for them to attack and deny the first 30 years of New China and smear Chairman Mao. " Is often mentioned like chanting sutras, and many members of the public believe in it. However, apart from your research, the mainstream media or some authoritative departments have never publicly refuted it, which objectively contributed to the spread of the "30 million people starved to death" rumor. What do you think of this strange phenomenon?

*3

Sun Jingxian: After Chairman Mao's death, a trend of historical nihilism emerged that completely denied Chairman Mao. "Thirty million people starve to death" is the product of this trend of thought. As you said, "To this day, in China's public opinion field and Western countries, especially overseas anti-communists, '30 million people starve to death' is still their way of attacking and denying the first thirty years of New China and smearing Mao Zedong. The chairman's 'big killer weapon'". If this social ideological trend that completely denies Chairman Mao still exists, this "weird phenomenon" will continue to exist.

But a rumor will remain a rumor, even if it is repeated ten thousand times, it will still be a rumor. We firmly believe that as we continue to expose and refute, and as historical archives are further declassified, the historical truth will be revealed to the world. This major rumor of "30 million people starving to death" will eventually be swept into the trash heap of history!

Here I would like to say a few words to the authors of "Party History Volume Two". Writing the history of the Party is an extremely serious matter. It is extremely unserious to include such obviously erroneous words as "According to official statistics, the total population of the country in 1960 was 10 million less than the previous year" into the history of the Party. This will leave major hidden dangers in history. I sincerely hope that the authors of "Party History Volume Two" will change this erroneous statement in the spirit of being highly responsible for history.

Progressive Culture: An article on the Internet revealed that "30 million people starved to death" was a conspiracy hatched by Chiang Ching-kuo and the CIA. Do you think this rumor is true?

Sun Jingxian: The situation I know is different from this statement. What I know about the situation is as follows: In the early 1980s, a social trend of thought that completely negated Chairman Mao emerged in our country. Under the influence of this social trend of thought, a few domestic scholars believe that "16 million more people died" during the three-year difficult period than in normal times, based on the population death rate during the three-year difficult period. Some of them are confused. The essential difference between the two concepts of "extraordinary deaths" and "abnormal deaths", and based on this, it is believed that there were about 16 million abnormal deaths in our country during this period. In 1980, someone in China disclosed my country's population mortality data during the three-year difficult period to foreign countries at an international academic conference. After this, some international forces were keenly aware of this trend in our country. Some foreign scholars have developed an unusually special interest in the issue of population changes during my country's three-year difficult period. With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Research Council, Professor Ansley J. Coale, a professor at Princeton University in the United States, published "Rapid Changes in China's Population from 1952 to 1982" in a short period of time. book, announcing that China suffered a superlinear death rate of about 27 million from 1958 to 1963. The American Population and Demographic Commission held a press conference on July 10, 1984 for the publication of Cole's book. United Press, the Associated Press and other major Western news agencies have reported the above-mentioned super linear death toll. Mr. Li Chengrui pointed out,

[“Relevant U.S. authorities hastily held a press conference when Caole's book was published to amplify the sensitive figure of up to 27 million ‘superlinear deaths' in China that was proposed in the propaganda book without scientific basis. It obviously contains a political attempt to discredit socialist China.”]

Subsequently, some other foreign demographers (such as Ed, Bannister, etc.) also studied this issue. They used methods like Cole's and obtained roughly the same results as Cole's. After carefully analyzing the research of these scholars, I found that their research methods and conclusions were completely wrong. I will discuss this in a separate article.

After these studies, the statement that 30 million people died abnormally during my country's three-year difficult period has been widely circulated in the West. The above-mentioned foreign research, coupled with the domestic research of Jiang Zhenghua, is the main source of the statement "30 million people starve to death". Since the 1980s, the lie of "30 million people starving to death" has been widely circulated around the world and has become the mainstream view in academic circles and public opinion circles.

I have also seen the statement you mentioned. That statement refers to the book "Mao Zedong's Great Famine: A History of China's Catastrophe from 1958 to 1962" written by Dikötter of the University of Hong Kong. This book was published in 2011. At that time, it was said that "30 million people died of starvation" It has been widely circulated around the world for nearly thirty years. This book had a very bad influence on the further spread of "Thirty Million Starved to Death", but it was not the source of "Thirty Million Starved to Death".

Progressive Culture: Your answer is detailed and rigorous, reflecting the conscience and responsibility of an intellectual. Thank you for picking up

Get our exclusive interview!

[This article was originally published on the WeChat public account "Progress Culture Network"]

Post directory:

Official media: A total of 30 academicians of China's two academies died in 2019. Isn't it weird? - postgroup81 02:32:26 12/15/2019

Attached:

Mark Wain 1 second ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsc7EglNspY

The podcaster believed that the traitorous traitors in the Party, the restoration of the kleptocratic group and its illegal puppet regime, were related to the real Communist Party in Chairman Mao's era, and that Xi Jinping was better than Chairman Mao, and other self-deceptions. this is not right. The characteristic party has nothing to do with the true Communist Party. It is a completely fake Communist Party. Do not continue to make it up. Enough is enough. [Mark Wain 2020-07-13]

*

Replies:

leeliang

...The anti-Mao bastards attack Chairman Mao from all angles. They are just using this to drag China away and starve people to death. This is just one of them. Everyone, be careful!

All in all, had Deng Xiaoping died earlier, China would have been born sooner.

Cleaning up Deng Xiaoping is the only way for China at present. There is no other way than cleaning up Deng Xiaoping, the source of disaster!

Dongping Han

In fact, Li Chengrui also has problems. When he was in charge of the National Bureau of Statistics, in order to cater to the political needs of Deng Xiaoping's denial of Mao Zedong's era, he changed the figures of the National Bureau of Statistics, reducing the number of people born in 1960 by 10 million. But statistics should not be touched. Changes are meant to be slapped in the face. As a result, a strange phenomenon appeared in the statistics. The number of births in 1960 calculated in 1993 was actually higher than the number of births in 1960 announced in 1983. That is to say, the number of births in 1960 calculated in 1993 After thirty years, the population has not decreased, but has increased. This shows that the figure announced in 1983 that the number of people born in 1960 decreased by 10 million was a falsified figure. Unfortunately, most people will not read these articles that reveal the truth, so falsehoods are still being spread.

Li Chengrui later opposed the rumor that 30 million people died of starvation. I have always hoped that he would come forward to explain before his death whether the National Bureau of Statistics was under pressure from above to change the figures of the National Bureau of Statistics. Otherwise, why would the number of births in 1960 be neither more nor less, exactly 10 million less than the previous year? But he ultimately made no such statement.

In the "World Journal" published in the United States and supported by Taiwan, rightists once said that they have a mouth on their face and they can say whatever they want. Anyone who wants to clarify is like stirring a dung bucket with a stick. The more it is stirred, the more stinky it becomes. I have called this practice terrorism of lies. However, now more and more people are beginning to abandon the rumors. Dongping