帝国之弧： 从菲律宾到越南的美国亚洲战争》。

4-1-2016

亨特、迈克尔-H.和莱文、史蒂文-I.

 帝国之弧： 从菲律宾到越南的美国亚洲战争》。 Chapel Hill： 北卡罗来纳大学出版社，2012 年。

Hunt, Michael H. & Levine, Steven I. 

Arc of Empire: America’s Wars in Asia from the Philippines to Vietnam. 

Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

本书是《太平洋战争》课程的成果，该课程由迈克尔-H.

H. Hunt 和 Steven I. Levin 教授在 21 世纪头十年在北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校讲授的 "太平洋战争 "课程的成果。 两位作者都是 20 世纪 70 年代反越战一代的成员，也都是东亚和美国历史领域的著名学者。他们见证了亚洲的崛起以及美国最近令人震惊的经济衰退。 两人不得不对过去进行反思，并出版了这本书。 在这本书中，他们对美国在亚洲发动的菲律宾、日本、韩国和越南四场主要战争进行了最好的总结。 引言篇幅不到九页，不一定对美国参与这些战争有新的认识，但将这些战争归类为美帝国主义的 "项目"，它们与 1899 年至 1973 年美帝国主义在东亚的扩张密不可分。

两位作者都认为，第一章中涉及的菲律宾战争（1899-1902 年）是美国征服北美土著居民的延续。 美国对菲律宾的 "救世主使命 "是教育和 "启蒙 "岛民，就像对北美的 "印第安人 "一样。 威廉-麦金利总统不仅希望接管港口城市马尼拉，还希望接管整个菲律宾群岛。 单靠卡提普南运动无法与美国的力量相抗衡。 美帝国主义的 "分而治之 "理论被轻而易举地用于镇压叛乱分子。 这一章写得很好，详细叙述了菲美战争，只有一处史实不准确：作者描述了美国士兵对一个村庄的抢劫（第 40 页），据说美国人偷了野生火鸡。 然而，火鸡并不是菲律宾的本土鸟类，事实上，美国只是在 1898 年之后才将火鸡引入菲律宾群岛。

第二章专门研究美国在二战期间对日本的军事行动，是另一个优秀学术成果的范例。 两位作者都断言，美国卷入对日战争代表着各帝国为争夺太平洋地区的统治权而展开的竞争。

争夺太平洋地区的主导权。 作者说，在整个战争期间，中国一直是争论的焦点，而日本军队的能力也无法与美国匹敌，因此美国只需 "耐心等待 "并 "击垮 "日本帝国--尽管可以说美国向两个主要为民用的日本目标投掷原子弹并不构成耐心等待，更何况原子武器很可能会 "击垮 "任何军事敌人，无论其实力如何。 然而，结果是日本

1945 年 9 月投降。 作者利用新近出版的日本回忆录和私人信件，揭示了日本士兵对和平的渴望；这些出版物还揭示了普通民众的观点，他们往往对占领充满热情。 这也是该书对加深理解战后日本和平主义的贡献之一。 书中还讨论了 "慰安妇 "的人权问题，即被日军强迫成为性奴隶的年轻妇女和女孩。 作者认为，日本帝国的灭亡代表着美国在该地区的影响力达到了顶峰。

尽管前两章很有说服力，但专门研究朝鲜战争（1950-1953 年）的一章却存在问题。 作者确实正确地总结了战争的起源和历史，重要的是，作者指出了历史进程是如何被莫斯科和北京的行动所左右的，莫斯科和北京都支持北朝鲜对抗南朝鲜，而南朝鲜则得到了以美国为首的联合国部队的支持。 作者还同意并正确地断言，美国最初试图避免卷入朝鲜问题，希望坚持 "欧洲优先 "政策。

"欧洲优先 "的政策。 但遗憾的是，作者对美国最终卷入朝鲜战争的主要分析失之偏颇。 他们虚弱的推理断言朝鲜战争代表了美国帝国主义努力的 "终结的开始"，声称由于各种挫折，这场战争标志着美国主导地位的 "衰退"--尽管事实上

美国的参与最终导致联合国派往朝鲜的军事人员中 80% 以上由美国提供。 作者在整章中不断重申这一点。 他们还忽略了一个事实，即美国支持战争的发展只是为了恢复现状，看到朝鲜恢复到战前状态。 尽管作者声称美国的主导地位有所下降，但就全球影响力而言，20 世纪 50 年代无疑仍然是美国的时代，尤其是在东亚，美国仍然处于主导地位。 正是由于这个原因，美国才跌跌撞撞地卷入了越南战争。

最后一章是关于越南战争的，其写法与前三章截然不同。 与前三章不同的是，这一章并没有全面介绍战争的历史，而是从作者自己的角度阐述了反越战的故事。 作者认为（第 203 页），早在 1964 年，约翰逊政府就充分意识到自己在军事上卷入越南人认为是旷日持久的殖民战争延伸的战争是愚蠢的，约翰逊和他的顾问们预料到了失败的结果。 尽管早有预料，美国仍继续向前推进，调动地面部队进入越南，这成了一场消耗战，从未摧毁过敌人，甚至没有明显削弱敌人的能力。 随着国内公众对战争努力的支持下降，越南战争的结果正如政府所预料的那样。 1968 年，约翰逊政府公开宣布美国从越南撤军，从 1969 年开始，尼克松政府开始撤军--尽管尼克松同时也通过大幅增加对越南以及邻国柬埔寨和老挝的空袭使冲突升级。 在此过程中，尼克松发动了人类历史上最猛烈的轰炸，恐吓西贡接受《巴黎和平协定》。 更肆无忌惮的是，尼克松决心确保美国（和他自己）在越南战争中至少取得部分胜利--在经历了二十年痛苦且最终不得人心的美国卷入越南战争之后，他尤其希望看到这种假象。 为此，尼克松准备在 1973 年向北方首都河内行贿 32.5 亿美元，以从西贡撤军。 为了表现出英雄气概，他向南方承诺，如果河内违反条约，美国会回来支持南方的努力，但当西贡 "沦陷 "于北方解放军手中时，美国事实上并没有回来。 在讨论了越南战争陷入的泥潭之后，作者断言，美国事实上并没有改变其帝国主义的做法，而且

美国继续其建立帝国的努力，尽管这些努力现在集中在中东和阿富汗。

最后一章是对正文的补充，而不是真正的结论。 虽然作者重复了他们关于美帝国在东亚兴衰的有些过于简单化的逻辑，但他们也设法提供了有价值的见解和分析。 尤其是他们关于东亚近期政治和经济基本变化的论述（第 265-272 页），对于当今关注该地区的任何人来说都极具价值。 这使得本书成为一部非常重要的著作。 这是一本好书；它简明扼要地探讨了美国（过去和现在）在东亚地区参与全球政治的情况，将四场战争描述为美国在该地区建立并维持地区和全球主导地位的 "阶段"。 尽管有不足之处，但该书有可能成为美国未来东亚政策的前言。

i 卡提普南协会是菲律宾的一个革命社团，最初成立于 19 世纪末，其目标是从西班牙那里获得独立。 美西战争后，美国占领了菲律宾，美军与菲律宾第一共和国之间爆发了战斗。 卡提普南协会的老会员领导菲律宾各团体反对美国，但卡提普南反对派的力量无法与美军相比。

ii 1939 年第二次世界大战爆发时，大日本帝国已经与中华民国开战，日本帝国主义试图扩大其在该地区的军事和政治影响力，以确保获得原材料和其他经济资源。 日本偷袭珍珠港后，中日战争与第二次世界大战的事件合并，更广泛地称为 "盟约战争"。 即使在二战结束日本投降后，日本仍继续占领中国的部分领土。

This book is the product of the course, “The Pacific Wars,” taught by professors Michael

H. Hunt and Steven I. Levin at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the first decade of the 21st Century. Both authors are members of the 1970s anti-Vietnam War generation and are well-known scholars in the history of East Asia and the U.S. They have witnessed the rise of Asia as well as the recent, startling economic recession in America. Both were compelled to reflect on the past and publish this book. In this text, they provide one of the best summaries of recent scholarship regarding the four major wars fought by the U.S. in Asia—in the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. The introduction, less than nine pages in length, does not necessarily shed new light on U.S. involvement in these wars but classifies the wars as U.S. imperial “projects” that were inseparable from U.S. imperial expansion into East Asia from 1899 to 1973.

The war on the Philippines (1899-1902), covered in the first chapter, for both authors, represents a continuation of the United States’ conquest of the indigenous populations of North America. The U.S. enjoyed its “messiah mission” to the Philippines to educate and “enlighten” the islanders just as it had done for the “Indians” of North America. President William McKinley was keen to take over not only the port city of Manila but also the entire Phillipine archipelago. The Katipunan movementi alone could not match the U.S. strength. The U.S. imperial doctrine of “divide and conquer” was easily applied to crush insurgents. This chapter is well written and provides a detailed account of the Philippine-American war, with only one historical inaccuracy: the authors describe the looting of a village by American soldiers (p. 40), in which the Americans are said to have stolen wild turkeys. However, turkeys were not native birds to the Philippines and were, in fact, introduced to the islands by the U.S. only after 1898.

The second chapter, devoted to the examination of U.S. military efforts against Japan during World War II, is another example of good scholarship. Both authors assert that U.S.involvement in the war against Japan represents competition between empires for

dominance in the Pacific region. With China remaining a bone of contentionii throughout the war, and with the capacity of the Japanese military not quite rivaling that of the U.S., say the authors, the United States needed only to “wait patiently” and “wear down” Imperial Japan—though it could be argued that the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on two primarily civilian Japanese targets did not constitute waiting patiently, not to mention that atomic weapons would likely have “worn down” any military foe, regardless of strength. Nevertheless, the outcome was Japanese

surrender in September of 1945. The authors used newly published Japanese memoirs and private letters to shed light on Japanese soldiers’ yearning for peace; such publications also revealed the opinions of ordinary people, who often spoke warmly of the occupation. This is one of the text’s contributions to deepening the understanding of postwar Japan’s pacifism. The human rights issue of “comfort women,” the young women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army, was discussed as well. The authors contend that the fall of the Japanese empire represents the point at which U.S. influence in the region reached its apogee.

Despite the strength of the first two chapters, the chapter dedicated to the examination of the Korean War (1950-1953), however, is problematic. The authors did correctly summarize the war’s origins and history and, importantly, indicated how the course of history was shaped by the actions of Moscow and Beijing, both backing North Korea against South Korea, which was backed by a United Nations force led by the United States. The authors also agree—and rightly assert—that the U.S. initially tried to avoid becoming entangled in Korea, wishing to uphold a

“Europe first” policy. Unfortunately, however, the authors’ main analysis of the U.S.’ ultimate involvement in the Korean war misses the mark. Their feeble reasoning asserts that the Korean war represented the “beginning of the end” for the United States’ imperial efforts, claiming that due to various setbacks, the war marked a “downturn” in U.S. dominance—despite the fact that

U.S. involvement culminated in the U.S. providing over 80% of all military personnel sent to Korea by the UN. The authors continue to reiterate this point throughout the chapter. They also ignored the fact that the U.S. supported the development of the war only to restore the status quo and see a return to ante bellum Korea. Despite the authors’ claim of a downturn in U.S. dominance, the 1950s undoubtedly remained an American age in terms of global influence, and, in East Asia in particular, the U.S. remained at the helm. It was for this reason, not so incidentally, that the U.S. stumbled into its involvlement in the war in Vietnam.

i The Katipunan association was a Philippine revolutionary society originally formed in the late 19th century with the objective of gaining independence from Spain. When the U.S. took possession of the Philippines, following the Spanish American war, fighting erupted between U.S. forces and the First Philippine Republic. Veteran members of the Katipunan association led various Philippine groups in their opposition to the U.S., but the strength of Katipunan opposition was no match for the U.S. military.

ii The Empire of Japan was already at war with the Republic of China when World War II broke out in 1939, with Japanese imperialist efforts seeking to expand its military and political influence in the region in order to secure access to raw materials and other economic resources. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Sino- Japanese merged with the events of the second world war and became known, more broadly, as the Pactific War. Even after Japan’s surrender at the end of World War II, Japan continued to occupy portions of Chinese territory.