（修正版）蔣介石固然偏聽 但仍有選擇佔領政策的自主空間 Although Chiang Kai-shek may have relied on one-sided information, he is free in choosing the policies of occupation

【雙魚之論】
Chiang Kai-shek (Gimo) was the “principal culprit” of the 228 Incident—this is the terminology commonly used by Taiwan civil society and NGO groups. For scholars, however, the responsibility of making such statements is greater; conclusions must be grounded strictly in evidence. At most, one may state that Gimo “bears the greatest responsibility,” while leaving open the possibility that local commanders Chen Yi initially implemented excessively harsh measures, provoking resistance, and subsequently produced embellished or self-exculpatory reports that shaped Chiang’s later response.

From the perspective of Gimo as the entrusted Allied military commander occupying a portion of Japanese territory—namely Taiwan—the imposition of strict governance over hostile territory (Taiwan) and enemy nationals (Japanese nationals and subjects on Taiwan) could be regarded as a common measure under the law of occupation. This is not an attempt to absolve Gimo or the Kuomintang, but rather to define the Gimo authorities as standing in a state of hostile relations with Taiwan during the period between the end of the Pacific War and the entry into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Even so, U.S. military rule in Japan did not provoke large-scale resistance, demonstrating that military authorities retained policy discretion and bore corresponding responsibility.
The claims by Chiang Kai-shek and others that Taiwan had been "recovered" and "reunion to the motherland" were internal political propaganda and not factual. This non-factual propaganda created mistaken expectations among Taiwanese people regarding the rhetoric of "compatriots/fellow countrymen," and was one of the causes that led to the 228 Incident.
The news report concludes by mentioning Director Chen's lament about the 228 Incident: "Many facts were already revealed twenty or thirty years ago, yet they did not receive sufficient attention," and "In the past, the public rarely approached (the materials) with calm and open minds." Indeed, emotions being stronger than (or preceding) reason and manifesting outwardly is one of the characteristics of Taiwanese society. We should become aware of this trait, engage in self-reflection, and work to change it—only then can Taiwan's psychological maturity deepen. The 228 Incident involves intertwined factors from international, Chinese, KMT-CCP, and Taiwanese contexts; it cannot be expected to be fully explained by any single factor alone. Many people insist on emphasizing just one aspect or assign meanings to the event that did not exist at the time—these are often psychological defense mechanisms arising from an inability to grasp the full picture, rather than the result of rational analysis. It is hoped that after next year's 80th anniversary, clearer changes and progress may emerge.

蔣介石是228事件的「元兇」，這是台灣民間與團體的用語。對學者而言，其言論所負的責任更大，只能根據證據講到蔣介石「應負最大責任」——留下一個可能性是，當地指揮官先實施過份嚴厲的治理，引起社會反抗後製作粉飾與脫罪報告，從而引導蔣介石的後續反應。
對蔣介石元帥身為「受託的盟軍軍事佔領日本領土一部份的台灣」的軍事總督而言，對敵國領土（台灣）上的敵國人民（日本籍台灣人）實施嚴格治理，是「再當然不過」的佔領法手段。這不是在替國民黨蔣介石脫罪，而是在定義蔣介石當局為太平洋戰爭後到平條約生效前佔領者與人民雙方是「敵國關係」。即便如此，美軍在日本的軍事統治並未引起大規模反抗，足見蔣介石軍事當局仍有政策選擇的空間與責任。
蔣介石等的宣稱台灣光復、重回祖國等內部政治宣傳並非事實。這一非事實的宣傳造成台灣人的對於「同胞」宣傳的錯誤期待，二二八事件產生原因之一。
報導最後提及陳館長對二二八事件的感慨：「很多事實早在二、三十年前便已揭露，卻沒有受到足夠重視」、「大眾過去較少平心靜氣去讀（資料）」——的確，情緒強於（或先於）理智而顯現於外，本就是台灣社會的特徵之一，我們應察覺、自省並改變前述特性，台灣的心理素質才能深化。二二八事件糾結國際、中國、國共、台灣等不同場域的因素，不能期待以單一因素解析完備，許多人堅持一端或賦予事件當時所無的意義等，常是無法掌握全貌下的心理防衛反應，並非理智的結果。盼望明年80週年過後會有較為清晰的變革。

 

（修正版）228蔣介石應負最大責任！陳儀深揭：黨內早提醒「非叛亂」遭無視    自由 20260226

國史館館長陳儀深今出席「紀念二二八——談蔣介石的責任問題及其他」擔任主講人，他指出，眾多史料與觀點認為，時任國民政府主席蔣介石應負最大責任，當時黨內不同系統曾建言，二二八衝突起因於「政風不良引發民怨」，蔣卻偏聽陳儀系統、定調為「共產黨叛亂」，這種「事前縱容、事中速調兵、事後無究責」的決策邏輯，正是二二八成為台灣社會長久難癒傷痕的主因。

陳儀深指出，二二八事件基金會2006年曾出版《二二八事件責任歸屬研究報告》，時隔近20年，他仍持續從事相關史料研究，眾多資料和觀點都指向，「時任國民政府主席蔣介石應該要負最大的責任」，他當時受到上海、平津各地台灣人團體的指責，歸咎於陳儀應要負最大的責任。

陳儀深表示，檔案顯示，陳儀過去誇大情勢，向蔣介石傳遞極為負面的信息，將二二八定調為「共產黨叛亂」與「奸匪煽惑」。然而，當時並非沒有其他聲音，監察委員楊亮功、黨內系統的省參議會議長黃朝琴都曾呈報，強調這是政治不良、人民憤怒造成的衝突，並非外傳的「託治」、「獨立」等所謂「叛亂」，像這些，蔣先生不予理睬。

陳儀深說，蔣介石偏聽陳儀這個系統，包括柯遠芬等，在資訊選擇上有嚴重偏差。尤其事後追究責任時，蔣不僅沒有處罰下令武力鎮壓的高雄要塞司令彭孟緝，也無視三中全會將陳儀「撤職查辦」的決議，只將其調往南京，這種「事前縱容、事中調兵迅速、事後處分無一人受到懲處」，就是讓二二八事件成為台灣社會長久難以平復傷口的主因。

針對社會近來熱衷轉型正義及史料解密，陳儀深正面看待大眾對真相的渴求，如對林宅血案的關注，但他也感嘆，包括二二八在內，許多史實早已收錄在國史館檔案中，只是大眾過去較少平心靜氣去讀，他對當前社會願意認真了解歷史感到欣慰，但很多事實早在二、三十年前便已揭露，卻沒有受到足夠重視。