有关30年代中后期贵州禁烟运动的由来及其认识

贵州曾是旧中国的鸦片主产区和外销地,鸦片给贵州各族人民带来的灾难十分恶劣,罄竹难书.30年代中后期,在国民政府的领导下,贵州再次开展禁烟运动,取得了积极的成果.本文分析30年代中后期贵州禁烟运动的由来,认为禁烟运动的开发既寓有断绝黔省军阀的财源、消除割据势力的一面;也包含改造黔省、建设抗战后方的需要.在此基础上,本文从禁种、禁运和禁贩三个方面着手,介绍其措施的演变、作用,以及成败得失.最后,影响贵州禁政的某些因素.政治的原因是:1.地方势力没有什么反抗的力量,禁令推行较为顺利;2.民族地区种植现象不甚突出,缺乏有“组织“的反抗,解决偷种问题比较容易;3.推行禁种的步伐较为稳妥,对社会经济的触动力度不大.经济的原因是:1.避免与烟商争利,谋求其积极支持,消化存土,积累资金,投资新兴产业;2.积极实施作物替代,促进经济的发展,转移支付收入,弥补禁烟后遗留的缺口.     

1931年—1945年的中国通史撰述

抗战时期史学领域呈现出一种与以往不同的新的研究趋势 ,即对中国通史的研究与撰述的关注和重视 ,这一新的研究趋势是时代与社会的客观需求和史家的主体自觉共同促成的。这一时期的通史撰述对通史编撰理论作了深入探讨 ,在历史观、史书体裁等诸多方面可谓异彩纷呈 ,显示出史坛的勃勃生机     

河东碑刻中的光绪旱灾

石刻,被人们称之为"会说话的石头".在素有"山西碑刻之乡"的河东,光绪三年(1877),即农历丁丑年,发生了山西二百余年未曾有的重大旱灾,故时人称之为"丁丑奇荒",因这场重旱灾又延续到光绪四年,即农历戊寅年,因而亦称为"丁戊大荒"."丁戊大荒",在正史中的记载已是不争的事实,然而一些正史记载太过简略,对灾情及救灾措施及其留给人们的恐怖心理,略而不详.事实上,大灾结束后不久,河东地区许多村落纷纷刻碑,记述了这次可怕的灾害,从许多方面弥补了史载之空白.     

Prelude to the Popular Front: The Communist Party in California, 1931-35

The opening of some Russian archives to research by Western historians has permitted new understandings of local Communist parties during the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, these new sources have intensified historiographical debates over the degree of autonomy within the Communist party of the United States (CPUSA). Historians have long pointed to California in the early 1930s as an example of local autonomy, but the new information permits a more detailed understanding both of the extent of that local autonomy and of relations among local CPUSA leaders, the national party office in New York City, and the Comintern in Moscow. This paper explores the CP's participation in events in California-primarily the coastwise maritime strike, the San Francisco general strike, and the state elections of 1934-along with the internal decision-making processes of the CP at various levels through the lens provided by the newly available Comintern archives as well as other collections.     

'Very Peculiar Circumstances': Walter Runciman and the National Government, 1931-3

Walter Runciman's role in the crisis of 1931 and its aftermathis not as well known as those of his Liberal contemporaries,Samuel and Simon. It was, however, at least as important indetermining the outcome. Runciman was not a member of the firstNational Cabinet of August 1931, but he reluctantly acceptedthe Board of Trade, on flattering terms, in November. Highlyregarded by MacDonald, he developed an effective working andpersonal relationship with Neville Chamberlain, and togetherthey shaped the government's tariff policy. It was a compromisethat ensured the long-term survival of the National Governmentand defined the fiscal policy that would replace free trade.Runciman remained convinced throughout his years in office thathe was remaining true to Liberal principles—using tariffbargaining to reduce the general level of tariffs—andthat the national crisis and the changing economic climate justifiedhis compromise with the Conservatives. ¹ I am grateful to my colleagues, Professor Bill Luckin andDr Gaynor Johnson, and to Dr David Dutton, for their commentswhile this article was being written. The quotation in the titleis from Lord Shuttleworth to Runciman, 18 November 1935, RuncimanPapers, Robinson Library, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.WR221