海内外人士反思历史与中国未来
作者：光华社编辑部
2026年9月16日至18日，“文革60周年研讨会”在德国纽伦堡举行。来自欧洲、亚洲、美洲和澳洲等地的学者、作家、媒体人士及社会活动人士参加会议，围绕文化大革命的历史记忆、政治制度、文化与宗教、群众运动、历史叙事以及中国未来等议题展开讨论。
为期三天的活动包括专题研讨、纪录片放映、烛光纪念、自由讨论、街头历史展览，以及纽伦堡审判相关历史场所、人权之路等地点的参访。会议公开资料显示，该研讨会由《北京之春》与“全球支持中国和亚洲民主化论坛”共同举办。
【图：部分与会者在纽伦堡“人权之路”前合影。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
中国民主党（荷兰总部）德国委员会——光华社及法国委员会也派出代表参加此次活动。光华社成员除参与会议讨论、纪念及历史参访外，还承担了部分现场直播、摄影和视频记录工作。其中，光华社社长张冠元和杨肖杰分别进入正式研讨议程并发表演讲。
多角度反思文革历史与制度问题
9月17日上午，研讨会进入正式议程。开幕环节首先为文革、六四死难者及已故民主运动人士默哀。
《北京之春》社长于大海的开幕词由薛伟代读，随后西藏方面代表宣读达赖喇嘛致研讨会的电文。首场研讨由费良勇、薛伟主持。
【图：费良勇在研讨会现场。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
费良勇首先代读严家祺为大会撰写的文章《文革和“六四”的共同根源》。文章从政治体制和权力运行角度，讨论文化大革命与1989年六四事件之间的历史关联。
德国学者Dr. Thomas Weyrauch以“德国人及其‘文革’”为题，回顾毛主义及文化大革命在当时西德部分激进左翼群体中的传播和影响，并讨论部分欧洲左翼人士当年对中国文革形成理想化认识的历史背景。
胡平则通过视频发言，以“中央文革在文革中的角色与命运”为题，回顾中央文化革命小组的权力形成、政治作用及最终结局。
第二场研讨围绕制度转型、历史经验及社会治理等议题展开。
台湾政治大学李酉潭教授发表《从文革反思中国极权体制的民主转型》，从文革政治经验出发，讨论威权及极权政治向民主制度转型的问题。
【图：李酉潭教授发表演讲。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
水利工程专家王维洛博士从重大水利灾难切入，讨论重大公共事件背后的决策、制度及责任机制。
台湾学者赖盈铨教授结合苏联及俄罗斯政治发展的历史经验，讨论极权政治遗产以及社会转型问题。
旅居瑞典的作家茉莉发表《中国文革与川普时代的镜像奇观——人性疯狂与历史荒诞卷土重来》，从她的观察角度比较文革时期群众政治与当代美国部分政治现象。这一比较属于发言者本人的政治分析。
【图：作家茉莉在研讨会现场发言。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
西藏方面代表则以《从文化大革命到“文革2.0”：图伯特的历史记忆与文化传承》为题，从藏人的历史经验讨论文革、历史记忆和文化传承。
旅德学者彭小明回顾文革时期家庭出身、政治身份对个人教育、就业及社会命运造成的影响，并从政治歧视角度进行分析。
历史叙事、宗教与非暴力运动进入讨论
下午的第三场研讨由李酉潭、李力主持。
台湾媒体人、淡江大学教授廖雨诗博士发表《从文革到“说好中国故事”：历史记忆如何塑造中国与台湾的国家叙事》，讨论历史记忆如何经过选择、解释和传播，进而影响两岸不同的社会及国家叙事。
【图：廖雨诗博士在研讨会上发言。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
作家、媒体人长平以“从‘历史决议’看中共长期隐藏的议程设置”为题，从中共历史文件和政治语言出发，分析官方历史叙事及政治议程设置。
芮虎以“文革对宗教信仰的冲击”为题，讨论文革时期宗教遭受冲击，以及这一历史对个人信仰和社会精神生活产生的长期影响。
来自澳大利亚的钟锦江博士则围绕“文革群众运动与非暴力抗争群众运动的本质差别”展开讨论，并以“和平、理性、非暴力”为框架比较不同类型的群众运动。
此外，陈泱潮提交文章讨论毛泽东发动文革的政治目的，由费良勇代读；李东澄则以《土匪体制、流氓性质与文革遗毒》为题，从政治制度和政治文化角度讨论文革遗产。
从上山下乡到内蒙古“内人党”案件
当天第四场研讨由张裕、凯撒主持。
钱跃君博士以“文革的上山下乡运动”为题，讨论这一政策及其对一代知识青年人生轨迹产生的影响。
王龙蒙结合蒙古族后裔的个人及族群记忆，回顾文革时期内蒙古“内人党”案件，以及相关政治运动留下的长期创伤。
【图：王龙蒙在现场发言。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
费良勇则从他所称的“现代政治文明”角度重新分析文革政治文件。他主张从人权、法治、程序正义和权力制约等原则重新审视文革及其政治机制。
光华社代表团参与会议
中国民主党（荷兰总部）德国委员会——光华社与法国委员会此次派出多名成员参加活动，其中包括法国委员会负责人艾时诚，以及张冠元、吴伟光、唐国刚、张娜、杨肖杰、李桃红等。
【图：光华社部分与会成员合影。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
据光华社方面介绍，代表团中有多名较年轻成员参加此次活动。会议期间，一些长期参与海外中国民主运动的年长人士也与年轻与会者进行了交流。
现场另有一名维吾尔族第二代德国移民代表以英语发言。由于她不会汉语，张冠元现场进行中文翻译。她在发言中谈到与故乡部分亲人联系困难的个人经历，并表达对维吾尔人处境和威权政治影响的担忧。
【图：维吾尔族代表在活动现场。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
张冠元谈“反双极、生活化”
光华社社长张冠元发表《只缘妖雾又重来——浅谈中共八十年对中国文化精神之戕害》。
张冠元从个人经历和近现代中国政治文化切入，讨论他认为中共历次政治运动对传统文化、社会心理以及人与人关系造成的影响。
他的演讲同时提出“反双极、生活化”的理念。
张冠元认为，极权主义不仅是一种政治制度，也可能形成“非黑即白”的思维方式。如果反对专制的人在组织内部仍以压制不同意见、制造敌我关系的方式处理分歧，就可能在行为方式上复制自己所反对的政治文化。
他由此提出，民主转型不应仅被理解为一次短期政治事件，而应该是一个长期的社会和文化建设过程；政治表达也应减少空洞口号和人身攻击，通过更容易被普通人理解的语言、幽默、音乐和生活经验传播价值理念。
发言最后，张冠元根据《东方红》的旋律重新填词演唱《东方黑》，以音乐和戏谑方式表达自己的政治观点。
【图：光华社社长张冠元发表演讲。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
杨肖杰：“文革不是历史，文革仍在继续”
杨肖杰发表题为《文革不是历史，文革仍在继续》的主题演讲。他认为，对文化大革命的反思不能只停留在红卫兵、批斗会、抄家和武斗等历史现象，还应进一步追问：为什么这样的政治灾难能够发生，又为什么长期无法得到有效制止。
杨肖杰认为，当最高权力缺乏有效约束，司法、媒体以及社会监督无法发挥独立作用时，最高层的政治意志可能通过行政、宣传和社会动员体系不断向下传递，并在执行过程中产生“层层加码”。
他引用费良勇提出的“邪恶共振”概念，将这一机制描述为最高权力、党政体系、宣传系统、地方官员以及普通个人在不同程度上共同参与并彼此强化。演讲随后由文革历史延伸到当代中国。
杨肖杰提到，2018年中国修改宪法，删除了国家主席、副主席“连续任职不得超过两届”的规定。这一修改属于已经公布的宪法修正案内容；中国官方当时将修改解释为完善国家领导体制、维护集中统一领导。
杨肖杰则从不同政治立场对此提出批评，并认为现代政治控制虽然与1960年代所使用的工具明显不同，但最值得关注的仍然是权力能否受到法律和制度的有效制约。
他说：“真正重要的问题，不是能不能遇到一个好皇帝，而是当一个坏的领导人出现时，人民有没有办法限制他、监督他，并通过和平方式更换他。”
演讲最后，杨肖杰把讨论重点放在民主、法治、司法独立、新闻自由、基本人权及权力制衡等制度问题上。
他认为，纪念文革受害者不应只停留在纪念活动本身，而应建立防止权力再次失控的制度。
杨肖杰以一句“文革，结束了”结束演讲，并解释说，只有当任何个人或政党都不能凌驾于宪法和法律之上时，这句话才真正具有制度意义。
【图：杨肖杰在纽伦堡圣洛伦茨教堂前历史展览现场参与布展。（图片提供：光华社）】
网络直播与影像记录
除了参与专题讨论，光华社成员还承担了部分会议传播和影像记录工作。
唐国刚在活动期间进行了网络直播，将部分研讨、演讲及现场活动通过网络传播。
杨肖杰则连续数日进行摄影和视频拍摄，对会议发言、纪念仪式、历史展览、纽伦堡历史地点参访以及与会者合影等进行记录。
【图：部分与会者在文革60周年研讨会现场合影留念。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
光华社方面表示，希望这些照片和视频能够作为此次活动的视觉资料，用于后续新闻报道、人物资料及历史档案整理。
会议结束后，部分光华社成员还分别接受海外中文媒体采访，介绍此次研讨会及该组织对中国民主、法治和人权问题的观点。
烛光纪念后 与会者以音乐和幽默交流
9月17日晚，与会者举行烛光纪念活动，悼念文革、六四死难者及已故民主运动人士。
中文笔会张裕介绍作家一平的创作，一平夫人周琳朗诵其作品。
【图：与会者在会议现场默哀。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
当天晚间的活动随后由严肃的历史讨论转向较为轻松的文化交流。在音乐人现场伴奏下，来自不同地区的与会者演唱港台歌曲和校园民谣。
廖雨诗博士曾从事广播工作，她还应与会者邀请，以播音方式重现过去面向中国大陆的广播场景。
费良勇、长平、张冠元等人也以政治笑话和幽默表达参与交流。张冠元认为，通过音乐、幽默和生活化方式讨论政治，可以减少宏大政治话语与普通人之间的距离，这与其在演讲中提出的“反双极、生活化”理念相呼应。
参访纽伦堡审判历史遗址
9月18日，与会者从会议室走向纽伦堡的历史现场，先后前往纽伦堡审判相关场所，并参访原纳粹党代会集会场、文档中心、人权之路、市政厅及皇帝城堡等地点。这些历史场所参访也是会议原定议程的一部分。
【图：与会者在纽伦堡审判相关建筑前合影。（摄影：Xiaojie Yang）】
部分参与者表示，纽伦堡审判所涉及的国家犯罪、个人责任和司法追责问题，使他们联想到中国历史上的政治迫害，并进一步思考未来如何通过法律程序处理严重侵犯人权的行为。
这一表达与原稿中的“北京大审判”相比更适合新闻稿：它保留了参与者对未来追责的设想，但不把一个尚未发生的政治结果写成确定事实。
当天下午，与会者还在纽伦堡圣洛伦茨教堂附近举行以“从文革到六四，再到二文革”为主题的街头历史展览。
活动现场有当地居民和游客驻足阅读展板，一些人同参与者进行交流或合影。
当天晚间，会议举行最后一场自由讨论，主题为“反对二文革，推进民主化”，由费良勇、薛伟主持。
21时30分，费良勇对三天会议及相关活动作总结，随后薛伟宣布此次纽伦堡“文革60周年研讨会”闭幕。相关会后报道也记录了张冠元、杨肖杰的发言，以及烛光纪念、历史展览和纽伦堡历史地点参访等活动。
三天活动通过专题报告、个人历史记忆、纪录片、烛光纪念、文化交流、街头展览和历史遗址参访等不同形式，使文革讨论不只停留在六十年前的历史事件，也延伸到政治制度、历史记忆、个人权利以及如何防止类似灾难重演等现实问题。
对与会者而言，文革六十周年所留下的问题仍然是：
历史为什么会发生，又应该建立怎样的制度，才能使历史不再重演？
作者简介：
德国光华社（Kuanghua Society e.V.）是一个总部位于德国的非营利性华裔互助与人权社团，由张冠元担任社长。
社团主要致力于为在德的华人提供生活融入与法律援助，同时联合欧洲华裔民主力量，开展人权倡导、历史纪念及学术研讨活动，推动自由、民主与宪政理念。
编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：王滨 翻译：戈冰
“Symposium on the 60th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution” Held in Nuremberg
Figures at Home and Abroad Reflect on History and China’s Future
Author: Editorial Department of Guanghua Press
Abstract: The “Symposium on the 60th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution” was held in Nuremberg, Germany, where attendees from many parts of the world engaged in discussions and commemorative activities around topics such as historical memory of the Cultural Revolution, political systems, and China’s future.
From September 16 to 18, 2026, the “Symposium on the 60th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution” was held in Nuremberg, Germany. Scholars, writers, media personnel, and social activists from Europe, Asia, the Americas, Australia, and other regions attended the conference, carrying out discussions centered on topics including historical memory of the Cultural Revolution, political systems, culture and religion, mass movements, historical narratives, and China’s future.
The three-day event included panel discussions, documentary screenings, a candlelight commemoration, open discussions, a street historical exhibition, and visits to sites related to the Nuremberg trials, the Way of Human Rights, and other historical locations. Public materials from the conference show that the symposium was co-hosted by Beijing Spring and the “Global Forum for Supporting Democratization in China and Asia.”
The German Committee — Guanghua Press and the French Committee of the China Democracy Party (Netherlands Headquarters) also sent representatives to participate in this event. In addition to participating in conference discussions, commemorations, and historical visits, members of Guanghua Press also undertook part of the live streaming, photography, and video recording tasks on site. Among them, Zhang Guanyuan, President of Guanghua Press, and Yang Xiaojie respectively entered the official symposium agenda and delivered speeches.
Multi-Angle Reflection on the History and Systemic Issues of the Cultural Revolution
On the morning of September 17, the symposium entered its official agenda. The opening segment began with a period of silent tribute for the victims of the Cultural Revolution and the June 4th Massacre, as well as deceased pro-democracy movement figures.
The opening speech by Yu Dahai, President of Beijing Spring, was read on his behalf by Xue Wei, following which a representative from the Tibetan side read a telegram sent to the symposium by the Dalai Lama. The first session of the panel was hosted by Fei Liangyong and Xue Wei.
Fei Liangyong first read on behalf of Yan Jiaqi the article written for the conference titled “The Common Root of the Cultural Revolution and ‘June 4th’.” From the perspective of political systems and the operation of power, the article discussed the historical connection between the Cultural Revolution and the June 4th Incident of 1989.
German scholar Dr. Thomas Weyrauch, under the title “The Germans and Their ‘Cultural Revolution’,” reviewed the dissemination and impact of Maoism and the Cultural Revolution among certain radical left-wing groups in West Germany at the time, and discussed the historical background of how some European leftists formed an idealized perception of China’s Cultural Revolution back then.
Hu Ping, speaking via video, delivered a presentation titled “The Role and Fate of the Central Cultural Revolution Group in the Cultural Revolution,” reviewing the power formation, political function, and ultimate fate of the Central Cultural Revolution Group.
The second session of the panel revolved around topics such as institutional transformation, historical experience, and social governance.
Professor Lee Yo-tan of National Chengchi University in Taiwan delivered a presentation titled “Reflecting on the Democratic Transformation of China’s Totalitarian System from the Cultural Revolution,” starting from the political experience of the Cultural Revolution to discuss the issue of transition from authoritarian and totalitarian politics to a democratic system.
Dr. Wang Weiluo, a hydraulic engineering expert, approached the topic through major hydraulic disasters, discussing the decision-making, systemic, and accountability mechanisms behind major public events.
Taiwanese scholar Professor Lai Ying-chuan, combining the historical experience of Soviet and Russian political development, discussed totalitarian political legacies and issues of social transformation.
Molly, a writer residing in Sweden, presented “The Cultural Revolution in China and the Mirror Spectacle of the Trump Era: Human Madness and Historical Absurdity Return,” comparing the mass politics of the Cultural Revolution era with certain contemporary American political phenomena from her observational perspective. This comparison represents the speaker’s own political analysis.
The representative from the Tibetan side presented under the title “From the Cultural Revolution to ‘Cultural Revolution 2.0’: Historical Memory and Cultural Heritage of Tibet,” discussing the Cultural Revolution, historical memory, and cultural heritage from the historical experience of the Tibetan people.
Germany-based scholar Peng Xiaoming reviewed the impact of family background and political status on individual education, employment, and social destiny during the Cultural Revolution era, analyzing it from the perspective of political discrimination.
Historical Narratives, Religion, and Nonviolent Movements Enter Discussion
The third session of the panel in the afternoon was hosted by Lee Yo-tan and Li Li.
Taiwanese media practitioner and Tamkang University professor Dr. Liao Yu-shih presented “From the Cultural Revolution to ‘Telling the China Story Well’: How Historical Memory Shapes the National Narratives of China and Taiwan,” discussing how historical memory undergoes selection, interpretation, and dissemination, which in turn influences differing social and national narratives across the Taiwan Strait.
Writer and media professional Chang Ping delivered a speech titled “Looking at the CCP’s Long-Concealed Agenda Setting from the ‘Resolutions on History’,” analyzing official historical narratives and political agenda setting starting from CCP historical documents and political language.
Rui Hu discussed “The Impact of the Cultural Revolution on Religious Faith,” examining how religion suffered blows during the Cultural Revolution era and the long-term effects this history had on individual faith and social spiritual life.
Dr. Zhong Jinjiang from Australia led a discussion around “The Essential Differences Between the Mass Movement of the Cultural Revolution and Nonviolent Resistance Mass Movements,” comparing different types of mass movements within the framework of “Peace, Rationality, and Nonviolence.”
In addition, Chen Yangchao submitted an article discussing Mao Zedong’s political objectives in launching the Cultural Revolution, which was read on his behalf by Fei Liangyong; Li Dongcheng presented under the title “Bandit System, Hooligan Nature, and the Toxic Legacy of the Cultural Revolution,” discussing the legacy of the Cultural Revolution from the perspectives of political system and political culture.
From “Down to the Countryside” to the Inner Mongolia “Neiren Dang” Incident
The fourth panel session of the day was hosted by Zhang Yu and Kai Sa.
Dr. Qian Yuejun presented “The Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside Movement of the Cultural Revolution,” discussing this policy and its impact on the life trajectories of a generation of educated youth.
Wang Longmeng, combining personal and ethnic memories as a descendant of the Mongol ethnic group, reviewed the Inner Mongolia “Neiren Dang” (Inner Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party) incident during the Cultural Revolution, as well as the long-term trauma left behind by related political movements.
Fei Liangyong, from the perspective of what he termed “modern political civilization,” reanalyzed political documents of the Cultural Revolution. He advocated re-examining the Cultural Revolution and its political mechanisms through principles such as human rights, the rule of law, procedural justice, and checks and balances on power.
Guanghua Press Delegation Participates in the Conference
The German Committee — Guanghua Press and the French Committee of the China Democracy Party (Netherlands Headquarters) sent multiple members to participate in the event this time, including Ai Shicheng, head of the French Committee, as well as Zhang Guanyuan, Wu Weiguang, Tang Guogang, Zhang Na, Yang Xiaojie, Li Taohong, and others.
According to information provided by Guanghua Press, several younger members in the delegation participated in this event. During the conference, a number of older figures who have long been involved in the overseas Chinese democracy movement also engaged in exchanges with the younger attendees.
On site, another representative, a second-generation Uyghur German immigrant, spoke in English. Because she does not speak Chinese, Zhang Guanyuan provided live Chinese translation. In her speech, she spoke of her personal experience facing difficulties contacting some of her relatives in her homeland, and expressed concern over the situation of the Uyghur people and the impact of authoritarian politics.
Zhang Guanyuan Discusses “Anti-Bipolarity and Everyday Integration”
Zhang Guanyuan, President of Guanghua Press, presented “Simply Because the Evil Fog Has Risen Once More: On the CCP’s Eighty-Year Devastation of the Chinese Cultural Spirit.”
Starting from personal experience and modern Chinese political culture, Zhang Guanyuan discussed what he sees as the impact of successive CCP political campaigns on traditional culture, social psychology, and interpersonal relations.
His speech simultaneously proposed the concept of “anti-bipolarity and everyday integration.”
Zhang Guanyuan expressed that totalitarianism is not only a political system, but can also shape a “black-or-white” way of thinking. If those opposing authoritarianism still handle differences within their own organizations by suppressing dissenting views and manufacturing enemy-versus-us relationships, they risk replicating in their behavior the very political culture they oppose.
From this, he proposed that democratic transformation should not merely be understood as a short-term political event, but rather a long-term process of social and cultural construction; political expression should also reduce empty slogans and personal attacks, communicating values and ideals through language, humor, music, and everyday life experiences that are more easily understood by ordinary people.
At the conclusion of his speech, Zhang Guanyuan re-lyricized and performed “The East is Black” to the melody of “The East is Red,” expressing his political views through music and banter.
Yang Xiaojie: “The Cultural Revolution is Not History; the Cultural Revolution Continues”
Yang Xiaojie delivered a keynote speech titled “The Cultural Revolution is Not History; the Cultural Revolution Continues.” He expressed that reflections on the Cultural Revolution should not remain solely on historical phenomena such as Red Guards, struggle sessions, house ransackings, and armed clashes, but should further question: why such a political disaster was able to occur, and why it could not be effectively halted over a long period.
Yang Xiaojie expressed that when supreme power lacks effective constraints, and the judiciary, media, and social oversight cannot exercise independent roles, the political will at the highest level can be continuously transmitted downward through administrative, propaganda, and social mobilization systems, resulting in “intensification at every level” during execution.
Citing the concept of “evil resonance” proposed by Fei Liangyong, he described this mechanism as supreme power, the party-government structure, the propaganda system, local officials, and ordinary individuals participating to varying degrees and reinforcing one another. The speech subsequently extended from the history of the Cultural Revolution to contemporary China.
Yang Xiaojie mentioned that in 2018, China amended its constitution, removing the provision that the President and Vice President “shall serve no more than two consecutive terms.” This modification belongs to the content of the promulgated constitutional amendments; Chinese officials at the time explained the change as improving the national leadership system and maintaining centralized, unified leadership.
Yang Xiaojie, however, offered criticism on this from a different political stance, expressing that although modern political control clearly differs in the tools used compared to the 1960s, what remains most worthy of attention is whether power can be effectively constrained by law and institutions.
He said: “The truly important question is not whether one can encounter a good emperor, but whether, when a bad leader appears, the people have ways to limit him, oversee him, and replace him through peaceful means.”
At the conclusion of the speech, Yang Xiaojie placed the focus of discussion on systemic issues such as democracy, the rule of law, judicial independence, freedom of the press, fundamental human rights, and the checks and balances on power.
He expressed that commemorating the victims of the Cultural Revolution should not remain merely at the commemorative event itself, but rather establish institutions to prevent power from losing control again.
Yang Xiaojie ended his speech with the phrase “The Cultural Revolution is over,” explaining that only when no individual or political party can stand above the constitution and the law does this sentence truly hold institutional meaning.
Live Streaming and Visual Recording
In addition to participating in the panel discussions, members of Guanghua Press also undertook part of the conference dissemination and visual recording work. Tang Guogang conducted live streaming during the event, disseminating portions of the panel discussions, speeches, and on-site activities over the internet.
Yang Xiaojie carried out photography and video recording over several consecutive days, documenting conference speeches, commemorative ceremonies, the historical exhibition, visits to Nuremberg’s historical sites, and group photos of attendees.
Guanghua Press stated that it hopes these photos and videos will serve as visual materials for this event, to be used for subsequent news reporting, biographical materials, and historical archiving.
After the conclusion of the conference, several members of Guanghua Press also gave separate interviews to overseas Chinese-language media, introducing the symposium as well as the organization’s views on issues of China’s democracy, rule of law, and human rights.
Attendees Engage via Music and Humor Following Candlelight Commemoration
On the evening of September 17, attendees held a candlelight commemoration to mourn the victims of the Cultural Revolution and the June 4th Massacre, as well as deceased pro-democracy movement figures.
Zhang Yu of the Independent Chinese PEN Center introduced the literary creations of writer Yi Ping, and Yi Ping’s wife, Zhou Lin, recited his work.
The evening event of that day subsequently shifted from serious historical discussion to more relaxed cultural exchanges. Accompanied by live music from musicians, attendees from different regions sang Hong Kong and Taiwan songs as well as campus folk songs.
Dr. Liao Yu-shih, who previously worked in broadcasting, was also invited by attendees to recreate past broadcasting scenes directed toward Mainland China using her broadcasting presentation style.
Fei Liangyong, Chang Ping, Zhang Guanyuan, and others also participated in the exchanges with political jokes and humorous expressions. Zhang Guanyuan expressed that discussing politics through music, humor, and everyday life approaches can reduce the distance between grand political discourse and ordinary people, echoing the concept of “anti-bipolarity and everyday integration” he proposed in his speech.
Visiting Historical Sites of the Nuremberg Trials
On September 18, attendees moved from the conference room to the historical sites of Nuremberg, visiting in succession locations related to the Nuremberg trials, as well as visiting the former Nazi Party Rally Grounds, Documentation Center, Way of Human Rights, City Hall, and Imperial Castle, among other places. Visits to these historical locations were also part of the conference’s original agenda.
[Photo: Attendees taking a group photo in front of a building related to the Nuremberg trials. (Photo: Xiaojie Yang)]
Some participants stated that issues of state crime, individual responsibility, and judicial accountability involved in the Nuremberg trials reminded them of political persecutions in Chinese history, leading them to further ponder how to address severe human rights violations through legal procedures in the future.
This phrasing is more suitable for a news release compared to the “Beijing Grand Trials” in the original draft: it retains the participants’ envisioning of future accountability without framing an unfulfilled political outcome as a established fact.
On the afternoon of that day, attendees also held a street historical exhibition near St. Lorenz Church in Nuremberg, themed “From the Cultural Revolution to June 4th, and On to Cultural Revolution 2.0.”
At the event site, local residents and tourists stopped to read the display boards, and some engaged in conversations or took photos with the participants.
On the evening of that day, the conference held its final open discussion with the theme “Opposing Cultural Revolution 2.0, Advancing Democratization,” hosted by Fei Liangyong and Xue Wei.
At 21:30, Fei Liangyong delivered a summary of the three-day conference and related activities, after which Xue Wei announced the conclusion of this “Symposium on the 60th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution” in Nuremberg. Post-conference reports also documented the speeches by Zhang Guanyuan and Yang Xiaojie, as well as activities including the candlelight commemoration, historical exhibition, and visits to historical sites in Nuremberg.
Through various formats such as special reports, personal historical memories, documentaries, candlelight commemorations, cultural exchanges, street exhibitions, and visits to historical sites, the three-day event ensured that discussions on the Cultural Revolution did not merely remain on historical events of sixty years ago, but also extended to practical issues such as political systems, historical memory, individual rights, and how to prevent similar disasters from recurring.
For the attendees, the question left by the 60th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution remains:
Why did history happen, and what kind of system should be established to ensure that history does not repeat itself?
About the Author:
Kuanghua Society e.V. is a Germany-based non-profit mutual-aid and human rights association of ethnic Chinese, with Zhang Guanyuan serving as president.
The association is primarily dedicated to providing social integration support and legal aid to Chinese people in Germany, while uniting European pro-democracy forces of ethnic Chinese to carry out human rights advocacy, historical commemorations, and academic symposiums, promoting the ideals of freedom, democracy, and constitutionalism.
Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Ge Bing
