BEIJING — On a spring evening in 1989, with the student occupation of Tiananmen Square entering its second month and the Chinese leadership unnerved and divided, top army commanders were summoned to headquarters to pledge their support for the use of military force to quash the protests.

北京——1989年春，学生对天安门广场的占领进入了第二个月，中国领导层紧张不安、意见相左。一天傍晚，军方高级将领被召集到军区总部，表态支持动用武力镇压抗议者。

1989年5月19日凌晨，中共中央总书记赵紫阳出现在天安门广场，呼吁学生停止绝食，这是他最后一次公开露面，当时他已失去了权力。时任中央办公厅主任温家宝（右二）后来成为国家总理。

One refused.

有一个人拒绝了。

1989年6月4日，在天安门广场附近的尸体。学生们抗议的是腐败、不公和通货膨胀。

In a stunning rebuke to his superiors, Maj. Gen. Xu Qinxian, leader of the mighty 38th Group Army, said the protests were a political problem, and should be settled through negotiations, not force, according to new accounts of his actions from researchers who interviewed him.

在强大的第38集团军担任军长的徐勤先少将，令人震惊地违抗了上级。根据采访过徐勤先本人的几名学者新近对其举动做出的描述，他当时表示，抗议活动属政治问题，应该通过谈判解决，不应动用武力。

李晓明（左五）在北京和战友的合影。照片由李晓明本人提供。

“I’d rather be beheaded than be a criminal in the eyes of history,” he told Yang Jisheng, a historian.

“宁杀头，不做历史罪人，”他告诉历史学者杨继绳。

现居澳大利亚的李晓明，是1989年奔赴天安门广场的军人之一。他说，“我们的部队受到的教导是，我们不准朝学生开第一枪。”

Although General Xu was soon arrested, his defiance sent shudders through the party establishment, fueling speculation of a military revolt and heightening the leadership’s belief that the student-led protests were nothing less than an existential threat to the Communist Party.

尽管徐勤先很快被捕，但他抗命一事令党内权势集团深感震动，不仅加剧了对军队倒戈的猜忌，也让领导层更坚定地相信，由学生领导的抗议活动是关涉共产党存亡的重大威胁。

The new details of the general’s defiance and the tremors it set off are among a series of disclosures about the intrigue inside the Chinese military preceding the bloody crackdown in Beijing on June 3 and 4, 1989, some contained in army documents spirited out of China in recent years, and others revealed in interviews with party insiders, former soldiers and other people directly involved in the events 25 years ago.

得到披露的一系列信息揭示了，1989年6月3日到4日的血腥镇压前，解放军内部的角力，其中包括徐勤先抗命的新细节，以及由此引发的震动。这些信息中，有一部分包含在近年来流出中国的军方文件里，还有一些则是通过对直接参与25年前的事件的党内人士和退伍军人进行采访而获得。

Contrary to rumors at the time, the documents show that army units did not fight one another. But they show that General Xu’s stand against the threatened use of lethal force fanned leaders’ fears that the military could be dragged into the political schisms and prompted party elders to mobilize an enormous number of troops.

与当时的传闻不同，这些文献显示，解放军并未内斗。不过，它们的确表明，徐勤先对采取致命武力所表达的反对立场，激起了领导层的忧虑——军队可能会陷入政治分裂。他的表态也促使党内元老调集了规模庞大的部队。

Even after a quarter century, the night of bloodshed remains one of the most delicate subjects in Chinese politics, subjected to unrelenting attempts by the authorities to essentially erase it from history. Yet even now, new information is emerging that modifies the accepted understanding of that divisive event.

尽管四分之一个世纪已经过去，但是那个血腥的夜晚却依然是中国政治中最敏感的话题之一，当局将它实质上从历史中抹去的努力一直没有懈怠。然而，就算到了今天，也仍有新的信息浮出水面，修正人们对这起分歧深重的事件公认的理解。

At the time, Deng Xiaoping, the party patriarch who presided over the crackdown, praised the military for its unflinching loyalty, and the image of a ruthlessly obedient army lingers even in some foreign accounts. But the military speeches and reports composed before June 4 that year, and in the months after, show soldiers troubled by misgivings, confusion, rumors and regrets about the brutal task assigned to them. “The situation was fluid and confusing, and we underestimated the brutality of the struggle,” Capt. Yang De’an, an officer with the People’s Armed Police, wrote in one assessment found among military documents acquired by the Princeton University Library. “It was hard to distinguish foes from friends, and the target to be attacked was unclear.”

当时，主持镇压的党内元老邓小平赞扬军队忠诚不二，就连一些国外的报道也保留了部队坚定冷酷地服从命令的形象。不过，1989年6月4日前夕及后来几个月的军队讲话和报告显示，对于下达的残酷任务，官兵们心存疑虑、感到困惑，流言和悔恨也让他们颇为不安。在普林斯顿大学图书馆(Princeton University Library)取得的中国军方文献中，有一份评估报告写道，武警杨德安称，“情况多变，很混乱。我们对斗争的残酷性估计不足。敌友难分，攻击目标也不明确。”

Some former soldiers and officials who agreed to talk about their roles in the crisis said they were alarmed by the state-enforced censorship and silencing of witnesses that has left a younger generation largely ignorant about one of the most devastating episodes in modern Chinese history.

一些退伍官兵同意谈论自己在这场危机中扮演的角色。他们表示，国家强制实施的审查，再加上制止目击者发声的做法，使得年轻一代对中国当代史中堪称最为沉痛的这一事件基本一无所知，这让他们忧心忡忡。

“I personally didn’t do anything wrong,” said Li Xiaoming, who in 1989 was among the troops who set off toward Tiananmen Square, “but I feel that as a member, a participant, this was a shame on the Chinese military.”

李晓明说，“我个人没有做错事，但我觉得作为其中一个成员，作为一个参与者，这是中国军队的一种耻辱。”1989年的时候，他就身在向天安门广场进发的部队当中。

While official secrecy makes it difficult to confirm elements of the new accounts, scholars who have reviewed the army’s internal reports, including unit-level descriptions of mobilization as well as detailed accounts about the violent confrontations with protesters, say they are authentic. An earlier attempt to pierce the party’s imposed blackout, “The Tiananmen Papers,” a collection of documents published in 2001, has been dogged by controversy about its intent and authenticity.

虽然官方的遮掩使得这些新说法的细节难以得到确认，但是研究过解放军内部报告的一些学者表示，这些说法真实可信。他们浏览的报告包括对部队动员的描述，以及对军队与抗议人群暴力冲突的详尽叙述。此前也曾有人尝试还原共产党强行抹去的记忆，于是有了2001年发表的文献集《天安门文件》(The Tiananmen Papers)，但外界对其意图与真实性的争议一直挥之不去。

The interviews and documents show that even at the time few in the military wanted to take direct responsibility for the decision to fire on civilians. Even as troops pressed into Beijing, they were given vague, confusing instructions about what to do, and some commanders sought reassurances that they would not be required to shoot.

采访与文献显示，就连在当时，军队里也没什么人原意承担向平民开火的直接责任。就在部队迫近北京的当口，他们接到的行动指令仍然含糊不清、令人费解，还有部分军官希望得到保证，他们不会接到开枪的命令。

In an interview, a former party researcher with military ties confirmed the existence of a petition, signed by seven senior commanders, that called on the leadership to withdraw the troops.

一位与军队有联系的前党内研究人员在接受采访时确认，存在一份由七名军官联署的请愿书，呼吁领导层退兵。

“The people’s military belongs to the people, and cannot oppose the people,” stated the petition, according to the former researcher, Zhang Gang, who was then trying to broker compromise between the protesters and the government. “Even less can it kill the people.”

这名前研究人员名为张刚，当时曾试图协调抗议者与政府达成妥协。他表示，请愿书中写道，“人民军队是属于人民的军队，不能同人民对立，更不能杀死人民。”

There were fewer episodes of outright military defiance, like that of General Xu. No dissident, he had written a letter in blood during the Korean War begging to join the army as an underage youth, according to Mr. Yang, the historian who was among the few people to interview him after 1989. The elite 38th Group Army, which General Xu commanded from a base about 90 miles south of Beijing, was a bulwark protecting the capital.

像徐勤先那样直接违抗军令的事件则更为少见。历史学者杨继绳是少数几个在1989年后采访过徐勤先的人之一，根据他的说法，徐勤先并非异见人士，当初为参加朝鲜战争而写下血书，不到年龄的他才得以参军。徐勤先指挥的第38集团军是精锐部队，驻扎在北京以南约150公里处，担负着保卫首都的重任。

Having witnessed the student protests during an earlier visit to Beijing, where he was receiving treatment for kidney stones, he feared the consequences of quelling them with troops trained to fight foreign invaders. Sending armed soldiers onto the streets, he warned, would risk indiscriminate bloodshed and stain the reputation of the People’s Liberation Army.

在事件之前，他曾赴京治疗肾结石，亲眼目睹了学生的抗议活动。军队的训练目的是抵御外敌入侵，他担忧，动用军队镇压抗议会产生恶劣的后果。他警告，派全副武装的军人上街，可能会造成子弹不长眼的流血，玷污人民解放军的声誉。

“If there was a conflict with ordinary civilians, and you couldn’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, who would shoulder responsibility for problems?” he later said, according to Dai Qing, a Beijing writer who had access to separate interview notes with the general.

据北京的作家戴晴所看到的访谈资料，徐勤先后来表示，“和老百姓发生冲突，好人坏人又分不清，出了事谁负责？”

In the end, General Xu agreed to pass the orders to his officers, but not to lead armed troops into the capital. He was arrested, expelled from the party, and served four years in prison, Mr. Yang said.

杨继绳表示，徐勤先最终同意向手下的官兵传达命令，但他本人不会带领武装部队进入首都。徐勤先遭到逮捕，并被开除党籍，还在监狱服刑四年。

In poor health, General Xu lives in a sanitarium for military officials in Hebei Province in northern China, according to another researcher who interviewed him and demanded anonymity for speaking. The general declined to be interviewed for this article.

据另一位采访过徐勤先的研究人员透露，徐勤先身体虚弱，住在河北省一家军队领导专用的干休所里。这名研究人员要求匿名。徐勤先拒绝就这篇文章接受采访。

According to an internal history of the army among the Princeton documents, his act kindled rumors among soldiers that officers of the 38th Group Army had resigned en masse and that the army had refused to enter Beijing. To counter the hearsay, officers of the 38th were assembled to condemn their former commander and pledge unyielding obedience in enforcing martial law, according to the army documents.

普林斯顿文献中部队内部的历史档案显示，徐勤先的举动在士兵中催生了谣言：38军的军官集体辞职，该军拒绝入京。军方文件显示，为了破除谣言，38军的军官被召集在一起，谴责他们的前任军长，并宣誓坚决服从命令，实行戒严。

But General Xu was not the sole dissenter within the military elite. Col. Wang Dong, a People’s Liberation Army officer and aide to a respected veteran commander, organized the petition of military leaders opposed to martial law, said Mr. Zhang, the former researcher. With Colonel Wang now dead, Mr. Zhang and others decided that the time had come to step forward with details of his role organizing the petition.

但徐勤先并不是军队高层中唯一的异议者。前研究员张刚表示，人民解放军军官王东上校是一位受人尊敬的老司令员的助手，他组织反对戒严的军队高层进行请愿。王东如今已经去世，张刚和其他人认为现在是时候公布他组织请愿的细节了。

Mr. Deng and his allies were so alarmed by spreading misgivings about martial law that they disconnected many of the so-called red phones that allowed senior officials to speak with one another, Mr. Zhang said. But Colonel Wang offered to use his elite connections to organize a show of dissent from within the military.

张刚表示，军中对戒严令的疑虑的扩散让邓小平等人非常担心，以至于他们切断了很多所谓的“红机子”。高层官员本可以通过这种电话互相联系。但王东试图利用自己的高层关系，组织军队内部人士表达不同意见。

Copies of the petition spread around Beijing that May, but its origins and authenticity were unclear, diminishing its impact. But Mr. Zhang, who had contacts with senior military officers, now says that he wrote down the statement and names during a phone call from Colonel Wang and then passed it on to friends who made copies.

1989年5月，请愿书的复印件传遍北京，但其来源和真实性却并不清晰，因此削弱了它的影响力。张刚曾与军队高级军官有联系，他如今表示，自己边接王东的电话，边记下了请愿书的内容和名字，之后将请愿书交给朋友，由他们进行了复写。

In interviews, several of those who took part in back-channel efforts to defuse the crisis described how Colonel Wang held a secret meeting with Wang Juntao and Zhou Duo, two liberal intellectuals who were trying to avert a military assault, even as they chided protesters for disorganization and naïveté. Both men recalled a long night in Mr. Zhou’s home when they peppered Colonel Wang with questions about attitudes in the army. He played down the risk of mass bloodshed, both men recalled.

几名曾私下努力化解危机的人接受采访时称，王东与王军涛、周舵举行了秘密会议，这两名自由主义知识分子当时在设法阻止军队发起攻击，同时也斥责抗议者组织混乱，思维天真。两人回忆称，他们在周舵家待了一晚上，反复询问王东有关军队态度的问题。两人均称，王东淡化了出现大规模流血事件的风险。

“He said, ‘If the Communist Party fires on and kills ordinary people, then wouldn’t the Communist Party be committing suicide?'  ” Mr. Zhou, who lives in Beijing, said in a telephone interview. He said they “absolutely never imagined it would turn out as brutally as it did.”

目前居住在北京的周舵接受电话采访时表示，“他说，‘如果共产党射杀平民百姓，那共产党不是在自杀吗？’”周舵表示，他们“绝对没有想到，最后的结局会是那么残酷”。

Even as the petition circulated around Beijing, 180,000 to 250,000 troops from across the country were mobilizing to enforce martial law. Although the resistance by ordinary Beijingers is well established, the documents and interviews describe the dismay, frustration and rumors that unsettled the military when residents were galvanized into defiance, rather than being cowed by the rush of soldiers clutching guns.

就在请愿书被传至北京各处之时，共有18万至25万名士兵从全国各地赶来实施戒严。虽然北京普通民众进行反抗的举动已经得到充分证实，但相关文件及采访内容说明，荷枪实弹的士兵进入北京时，居民们没有感到害怕，而是奋起反抗，由此在部队内部引发了沮丧、失望的情绪及谣言，这些都让士兵们有所动摇。

Many Beijing residents were swept up by the idealism of the students and their grievances over corruption, inequality and inflation. From May 19, as word of impending martial law leaked, tens of thousands of them poured out of their homes to stop the troops at key intersections, pleading with them to understand the students’ demands.

学生们的理想主义及他们对腐败、不平等现象和通货膨胀的愤懑之情感染了很多北京居民。从5月19日开始，随着即将戒严的消息走漏至外界，数以万计的民众走出家门，来到主要路口阻止军队进城，并恳请他们理解学生的诉求。

One soldier, Chen Guang, then 17, from rural Henan Province, said his unit was enveloped by students after its convoy of 10,000 soldiers was halted on Chang’an Avenue on May 20.

当时，来自河南农村的士兵陈光只有17岁。陈光表示，他的部队被学生围了起来，在此之前，也就是5月20日，他所属部队的一万名士兵被拦在长安街上。

For three days, as the weary, marooned soldiers clutched their rifles in the wilting sun, he recalled how residents and students brought them food and escorted them to toilets, all the while bombarding them with the message that theirs was a just cause. “Even in the restroom, there was no reprieve,” Mr. Chen said in an interview. “If one student would go hoarse yelling, another would take his place.”

他回忆称，在三天的时间里，疲惫不堪、孤立无援的士兵在炙烈的太阳下紧握枪支，居民和学生给他们送来食物，并带他们上厕所，还无时不刻地向他们灌输信息——他们从事的是正义的事业。“就连上厕所都不会停，”陈光接受采访时说。“一个人讲累了讲哑了，另一个上来继续跟你讲。”

Rattled by the impasse and worried that troops might waver in their loyalties, the commanders ordered their withdrawal, the documents say. “We wrote our names and addresses in their notebooks and there were quite a few tears as we pulled out,” Mr. Chen said, recalling makeshift banners that hung from windows hailing their loyalty to the people. “It felt like a victory after a battle.”

文件显示，这一僵局和军队的忠诚可能出现动摇的情况让将领们非常担心，他们命令士兵们撤退。“我们走的时候还在本子上给他们留下名字和通信地址，撤走时很多人都哭了，”陈光说，“感觉跟打了场胜仗似的。”陈光回忆称，车窗内挂着临时做好的横幅，宣示着他们对人民的忠心。

Over the next 10 days, several former soldiers said they were fed a confusing diet of indoctrination at their encampments on the outskirts of Beijing. They studied the speeches of Mr. Deng and were told the demonstrations were the work of a subversive minority bent on toppling the Communist Party.

几名军人表示，在接下来的十天时间里，他们在北京郊区的营地被灌输了一些令人困惑的思想。他们学习邓小平的讲话，被告知示威活动是由少数颠覆分子发起的，目的是推翻共产党。

Even as the troops imbibed the propaganda, the notion that they might have to shoot the demonstrators appeared remote, recalled Mr. Li, who was then 25 and a radar operator in the 39th Group Army. “Our unit was educated that we mustn’t fire the first shot at students, and if we fired the first shot at the public, we’d be responsible to history,” he said in an interview from Australia.

李晓明回忆称，即便在士兵们学习这种宣传思想时，可能必须朝示威者开枪的概念似乎还很遥远。李晓明当时25岁，是第39军的一名雷达兵。他在澳大利亚接受采访时表示，“我们的部队受到的教导是，我们不准朝学生开第一枪，如果我们朝老百姓开了第一枪，我们就得对历史负责。”

Even after over a week of such training, commanders worried about the commitment of the troops to take the square.

即使是接受了一周这样的培训，将领们依然担心军队夺取广场的决心有多大。

“They’re baffled why so many members of the public have taken part in the demonstrations,” Gen. Yang Baibing, whose older brother was a confidant of Mr. Deng’s, told military officers on May 31, according to a compilation of party and military speeches at Princeton. “Some comrades have all kinds of views and doubts about stopping the turmoil.”

根据普林斯顿大学图书馆汇总的党内及军队讲话记录，杨白冰上将曾在5月31日对军官们说，“有些同志对为什么有这么多群众参加游行有些困惑不解。”杨白冰的兄长是邓小平的亲信。“有些同志对制止动乱还有这样那样的想法和疑惑。”

The messages of restraint were jettisoned on June 3, when the troops received orders to retake the square by early the next day “at any cost,” former soldiers said.

6月3日，保持克制的讯息被放弃了。一些当年的士兵表示，军队当天接到了命令，要求“不惜一切代价”在第二天清早夺回天安门广场。

“Reach Tiananmen or die,” party members from one battalion declared in a ceremony before they set off, according to one entry. In some units, troops recorded their determination with oaths signed in blood. But amid the bravado, there was also fear and confusion, magnified by rumors of mutinous units who might turn on other armies, according to soldiers who were there and the military documents.

根据一份记录，有一个营的党员在出发前的仪式上宣称，“誓死到达天安门。”有些部队的军人用写血书立誓的方式表决心。然而，根据现场士兵的描述和军方的文件，这种虚张声势还夹杂了恐惧和困惑，而后两种情绪因抗命部队可能会调转枪头的流言而被强化。

“At that moment, some officers and soldiers experienced some mental turmoil,” read an account by the 63rd Group Army, based in Shanxi in northern China, which was one of the principal forces mobilized for the crackdown. “Some felt the situation was grim and experienced some panic. Some felt that they had already tried to go in twice, and going in this time would be perilous.”

驻扎在山西省的第63集团军的一份记录显示，“当时部分官兵思想上出现了一些波动。”63军是被调集实施镇压的主要力量之一。“有的感到事态严重，心里有些恐慌。有的感到两次都没法进去，对这次开进有些畏难。”

When troops from the 39th Group Army’s 116th Division left its temporary base in far eastern Beijing, Mr. Li, the radar operator, recalled his biggest fear was that they might have to fight the 38th Group Army, whose loyalty had been thrown in doubt by General Xu’s defiance and rumors of wider defections. He grabbed a semiautomatic rifle and extra ammunition just in case.

雷达兵李晓明回忆，当39军116师离开北京东部远郊的临时驻地时，他最大的恐惧是，他们部队可能要打38军，因为后者的忠诚因徐勤先的抗命及存在更广泛背叛的传言而遭到质疑。

As the troops set out with their orders to take the square and other important positions, they lacked standard tools for crowd control as well as clear instructions about how and when to use their guns.

当军队带着夺取广场等重要场所的命令进发时，他们既缺乏控制群众的常规工具，又没有得到关于如何开枪及何时开枪的清晰指示。

“There was a lack of protective equipment and nonlethal weapons,” read one People’s Armed Police assessment of the crackdown in the documents. “Imagine if they had tear gas, flash grenades, shields, helmets and other protective equipment.”

“缺乏防护器材与非致命性武器，”文献中有一份关于武警部队对镇压行动的评估报告这样写道。“缺乏防护器材与非致命性武器。设想，若配有催泪弹、闪光弹、盾牌、头盔等防护器材。”

Mr. Li said he was spared the decision of whether to fire by his divisional commander, Xu Feng, who ignored instructions to plow toward Tiananmen. Instead, after learning of the unfolding bloodshed, Commander Xu kept his troops in the eastern suburbs, where the turmoil was less intense, and pretended his battalion’s communication radio had malfunctioned. Mr. Li can still recall the frantic calls: “Division 116, Division 116, where are you?”

李晓明说，他所在的116师的师长许峰没有理会向天安门广场进发的命令，他因而无需决定是否开枪。在得知军队展开血腥镇压后，许峰在冲突较为缓和的东郊按兵不动，还假装军中的无线电通讯出了故障。李晓明仍然能回忆起电台里疯狂的呼叫：“116师、116师，你们在哪儿？”

In the precincts where there was large-scale killing, confusion dogged the troops at every turn, the documents suggest.

文献显示，在发生大规模屠杀的区域，军队在每次行动的关头都颇为迷惘。

Chinese leaders approved the use of live fire around 9:30 to 10 that night, according to Wu Renhua, a scholar who took part in the protests. He has written two books in Chinese about the military crackdown and now lives in Los Angeles. Passed down orally, he said, the directive lacked guidance on when or how to shoot and it most likely did not reach all units.

根据参加了当时抗议活动的学者吴仁华的说法，领导层大约是在当晚9：30分到10点之间批准使用实弹。吴仁华撰写了两本关于军方镇压行动的中文书籍，目前生活在洛杉矶。他说，指令是口头传达的，关于何时开枪、如何开枪并没有给出指示，而且，很有可能未能传达到所有部队。

“Whether the shooting should be into the air or into the crowd was left unclear,” he said in a telephone interview.

他在电话采访中说，“朝天鸣枪，还是对人群开枪，没有说清楚。”

Wang Yongli, who was riding with the 38th Army, described how some civilians threw bricks and bottles at the troops and then attacked military vehicles with iron bars. He said that the soldiers, shaking with fear and rage, first shot into the air, but at some point, the rifle sights were aimed at the crowds. “No one said to shoot, but it was, like, ‘We’re going to teach them a lesson,’ and then those soldiers unleashed their fury,” he said. “You pulled the trigger and bang, bang, bang, it was like rain, the noise shaking the heavens.”

据与38军同行的王永利（音译）描述，一些民众向军队扔砖头和瓶子，然后用铁棍袭击军车。他表示，战士们又紧张又生气，一开始向天开枪，不过，到了某个时刻，他们的步枪瞄准了人群。“也没说打，（当官的）就说‘狠狠教训下这些人，’那战士手就发狠了，”他说。“啪，一扣那个扳机，轰轰轰轰轰，跟下雨似的，哗地就朝天上打去了。”

Although an accurate death toll may never be known, estimates of the number of civilians killed by gunfire or crushed by tanks range from the hundreds to more than 1,000. The government estimated that 300 lives were lost, many of them soldiers.

尽管确切的死亡人数或将永远不得而知，但据估计，被枪杀或遭坦克碾死的平民少说也有数百人，多则有逾千人。政府估算的数据是300人丧生，其中许多是士兵。

The next day at dawn, Mr. Yang, the historian, then a reporter with the Xinhua news agency, made his way to Muxidi, a neighborhood west of the square that was the scene of some of the fiercest resistance to the military attack.

第二天的黎明，当时是新华社记者的历史学者杨继绳设法赶到了木樨地。这一带位于天安门广场以西，军队的攻击行动在此遭遇到了某些最为激烈的抵抗。

He saw a tangle of abandoned bikes, charred vehicles and drying pools of blood. “Everywhere you looked there were bullet holes,” he recalled. But perhaps the most chilling sight, he said, was the crimson-colored graffiti slathered across a wall. “People’s Blood!” it read. “People’s Blood!”

他看到废弃的自行车凌乱地堆在地上，还有烧焦的车辆和一滩滩干涸的血迹。他回忆道，“到处都是枪眼。”不过他说，最让人不寒而栗的场景，也许是一面墙上涂抹的厚厚的血红大字，写的是“人血！人血！”