被遗忘的战争：印度人高呼1967年胜利，各国网友开怼了！_风闻

众所周知，在1962年时中印之间曾爆发过一场围绕领土争端而展开的边境战争，对此次以中国方面宣告胜利而终结的战争，中国方面称之为“对印自卫反击战”，印度方面称之为“瓦弄之战”。

但是鲜为人知的是，仅仅就在1962年中印战争之后的仅仅5年，中印之间又爆发过一次规模中等，却几乎快要被世界遗忘，却被印度时刻强调胜利的边境战争….

近日，针对这场“被世人遗忘的战争”，印度网友发出了疑问：1967年，印度有没有打败中国？

1、Chaitanya Belwal

India China did have a war in 1967, which was fought in 2 locations. The war composed of two battles, in Nathu La and Cho La both in the eastern theater. Unlike 1962, the Chinese did not open a front in the Northern area (Ladakh/Aksai Chin). This was mainly because in the 1962 war the PLA did not make any major advances in the North like they did in the Eastern theater.

印度和中国在1967年确实发生过战争，战争发生在两个地方。这场战争由两场战役组成，分别发生那都拉和秋拉，两地都位于东部地区。与1962年不同，中国没有在北部地区(拉达克/阿克赛钦)开辟战线。这主要是因为在1962年的战争中，解放军没有像在东部战区那样在北方取得任何重大进展。

The two incidents were at Nathu La and Cho La and stemmed from Chinese maneuvers to take control of Sikkim. Thinking that the defenses India had were as weak as they were in 1962, the Chinese mobilized forces. However, the Indian forces took preemptive action and started to demark the boundary using barbed wire. This was stopped by the Chinese, and after some time they started a full surprise assault backed by MMG and artillery fire.

两次战斗分别发生在那都拉和秋拉，原因是中国人认为印度的防御像1962年一样虚弱，然而，印度军队采取了先发制人的行动，开始用带刺的铁丝网标明边界。这一行动被中国人阻止了，一段时间后，他们在中型机枪和炮火的支持下发动了全面突袭。

However, since the Indians occupied the heights, The 1967 war was a decisive Indian victory, and was the catalyst of Sikkim merging with India in 1975.

然而，由于印度占领了高地，1967年的战争是印度决定性的胜利，也是1975年锡金与印度合并的催化剂。

More Details:

更多细节：

Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia

那都拉和秋拉冲突——维基百科。

2、Kevin

China have a different version which have more acculate records, acculated to minutes even the quantity of bullets used.Forget the Wikipedit, Chinese do not use and edit them, it is not so reliable if it is edit by indians or others who did not know Chinese words, and just take the opinion of indians.

中国有不同的描述，记录的更加准确，而且精确到了分钟甚至子弹的使用量。忘记维基百科吧，中国人不使用和编辑它们，如果它是由印度人或其他不懂中文的人编辑，只是采纳印度人的意见，就不那么可靠了。

3、 Yankai

I don’t assume Indian friends’ claims are wrong.I will only provide PLA’s records of that skirmish so you can obtain information from both sides.All the information of wikipedia term—Nathu La and Cho La clashes - Wikipedia comes from Indian side.

我不认为印度朋友的说法是错误的。我只会提供解放军关于那次冲突的记录，这样你就可以从双方获得信息。维基百科术语“内苏拉”和“周拉冲突”的所有信息——维基百科都来自印度方面。

Sep 11, 7:30 India approach to the chinese sentry post. China stick the discipline of not to shoot first. And request india soliders to step back.

9月11日7:30印度接近中国哨所。中国坚持不先开枪的纪律。并要求印度士兵退后。

Sep11, 8:05 India solider shoot first with grenade. Killed a company commender named Li Yancheng who is speaking and request india soliders to step back. Another 5 chinese soliders wounded.

9月11日8:05印度士兵首先用手榴弹射击。杀死了一个叫李彦成的连级指导员，他正在讲话并要求印度士兵退后。另有5名中国士兵受伤。

Then chinese soliders shoot back, finished the conflict in 7 minutes, killed 67 india soliders, destroyed 7 india fortification with model 40 rocket launcher.

随后，中国士兵进行还击，在7分钟内完成冲突，打死67名印度士兵，用40型火箭发射器摧毁了7座印度防御工事。

8:15 India solider run out of china controled area.Chinese solider didn’t chase into the india controled area. (Many india soliders’ dead bodies left in china, when the conflict finished, the india soliders take a white flag into china to get these bodies back.)

8:15印度士兵逃出中国控制区，中国士兵没有冲进印度控制区。（许多印度士兵的尸体留在中国，冲突结束后，印度士兵拿着白旗进入中国，把这些尸体运回中国。）

Then india artillery No.17 brigade started fire. Then chinese artillery No. 380 regiment fire back with their 82 and 120 mortars.

随后，印度炮兵17旅开火。然后中国380炮兵团用82和120迫击炮还击。

During the 4 days and 3 nights artillery conflict, Chinese artillery destroyed 8 artillery positons, 2 command post, 2 sentry post, 23 fortifications and 2 trucks. Killed and wounded 540 india soliders. Finally, india artillery stop fire at Sep 13, 22:00, then china stopped at Sep 14, midday after the indicate of premier Zhou Enlai. (If india stopped fire, we stop as well).

在4天3夜的炮战中，中国炮兵摧毁了8个炮位、2个指挥所、2个哨所、23个工事和2辆卡车。540名印度士兵伤亡。最后，印度炮兵在9月13日22:00停止射击，中国在周恩来总理指示下于9月14日中午停止射击。（如果印度停止了射击，我们也会停止）。

In Oct 1th, 11:20, total 7 india soliders crossed the border and try to kidnap a chinese solider back to india, but failed and then they were pushed back to the india border. As usual, india solider shoot first killed 1 and wounded 1 chinese solider. Then chinese soliders fire back, killed all 7 india soliders who cross the border.

10月1日11时20分，共有7名印度士兵越境试图让一名中国士兵叛逃印度，但随后他们又回到了印度边境。印度士兵首先开枪打死打伤了中国士兵。随后，中国士兵回击，击毙了所有7名越境的印度士兵。

The india artillery start fire use the 51mm and 81mm mortars.and chinese artillery fire back at 12:00, killed and wounded half of the two india companies total 195 india soliders. And destroyed 29 fortifications.

印度炮兵使用51毫米和81毫米迫击炮开火，中国大炮在12:00回击，造成两个印度连的一半伤亡，共有195名印度士兵。摧毁了29个防御工事。

India artillery stopped fire at 19:55, then china stopped.The result of this conflict:China killed 607 india soliders, capture 1 light machine guns, 9 submachine guns and 16 rifles.There are 6 chinese soliders killed or wounded.At last, india solider waves a white flag into china to get their dead bodies and weapon back. and signed in the accaptance document.

印度炮兵在19:55停止射击，然后中国停止射击。冲突的结果是：中国击毙607名印度士兵，缴获1支轻机枪、9支冲锋枪和16支步枪。有6名中国士兵伤亡。最后，印度士兵挥舞白旗进入中国，把他们的尸体和武器拿回来。并在验收文件上签字。

This is the whole process of the war. Or it should be compared with China’s。

这就是战争的全过程，或者应该与中国的进行一下比较。

4、AI Bo Shang

The result of the war was clear: Indian artillery stopped firing at 19:55 and the PLA stopped firing. In the end, 607 Indian soldiers were killed and 6 Chinese soldiers were killed. The Indian government never officially declared victory in the 1967 small-scale conflict. So basically, if your own government doesn’t think it’s a victory, what’s the basis of that claim? Indian netizens have edited 67 terms of little conflict in Wikipedia according to their wishes. Look at the references below. You will understand. In fact, Indian officials demanded on September 16 that the PLA return 14 bodies, 24 seized guns and other items. I don’t know where they got that number - “340 casualties.”.

战争的结果是显而易见的：印度大炮在19:55停止射击，解放军也停止射击。最终，607名印度士兵伤亡、6名中国士兵伤亡，印度政府官方从未正式宣布1967年那场小规模冲突取得胜利。因此，基本上，如果你自己的政府不认为这是一场胜利，那么这个主张的依据是什么？印度网民根据自己的意愿编辑了维基百科中67个小冲突的术语。看看下面的参考文献。你会明白的。事实上，印度官员在9月16日要求解放军归还14具尸体、24支缴获的枪支和其他物品。我不知道他们从哪里得到这个数字-“340人伤亡”。

5、Harsh Patel

In Indian perspective it was considered an unofficial victory because it prevented a repeat of 1962 war. ( Sort of ‘we repelled another invasion’).But frankly, Truth is first casualty in a war, maybe India was the aggressor, unfortunately this is something only few in government know.

在印度看来，这是一场非官方的胜利，因为它避免了1962年战争的重演。(类似于‘我们击退了另一次入侵’)。但坦率地说，真相是战争的第一个受害者，也许印度才是侵略者，不幸的是，只有少数政府官员知道这一点。

As they say in Geopolitics, truth is always twisted to fit one’’s narrative. This is true for every interaction between any two states.

正如人们所说，在地缘政治方面，真相总是以符合自己的叙述遭到扭曲。对于任意两个国家之间的每一次互动，这句话都适用。

6、Dev K Dutta

We have a fair idea of PLA claims and we don’t mind what the PLA likes to believe or not believe. We have our numbers and we have our figures in the right places. You have the freedom to be happy with your “overwhelming victory” in that war.

我们对PLA的主张有一个公平的想法，我们不介意PLA喜欢相信什么或不相信什么。我们有我们的数据，我们的数据有正确的来源。你有自由对你在那场战争中的“压倒性胜利”感到高兴。

However, we’re quite sure about the message we have been able to convey to your PLA. They know their place and our guys know their place. Till that status quo is maintained all will be fine. You cross the line…all hell will break loose.

然而，我们非常确定我们能够向你们的PLA传达信息。他们知道自己的位置，我们的人也知道自己的位置。只要维持现状，一切都没问题。如果你们越线了……你们就会大祸临头。

7、Chen Yankai

First, I never claimed it is an “overwhelming victory”. I even didn’t say PLA won in my answer.

首先，我从未宣称这是一场“压倒性的胜利”。我的回答中甚至没有说PLA赢了。

Second, according to the old records from Indian side in the bottom of my answer, I think PLA’s record, at least, is not totally wrong.

第二，根据我的答案底部的印度方面的旧记录，我认为解放军的记录至少不是完全错误的。

If PLA crossed the line and attacked, losing hundreds men and retreated, where were the bodies? Indian army absolutely could make these bodies as bargain chips.

如果解放军越线并发起进攻，损失了数百人并且撤退，那么尸体在哪里？印度军队绝对可以把这些尸体做成讨价还价的筹码。

Like I mentioned before, the opposite thing is: It’s Indian official went into China territory to get back bodies and weapons captured by PLA. These were recorded by both Chinese side and Indian side at that time. How to explain that?

就像我之前提到的，情况恰恰相反：印度官员进入中国领土拿回被PLA缴获的尸体和武器。当时中国和印度方面都对此进行了记录。这一点怎么解释

8、Dev K Dutta

This entire discourse is about implications and so when you claimed that 600+ Indian soldiers were killed by your PLA in the 1967 war you wanted to imply that China had won that war. You’re at liberty to believe whatever you like but it won’t change the situation on the ground. India prevented Sikkim from going into Chinese hands and conveyed a strong message - 1962 is no longer a yardstick for intimidation. Don’t cross the line!

你的整个论述充满了暗示，你说你们PLA在1967年伤亡了600多名印度士兵，就是想暗示中国赢得了那场战争。你喜欢相信什么就相信什么，这是你的自由，但这并不能改变当地的情况。印度阻止锡金落入中国之手，并传达了一个强烈的信息——1962年不再是恫吓的标准。不要越界！

As far as the bodies of the dead Chinese soldiers is concerned, you can rest assured that India has never and will never play dirty games with the dead bodies of enemy soldiers. Our culture and tradition forbids us to play dirty games with dead bodies. We don’t hide our casualties in wars and battles to influence historical records.

至于中国士兵的尸体，你可以放心，印度从来没有，也永远不会拿敌人士兵的尸体玩肮脏的游戏。我们的文化和传统禁止我们玩尸体游戏。我们不会为了影响历史记录而隐瞒我们在战争和战斗中的伤亡。

For us, the sacrifice and martyrdom of our soldiers is a reflection of strength, not weakness. When any of our soldiers makes the supreme sacrifice, we make it a point to let the world know about his/her martyrdom. It’s a matter of pride and inspiration for us. We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms. We call it Honor. The dead deserve a decent funeral even if they are enemy soldiers.

对我们来说，我们士兵的牺牲和殉难反映的是力量，而不是软弱。如果我们的任何士兵做出了最高的牺牲，我们都会让世界知道他/她的牺牲。这是我们的骄傲和鼓舞方式。我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。我们将这种做法称之为荣誉。即使是敌军士兵，他们也应该得到一个体面的葬礼。

FYI - captured dead bodies are usually returned by rival armies and ALWAYS returned by the Indian army. But captured weapons? Hell…No. Never. Indian, Chinese or any other army.

仅供参考：缴获的死尸通常会归还给敌军，而且印度军队总是做到了这一点。但是缴获武器？天……不，永远不会。无论是印度人、中国人或者任何军队都不会。

9、Chen Yankai

Calm down my friend.“607 Indian soldiers were killed or wounded.”The record never say 607 were killed…10–20% of the total casualties are expected to be killed, generally.

冷静一点，我的朋友。“607名印度士兵死亡或受伤。”一般来说，总伤亡人数的10-20%会死掉。

How many times do I need to illustrate: it’s just a record from one side. Don’t you think it’s unfair to watch information from only one side(India), especially like such things happening between two countries ?

需要我说明多少次？这只是一边的记录。难道你不认为只从一边(印度)看信息是不公平的吗？尤其是像这样的发生在两个国家之间的事情？

“We know that the Chinese casualties were close to 500 in that war and our troops didn’t stop your troops from carrying away the dead bodies of their comrades in arms.”—any records? Why was that moral action not recorded in both books written by Indians? Not 340? Now it becomes 500. You still didn’t explain why Indian bodies were in China territory.

“我们知道，在那场战争中，中国在这场战争中的伤亡人数接近500人，我们的军队没有阻止你们的军队带走他们战友的尸体。”有任何记录吗？为什么两本印度人写的书里都没有记录这种高尚的行为？这次又不是340了？又变成了500？你还是没有解释为什么印度人的尸体出现在中国的土地上。

PLA did return weapons in 62 and 67. It’s not difficult to google it.

PLA在62年和67年确实归还了武器。随便搜索一下，很容易搜到。

As for your saying that India could prevent China in 1950, honestly speaking, considering PVA’s performance in Korean War, it’s hard to say. Korean warBUT maybe you are quite right. Who knows.

至于你说印度原本可以在1950年阻止中国，老实说，考虑到印度军队在朝鲜战争中的表现，很难说。但是你说的没准非常正确呢。谁知道呢。

10、Ibrahim

Ha ha ha ha, my Chinese brother, I think you will be angry with that rude Indian. I don’t think we should get too involved with a rude person!

哈哈哈，我的中国兄弟，我想你会生那个粗鲁的印度人的气的。我认为我们不应该和一个粗鲁的人扯上太多关系！

A reminder from your sincerest Pakistani brother

你最真诚的巴基斯坦兄弟的提醒

11、Michael Luo

Yeah, India defeated China in 1962, 1967, and 1987. India will win over China forever!

是啊，印度在1962、1967和1987年都击败了中国。印度会永远击败中国。

12、Jaskaran Singh

Yes, india pushed back chinese forces in 1967, but i wouldnt consider it a war. It was a skirmish between both nations with minimum casualties. Although, india is not the India of 1962 anymore so is not china. In a real war, china will easily defeat india in terms of military power and economy. It is best interests of india to not to engage in any military conflict for at least few decades

是的，印度在1967年击退了中国军队。但我不觉得这是一场战争。这只是两国之间的一场小冲突，而且伤亡有限。但是印度不再是1962年的印度，中国也一样。在实际战争中，中国在军事力量和经济方面都会轻易击败印度。在至少几十年内，印度挑起任何军事冲突都不符合印度的最佳利益。

13、Benedicto Braz

India suffered casualties of 900, China only 6, and it was reported in Indian media in 1967.

印度的伤亡为900人，中国只有6人，这是印度媒体1967年的报道。

However, several year later, India paid Indian DNA writers to write in Wiki to make false claims in Wiki.

然而，几年后，印度付钱给那些有印度血统的作者，去撰写维基百科词条，在维基百科上造假。

India lost heavily and then no more armed conflicts between India and China. until The year before last, June 26 2017.

印度输得很惨，然后印度和中国之间就再也没有发生武装冲突了。直到前年，2017年6月26日。

14、Eld Sun

yes. badly.

是的，很惨。

all India army was protect by Shiva.

印度所有的军队都获得了湿婆的保护。

PLA just can not won. they just can not .

PLA无法获胜，就是这样。

China will never defeat India i believe.

我相信中国永远无法打败印度。

hope India stop invade us. because if they try, they can take Anywhere in the world easily.

希望印度不要再侵略我们，因为如果印度一出手，他们就能轻易攻占世界任何地方。

For the Shiva~~~~~~~

为了湿婆~~~

15、Vishnu Kumar

all in ONE sentence:if they indians had won any war or conflict,they would not be so much more hating China than any other countries since that time till now,then all the time,all the way.

我只说一句：如果他们印度人真的打赢了任何战争或者冲突，那么从那时起，他们对中国的话题就不会这么多，多到超过任何其他国家，然后一直一直持续到现在。

no one who got victory would hate the ONE who got lose.spiritual victory cannot make u stronger.

任何获得胜利的人都不会铭记输掉的人。精神胜利法不会让你变强大。

keep in peace.

保持平和吧。

16、Hampton William

Indian Media report in 1967: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 6.

印度媒体1967年的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，6名PLA受伤；

Indian Media report in 1970s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 12.

印度媒体70年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，12名PLA受伤；

Indian Media report in 1980s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 120.

印度媒体80年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，120名PLA受伤；

Indian Media report in 1990s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 220.

印度媒体90年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，220名PLA受伤；

Indian Media report in 2000s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 300.

印度媒体00年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，300名PLA受伤；

Indian Media report in 2010ss: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 400.

印度媒体2010年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，100名PLA受伤；

….

Prediction:

预测：

Indian Media report in 2020s: There was a conflict in 1967: PLA wound: 4,000.

印度媒体2020年代的报道：1967年发生了一场冲突，4000名PLA受伤；

Because India lost heavily again in 1967.

因为印度在1967年损失惨重。

India army: death over 200, wound: over 600.

印军：死亡超过200人，受伤超过600人；

PLA death: 0, Wound: 6.

PLA：死亡0，受伤6人。

The US general comments:

美国将军的评论：

Indian army is just like a butter, PLA is just like a hot knife.

印度军队就像一块黄油，PLA就像一把滚烫的刀子。

If PLA did not capture all Indian soldiers and weapons, and then returned to India in 1962 war, India would then claim India achieved a great victory against China in PLA in 1962.

如果在1962年战争中，PLA没有缴获所有的印度士兵和武器，然后再归还给印度，印度肯定会说印度在1962年打败中国，取得了一场伟大的胜利。

Similarly India would then post a question like：

印度人还会发出这样的一个问题：

“Why does China deny the fact that they lost the war against India in 1962”.

“中国在1962年战争中输给了印度，为什么中国否认这个事实？”

That’’s why India has been good at nothing, but false claiming for the past 70 years in the world.

这就是印度为什么在过去70年一事无成，却一直在全世界面前大吹法螺的原因。

17、California beast

Just reveal a small secret with you:In later Korean war, it was position to positional fight between the US soldiers and PLA.

告诉大家一个小秘密：在朝鲜战争后期，美国士兵和PLA之间进行着阵地对阵地的战争。

For one example:

举个例子：

PLA was defending its position from the US’’ attack from air, ground troops with over 500 soldiers.PLA was defending with 8 PLA soldiers (well prepared as it was mountains areas).

PLA防守一个阵地，面对美国来自空中的攻击，还有超过500名的地面部队。而PLA的防守兵力只有8个PLA士兵（因为是山区，所以准备的很好）。

After 12 hours fights:All PLA dead: 8US casualties: death 200, wound over 300.

经过12小时的战斗：PLA的阵亡人数8人，美军的伤亡则是死200，伤员超300。

PLA finally lost its position to US, and the survived US surprised that there were only 8 PLA in defending their position. In 1990s, the survived US soldiers went to China and ask PLA to explain what happened in that conflict as US still did not believe that there were only 8 PLA in the conflict.

PLA的这个阵地终于输给了美国，而幸存下来的美军惊讶的发现只有8个人防守这个阵地。90年代，幸存的美军士兵前往中国，要求PLA解释为什么会发生那样的战斗，因为美国人依旧不相信战斗中只有8个PLA战士。

Now come back to 1967 conflicts.

我们再说1967年冲突吧。

PLA knew that Indian army would attack PLA position one way or another (small war), as Indian government wanted to give moral to Indians, remember Indian army were scared to death to PLA.

PLA知道印度军队会时不时的攻击PLA的阵地（小型战争），因为印度政府想给印度人涨涨士气，因为印度军队对PLA怕得要死。

So you then know what happened. Indian casualties: Death 200, Wound 540 PLA casualties: Death: 0, wound 6.

所以大家都知道接下来会发生什么。印度伤亡：死200，伤员540。PLA伤亡：死0，伤员6人。

Indian army never experienced any serious and tough combats fights, as one US general said: Indian army is just like a butter and PLA is just like a hot knife.Do not boast how hard the butter is, it is just a butter.

印度军队从来没有经历过任何严肃和艰苦的作战，就像一名美国将军所说：印度军队就像一块黄油，而PLA就像一把烧热的刀子。不要吹嘘黄油有多硬，黄油就是黄油。

18、Thames flood

Love to see Indian media to fool Indians for decades.India tried the only revenge on PLA position, but suffered heavy loss. And then India had given up and surrendered since 1967.However, India made up so called victory against PLA in 1967.

我很喜欢看印度媒体几十年来愚弄印度人的做法。印度只想对PLA的哨所进行报复，却遭受了惨重的损失。然后从1967年以来，印度就放弃并投降了。然而，印度编造了所谓的1967年打败PLA取得胜利的故事。

If you look at Indian media in 1967, it stated that PLA wound 6.Then slowing Indian media as always exaggerated the figure: 6, then 12Recently, 200 and even 300.By year 2025, the Indian media would say that PLA casualties, 3000 Poor India.

看看印度媒体1967年的报道，它说的是PLA受伤6人。然后印度媒体就一如既往的夸大这个数字，从6变成12，最近是200，甚至300。等到2025年，印度媒体会说PLA的伤亡达到3000人。可怜的印度。

19、Like doughnuts

In 1962, India knew clearly who were commanders and leaders of PLA in the conflict.

1962年，印度清楚地知道谁是冲突中解放军的指挥官和领导人。

In 1967, the writers even did not know who were the field commanders and leaders of the PLA for the 1967 conflict. Thus just simply put Mao Zedong. Low IQ Indians and the writers even did not know how to lie.

1967年，记者们甚至不知道谁是1967年冲突的战地指挥官和解放军领导人。就这样简单地说是“毛泽东”。低智商的印度记者甚至不知道如何撒谎。

(for example, there is a border shooting between Pakistan and India army now, Pakistan field commander are “Mosign”, however, Indian border field commander is unknown, thus it is Modi!)

（就好比，现在巴基斯坦和印度军队之间发生了一场边境开火事件，巴基斯坦的战地指挥官是Mosign，而印度的战地指挥官不知道名字，所以就是莫迪！）

India took five years to attack PLA position, but even today still do not know who were the commander and leaders of PLA whom they fought with in 1967!!!

印度花了5年时间进攻PLA的哨所，但是直到今天依然不知道1967年与他们作战的PLA是谁指挥和领导的！

毫不讳言，针对印度网友的提问，各国网友一边倒的态度让老铁一度产生了一种“促不及防”的感觉….

不过在老铁看来：

无论过去那场战争结果如何，和平才是当今世界发展的主旋律，作为当年冲突双方的后代，我们能做的更应该是放下一切，心平气和的谋求更高程度的发展。