问题 问答题 简答题

“西安事变”是怎样发生的?中 * * 党为什么主张“西安事变”和平解决?

答案

参考答案:

中 * * 党的抗日民族统一战线政策和全国抗日救亡运动的发展,促进了国民党军队内部的分化。在我党的抗日民族统一战线政策的感召下,在陕西围攻红军的东北军和西北军的广大官兵,纷纷要求国民党停止内战,联共抗日。由于我党的团结争取,由于下部的推动,东北军的领导人张 * * 和西北军的领导人杨虎城,接受了我党组织抗日民族统一战线的主张,停止对红军作战,并且要求蒋介石联共抗日。蒋介石不但不接受,反而在1936年初亲自到西安,压迫东北军和西北军继续进攻红军。

1936年12月12日清晨,张 * * 和杨虎城派兵包围蒋介石在临潼华清池的住所,扣留了蒋介石。这就是震惊中外的“西安事变”。西安事变发生以后,在日本帝国主义的指使下,亲日派汪精卫、何应钦调集军队进攻潼关,威胁西安,企图借此发动内战。同时想乘机炸死蒋介石,夺取他的领导地位。中 * * 党为了团结抗日,避免扩大内战,决定和平解决西安事变。党中央派周恩来、秦邦宪等到西安调停,争取蒋介石抗日;同时集中主力红军,准备配合张、杨迎击亲日派的武装进攻。经过周恩来等向各方面耐心宣传了党的抗日民族统一战线政策,并同蒋介石进行谈判,迫使蒋介石接受停止内战、联共抗日的条件。25日,蒋介石被释放。西安事变的和平解决粉碎了日本侵略者和国民党亲日派扩大中国内战的阴谋,为抗日民族统一战线的建立创造了条件,是中国革命由内战转局面走向抗日战争局面的转折点。

单项选择题

The news from America’s housing market is getting no better. As sales declines and defaults and foreclosures climb, pessimists fear that over a million Americans could be driven out of their homes as adjustable-rate mortgages are reset. What should policymakers do Congress is eager to do more: hence the calls to expand the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored enterprises (GSES) that tower over America’s mortgage market.

Fannie’s and Freddie’s political allies want two things. The first is the raising of the $417,000 limit on the size of loans that the pair may handle. The second demand is the lifting of caps on the amount of mortgages they may buy and hold for themselves. Fannie and Freddie could then ride to the rescue of struggling borrowers, injecting liquidity into parts of the market that have seized up. Their arguments are winning support, and opposition from the Bush administration and the GSES’ regulator is softening. Unfortunately, the ideas are likely to do more for Fannie and Freddie than for the mortgage market.

Start with the $417,000 limit. Lifting this could help if Fannie and Freddie scoured the upper bracket for borrowers who were struggling but viable. But their history suggests that they would cherry-pick those who could get refinanced elsewhere. And the huge-mortgage market may be correcting itself anyway: spreads over GSE-backed loans, though still unusually high, are falling.

It is also riskier. When they hold a mortgage, they take on not only credit risk but also interest-rate and prepayment risk. The loans they guarantee, in contrast, carry only credit risk. So as well as being just as effective, the guarantee business is also safer—and thus better for the taxpayer who unwittingly stands behind the GSES.

Moreover, even if they grow no more, the mortgage giants pose a clear systemic threat. Their portfolios of retained mortgages and mortgage-backed securities add up to no less than $1.4 trillion. It is bad enough that this is concentrated in two institutions. No matter how much risk they take or how they manage it, they can borrow at rock-bottom interest rates. If they got into trouble, banks as well as taxpayers would be on the hook. Banks may hold as much GSE debt as they want. Many have amounts that exceed their regulatory capital.

The giants were set up decades ago to help banks pool concentrated regional mortgage risk and to make housing more affordable. But as the market has grown deeper and more sophisticated, history has left them behind—hence their desire to get into any bit of the business that will turn a profit. The eventual aim should be to turn them into normal private-sector companies, by stripping them of the charters that give rise to the implicit government guarantees, and break them into smaller pieces.

If the giant GSES collapse, the most possible result would be ()

A. Borrowers can get their mortgage back

B. Banks may face a debt which they cannot afford

C. Taxpayers would have to borrow money at rock-bottom interest rates

D. The housing market will become deeper and more sophisticated

单项选择题