十四年抗戰」的概念有跡可循，並在前年中共盛大閱兵紀念抗戰七十周年時已經由中國共產黨的領導人公開定調。「十四年抗戰」概念之定於一尊，應該置之於中共近年積極修正有關抗戰歷史論述的脈絡下去理解，其解釋能切合現實政治的需要，這時進一步滲透進入學生的思想教育，也就不令人意外。然而，原有的「八年抗戰說」仍兼具歷史解釋能力和可驗證性，其實和新興的「十四年抗戰說」並非互斥，只是在變異的現時環境中與過去對話所產生的異趣結果；若藉由兩者相互參照、補充，反而更有助於去理解抗戰歷史的全貌。 這次大陸的新政策之所以會觸動人們的敏感神經，原因有三： ⑴對其歷史解釋朝獨斷、封閉的方向發展感到失望； ⑵感受到其對兩岸政策轉為強硬而有所不安； ⑶對歷史教育擔憂。有關末點，筆者提出警醒：歷史教育的重點仍應本諸事實，並兼顧多元的視角，以建構學生的主體思維能力，而不應只在史觀和字眼中打轉。
The concept of “the Fourteen-year War of Resistance” which emphasizes that China’s Anti-Japanese War began in 1931 when the “September 18 Incident” happened could be traced in the several public speeches of the CCP’s leaders in the past and had been confirmed officially by Xi Jinping in 2015. As well, it could be further comprehend under the context that CCP revised their narrations about the war. It is not surprised at all that such a concept permeates into students’ textbooks now because it fits their political needs. Exactly, the term “the Eight-year War” is still verifiable and capable of explaining the war duration. It is helpful to realize the whole history of the war if we see the story through the both frameworks. There are three reasons that such a revise made many people so nervous. The first, it was frustrated due to that the CCP is tending toward a closer, arbitrary and monopolistic historical policy. The second, it reflects that the CCP would adopt stronger attitudes toward Taiwan. The third, it may hurt the historical education. About the last one, I remind: the purpose of the historical education is training students’ thinking abilities basing on the truth and multiple angles but not focuses on narrow historical view nor rigid terminology.
