The Vilification of 蔣中正 Chiang Kai Shek
Western media overwhemlingly portrays 蔣中正 Jiang Zhong-Zhen, Chiang Kai Shek in a negative light. However, the domestic perspective of CKS is completely different. Some might say that people were unable to speak freely under martial law, but even-post martial now he is is respected and admired by millions of people in Taiwan.
CKS was a frugal, honorable man who fought against corruption but was continuously disappointed by his subordinates' lack of common values. His leadership absorbed the brunt of Japanese military might in WW2, and allowed the western powers to deal with Europe first. This 'dictator' is respected by many for the number of times he resigned his post and tried to retire from public life, only to be dragged back in when other leaders developed too much of a taste for power or were too ineffective. Chiang and his wife are often described as having won the hearts of the west during WW2. Yet they are villified in modern textbooks, and portrayed as corrupt and inefective in many historical works.
Perhaps there is a reason why CKS is portrayed as overly corrupt and utterly incompetent. Japanese historian Keiji Furuya, surely a fairly un-'terrified' author, writes in Chiang Kai-Shek: His Life and Times of a Communist-sympathizer 'infiltration' of the the US embassy's officers in China around 1945, resulting in US reports back home that mirrored CCP propaganda. For no apparent reason other than frustration, the US switched sides and our 'Personal Representative to the President of China', Major General Patrick J. Hurley, claimed:
(1) the Communists are not in fact Communists, they are striving for democratic principles; and (2) the one party, one man personal Government of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party is not in fact fascist, it is striving for democratic principles ...
This sort of drivel contributed to the later disastrous and destructive peace mission of US General George Marshall, which forced CKS to halt his offensive, disband most of his army, and stand still while Mao Tze Tung armed and expanded at a frenetic pace. The US cut off all aid to the Nationalists to get CKS to the negotiation table at the Marshall mission, while the Soviets turned over all captured Japanese equipment to the communists. In any other situation, this would be called betrayal, or at least being duped by the other side. To this day, it is still difficult to find a country other than the PRC that feels so negatively about CKS.
This was a complete reversal of positions, and pretty sensitive for the US, which was still portraying the Japanese as yellow monkeys in war posters at the time. Did the US understand the Chinese situation so well that it was able to call a spade a spade? Or did the US need CKS to be seen as a two-bit hack dictator rather than as a hero? Perhaps it was easier to vilify CKS than to admit that the US betrayed its ally and effectively gave China to the communists. This is the real controversy, one that has been buried by the offended out of politeness and gratitude to the US for its support. Having never been called to account, the US naively thinks that it supports Taiwan, has admit its mistake, and likely never will.
The western perspective of 蔣中正 Jiang Zhong-Zhen, which was likely created to serve American interests, has been hijacked and pushed to new extremes by the DPP. It is dramatically different from the perspective held by a silent majority here in Taiwan. There is another side, and it would serve us all to stop for a moment and consider it.
CKS was a frugal, honorable man who fought against corruption but was continuously disappointed by his subordinates' lack of common values. His leadership absorbed the brunt of Japanese military might in WW2, and allowed the western powers to deal with Europe first. This 'dictator' is respected by many for the number of times he resigned his post and tried to retire from public life, only to be dragged back in when other leaders developed too much of a taste for power or were too ineffective. Chiang and his wife are often described as having won the hearts of the west during WW2. Yet they are villified in modern textbooks, and portrayed as corrupt and inefective in many historical works.
Perhaps there is a reason why CKS is portrayed as overly corrupt and utterly incompetent. Japanese historian Keiji Furuya, surely a fairly un-'terrified' author, writes in Chiang Kai-Shek: His Life and Times of a Communist-sympathizer 'infiltration' of the the US embassy's officers in China around 1945, resulting in US reports back home that mirrored CCP propaganda. For no apparent reason other than frustration, the US switched sides and our 'Personal Representative to the President of China', Major General Patrick J. Hurley, claimed:
(1) the Communists are not in fact Communists, they are striving for democratic principles; and (2) the one party, one man personal Government of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party is not in fact fascist, it is striving for democratic principles ...
This sort of drivel contributed to the later disastrous and destructive peace mission of US General George Marshall, which forced CKS to halt his offensive, disband most of his army, and stand still while Mao Tze Tung armed and expanded at a frenetic pace. The US cut off all aid to the Nationalists to get CKS to the negotiation table at the Marshall mission, while the Soviets turned over all captured Japanese equipment to the communists. In any other situation, this would be called betrayal, or at least being duped by the other side. To this day, it is still difficult to find a country other than the PRC that feels so negatively about CKS.
This was a complete reversal of positions, and pretty sensitive for the US, which was still portraying the Japanese as yellow monkeys in war posters at the time. Did the US understand the Chinese situation so well that it was able to call a spade a spade? Or did the US need CKS to be seen as a two-bit hack dictator rather than as a hero? Perhaps it was easier to vilify CKS than to admit that the US betrayed its ally and effectively gave China to the communists. This is the real controversy, one that has been buried by the offended out of politeness and gratitude to the US for its support. Having never been called to account, the US naively thinks that it supports Taiwan, has admit its mistake, and likely never will.
The western perspective of 蔣中正 Jiang Zhong-Zhen, which was likely created to serve American interests, has been hijacked and pushed to new extremes by the DPP. It is dramatically different from the perspective held by a silent majority here in Taiwan. There is another side, and it would serve us all to stop for a moment and consider it.
posted by Taiwan's Other Side at 8:02 PM
19 Comments:
You know the bad thing about the internet? It's that your ignorant ramblings are going to stay on the web and in later years embarrass you immensely.
I must disagree. Most all of my friends in Taiwan are KMT and a majority of them are not big fans of CKS. Even military officers, the group of people who traditionally have been CKS's (and the KMT's) biggest supporters, aren't all that fond of him. They aren't overly critical of him, but rather just realize that he had faults. Most American history texts that I've read have a similar take--he had advantages and disadvantages.
Was he corrupt? If he wasn't, there were certainly close family members that were and used their connection to him to get rich. All the money that T.V. Soong and Madame Chiang raised in America went somewhere.
Was he a dictator? Most assuredly so. Would it have been possible to create a true liberal democracy in that time period? Doubtful.
I don't buy the Communist in the State Department theory. I don't really have a counterproof because, as McCarthy so clearly illustrated, there is no counterproof to "There are communists in the State Department." I guess my rationale is that all the decisions make sense without the infiltrator, so I apply Occam's Razor.
Thanks for your comments Budding Sinologist.
I think we might agree, other than the overly critical bit. I'm not saying he didn't have faults, but I object to the constant bashing of the man.
Chiang was an individual from a totally different historical age. With hindsight, some of his actions were indeed despicable or foolish, but given the tumult, uncertainty and confusion in China at the time, he was still able to rally people to fight for a cause.
I personally know a few individuals who were CKS's disciples (although not from his inner circle) who followed him through thick and thin from the beginning until his death. While they wouldn't say he was a saint, he nevertheless commanded tremendous respect from them even now. Despite his character flaws, it's undeniable that he represented something which they were willing to put their lives on the line for.
i think budding sinologist has made good points. CKS has done something right, e.g. by not making taiwan a fiasco he made in the mainland, and defending china in WWII. I am sure there are more good things he has done.
However, most (if not all) accusations on his faults are valid (eg corruption, and dictatorship). Furthermore, if one want to find faults with DPP (they certainly has faults as well), perhaps one should first trace the responsibility of 2-28 from chen yi back to CKS...i read about how old taiwanese people who detested the japanese occupation changed their mind after the bigger evil of Chen Yi arrived. it is CKS' mismanagement (following chen yi) that is partly responsible for today's independence movement. What his team has done to the taiwanese (and also mainland chinese people) people put all chinese to shame.
yes, you are right that everyone deserves an objective review. and we should acknowledge CKS's good side. but we should note that most of those who still think CKS is great more or less were related to the previleged class in CKS era. those who don't either joined CCP or DPP. that is why KMT today lacks talent. IMHO pan-blue needs to get rid of their baggage before they can compete with DPP. otherwise 2008 would still be DPP's show. I hope MYJ has accomplish this but I am note sure.
I'll have to disagree with Sun Bin here. I think Ma has 2008 in his pocket unless the KMT doesn't let him run because some internal bickering. Prior to his siding with the KMT instead of the citizens of Taipei during the 2004 post-election fiasco, he was far and away the most popular politician on the island. I know quite a few DPP guys who at the time told me they would cross party lines to vote for him. Sure his star has fallen a few notches in light of that protest stuff, but I still don't see anyone beating him (if the KMT lets him run).
:) budding sinologist,
it is certainly good for the taiwanese people if Ma wins, because that would mean another peaceful transition of power, and maturing toward a 2-party system.
and you are right that he has a very good chance, provided the pre-conditions you quoted. but one also should not underestimate the conservative and regressive power within KMT/PFP (esp PFP which is not under Ma's control) could be counte-active, and may even split his votes.
Don't forget DPP's support increased significantly between 2000 and 2004, and the trend could be stalled but is unlikely to be reversed in 2008.
IMHO Ma needs to behave more like Chen (Chen's rational side), and Chen needs to behave more like Ma to get the sway votes. whoever accomplish this will win. KMT will need to stop the parliament bickergin and DPP will need to be more rationaal at the China issue.
I totally agree with Budding Sinologist's analysis of Ma: unless the KMT slices his feet out from under him, or some unlooked for disaster occurs, he's the man to beat in 2008. But lots can happen in two years.
KMT will need to stop the parliament bickergin and DPP will need to be more rationaal at the China issue.
Comments like this make me scratch my head. It is an article of faith that the DPP is irrational on China. How exactly are they irrational? The haven't declared independence. They haven't started a war. They haven't dared the Chinese to come over -- that was the KMT with that mess after the election, in which they deliberately attempted to provoke Beijing's "intervention" by giving the false impression that Taiwan was a mess. Etc. The DPP has been very rational and pragmatic on China, attempting to balance both the needs of the locals for security and democracy, and the needs of the locals for investment, markets, and tourism.
As for Chiang, don't make me laugh. He was an incompetent narrow-minded shit who had the great good luck to be protected by the US navy and get an enormous influx of aid programs that saved the island's economy and guaranteed that his badly-run regime would go on. Had there been no Cold War, Chiang would have disappeared into history around 1950....
Michael
"How exactly are they irrational? The haven't declared independence. "
ok. now you challenged me to provide evidence. here they are:
1. dragging the feet of taiwanese biz to invest in china (SMIC vs TSMC)
2. opposing direct flight (hence significantly increase the cost of taiwan biz)
3. preventing visit of mainland chinese. hence forgo the opportunity to educate them about what the taiwanese think at the civilian level.
4. the way they treat the diaoyu/senkaku issue, is not something an "independent taiwan" would do for its own interests
don't tell me that DPP wanted direct flight. they believe that any investment in mainland is feeding their enemy, and tried everything possible to delay it.
all these allegation are not made up by me, read what is said by pro-green businessmen such as Evergreen's Chang yongfa, or Formosa Plastic's Wang yong-ching.
you must be kidding yourself that they have behaved rationally on this issue. if they did, the 2004 election would have been won at a huge margin. how many of your students in taiwan have you listened to?
every time i boarded a flight from HKG to SHA/PEK, i talked to the poor taiwanese managers who had to spend 6-7 hours instead of 1-2 to make that trip.
"(Chiang) had the great good luck to be protected by the US navy and get an enormous influx of aid programs that saved the island's economy"
So the hard work of an entire nation can be credited to US aid? How do you explain the countless numbers of third and second-world countries that have chewed up billions in aid and are still destitute? Talk about head-scratching...you have to give some credit to the governement, people and implementation.
ok, here is a simple example of Chen's irrationality. i'm sure Chen, as one of the top lawyers in Taiwan, understands the simple logics, but he chose to muddle it.
taipei times report
"In fact, Japan accounts for 44 percent of our mango exports, Singapore account for 15.1 percent and China only account for less than one percent," Chen said. "Therefore, it does not make any sense to say that only by selling fruit to China can Taiwan's farmers survive," Chen said. "Everyone should be confident in our produce. Now that we can market our fruit to Japan at a good price, we should not sell them to China at such a cheap price."
1. he thought the farmers are stupid. of course they would sell to japan first. but japan cannot consume all the produce, and it probably would only take the best quality ones for that price. what about the lower quality grade fruits? and top segment in China? having one more customer is always good for any biz.
2. today china has 1% market share, precisely because of chen's stupid policy
3. the bottom line is, if someone offers you a gift, why not just take it?
asia time article
Taiwan's DPP administration has argued that the concession, made without either negotiation or signing of any agreement, could be withdrawn at any time at Beijing's whim, or, even worse, Beijing could demand Taiwan open up its market to Chinese agricultural products. In May, even before the tariffs were lifted, Li Shui-lin, chief of China's Cross-strait Economic and Trade Exchange Association (CETEA), urged Taiwan to react to China's kindness by removing barriers to the import of all Chinese agricultural products, causing great concern among Taiwan's farmers.
so if there is a free ticket to disney, but it could expire any time. should i not go there today? just because they might announce tomorrow that it would expire next month? this really gets me scratching my head.
As for Chiang, don't make me laugh. He was an incompetent narrow-minded shit who had the great good luck to be protected by the US navy and get an enormous influx of aid programs that saved the island's economy and guaranteed that his badly-run regime would go on. Had there been no Cold War, Chiang would have disappeared into history around 1950....
I agree with this. Without the Cold War, China would have been united and the entire issue about Independence would not exist.
Shorter TOS (main post):
Stop "vilifying" the already-vile. Despite often using phrases like "to my knowledge," I can read the minds of Taiwan's "silent majority."
Shorter Anonymous (9:18):
TOS should think things over a bit more thoroughly before hitting the "publish" button.
Shorter Sun Bin (whose avatar is no longer a book, 10:00):
I have read about things which you have only seen. I'll be back!
Shorter Sun Bin (3:33):
I'm baaaaaaaack! Surrender is good, and Chen Shui-bian is more rational than Ma Ying-jeou.
Shorter Sun Bin (12:21):
Those rich Taishang are so "poor."
Shorter TOS (9:11):
The KMT is a "nation" (but the Taiwanese aren't).
Shorter Sun Bin (10:30):
Go to "Disneyland" now! It's worth more than life itself! What are you waiting for? Do you expect them to remove the free-roaming grizzly bears first or at least give you a gun?
Shorter ZHJ:
I do believe in fairies!
Tim,
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about or what you're doing...care to explain?
Shorter TOS (1:41):
I don't get it.
It's called "pointed humor." I summarized some of the "best" bits into the way I "interpreted" them. I sometimes included the greater context of their other writings/ramblings on the web. (Follow the links I included in the above comment for 2 examples.)
My summaries are shorter than the originals. So, "Shorter TOS" is a shorter way of saying "Here's a shorter version of what TOS wrote."
People "identifying" themselves as "anonymous" and others who post multiple comments in a single "thread" are difficult to distinguish, so I looked at the time stamp below each of those kinds of comments and added the times in parentheses behind the commenters' names.
Shorter Maddog (current comment):
Read my first comment again. I hope you "get it" the second time around.
Chiang Kai-Shek is not perfect. BUT you gotta admit he is also a victim of the international environment of the time. He was an able general, unified Mainland China by 1926, beat off most of the warlords. BUT as soon as he set up his Nanjing Government, the Japanese started causing trouble in northern China. There was no time to start national reconstruction. Japanese aggression started a whole string of events that did not make for a stable situation to establish good government and good economy. Manchuria was overtaken by 1931, Jehol province by 1932, bombing of Shanghia by 1935?, Nanjing Massacre by 1937..and WWII. .There you go......China was basically impoverished by 1945, which made it ripe for the taking by the Communists...The nationalists were demoralized.
I won't call Chiang Kai-Shek a great leader. BUT I wouldn't insult him or dismiss him the way the CCP and DPP do. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have a tough-minded iron-fisted person governing Taiwan in the 1950s and 60s than a softie who always talks about lofty platitudes like human rights. Given the Cold War international environment of the time when Communism was expanding like crazy worldwide, you needed a man like Chiang to guard and defend Taiwan and launch the island towards spectacular capitalist economic growth, which is the pre-condition for any successful transition to democracy anyways.
Chiang Kai-shek was a great leader. He led the Republic of China through its harshest time (Japanese invasion, Communist rebellion, retreat to Taiwan, etc.) It is true that he had many contributions to Taiwan. Such as, land reform, defense, industrializiation, etc. CKS made Taiwan an economic miracle and one of the four tigers of East Asia. He defended Taiwan to the very last and vowed to save the Chinese people from the Communists by always preparing for a Mainland offensive. The Communists always had to be on guard for this. CKS was definitely about to launch is return to the Mainland, but it was all the American's fault. They purposely restrained him. People in Taiwan do recognize Chiang Kai-shek's contributions and that is why we have the CKS Memmorial Hall, statues, and other roads dedicated to the beloved late President of the Republic of China, the one and only true China.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home