Comments (33)

While mainland China may be moving toward Chiang's ultimate vision for the Chinese people, there is no guarantee that had Chiang stayed in power, he would have been able to take them there. The Nationalist government by the end of World War II was a corrupt and hollow institution. Even before the Japanese invasion, it was a patchwork of autocrats and corrupt warlords that did as much harm as they did good for Nationalist China. Certainly, they were able to rehabilitate their own party and build a democratic state on Taiwan, but there is a lot of doubt whether they could have pulled off such a feat on the mainland, especially with a continuous communist threat from the Sino-Soviet border.

Chiang has gotten a bad wrap for the many things that went wrong in China during the 1930s and 1940s, and his reputation may deserve some rehabilitation. However, calling him a hero may be taking it a bit too far. He may have been dealt a lousy hand, but it was still under his watch that the mainland was lost to the Chinese Communists.

I just heard something about this song, it is really funny.

Called 草泥马
Word for Word: Grass Mud Horse
Real Meaning: Fack Your Mom (I don't mean disrespect, but whoever made it is a real funny. Maybe John should do a post about it, my friend said NY Times did a new on that)

Below Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkU6NrXweI&feature=related

Jiang and Mao were two thugs.

They belong together. Jiang set up his information spy and police to watch and assassin democratic leaders and communist leaders, and he also separated his followers and other local leaders during the war, example Li Zhong Ren and Bai Zhong Xi.

When Japan attacked China in WWII, he called to settle inside than to fight against invaders, and he put the other units in front to die by fully equiped and trained Japanese, he sort of used Japanese to finish separated Chinese force.

And Mao won China, immediately thanked Japan that if Japan did not invade China, Communist (he) would never come out.

There is Chinese saying: "If one's family are quarreling within, then neighbors will break in."

Before Japan attacked China, their government said:"China only had their size, but their people like sands."

I kinda agree.

They were both thugs. Jiang was so-called Christian too, Mao a 'poet'; but just label and dress.

melissarossi...

What a nice bit of fresh air, Melissa!

Indeed, it is time to review the image of Chiang Kai-shek, once vilified in mainland China, and glorified in the US (except by General Joseph Stilwell, who loathed him, no doubt because he was aware of Kai-shek's rackets). Information I am uncovering about Kai-shek's actions both in China and Taiwan, in the course of writing a book, indicates he wasn't a hero at all: he was a criminal and very much involved in the opium trade, not to mention the rise of organized crime across Southeast Asia.

Furthermore, with backing of the US government, his charade of Taiwan being the real China has created one of the most dangerous situations in the Far East today -- with Taiwan demanding independence and China promising war if they try and the US legally obligated to sell Taiwan arms and protect Taiwan should China attack.

That political ruse was misguided when it began in 1949; that the US propped up Kai-shek, a thug who was thick with the notorious Green Gang, which helped him keep order, and that the US insisted that Taiwan should represent China, and take China's seat at the UN Security Council, was as profound in its ramifications as Nixon's 1971 decision to rip the veil off the facade, boot Taiwan from the seat and hand it over to China, which became the "real China" and left Taiwan in political limbo.

Our dangerous and duplicitous policies regarding Taiwan, whom we continue loading up with arms, and which might have nuclear devices in its arsenal, is also in need of serious review. As to the original question -- Chiang Kai-shek a hero? I truly think not. -- Melissa Rossi

There is no perfect system to manage human development. Capitalism is all about letting the individual self-interest do its magic for the economy. The idea is that somehow the self-interest is the best regulator of business. This is obviously a wrong assumption as we have seen. Unchecked self-interest breeds more fraud and irresponsible behaviors than contructive development. The best system is one that properly guides the individual self-interest to serve the common good of society. The government's job is not to run private businesses like Communism advocates, but to create incentives for individuals and private businesses to do their best for society. In this respect, China has done a pretty good job. the United States has been doing this for two centuries except the eras of Herbert Hoover before the Great Depression and George W. Bush (+ Alan Greenspan).

John,
This is a very enlightening article. Thanks!
But let's not forget the people. Without those hardworking Taiwanese and Chinese, neither Chaing nor Mao could have produced the success we see today.

In India, the population will grow by 40% and the nation will run out of water.

In China, the standard of living will grow by 40%, and the population growth will be flat.

No place on earth better exemplifies the accomplishements of Western Capitalism than Africa. From the slave trade beginning in the 1500's to the roots of the genocide in Darfur, the West has played a hugely important role in shaping the growth and development of that continent. Africa is the showcase of what Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can accomplish for the poor.

blasmaic comparing China to the continent of Africa is idiotic, and I'm betting you know it. Not that I'd want to live in the region, but if my choice was China or India, I'd easily choose India - much richer culture and the food is way better.

If you have to compare Chiang to Mao to make him look good, that isn't much of a compliment. Of course Mao stands in a class with only a few other 20th century leaders - Stalin and Hitler. Mao was worthless as a man and as a leader. Too bad he didn't die a lot earlier.

Modern China with its stable growth and promising future is the product of the Communist Party of China.

Modern Africa, with its famine, war, genocide, and epidemics, is the product of Western Capitalism.

iewgnem- the reason its been such a "success" is the fact of outsourcing labor to chinese market. Why you say... because of the very low labor cost and the ability for the government to get companies like Mattel to apologize to them for when a chinese company is using lead based paint in children's toys.

China is a state managed market economy, call it whatever you want. What we do know is Chinese economic policies have been one of the most successful in history, so like it or not, the Communist Party did win, communism did not.

As for Chiang, anyone with any memory should remember it was his son, and, what you know, his authoritarian, state managed market economy that created today's Taiwan, and they only became democratic in the 90s.

The only difference Chiang would have made compared to Mao, aside from the much larger chance China degenerate into an India like state, is the millions who die of poverty under his rule would have never been reported. After all, when was the last time WP wrote an article about the hundreds of millions killed by NATO/Allied policies around the world in the last 50 years?

lets face facts here... China has gone from a communist country to a fascist one. How else could anyone own a company in China besides the government. Its now a place where the government and business combine to control everything in the country.

Hilariously simplistic.

What Mao provided to China was an opportunity to choose capitalism rather than having capitalism forced upon it as colonies of several Western countries. Compare China's rise to the disarray of Africa and you'll see the difference that Mao provided. Every country in Africa is designed to fall into chaos without the supervision of an external colonial power. Factions war constantly and corruption is rampant.

China is unified under one theme. It hasn't always been easy, but the progress has been... so far so good.

I first came to China in 1988 and have lived the last four years in Beijing. I am a Democrat and voted for Barack Obama. I have long studied Political Science. I have read closely the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in "The Communist Manifesto". China is not a communist country except in name. A very small percentage of the Chinese population actually belongs to the Communist Party of China. Many people wrongly believe that China is a dictatorship led by Hu Jintao. China is led by no one person. It has many different governments and many different leaders. The "Party" issues many decrees but they are seldom followed. The over riding desire of the average Chinese is to survive. To approximately 800 million Chinese everyday life is still very tough. To the approximately 500 million Chinese who live in cities the primary desire is to get rich. Capitalism is the system which allows people to get rich. It is easier to get rich if you have connections. Just like in the US.
If China was a communist country the number of rich people would not be increasing at such a rapid rate. Beijing's traffic is dominated by expensive cars. Rolls Royce, Ferrari and every other luxury car dealer have busy dealerships here in Beijing.
In terms of Chang Kai-Shek it is a real stretch to look at the history of China and suggest that he had anything to do with the evolution of modern China. Better to look at Deng Xiao Ping,Chou En-lai and Richard Nixon.

We have to remember that everything in China is very Chinese. Their comunism or capitalism will always be carried out THEIR way (Think Frank Sinatra's song)... As to their corruption? What world goverment is not corrupt in varying degrees? I have yet to see a goverment from the east to the west, north to south that is free of this malady so, lets not single out China's ......

It is laughable a major newspaper like the Washington Post published such a ridiculous article. Clearly the author has no idea of what was the history like under the Chiang Kai-shek' rule; one of the most corrupted and incompetent government in the world!

Had Dr Sun Yat-sen not died prematurely, Generalissimo Chiang would not have grabbed power, and Sun's democracy might have a place in China today.

Only in America. One finds that opinion George W Bush is one of the great American presidents. Now that generalissimo Chiang triumphs in China today. The revisionist history by the neo-con was laughable when apply to U.S. Now they want to apply to China when totally discredited in U.S. Don't they have better thing to do like salvage the Republican party?

ILOVELIBBY -
You on dope?

Regardless of the exact nature of the Chinese government, I think it is important to note the success of its fight against poverty, its non-aggressive foreign policy, and the huge difficulty of governing such a large population.

@BOPO

The communists did a good job convincing the populace to give them a chance to be in control of China. The Nationalist is just another one party rule having no intention of giving up its power unless taken away by force. Of course people may wish to dream that China could do better under a democratic system but China could also be worst off under such system.

Forget about vision and ideologies. It's pragmatism and competence that wins. That's how Mao kicked Chiang to Taiwan, and how Deng revived China. Losing pragmatism and competence, you have Mao's disastrous rule on mainland, and Chen's more recent eight wasted years in Taiwan.

Hey CKK2008, I think you should have just stuck to the words "we may never know", instead of sounding like you're so sure it'd never work out.

I am of the belief that neither men were great enough for their ambitions of restoring China. Chiang did not have enough control over his men nor did he believe in Democracy enough, Mao knew how to control but not how to govern.

As an American living in Beijing for four years who first came to China in 1988 it is clear to me that China is more capitalist than Communist. It is true that the ruling elite is corrupt. Connections are very important in China. You need only look at the major highways here to see that many cars have special rights. Cars with flashing lights and special horns need not obey traffic rules. They can speed around regular traffic and proceed on the emergency lanes. It is also apparent that their are different rules for different people. VIP really means something in China.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued their implicit writ of mandamus to President Obama and all the Executive branch demanding the US abide by the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution and recognize that "Taiwan" or the government thereon, is merely the nomenclature by which the US administers her United States Territory of American Formosa, pursuant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Order 1651 signed by the President of the US as Commander in Chief, on the Sovereignty Status of Formosa, in 1946 as territory under US military government occupied as a result of our defeat of and the unconditional surrender to the US by Japan, and confirmed defeased from Japan by their cession in Articles 2, 4a, 4b and 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty to the United States Military Government (the USA). The musical chairs dance between Taiwan and China, should not leave out the twenty million native residents of American Formosa, who have long been denied the rights and privileges of their constitutional American nationality (they are nationals because like American Indians defeated and occupied by the US before Congress conferred citizenship on them, they are entitled of right to our protection, and owe us their permanent allegiance in return for this protection and tutelage pending ultimate acts of self-determination such as statehood in union with the US for American Formosa, independence, or freely associated status with the USA) because of their race, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, and national origin (as Japanese Formosans prior to the US occupation of Formosa at the end of World War II).The United Nations Security Council in 1950 ruled that the "Republic of China" permanent representative to the UN was not the competent party to represent Formosa before the UN, rather the USA was, as the US had argued to the Secretary General by official UN diplomatic note from the US mission available at the UN documents website with the document number S/1716, a Letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Secretary General on the Question of Formosa. It is high time the US officials, like former Assistant Secretary of State Randall Schriver, who have admitted that the Chinese Nazi Party rules on American Formosa committed genocide against the native Formosans, should recognize their statutory (42 USC 1981) and constitutional (Thirteenth article of amendment) duties to foster self-determination for the native American Formosans, and no longer deny the Formosans their American rights because they are perceived to be Asians, Japanese, putative Chinese, or Taiwanese. American Formosans are no less Americans than the American Samoans who bestowed a royal title on their visiting parliamentaire delegate to the US Congress, Eni Hunkin, as a "Faleomavaega".

China suffers from imperialism and corruption because it's a one party political structure that's designed to reward those in power.

They pay lip service to being about citizens the same way Wal-Mart waves the American flag & act's patriotic. Both are BullS-Word and only idiots buy into their drivel.

The mention of this book is a non-issue.

No doubt, Pomfret’s post has made my day! I could not have hoped for a more amusing surprise than that book review, on International Worker’s Day.

I always find it fascinating to observe how far one is prepared to go to be admitted into the China bashing Compagnonnage. Few realise how long and hard one needs to train to become a Compagnon, let alone a Master.

Candidates must first feed on Chinese historical revisionism for at least two years.

An apprentice is then required to tour China on foot from three to five years learning the trade, while trying to rehabilitate a Chiang Kai-shek for instance.

Only a gifted apprentice will later dare present a masterpiece in which a Chiang Kai-shek will appear not only as an endearing fellow, but as “a tormented soul…prone to bursting into tears”.

Once a Compagnon, one will seek to develop further into a Master, attempting to present his Chiang Kai-shek as someone “generally considered, on the mainland, as a true Chinese hero”.

One true Master only is known to have gone as far as to celebrate both Chiang Kai-shek’s posthumous “victory” and “triumph”. So great was his achievement that to this day many doubt that could ever have existed such a divinely inspired master.

Saying Chiang was a "true Chinese hero" is as absurd as contending George W Bush was one of the ten greatest presidents in this country. Chiang's Nationalist regime was highly corrupt, authoritarian, executed dissenting liberal intellectuals, ignored pervasive mistreatment of most people, and offered very little opposition to Japan, which was responsible for millions of innocent Chinese being killed.

The inclusion of a promise of democracy in the Nationalist constitution was a hollow gesture to the ideology of Sun Yat-sen. There were no steps toward democracy under Chiang, the leader of much of China for about twenty years. Perhaps anyone who believes the mention of democracy in the Nationalist constitution had any substance, may also believe the guarantees of religious freedom and other freedoms in the Communist constitution are also genuine.

Mao's leadership was a disaster for China, comparable or worse than Chiang in refusing to confront Japanese agression. The communists arguably won the civil war, but the communist ideology has eventually been undermined by reformers who have turned communism in China upside down, by eliminating the basic welfare state for the masses and introducing essentially laissez-faire, free enterprise to much of the economy. Communist officials are about as corrupt as Nationalist officials were.

An argument can persuasively be made the Nationalist ideology eventually triumphed in China, characterized by massive corruption, frequent exploitation of the common people, an authoritarian government, limited dissent, favoritism toward the wealthy and business interests. How such a society exonerates in any way the historical reputation of Chiang Kai-shek is beyond me.

The Nationalist government of Chiang was so incompetent and corrupted,China would have disintegrated if the communist had not taken over. May be the continuous civil wars between the communist and the nationalist govenment may have taken more lives and cause more sufferings. We may never know. The Nationalist government took more than 40 years to fully democratise Taiwan. Could you assume that it will do better in China proper where the unfavourable factors to democratise are more numerous and slippery. Look at India , the largest democratic country in the world, one man one vote system has not brought the benefits to the masses of Indians in terms of first world standard of living and dignity. Do you really think that the Chinese can do better than the Indians under one man one vote system?

I would believe that Chiang's government would have been much better to the Chinese in general than the murderous dictator Mao and his cronies. The sad part is history can not be rolled back and the Chinese people who suffered and perished under the extreme communist brutality would never come back.

To hell with the Chinese communism which caused unimaginable sufferings to the Chinese people. I knew it would die its well-deserved death when my middle school classmates ridiculed anyone who had a high score in Communism Education shortly after 1976.

The wonderful progress made by the Chinese people in the past 30 years demonstrates the resilience of the Chinese people. It just shows that once left alone even the Chinese can carve up a better life for themselves.