46 replies to this topic

[Sephodwyrm]

"Its all a secret plan!!! Mao and Chiang were actually working together to have a final liberation of the globe!"
Jo...on crack...

Btw, nice pictures with the Jiang Fangliang. I hardly see her pictures around.

PS. Jiang Jingguo doesn't look to handsome...

[Publius]

Chiang, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill met at the Cairo Conference in 1943 during World War II.

I read Churchill did not like Chiangs, specially Madame Chiang who did very doubtfull, self-serving translating work.



Chiang Fang-liang (Faina Ipatyevna Vakhreva) , infant Chiang Hsiao-yung, grandfather Chiang Kai-shek. father Chiang Ching-kuo (center rear, hidden).

Great collection everyone and thanks Zorigo for explaining the pictures and the people within them. That should be done for all of them...

Chiang had some high points, such as saving Sun Yat-sen's life in Guangzhou, successfully leading the Northern Expedition, and attempting to improve China's infrastructure, i.e. standardizing the language, improving highways and education, and creating stable legal and financial structures.

He also had some low points, (more in my opinion) such as devoting most of his time amassing personal wealth via corruption and maintaining an army which he used as a glorified bodyguard to ensure his postwar power instead of protecting his countrymen from Japanese aggressions. He also has a questionable morality and appeared to have no qualms about killing for personal advancement. But then again, this is not uncommon for ambitious men. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think that most people, not all, like Chiang because he was Mao's adversary, he was a friend of Sun Yat-sen which automatically embodied Chiang with Democratic/Progressive virtues even though his actions often suggested otherwise, he and his wife were charismatic and were portrayed positively by war-time American media, and he is representative of Taiwan's formation.

I would like to hear WHY other's think Chiang "rocks" or why he does not. I don't think either is incorrect because there are historical and personal reasons for both.


Lastly, these pictures are fine examples to why Joseph Stilwell called Chiang "Peanut."


Chiang and Mayling with General Stilwell in Burma (1942)


Chiang and Mao toasting victory over the Japanese in Chongqing.



Chiang's equestrian Time Magazine Cover photo, 11 December 1933.

Edited by Publius, 03 September 2006 - 07:36 PM.

[jlaporte]

Nice share Chiang, was it an online biography? I'd like to read it.

It is a very thick book that I haven't finished it yet. As often, I started by the end where you can find the episode of Mao's reaction to Chiang's death (and also to Nixon's Watergate scandal).

A good case of 兔死狐悲, if you see what I mean.

Personally, I am quite happy with Deng Hsiao Ping's final judgment: 2/3 good, 1/3 bad....(which probably also applies to my great hero Chiang Kai-Shek )

Anyway, here is a review that you might find interesting on this extremely critical biography:

QUOTE

Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story. London: Jonathan Cape, 2005.

By stating that Mao Zedong was responsible for over 70 million Chinese deaths during peacetime, the first sentence of Chang and Halliday’s highly revisionist biography of the Great Helmsman sets the tune that is carried throughout the book with remarkable dedication. Jiwei Ci’s musings on the revenge of memory in post-Mao China offers an interesting perspective for evaluating the goals of Chang and Halliday’s take on Mao. Observing that soon after Mao’s death ‘unofficial memory undid official history,’ thus allowing for Chinese to ‘now’discern a devil where the eye had heretofore been accustomed to see an angel.
Through consciously neglected previous scholarship on the CCP and Mao’s role in twentieth century China as ‘received wisdom’ (Jonathan Fenby, The Observer, 12/4/2005) and relying heavily on anonymous interviews, uncited memoirs, and unpublished sources, Chang and Halliday’s revisionist narrative represents Ci’s ‘unofficial memory’ set against ‘official history’ (both PRC official narratives and Western academic understanding). But just as Ci Jiwei (1994) notes that ‘the history of China after 1949 was re-remembered by man, though not entirely accurately, as a nightmare of madness, folly, and disaster, ‘Chang and Halliday’s highly politicized account amounts to the ‘personalization [sic.] of blame’ on a one-dimensional, thoroughly evil Mao.
Chang and Halliday’s Mao was, simply put, a monster equivalent to or exceeding Hitler and Stalin in pure evil. His maniacal love of torture and murder encompassed his wives, children, close revolutionary associates, (real or imagined) political enemies, and the Chinese people as a whole. Theirs is a highly one-sided account that recognizes no redeeming qualities in Mao the man or in the revolution he led. Building upon Jung Chang’s own experiences coming of age in Maoist China and her wildly successful memoir, Wild Swans, the authors explicitly aim their historical scholarship at destroying the continued power of PRC legitimacy based on the Maoist legacy. In this reviewer’s opinion, and those of China specialists including Perry Link (‘An Abnormal Mind,’ Times Literary Supplement, 8/14/2005), Jonathan Spence (‘Portrait of a Monster,’ New York Review of Books, 11/3/2005), Andrew Nathan (‘Jade and Plastic,’ London Review of Books, 11/17/2005), Arthur Waldron, and Jeffrey Wasserstrom (‘Mao as Monster,’ Chicago Tribune, 11/6/2005), this is a much-needed corrective. But, excluding Waldron’s laudatory review (‘Mao Lives,’ Commentary, 10/2005), scholarly reviewers found many problems with their research and citation methodology and blatant political axe to grind. Specifically, unhelpful citations, manipulated interpretation of sources to suit their argumentation, and blatantly-unsourced assertions mar a seminal study of Mao based on a decade of research and geared towards an important political re-evaluation of a horrible tyrant.
If Chang and Halliday’s historical research is true (although for the above reasons many assertions defy scholarly examination), this book will sound the death-knell of Mao’s legacy. Jonathan Spence noted 22 separate instances of historical revisionism that could challenge much of our understanding of Mao and the Chinese Revolution (Spence, 24). Notable but inexhaustive examples include Mao’s lack of caring for the plight of Chinese peasants; Stalin and the Comintern’s crucial role in founding and funding the CCP and Mao’s rise to power; Mao’s destruction of the Jinggang revolutionary base for political ends; the Red Army’s legendary Long March as a product of Chiang Kai-shek’s willingness to let them escape so his son would be returned from captivity in the Soviet Union; the utter fabrication of the most famous tale of the Long March, the battle at the Luding Bridge; Mao’s agreement to partition China with Stalin’the list goes on and on.
There are many shocking and important revisions in this book, side-by-side with politically-motivated claims based on suspect scholarship. This prompted Andrew Nathan, no friend of the Chinese Communist Party as his voluminous publications on reform-era China and the Chinese Democracy Movement attest, to summarize the book as ‘jade and plastic together, the pieces’arranged in a stark mosaic, which portrays a possible but not a plausible Mao. While the other scholarly reviewers echoed most of Nathan’s misgivings about Chang and Halliday’s Mao, all recognized that this book was a needed challenge to not only PRC political culture but also to historical understanding of this pivotal figure in twentieth century Chinese history. Chang and Halliday’s book will undoubtedly spread from classrooms to airport book stores, presenting one of the rare cases in which the historical craft, contemporary political culture, and the politics of history takes at least some of the global media stage.
Brent Haas

UNQUOTE

[Boarhuntr]

Well, as he ages he looks like a friendly grandfather.

I admire Chiang Kai Shek very much. I think he was one of the giants of modern China. He unified the country when it was torn apart by the Warlords. He led the country in the war against Japan for 8 long years with character, determination, dignity and honor.
In Taiwan he paved the way for an economical miracle and also through his son shifted Taiwan gradually into a more democratic form of government.
As to his mistakes and shortcomings, who is perfect ? Corruption ? He could have easily sought refuge in the U.S. and lived a life of comfort, but instead chose to stay in Taiwan the rest of his life, vowing never to leave the country.
I remember reading that when he founded the Whampoa academy he had to solicit money from many different sources, including asking the wife of one of his subordinates for donations, she being from a wealthy family. Every textbook, every desk, every pencil used at the Academy Chiang had to find a way to fund. The Academy was not ready made, handed over to him. How many of us have the ability to start a new school from scratch ? And it is no ordinary school, but a military school who produced some of China's most important military leaders. Had Chiang not done so, China might have lost to the Japanese, and today the Japanese flag might be flying in Beijing instead.
Chiang did not have an easy time running China. The economy was in ruins since the collapse of the Manchus dynasty. Sun Yat Sen left a bunch of ideas and ideals, but he never really ran the government. It was all up to Chiang, who had to outmaneuver numerous rivals.
In the end Chiang lost China to Mao, but I do not blame him. Chiang did the best he could under the circumstances. And I truly believe Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek ruled the country with dignity and honor.
No one from that era can come close to comparing to Chiang in character, ability and leadership. China was very fortunate to have a leader like that.

Boarhuntr

Edited by Boarhuntr, 04 September 2006 - 07:00 AM.

[jlaporte]

I think he was one of the giants of modern China.
Boarhuntr

This exactly how I feel. I hope his last wish - to be burried in Mainland - will be fulfilled.

[Hoa Phau]

Personnally, I prefer that one

[attachment=923:attachment]

THE CHIANG FATHER AND SON TEAM

[Chiang Kai-shek]

[esse]

My favorite Jiang's biography was a work by Jonathan Fenby. Has anyone else read it?

[ChiangAP]

Hello, General! Nice to know you are still around, and extending your benign smile from the top of my desk in your nice admiral's uniform. (I am nor sure your official portrait can be added into post from this office, which is protected by a great number of firewalls. If not, I shall post it from home)

[Chiang Kai-shek]

[ChiangAP]

Obviously, being handsome runs in the family!

[attachment=1133:attachment]

蔣緯國 蔣介石次子

[Chiang Kai-shek]

[naruwan]

Obviously, being handsome runs in the family!

[attachment=1133:attachment]

蔣緯國 蔣介石次子

Jiang Wei-Guo isn't blood related to CKS.

He is actually the son of Chiang's classmate in Japan Dai Ji-Tao.

但在晚年，根據蔣緯國的自傳，臺灣天下文化出版公司出版的《千山獨行——蔣緯國的人生之旅》，蔣緯國承認他的生父是戴季陶，其母親是一名日本護士重松金子。

Since Jiang Wei-Gou admitted it himself in his auto-biography, i'd say that's pretty concrete evidence.

But yeah, being handsome does run in the Dai family. Dai Ji-Tao was good looking.

[Chiang Kai-shek]

[Hei Xin]

My favorite Jiang's biography was a work by Jonathan Fenby. Has anyone else read it?

I have. It was pretty good in my opinion.

Edited by Hei Xin, 24 September 2007 - 08:25 AM.