Talk:Chiang Kai-shek/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chiang Kai-shek. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Possible Bias

Is it me or is this entry biased agasint Chiang Kai-Shek. I can't really explain it but it seems to subliminally give a negative view of him.

--- You're right - although qualified, many statements are loaded, such as: As Mao's number-one nemesis, he was vilified in mainland China as "China's number one fascist." There is censorship in China, and obviously, whatever views expressed in mainland China are those that are allowed by the PRC, and not necessarily the freely expressed views of the people.

Necessary changes

I'm wondering why the murders under Chiang Kai-Shek's rule are not mentioned here. According to Bryan Caplan (author of the Museum of Communism, google it), CKS would rank 4th on the 20th century democide scale, and #2 in east Asia, only surpassed by the deka-million killings under Mao.

Millions of chinese perished under CKS - naturally, this should be mentioned. - Peter Perlsø 00:12, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Note: Bryan Caplan is an associate professor of economics.. the data he used is from R.J. Rummel, who is a controversial source.

Mistery Unravled:

Chiang Kai Shek Is one of a kind. I think you should mention more about the murders under Chiang. Misunderstanding this interpritaion will show what kind of person Chaing was. Why did he murder them and when. It allowes us readers to covers unknown facts such as wrongs and rights. What he did could have been wrong. I will maintain my understanding that he was a good person and what he did was for some uphanding reasonings.

"Peanut Head"

User:PMelvilleAustin, you just re-inserted the sentence that US General [[Stilwell] referred to CKS as Peanut Head in his diaries. I just finished reading Barbara Tuchman's biography of Stilwell (she had special access to his diaries) -- per this book Stilwell calls him Peanut but not Peanut Head. Do you have a reference for Peanut Head? Beyond that, the sentence doesn't reflect any policy or insight or common usage, it was intended by Stilwell to be both private and derogatory -- inclusion of this sentence in a CKS article seems against NPOV in my reading. Comment? technopilgrim 20:10 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've heard Chiang Kai-shek called "Peanut" by a friend of mine who lived in Taiwan during the seventies. I think it is an interesting side note, and something worth recording. Where else would one obtain this information? (12-08-03)

I read in a biography of Chiang, that he was called Peanuts, it was a code name for him used as a nickname (a derogatory one at that). Now there is a "Name" section I think we could add that back in. Do you have to likst references for things like that?

Funny. I came across this by casually googling "peanut head" -- after adding a parenthetical explanation of the term "sagittal ridge" in Afrocentrism. It's not likely that Chian Kai-shek was called "Peanut Head". The term -- at least in the African-American community refers to someone (black) with a pronounced sagittal ridge -- like King Tut)[1] and the kid who plays Damon Wayans' son on his sitcom. (I can't think of the name of either at the moment.) deeceevoice 8 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Problem resolved

Is it just my browser, or did the changes 24.4.254.xxx made to this article (and to other China-related articles) break things for everyone? All the articles he's edited show up blank to me now. I normally have no problems with Unicode or Chinese characters in articles.

I think I can spoof my URL to get an edit box for each of these to try and fix them, but I'd like to make sure it's not just me before I go in and muck about. --Paul Drye

Mmmm, seems to work fine for me. Perhaps some unicode bug in your browser? I can imagine most western text only browsers will display something other than chinese signs there... --Anders Törlind

My browser -- IE 5.5 -- is normally OK as I've loaded it up with Unicode fonts and so on. That said, perhaps it is a bug. I don't see any problems in the HTML that wikipedia is sending to my browser. On the other hand, this is a rather common browser, so even if a bug it may be worth considering a workaround. --Paul Drye

Just tried it with IE 5.0, and the signs do not display. Otherwise the page looks just fine. Stranger than a snakes armpit. --Anders Törlind

And I've just tried it with another computer using both IE 5.0 with Unicode and Chinese character support (it's fine), and with the latest build of Mozilla (also fine). I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to some peculiarity with the first machine, and not a general problem. Now you know why I asked first rather than changing it!

Thanks for you help, Anders. -- Paul Drye

Presidential navigation bar

I've added these bars to the presidents after Chiang KS. But for the presidents Chiang KS and before, it's a little tricky. Anyone want to help me out? --Jiang 05:06, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Preceded by:
Chiang Ching-kuo

President of the Republic of China

Succeeded by:
Chen Shui-bian

Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King of Canada has even more elaborate returns. Perhaps that'll help.

If they are proceeded by themselves, no need to repeat it and indicate how many time he's done it (the article proper's better @ that). Prime Minister Jean Chrétien "succeeded himself" twice already, and his navigation bar doesn't need to show that. --Menchi 05:34, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

How about change in title from "Chairman of the natl govt" to "president"? Columbia encylopedia seems to skip the Chairman title entirely and calls Lin Sen "President of China". How about Li Tsung-jen? Do you know why he was just acting president and how Chiang was able to constitutionally retake the presidency? --Jiang 05:40, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I actually have never heard of Li Tsung-jen (李宗仁) in English or Chinese until now. I'm looking up some information and writing an article on him. The motivations behind Chiang's actions -- takeover or whatnot -- may not be explained at those Chinese pages (haven't read them yet), but I'll keep an eye on such mentionings. ---Menchi 05:53, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

The ROC Government information rarely talks about the presidents prior to Chiang Kai-shek. They say that Chiang was the first constitutionally elected president, I think that this should be noted some how, in the presidents previous before chiang. Even Sun Yat-sen is called an interim president. I think that somehow we need to differentiate between the pre-Chiang Kai-shek presidents and the latter "constitutionally elected" presidents. The ROC Government sure does. tlarson 12:52, June 14, 2004

For the terms CKS served before 1947, his title was "政府主席" (Chairman of the Government) and not "總統" (President). We need to revamp the list at President of the Republic of China to take into effect all those different titles (Generalisimo and others) used to describe the leader as well as the rival governments during the warlord era. Of course talking about previous presidents leads to the Beiyang warlords (whom the current ROC does not consider legitimate) and it gets even messier later after the Northern Expedition with three rival capitals. To be NPOV, we'll need to list all of these governments, whether the ROC thinks they were legitimate or not. http://www.rulers.org has some lists.

I think the navigation is more confusing than it's worth and should be removed in the meantime.--Jia ng 07:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thinking about it those presidents before Chiang Kai-shek were technically not his predessesors, as they were not presidents. Maybe instead of being called presidents it should be called leadership, we could show the line of leadership from Sun Yat-sen right down to Chen Shui-bian, and some how differentiate how some are presidents some chairmen of the government and others constitutionally elected. Eg: Sun Yat-sen: Provisional President (1912-1913.). . . Chiang Kai-shek: Chairman of National Government (1928-1932.) . . . Chiang Kai-shek: First through fifth term President of the ROC,* [disclaimer about how the ROC Government only counts Constitutional Presidents] (1947-1975). . . Chen Shui-bian: Tenth and eleventh term President of the ROC. Actually maybe we should orginze it in terms after Chiang took office in '47, the ROC Government material seems to refer to them alot, I think that might be the way to go. I think that it is important that we supply the leaders previous to Chiang, because this might be the only place where this material can be found in such an organized manner (well not organized yet, but we should organize it.) I think it is also important to present it in the fashion that the ROC presents it, not because it is the proper way, but, because it is so unique. Just like the other ways the ROC potrays history. Actually I feel like I'm digging up dead ghosts since this topic hadn't been discussed in almost a year. Maybe I'll work on my own version of the timeline and see what you guys feel about it. Tlarson 16:29, June 15, 2004

I've already started a more comprehensive list at list of leaders of the Republic of China. (This discussion should probably go at Talk:President of the Republic of China. It is incomplete because Sun's rival government in Guangzhou were at times not headed by one man and I'm still not sure how to fix that (we'll probably be making a List of leaders of the Republic of China spinoff from the main presidency page). In addition, the rival government of the KMT leftists in Wuhan and the Japanese puppet governments could also be included.--Jia ng 23:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Visit to Mainland

"the Chiang's would never step again on the soil of Mainland China."

I'm not sure which people "the Chiang's" referrs to. I would think that other members of the Chiang family have visited the mainland in recent years. The sentence seems somewhat wordy and redundant. Let me see what I can do... --Jiang 22:40, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I meant kai-shek and ching-kuo; I'll rephrase it. kt2 22:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Children

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Chiang had another son, Chiang Wei-kuo (蔣緯國). " - This implies he had only two sons, which I believe is not the case. --Jia ng 10:35, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What do you believe? --Menchi (Talk)â 10:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Didn't he father some illegitimate children? --Jia ng

Will add some stuff to article.

I couldn't see the image of Chiang; it turned out to be a dark blur. Is it my problem or is the image really too poor? Mandel 09:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Neither. It's his spiteful ghost. Actually, yours. It looks ...fine (relatively) on mine.--Menchi 10:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Xian

I'm surprised that the Xian Incident isn't mentioned.

be bold and add it in! --Jia ng 05:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Names

His birth name was Chiang Chou-t'ai, his courtesy name Chiang Kai-shek, but where did Chiang Zhong-zheng originate? --Jia ng 08:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jiang Zhong-zheng is his Japanese name. He spent some time studying in Japan. Allentchang 19:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wartime leader

I find this section very objectionable and mostly with stuff from "Stilwell and the American Experience from China" and chinese communist literature. It's as if Chiang was only hoarding arms and tried to avoid fights with the Japanese. I'd like to see the numbnut who wrote it explain how millions of KMT soldiers were killed in some twenty-odd frontal battles with the Japanese. I'll try to dig up some Chinese (from taiwan and HK, not commie) and other sources like the Wedmeyer Reports and revise the section. Stilwell isn't the definitive opinion on Chiang as he got into fights not only with Chiang, but with other Allied generals too and was hiding in Burmese bushes most of the time. Also, Stilwell caused the Chinese troops under his command to be encircled by the japanese in the first Burmese campaign, but you rarely hear that because it's all about Chiang-bashing! Wareware 06:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chiang's body was preserved

There are only preciously few national leaders in the world had their corpse preserved (which includes Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong and Kim Il-Sung.), and Chiang's cadaver was one of them. I was trying to point out this precious similarity in the article. This is one of the fact which notorious Chiang shares with other world class dictators and I believe other people has the right to know about it. However, other members seem to have problem with this simple fact. I do not understand. If no one stand out and provide justifiable answers. I will try to revert the page tomorrow......Mababa 06:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

most people in developed nations are embalmed after death. this just preserves the body for the days and weeks necessary for the funeral service. Chiang was not preserved, to the best of my knowledge, in order to be displayed open-casket permanently. This would require regular maintenence of the body and a electric pump to maintain humidity. He was just embalmed like everyone else and entombed. Please provide evidence to the contrary. --Jia ng

Yes, entombed but not burried just like other examples I mentioned above and I believe this is such a note worthy similarity between the authoritarian leaders. Please give other examples of non-dictator nation leaders who get embalmed but also indefinitely unburried. Please provide evidence to the contrary.Mababa 19:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Entombing is a common method of disposing of the body, just not in China. For example, George Washington was put in a tomb too, as for just about all the British monarchs. --Jia ng

Sorry about my mis-interpretation. My point is that Chiang's body is not Entomb for the past 30 years. If you go to Tzuhu, in Taoyuan County, you will see that his coffin is still laying on the bround. Government high officials still worship his coffin every year. I would love to hear any example you can share with me about non-dictator national leader's body being treated in this "extraordinary unbelievale idol worshiping" way. :) That is what I meant the similarity here. Mababa 20:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's body was embalmed so many times that when they exhumed his body approximately 37 years later, it was still in great shape. The flag that covered his body was rotted away, however. 169.229.36.52 21:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sarcogphagus, not coffin. can you back up the claim that "Government high officials still worship his coffin every year".? --Jia ng

Chiang's not interred because he wanted to be buried in China, not Taiwan. Does Lenin want to be buried anywhere else besides Russia? What's your point? Wareware 07:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My point is that regardless of reasons, only dictators enjoy the privilege of having their body being preserved, not burried and being worshiped openly by others. This coincidence has nothing to do with any intention in regard to be burried at any specific area in the world or geting exhumed and reburried again. President Abraham Lincoln's story only backs this view point. I intend to draw this analogy between Chiang and other unburried nation leaders in the article. Here is the logic: A(preserved, un-burried nation leaders)--> B(authoritarian leaders). If A-->B, then ~B--> ~A. If one wants to refute this point of view, I would expect one can give examples of non-authoritarian leaders also have their body preserved, unburried and take salute from the public. Again, if no one can refute this point of view, I will try to put this fact into the article. The wording certainly can be modified. Any refuting examples are welcomed. BTW, in ROC's Tourism Bureau's official website, they put Chiang's sarcogphagus site as a tourism spot. KMT high officials loyalfully pay salutes to the site every year and even Chen Shui-bian visited there in Chiang's date of passing away recently. Lee Teng-hui used to visit there as well. This is not secrete. http://www.tbroc.gov.tw/lan/Cht/attractions/scenic_spots.asp?id=R145 Mababa 06:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

see Grant's tomb. And I don't get why you're trying to add that dumb trivia of yours into the article, everyone knows Chiang was a dictator. Wareware 20:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Almost everyone's body is preserved in developed countries. Take a look at embalming. Many people aren't buried. Take a look at tomb. I really don't find a point here. --Jia ng 00:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will come back to this thread a bit later. Wareware has pointed out the reason for me. I want to link Chiang to the dictators in the articles which was not obvious in the webpage now. However, I do not believe Jiang has given me an example of having non-autocratic nation leaders with body unburried but still recieve public salute to disagree with me. I am not sure if Jiang has ever went to Chiang's body site. Chiang was not burried or tombed period. That's the point.Mababa 05:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Didn't Chiang escaped?

Chiang moved from China to Taiwan after he was defeated by PRC otherwise he might get caught or get killed. Can some one help me to determine if this is escape or not? Why is the description of escape in contractition to the NPOV?Mababa 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying he "escaped" implies that his government in Taiwan was not legitimate. That is the POV of the Communist Party of China. Saying he "moved from China to Taiwan " implies that Taiwan is not part of China and is the POV of Taiwan independence supporters. This aside, the refernce is not relevant in a section on his death. --Jia ng 06:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think saying he "retreated" is better. Wareware 22:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe people are over interpretating the wording "escaped". Contrary to Jiang's interpretation, I would rather say "moved" seems to imply Chiang has the legitimacy to relocate onto another piece of land which belongs to Republic of China, which then inherited by PRC. This would be POV of Taiwan independence supporters. Whereas by saying "escaped", not only fits PRC's position but also faithfully described Chiang's situation. "Retreated" is fine, but might also imply that Chiang relocate to somewhere he used to control. "Retreated" would fail to reflect the fact that he relocated to Taiwan where Chiang did not belong to. I am not sure why this is such a bit POV. In fact even news sources including CNN and Reuters always use the word "fled" when they describe this part of history. This aside, I failed to see why briefly mentioning Chiang's past years in Taiwan before his death would be irrelavent. Even when people talked about Moses would always mention about his 40 years in the wilderness..... Without further objection, I plan to revert the article...Mababa

Chiang's government started controlling Taiwan in 1945, 4 years before 1949. I dont see your point. --Jia ng 02:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought you brought up the arguement of sovereignty. In my opinion, having the control of the island is very different from having sovereignty over the island. I am not sure describing one escaping from one area to another has anything to do with his claim of sovereignty. Sorry, I am confused by your arguement. Do you mind clarify it a bit?Mababa 06:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

they exercised sovereinty, albeit de facto sovereignty. saying he "did not belong to" Taiwan or that he didn't have the legitimacy to relocate is POV. --Jia ng

It was the Chinese military that occupied and controlled Taiwan from 1945 to 1949. They set up a military government, and a new currency called Taiwan Dollar, different from the currency Chinese used in China. Tp kde

For the reason above, I think Chiang's government did not control Taiwan until 1949.

In a history text book "American Odyssey-- The United States In The 20th Century", Chiang did not escape to Taiwan, he fled to Taiwan. "Jiang continued to ignore these problems, while Mao's forces began winning battles. By January Jiang abandoned Beijing. [...] Jiang fled to the offshore island of Taiwan in December, and in American view, 500 million Chinese were "lost" to communism." (Nash, 2000, p. 572)

References

Nash, G. B. (2000). American odyssey-- the United States in the 20th century. Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-hill .

Tp kde 20:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Chinese military that occupied and controlled Taiwan from 1945 to 1949" vs " think Chiang's government did not control Taiwan until 1949" I'm confused. those statements contradict. --Jia ng 00:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, they are not contradictions. Chinese army acted as an occupier and peacekeeper in Taiwan after the war. The government of ROC thus was not supposed to be the presenting authority.

The escape of Chiang and his followers was actually a mishap for them and Taiwan. If the Chinese army was able to keep peace in Taiwan without the infamous 228 killing, and Chiang did not have to escape from China, Taiwan would have became an independent country in early 1950's.

The government of ROC did not actually gain its legitimacy until 1996-- when Lee, Teng-hui was elected president by popular votes of Taiwanese population-- after almost 41 years of prolonged occupation.

One should read the definition of a legitimate government before writing against my points. They are here in the second paragraph: government ---Tp kde 22:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chiang fled, escaped, or ran away from China. --Tp kde 22:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Saying either the PRC or ROC would have allowed Taiwan to become independent is just silly. They were dead set on retaking Taiwan, given the humiliation China suffered in 1895. Please tell me where you're pulling this from.

The ROC army was indeed an occupying force (and functioned as such until 1947), but there was clear intent that the land was supposed to be given to the ROC. Japan officially ceded it in 1952. And since when has legitimacy relied on direct elections? One should read the definition of a legitimate government before writing against my points. They are here in the second paragraph: government. Let's make this relevant to the text. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Jia ng 00:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can understand what would a Chinese think about this matter. But let us face the truth, what could Chinese do to retake Taiwan? Chiang's forces were so ill equiped, they had to ask the US to provide them transportation to Taiwan Every Time. Given humiliation, Chinese still would have to face the truth that they could not take back what they didn't have. Chinese can always dream about something, that will not have affected the reality a bit.

Please take your time and read this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FH19Dg01.html In the article, Chinese did not even "acknowledge" or "know" that Taiwan was part of it 60 some years ago. The land was suppose to be given to ROC? Not true. What was the reason for Chinese ownership? I believe most people would not claim a stolen object his/hers. Chinese were a special kind though, after 228 incident in 1947 (as you said), they claimed an occupied island theirs.

The legitimacy of a government does not rely on direct elections, but the wide support from the population that is controlled by that government.-- That is my idea of showing you the definition of a legitimate government. Did you think ROC government was supported at all in its early days in Taiwan? My answer to that is "NO". If there were wide support for ROC, 228 incident would not happen, 30,000+ people, mostly educated people would not have to die. --Tp kde 05:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This conversation is getting irrelevant but since you've tempted me, I answer anyways.

They did take Taiwan. I don't get your first paragraph.

The article has its history all wrong. Of course China didn't treat Taiwan as its own in 1939 - it was part of Japan. They could not simply ignore the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It was true that Taiwan was considered a fringe territory for much of its past, but unlike outer Mongolia (which was organized into banners) and Korea (just a tributary state), Taiwan was made a prefecture of Fujian in 1680 and given provincial status in 1887. There's no use discussing the spoils when you're losing the war big time - this is why you see little discussion of retaking Taiwan pre-1942. As for "most people not claim[ing] a stolen object his/hers" the land was initially "stolen" (as portrayed by the Chinese) by Japan. Again, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

There are many views on what constitutes legitimacy and popular sentiment is just one of them. The abscence of civil war indicates legitimacy. The government was recognized as legitimate by most of the world until 1970s. Chen Yi's administration was corrupt and the occupation troops sent over were guilty of mass looting, but Chen was later recalled and executed. What about after 1947? Any why 1996? Is the US government not legitimate for having an electoral college system? Starting on 1 Jan 1992 the entire Legislative Yuan was Taiwanese-elected. The Taiwanese people were never polled and their opinion did not matter as long as the system functioned (even and especially if undemocratic). --Jia ng 03:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on this issue this time!! Neither PRC or ROC would have allowed Taiwan to become independence after the second WWW; even though both Chiang and Mou initially endorsed the support for Taiwan to get independent from Japan. Why? Because the Chinese hysteria about the humiliation China suffered in 1895 as you mentioned, but also out of their greediness over the affluent island. According to Formosa Betrayed by George H. Kerr, the corrupted Chinese (KMT member based government) saw Taiwan as a treasure island after the second WWW. With all my personal respect to the communist Chinese, I highly doubt if the story would be different had the communist occupy Taiwan.

As for the issue whether there was a clear intention of giving Taiwan to China, this is should also put under the scrutiny of POV . Please refer to the link Cairo Declaration and read through it. The intension was not clear, disputable, merely temporarily during the war and was subsequently abandomed by US and Britain. There are photocopies of the original documents arguing the so called intention to giving Taiwan to Chian is not tenable. These arguments are supported with proof, therefore please do not scream POV. Since they are only telling truth, if one wants to refute these evidence without giving out tenable evidence, he would be the one taking Wikipeida as soapbox and propaganding his own POV. Also see following stories:

A)British's Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden once stated in the House of Common, "In September 1945, the administration of Formosa was taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces. But this was not a cession, nor did it in itself involve any change of sovereignty."

B)In May 1951, after Chiang Kai-Shek's government had occupied the island for five years, General MacArthur, at a Congressional hearing said, "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan."

C)In 1955, Winston Churchill said, "[The Cairo Declaration] contained merely a statement of common purpose."

D)His Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, also said that the Declaration was merely a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war, that never materialized.

E)In 1955, three years after the Peace Treaty of San Francisco was concluded, the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said in the House of Common, "Formosa and the Pescadores have been in Chinese Nationalist hands ever since the Japanese surrender in 1945... Formosa has never in this century been a part of China and the status of Formosa was dealt with by the Treaty of San Francisco, signed by the government."

One thing I would like to mention here is that, please also do not be confused about the issue of sovereignty. You may argue that Chiang's Nationalist military had controlled the Formosa and exert the so called de facto sovereignty, which is merely belligerent occupation. Belligerent occupation does not transfer sovereignty, otherwise you may consider Iraq part of US. Sovereignty usually involves ACCRETION, ADJUDICATION, CESSION, CONQUEST, DISCOVERY, PRESCRIPTION and SELF-DETERMINATION. I do not beileve Chiang's Nationalist army qualify any one of them. In the case of Taiwan, only San Francisco Peace Treaty with 50 counties's ratification has delt with the disposition of Formosa. Even though Chiang managed to have Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty ratified before SFPT enter into force, it merely repeated the terms in SFPT. It is therefore not proper to say Chiang has any legitimacy to transfer his exiled Chinese government to Taiwan. Reuters issued a news in Jan 19th 1949 from Nanking about US warning Chiang that he can only transfer his exiled government to Kuantong but not Formosa since the Allied power still had responsibility to maintain military occupation on Taiwan. UPI news also issued a news from Taipei in Jan-22-1949: if Chiang moved his government to Taiwan, then he would be establishing his government over a territory which he does not have sovereignty over. (I back translated them from mandarin. However, I do plan to go to the library and find out the original report.)

Put all this aside, though I do admire Jiang's adherence to the NPOV principle, I still do not see why discribing Chiang as fled to Taiwan or escaped to Taiwan is a POV. Britain can escape arround during Independence War and this has nothing to do with Sovereignty. Napoleon also moved from one place to another during WWWI and this description also does not imply whether he gain sovereighty of one place or lost it. Jiang, could you come back to the initial discussion about the Chiang's Flee or Escape and the logic why stating facts would be POV? Mababa 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Much of what you say is true, but some of it is out of context. As a posted at Talk:Cairo Conference, the British position must be taken in light of them having recognized the PRC as the government in all China while faced with the need of containing communism.

This issue here is over the implications of the words we use. Yes, Taiwan was technically and arguably under military occupation in 1949, but "escaped" implies a different situation. It implies that he did not control the land he went to, even if he did not control it by law. I have nothing wrong with "fled". --Jia ng 03:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Romanizations

It looks like great care has been taken to account for the various forms and spellings of the subject of this article. However, the other Chinese words that occur here are not consistently in one system of romanization. Is there supposed to be a standard form so that people who do not have access to the Chinese characters can tell how names are supposed to be pronounced? 金 (Kim) 07:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i agree. we need to have some sort of CLEAR standard, for Romanization.

Bias

Any bias against Jiang his entirely justified as long as we continue to accept the bias against figures such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. In all probability Jiang actually killed more people than Hitler and an entire (quite lengthy) article is devoted to Hitler's killings. By contrast a few sentences in the first paragraph of this article describe Jiang's purges. Indeed if we are to be more even-handed in the writing of Wikipedia articles we should probably create an article on Jiang's purges and killings in order to conform to the same comprehensive standards of the articles devoted to Hitler and Stalin. Indeed the Holocaust article devotes an entire section to nothing more than the cruelty of Nazi methods. If anything this article is far too soft on a man who ranks amongst the five most brutal tyrants of all time (like someone else said earlier on this discussion page - Jiang is the fourth greatest killer of the twentieth century according to one source. Other sources put him higher still). Jiang killed between 10 million and 18 million people. The upper figure puts him ahead of Hitler and in terms of the number of 'executions' performed Jiang may well out-strip both Stalin and Mao (the latter's kills are mainly the result of famines and Red Guard rampages - something which went well beyond Mao's control).

--- If you want to use the same counting methods that got the 10 million deaths for Jiang, then the deaths attributed to Hitler is about 21 million. If you want to compare upper range to upper range, for Hitler it's 31.5 million.

Editing Out Toll of Jiang's Victims

Can someone please explain why the toll of Jiang's victims was edited out of the article? Simply stating a fact is hardly expressing a bias. Most estimates place the number of Chinese killed under Jiang Jieshi at around 10 million with osme estimates reaching as high as 18 million. In the article on Joseph Stalin the third sentence mentions the Great Purge. In the article on Mao Zedong the second paragraph mentions "at least 20 million people" dying in the Great Leap Forward alone. In the article on Adolf Hitler mentions the extermination of over 11 million people. I haven't checked the articles on such people as Pol Pot or any of the other brutal dictators of the last century - but I think it would be reasonably fair to say that somewhere quite early on in the article a significant amount of text would be devoted to their debauched murders. Why then when I add a section to this article saying "between 10 and 18 million people were persecuted or inadvertantly starved to death under Chiang" is it considered anti-Chiang bias? Is there some censoring going on? Is someone trying to maintain the idea that Taiwan is righteous and good when compared to the evil People's Republican government? The truth is more important than political games. If reference is made to the numbers killed or the incidents in which people were killed under Mao, Hitler or Stalin in the opening sections of their respective articles, why then does the same not apply for Jiang Jieshi? Furthermore this article is grossly misleading - it speaks at length about this man's triumphs (unifying and strengthening China and later Taiwan) but never once mentions the fact that along with Tojo, Hitler, Stalin and Mao he was one of the most brutal dictators of all time. I shall change this article to include relevant facts on this matter. If anyone wishes to remove these changes I shall put them back in again. Censorship will not stand. Chiang Kai-shek was an evil dictator and shall be recognized as one. I shan't state it in as many words, but I will provide the relevent FACTS and allow readers to decide for themselves. I know the conclusion they will reach.

Simpl. vs. Traditional

蔣: see http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=848B&useutf8=false, which indicates a simplified form, 蒋, apparently used in Japanese for writing Chiang Kai-shek 蒋介石, しょうかいせき

Christianity

What denomination of Christian was he, and how did this play with the Chinese public (I'm assuming the Christian population wasn't too large).

It appears Mme. Chaing wore the pants in the family as far as their Christianity goes, and CNN says she was reared a Methodist [2].Nobs01 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

New image

File:Chaingkaishek.jpg

Chiang Kai-shek

Here's a color image; don't know where to place it if anyone wants to use it. Thank you.

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chiang Kai-shek/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*A controversial topic. Needs citations! AQu01rius (User  Talk) 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)