Trying to blame Chiang Kai-Shek for 2-28

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

Has anyone been following the recent attempts by the DPP and its cohorts to place the blame for 2-28 squarely on the shoulders of Chiang Kai-Shek?

From what most of us know, Chen Yi, the then Taiwan governor, was the one primarily responsible for the killings, not CKS. Chen Yi was the one who was in Taiwan during the incident, not Chiang Kai-Shek, who was in China still battling the Communists.

On the one hand CKS can be criticized for handling the situation poorly, and not opening some kind of dialogue with the protesters. By resorting to sending troops in to quell the protests, he also sent the wrong message to the Taiwanese people.

However, in the case of a violent uprising, troops are needed to restore order. Naturally, they are expected to be disciplined, not to kill indiscriminately.

The “new study,” funded by the current administration, uses telegrams to back up its claims as well as the Generalissimo’s hand written leters, but ignores some of his other handwritten notes that urged troops to exercise caution and promised punishment to those that did not obey.

Without truly damning evidence, it is extremely difficult to prove that CKS knowingly and willingly organized the mass murder of Taiwanese people during the 2-28 incident.

The “study” smacks of yet another attempt by the Chen administration and its cronies to smear Chiang Kai-Shek’s reputation and defame him.

Chiang Kai-Shek was the man who lost China.

He was also the man who led the Northern Expedition, defended Taiwan against a tyrannical Communist aggressor and presided over the beginning of its “economic miracle,” which continued under his son.

He should be criticized for his decision to impose Martial Law and to not allow a more democratic Republic of China, but he should be remembered and respected for his achievements.

To label him the perpetator of 2-28 is just another exercise in tired partisan politics (ie: Guomindang figure from China = evil) and an attempt to divide the people of Taiwan.

2

In the spirit of partisan bickering on Taiwan, I believe it time for all all-powerful and all-rich KMT to fund the “228 is a hoax study.”

Surely with the trillion dollar secret slush fund the KMT commands a re-education program should be simple to coordinate.

Fabricating facts like CKS was of Hoklo-Japanese descent should be elementary.

It was all the fault of that Chinese women who wouldn’t pay Japanese tobacco taxes. Hollywood has revealed for years how cunning Dragon Ninja Ladies are. How can Taiwan be so blind to these facts.

3

Aside from the fact there is almost nothing you could say about “cash-my-cheque” that could be deflammatory, well aside from what a nice bloke he was, I think he did a good enough job on his own reputation.

HG

4

While this new report may or may not lack credible supporting evidence, dumber yet is the story I heard on the radio a few minutes ago – that some KMT yahoo has filed a lawsuit against the authors of the report for defamation. :unamused:

Aiyaa. The peanut’s dead. What harm does he suffer if someone publishes an unflattering report on him? And what harm might the plaintiff in this action suffer by the report – one can’t recover in court for damages suffered by someone else (with rare exceptions).

Moreover, to recover compensation, it is necessary to prove not only that the defendant intentionally made false statements about the victim, but the victim’s reputation was harmed as a result. Isn’t it already common knowledge that the peanut was a murderous tyrant?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek

If so, the report did no further harm and damages would be unavailable even if the correct party had filed the lawsuit.

But, I guess this lawsuit isn’t really about the law. It’s just another stupid Taiwanese-style act of political bluster and grandstanding. Just too bad so many people are ignorant to believe there’s something to it.

5

Mother T, I suppose taking said git to court will involve an awful amount of pondering over cheque’s vile deeds, in essence a free kick for the pan-greens.

I smell another fifth collumnist emerging from the KMT ranks, just like Lee Teng-hui.

HG

6

Yeah, CKS was a pretty nice guy. “Although numbers are uncertain, many estimates place the number of deaths during Chiang Kai-shek’s rule on the mainland at around ten million (the lowest estimates provide a figure of about four million, while higher figures suggest as many as 18 million). Many deaths were the result of war and famine, but according to the controversial historian R.J. Rummel approximately four million were killed directly. According to Rummel, even the lower figures would suggest that Chiang Kai-shek has been responsible for more deaths than all but a handful of 20th-century dictators.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek)

Hittler also transformed Germany in a world power from the post-29 era, but was he a nice guy?

7

Fair enough, but how many were Mao Zedong responsible for?

Also - did those deaths not occur in a time of tremendous turmoil and upheaval in China? The country was constantly in one state of war or another from 1911-49, so following from that, it makes sense that many lives were lost.

And who did better, the Taiwanese under CKS, or the mainlanders under Mao?

The point is democracy was not an option at that time.

I’d take CKS any day over Mao, and despite CKS’s shortcomings, I have alot more respect for him than I do for say Chen Shuibian, Lian Zhan, James Song, or Li Denghui.

Chen, a loud-mouthed, all bark and no bite shifty lawyer trying to isolate Taiwan from the rest of the world so he can push his (and other radical independence idelogues’) agenda and get his name in the history books for something other than mediocre administrating and being a good campaigner.

Lian, I think I’ve commented enough on him already, although the Taipei Times’ descriptions of his “joining hands with Beijing” or “acting as Beijing’s stooge” may be the definitive descriptions.

Song, see above, and the TT also added that “his star is falling.”

Li, a miserable traitor and wanna-be Japanese. Blathers on about democratic principles but often ruled like a dictator. Has betrayed the Republic of China, the country of which he once served as president, by saying it doesn’t exist, or that “it’s dead.”

8

I never said that CKS was worse then Mao (according to statistics, CKS is number 3 is the list, following Mao and Hitler)…

9

No way CKS beats the Man of Steel- Comrade Stalin, your rep is being slandered!

10

Total bullshit. The KMT deliberately tagged any Taiwanese politicians, intellectuals and others who dared to step out of line as communists and most were eventually prosecuted/executed on that basis. There was already democratic momentum in Taiwan under the Japanese and then the early KMT administration. Democracy was an option, but not at the highest levels for the mongrel thugs that prevailed in the party by the late 1940s

11

A totally baseless assertion. How do you explain LTH rise to power on Taiwan then? He was a communist on Taiwan and later became president of ROC.

Really? Which public office was voted on under Japanese colonization.

12

Okay, so how many troops were actually received the promised punishment for “not obeying?” 1,000? 100? 0?

Troops landed March 8 -10, 1947, and random shootings, bayoneting, rapes and robberies of civilians began immediately.

So, were Chiang’s and Chen Yi’s “warnings” heeded? Why not? Did the soldiers and armed police simply go mad, forget all about what they were commanded not to do, and risk severe punishment all on their own account?

Well, years later, “one of Chen Yi’s bodyguards testified that Chiang sent Chen a terse telegram with the terse order, ‘Kill them all; keep it secret.’” (from Taiwan: A Political History by D. Roy)

When thousands were killed but the government of the time “initially reported that only a few hundred were killed,” we can see which was the true directive; we can see which directive was actually followed.

13

Okay, so how many troops were actually received the promised punishment for “not obeying?” 1,000? 100? 0?

Troops landed March 8 -10, 1947, and random shootings, bayoneting, rapes and robberies of civilians began immediately.

So, were Chiang’s and Chen Yi’s “warnings” heeded? Why not? Did the soldiers and armed police simply go mad, forget all about what they were commanded not to do, and risk severe punishment all on their own account?

Well, years later, “one of Chen Yi’s bodyguards testified that Chiang sent Chen a terse telegram with the terse order, ‘Kill them all; keep it secret.’” (from Taiwan: A Political History by D. Roy)

When thousands were killed but the government of the time “initially reported that only a few hundred were killed,” we can see which was the true directive; we can see which directive was actually followed.[/quote]

I think the original post to this thread was about how the green camp has over the decades been presenting the 228 incident/uprising/massacre very much in their own way, and how they way that is done is not very fair to the actual events.

Etheorial was complaining that the 590 page report which should be very substantial uses only the portion of the evidence to make its implied claim that CKS was directly responsible for the way the troops handled the uprising.

For the green camp academics to continue to do this is nothing new, but it is always irritating to people who know a little more about 228 than the way the green camp likes to present it which is totally 1 sided and often times downplays or conveniently doesn’t mention the fact that Mainlanders, civilians, and officials alike, were beaten and killed by mobs because they were Mainlanders before the troops arrived.

But I think Master Kang has a point nevertheless about the results. The result was still a bloody crackdown including all of those things he mentioned regardless of whatever notes or telegrams were sent by CKS.

The secret telegram saying “Kill them all; keep it a secret.” is written in the Fenby book about CKS also.

I was wondering why that telegram isn’t being mentioned in the current case between John Chiang (Chiang Kai-Shek’s grandson) and the green academics.

If that telegram is real, then isn’t that direct evidence that CKS did in fact personally approve of the troops to committ murder? I’m not well-versed on the legitimacy of that telegram. The context of it and everything.

You know there was a book written about Taiwan’s current political state after the 2004 pres. election that summarizes Taiwan’s political history and given some interesting perspectives that I usually don’t see written in English.

It’s written by a middle aged Taiwanese women who used to follow the Dangwai movement and support the DPP in its earlier days. But now she became sorely disappointed in the the Chen Shui-Bian government for becoming a fascist government.

In the 228 portion of the book, it was the first time that I had ever read somewhere in English that the Taiwanese raped Mainlander women during the initial days the protesters were taking over cities and positions.

I don’t think the point is that important or interesting, but I think it presents a different feeling towards the 228 incident beyond what we’ve all been saturated with which always gets simplified down to “Corrupt Mainlander pigs came and raped and killed the peace loving law-abiding Formosans.”

I’m not saying that that didn’t happen or that it wasn’t a tragic thing, but my main comment is on the way the 228 incident is usually presented to us repeatedly.

14

I trully believe that any incident, no matter where in the world it happens, will allways be explored in a certain way politically. Just look how US dealed and deals with the 9-11. Just look what Chinese do with Nanking.

In the other side, just look at what the Americans did in Chile (actually surpressing a democratic elected president by a dictator) and with the Guantanamo prisioniers and what China did in Tiannanmen (not to cite millions of others) and you will see the same people using two weights. It’s all about perspective, and how you can use it or not.

15

[quote=“mr_boogie”]I trully believe that any incident, no matter where in the world it happens, will allways be explored in a certain way politically. Just look how US dealed and deals with the 9-11. Just look what Chinese do with Nanjing.

In the other side, just look at what the Americans did in Chile (actually surpressing a democratic elected president by a dictator) and with the Guantanamo prisioniers and what China did in Tiannanmen (not to cite millions of others) and you will see the same people using two weights. It’s all about perspective, and how you can use it or not.[/quote]

Good point. And which version of history would you rather?

The pan-greens, or the pan-blues?

16

None, because I trully believe both of them are exploiting or trying to cover up.

17

Well, if your worried about “accuracy”, I think I would much rather the pan-green version.

18

[quote] Total bullshit. The KMT deliberately tagged any Taiwanese politicians, intellectuals and others who dared to step out of line as communists and most were eventually prosecuted/executed on that basis. There was already democratic momentum in Taiwan under the Japanese and then the early KMT administration. Democracy was an option, but not at the highest levels for the mongrel thugs that prevailed in the party by the late 1940s

19

Etheorial, what you said cannot be denied, but again, no end justfies the meanings…

20

I think 228 has a lot of layers to it and will continue to be interpreted quite differently.

I find the KMT apologist version downplaying the violence and other things that make the KMT look really bad, and thus tyring to frame the incident in a way where a lot of things was bad circumstances, and very bad policies of the Chen Yi administration who did not understand the conditions of the island or the expectations of the people.

But pan blue apologist versions of 228 do go into what people on both sides were thinking. i.e. It attempts to understand all points of view.

I find the pan green version to be very lacking in trying to gain any understanding of why Chen Yi’s admininstration did things the way they did from 1945-1947. In general they only look at how bad the KMT government was to the people.

Therefore, it doesn’t promote any understanding of what why the stringent and unfair policies were the way they were. After reading the green literature, I find myself confused at why the KMT would do this and that. In other words, I’m not any wiser to how that administration handled things and why. It’s just “they were corrupt, and were robbing the people because they are bad.”

So in short, you get a very vivid look at how things looked to the people. It won’t help you understand the bigger picture of how Taiwan was another province the KMT government in the mainland had to administer to and also did a bad job with. The green books also don’t look much into the relationship between Tawian and the mainland at that time.

So I think both sides are important to read. Ultimately, most of the blame lays on the government, bad circumstances or not, because they were the government, but I think people on the pan blue side just really don’t like the way 228 is exploited to raise sentiments against the Mainlander ethnic group and to present a very very biased point of view which continues to divide the blue and green camp supporters to this day. Basically 228 is another way for them to consolidate their support base in Taiwan. To consolidate the 74% of the population that is Hoklo to be against a Mainlander party.

It’s simple math. If it worked on more Hoklo or Taiwanese people today, the DPP would win elections hands down, but it doesn’t work. I’ve met too many Taiwanese people who totally don’t buy into how the DPP tries to frame history.