Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 38, Number 7. 15 April 1975

Napoleon and Hitler and Chiang

Napoleon and Hitler and Chiang

Chiang has been compared by his admirers to Napoleon. Whereas the French emperor was a military genius, an efficient organiser and a creative administrator. China's dictator was an atrocious strategist and a bad organiser and a worse administrator. Napoleon was the very personification of the bourgeoise and he brought down European feudalism with the artillary of the French Revolution. Chiang was not a true representative of the bourgeoisie in China and he never came to grips with the relics of feudalism in his own hands. Napoleon was a great conqueror of foreign countries; Chiang was a servant of foreign nations. What did a party mandarin like Chiang have in common with the man who gave Europe the Napoleonic code?'

'Chiang has been compared to Hitler because of his unstable character and his air of injured nobility. Before foreigners, Chiang put on a face of expressionless calm. With his own subordinates, however, he went into rages, screamed like a shrew, threw teacups, pounded on tables. So did Hitler. These two dictators were alike in their distrust of everybody due to a distrust of themselves. But Hitler had some style and originality. Hitler was vastly more colourful; there was an element of passion, almost of greatness in Hitler's rantinge, however foully conceived. Chiang never said anything — publicly — with the slightest emotional appeal. Hitler inspired the bruised and defeated soul of the German people. Chiang stirred no one — not even his most ardent supporters to any real depth of feeling unless it was fear'.