When Chiang Kai-Shek died a few people remembered him. Among these few. Muldoon stood out as the sole exception among New Zealand politicians who laboured to eulogise the dead. It was evident that he held the Generalissimo in the highest esteem and wasted no words in using this rare occasion to launch another onslaught on the corruptive influence of communism. It is hard to imagine how he can possibly succeed as a lone crusader, practically, when Chiang commanded 60 armies against the communists and failed. Further, it is even harder to understand how he and the Editor of the Dominion can evoke any sympathy for the dead man when he was one of the most hated and despised despots in Chinese history and still is in the minds of millions of oppressed Taiwanese.

So who is this 'peanut', 'little bugger', 'tribal chieftan', 'big boy', the 'all-wise' and the 'rattle snake' as the American General 'Vinegar Joe' Stiliwell ruddy called him behind bis back during the war?

To really understand ChiangKai-Shek, one must look at him in terms of Chinese history and how it shaped the thoughts and acts of this man. In a classic account of the Chinese Revolution, American Writer Jack Belden provides invaluable insight into this tragic figure of history in his book 'China Shakes The World'. The accuracy of the author's observations and the facts he recorded have not changed since he wrote it in 1946. This is therefore a late review of events long past, yet of some urgency lest we forget the lessons to be learnt from history. No apology is made for the extensive quoting from the book, as the author's summation of Chiang's character is concise enough.

'China Shakes The World' is the sequel to Snow's 'Red Star Over China'. The author travelled extensively throughout China observing and reporting on history that was unfolding before him in the gigantic social upheaval between the years 1946 and 1949 which culminated in the overturning of the whole Chinese, universe. Of the events which Belden reported, some were often not published in the Free world press as they were unfavourable to one of the 'four great statesmen' of our time. His book reveals page after page the progress of the Chinese Revolution and Chiang KaiShek looms targe in these pages as one of the main actors in the dramatic climax of a few thousand years struggle of the Han people. Westerners tend to regard Chiang as a key figure in this drama as they are prone to do so often in their history books by looking at history in terms of a particular class of people and individuals, of kings and dynasties. Belden rejects this approach as superficial: 'The causes of such an event in which millions of people fought one another, peasants turned on landlords, brother on brother and wives on husband cannot be the fault of one man'. It was the irresistable trend of history in which Chiang was caught. If he had lived at an earlier time he might have fitted in the historical picutre but not in the 20th Century. In spite of him the struggle between the oppressed and oppressors of his society was already in progress for thousands and thousands of years. Yet this man ruled China without interruption for two violent decades of war and revolution.

Feudal overlord and comprador.

Chiang reportedly claimed kinship with an ancient king of China. In conformity with this pretension he was extremely feudal in outlook. He in fact personified the semifeudal, semicolonial quality of Chinese civilisation. He was the union of the rule of the native landlords and the merchant-industrial class, tied to foreign capital, with the Kuomintang and the army adhering to them and sometimes sitting on top of them. The bourgeois and fuedal elements in Chinese society were always at war with each other and so were the comprador and landlord elements in Chiang's character always fighting one another. The Chinese bourgeoise, tied to foreign capital was infected with feelings of inferiority and anti-foreignism. In the same way, Chiang hated foreigners even while he depended on them. The landlords, the dying, ruling class of China were pervaded by premonitions of early death and were mortally afraid even while they tried to maintain their own attitude of superciliousness. So Chiang Kai-Shek was afraid and tried to rid himself of his fears by an outward show of arrogance. Because the comprador element dominated the fuedal element in the Kuomintang, it also dominated in the character of the country's ruler. The primary traits of a comprador are : 1. Dependence on foreigners and 2. Lack of character. Like any common comprador, Chiang also cherished such dreams, but when it came to a show down, he was seldom able to fight any of his bosses, but manoeuvred among Japan, Russia, the United States and England, serving first one power and then another. Because of the fact that the comprador is not engaged in production, like the ordinary capitalist, he has nothing to sell but tricks. It was the same with Chiang. He was sharp, quick, ruthless and did not hesitate to spend money on huge bribes to win his ends. A comprador is always manoeuvring between between landlords and foreign businessmen, trying to make money from both, and he can never be independant and never have any real character of his own. Chiang operated in the same way, trying to manoeuvre between feudal China and foreign countries. Because he could be loyal neither to the old China nor the new China, Chiang was disliked by foreigners and old-style Chinese.

The Last Confucianist

'In morals as well as in politics, Chiang claimed to be a Confucianist'. Some Westerners have gone so far as to call him the last of the Confucianists. Nothing can be farther from the truth. He was seen by Harold Isaacs in 'No Peace For Asia', as one whose 'motivations are in terms of himself'. Ideas he must borrow ... He used communism, Anglo-Saxon democracy, Christianity, European fascism. Chiang embraced some of the tenets of Christianity but none of its basic concepts. He knew little charity and mercy and less about the sanctity of the individual or the equality of man. He spoke of Christ but burnt offerings to the dead; he spoke of democracy, but practiced Confucian doctrine of the 'princely man', the 'Superior Man'. His faith was that of a filial piety and he believed that a sonc should obey his father, a younger brother an elder brother, and a subject the ruler. He was the ruler.

Secret Society Member

Chiang as the ruler, ruled the country side through village loafers, 'dog leg' (ie. a 'stooge'., common peasant term for an agent of the landlord) and bailiffs who were agents of the landed gentry. He ruled cities through gangsters and secret societies. 'Feudal tyrant, bourgeois comprador, village suzerain, secret society member and party leader — Chiang was both the product and the uncrowned head of a society in transition. His governmental principles were those of the Han despots — political authority centralised in one man, reinforced by the graded bureaucracy. The sanction for government was the possession by the leader and his ancestors of a magical property called Virtue'. Benevolence, Righteousness, Wisdom, Fidelity and Politeness — these insured the prosperity of the country'.

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'.

Mass Murder

Chiang may not have been a personally cruel man. But he let. others do his dirty work for him and thus avoided direct responsibility, and he seldom condemned those who performed murder in his name. At the very dawn of his reign, gangsters slaughtered the Shanghai workers and Chiang made the gang leader one of the pillars of his regime. In fact, Kuomintang papers called this gangster 'the well-known philanthropist' Towards the end of his reign, when his soldiers massacred the Formosans, Chiang castigated the murdered islanders, but not his murdering troops. Yet when Tai Li, the head of his secret service, whose men performed their duties with hatchet, poison and pistol, died in an airplane accident, the Generalisimo is said to have wept.

Statesman

It is foreign admirers who often claim that he is a statesman. During his twenty year reign, scarcely one Chinese writer of any standing had anything good to say about him. 'Chiang was not a statesman, he was a despot benevolent or otherwise, and he felt all the effects of one. In the field of political tactics, he was a master, in strategy — an opportunist; in government — a fumbler; in war — a fool. With intrigue, treachery, blackmail, terror and Confuician maxims, he rode to power. A coup d'etat against the Kuomintang of Dr. Sun Yat Sen brought the party to his feet in 1926. The slaughter worders delivered the whole nation into his hands in 1927. Once in power, Chiang kept there by playing one opponent off against another; right against left, reactionary against liberal, warlord against Communist, secret service against students, gestapo against merchant party against Government ...'

Finally Chiang betrayed his country to the Japanese when he stubbornly insisted on fighting the Communists instead of uniting with them to fight the invaders. He instituted senseless purges resulting in the massacre of thousands of innocent lives, taking its toll of students, teachers, professors, and thousands who were not in the slightest way concerned with the Communists. In the end millions turned against him in revolution and joined the Communists. Belden in writing about Chiang Kai-Shek compressed his story into one chapter, but the rest of the book is complimentary to it. The man is more famed for his negative qualities that anything else, as the book reveals. It is fitting to remember Chiang by a book printed in 1949 — the year the man finally ceased to be of political significance.

Memoriam

He may best be remembered by the following anecdote. In 1944, General Stiliwell, a man with a vinegar tongue and a sharp eye for detail, accompanied the Generalissimo to graduation exercises at the Chinese Military Academy and noted down in his diary this description of the ruler of China as he appeared before the future defender of the country:

'As the Peanut (Chiang) mounted the rostrum, the band leader counted 1-2-3. The Peanut was furious, stopped the band, bawled out the leader, 'Either start playing on 1 or start on 3. Don't start on 2'. Then a speaker pulled his notes out of his pockets. This infuriated the Peanut. He bawled him out and told him that in foreign countries you could put a handkerchief in your pants pocket, but not papers. Papers go in the lower coat pockets and if secret in the upper coat pockets. Then someone stumbled or procedure and the Peanut went wild, screaming that he ought to be shot.'...