User talk:LeonChrisfield

I've noticed that you seem to have recently edited the Chiang article, please, are you some kind of expert on him also? Do you want to comment on the discussion, my friend? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve done a lot of research and read a lot of articles about Chiang, as well as Jay Taylor’s bibliography about him. I started to edit the page because I thought the previous version of the page was very negative in general on Chiang and depicted him like the Chinese Hitler/Mussolini LeonChrisfield (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree, I was browsing the page and I was very surprised to read Chiang described thus, which most of the sources I have personally read have failed to do, as I have noted on the talk page, I have stated several extensive arguments for the article's considerable bias. I thought my edit was a fairly tame and moderate one, with a source attached, but apparently others immediately disagreed. ""Presiding over a period of social reforms and economic prosperity, Chiang won five elections to six-year terms as President of the Republic of China." (The article itself mentioned this quite explicitly so). He was such a complex character; he experimented with socialist ideas in his younger years, he married a Russian woman and his son was detained by the Soviets for 12 years; he hated the Japanese as his worst enemy, and yet learned so much from them; his legacy lives on in both awe and hatred in both mainland China and Taiwan alike, both of which might not exist if not for his life and complicated actions, etc. (Therefore, as I noted, it is all but impossible to portray a truly "neutral" image of him).

By the way, I am a very strong supporter of modern Asian democracy, and I certainly do not condone all of Chiang's actions, yet as I have mentioned, I do think complexity and nuance is needed. This man literally led an army against the Axis Powers and lost 11 million lives while doing so, his China was the one which most Americans and Europeans still vaguely remember as an "ally". And as I have also mentioned, I do think that he is the reason that Taiwan today exists "as the first and only successful Chinese-speaking democracy as well as a vibrant and highly successful economic power." I also strongly recommend Mitter's books, by the way, he is also a modern China expert and historian who has studied Chiang's life extensively. And I truly thought Wikipedia painted a VERY flat, lifeless and one-dimensional picture of him, lacking in so many details that I read about in many established sources. P.S. Are you Taiwanese or Asian by any chance? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It is true that Chiang was a dictator and had ruthless policies against his opposition. But it’s also true that he united a fragile and divided China against an industrialized and powerful Japan. He gained several significant victories that stopped the Japanese's advance in Asia and stalled 60% of the Japanese army. It is also true that the KMT only received 3% of the total land lease of the US (which is nothing compared to the scale of the Soviet Union and the UK). I am not a Chinese citizen or a Taiwanese citizen. But I am of Chinese ancestry, and I can read sources in Chinese.

Another thing worth noting is that the US aid to China was minimal due to Truman’s feuds with Chiang, and the US’s 4 billion aid only arrived in China in 1949 when the nationalists had no chance of winning whatsoever, and the US made several diplomatic attempts to stop nationalist advance in Manchuria LeonChrisfield (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Kai-shek page was almost entirely based on the traditional Chinese and western perceptions of Chiang: corrupt, cunning, murderous, and genocidal fascist dictator. I added more content to make the page overall more neutral in tone with his achievements mentioned. It appears to me that some editors do not like the mode positive perspective on Chiang even though some of them are genuinely paraphrased from the writings of historians like Taylor. LeonChrisfield (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am also a staunch supporter of Chinese democracy and Taiwanese sovereignty from the CCP. I found it ridiculous that Wikipedia had a negative description of Chiang Ching-Kuo when most Taiwanese have a positive opinion of him and credit him for the democratization of Taiwan and lifting the martial law, as well as his populism and positive social and economic contributions to Taiwan LeonChrisfield (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I mean, other users here have literally tried to compare his rule in Taiwan to that of Nazi Germany, which literally sought to exterminate entire races and ancient cultures, which I think is so deeply insulting and unbalanced that it is a shame that people are able to make this monstrous and frankly false comparison. And an offence to the countless millions of victims of that terrible war. Although several thousand protesters were indeed detained and killed, that still does not make the comparison quite valid, from my perspective. Chiang was at times repressive and ruthless, but he was certainly not some kind of crazy, genocidal maniac who wanted to wipe out other cultures out of ethnic or racial hatred - he was literally the top leader of the Allied Powers who helped win the Second World War against the Axis Powers. Are you Taiwanese by any chance? If you are, can you give me insight into this?

The article as it exists states that: "Presiding over a period of social reforms and economic prosperity, Chiang won five elections to six-year terms as President of the Republic of China..." (What does this mean? Does Chiang qualify as a dictator legally? Did he ban all elections, or did he allow some local-level elections? And as I am not the best expert on Chiang's history in Taiwan, does this not mean, whatever his other actions, he still essentially helped it modernise into a successful economic superpower?) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am simply an Overseas Chinese. Chiang used emergency power to suspend the very progressive 1946 constitution, but allowed local level elections with some independents opposition members from the Tangwai Movement, similar to what Park Chung-hee and Kemal Ataturk did to maintain stability with 3000-4000 people executed in his reign (1949-1975). He kept some other provisions of the constitution like women’s rights in place. LeonChrisfield (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He was, although he did make attempts at democratization. It was called Dang Guo (political tutelage). It meant using a dictatorship as a temporary transition to full democracy according to the principles of Tridemism. He didn’t want to be a dictator for life, unlike Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. He only used Taiwan as a base and model province to retake the mainland and allowed his son, Chiang Ching-kuo, to experience democratization on the island. LeonChrisfield (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much, do you have any source for that? I think you should add that to the article yourself if you so wish - that Chiang suspended the Constitution and allowed local-level elections. :)

But then, did the Taiwanese people elect him or not? Or I don't understand, was it an "election", but only people close to him were allowed to vote? Because President of the Republic of China states a bit ambiguously:

"On 20 May 1948, Chiang Kai-shek was formally elected by the National Assembly to be the first term president. After the KMT lost Mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, the government was evacuated to Taiwan, where the term limits for the president specified in the 1947 constitution were suspended after 1960.[note 2] In 1954, as the term of the first National Assembly were about to expire, the Judicial Yuan ruled that the expired seats of the National Assembly would continue in power until the respective delegate region elections could be held. This largely froze the membership of the National Assembly mainland delegates and prevented local Taiwanese from widespread legislative and assembly participation in the expired mainland seats until the early 1970s. The members of the National Assembly continued in their office until 1991, and continued to elect Chiang Kai-shek as president until his death in 1975."

(P.S. And I just calculated Chiang's total killings on Taiwan using the sources provided by this website, even around the maximum of 32,000 deaths (while still reprehensible), they do not even total up to 0.00188235294 of the total Nazi deaths, which stood at 17 million according to some official estimates, let alone that of the other Axis powers. ) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You confused the killing of the February 28 incident and the political prosecution aftermath. Chen Yi, the Taiwan Governor, was the warlord responsible for the massacre of 30000+ people. Chiang was still very focused on fighting the civil war when the incident happened. LeonChrisfield (talk) 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Then did he not know about the former? Was it on his direct orders? I found that: "We think that Chiang Kai-Shek, president of the Nationalist government, should bear the biggest responsibility for the 228 Massacre. Reasons being that he not only was oblivious to warning cautioned by the Control Yuan prior to the Massacre, he was also partial to Chen Yi afterward. None of the provincial military and political officials in Taiwan were punished because of the Massacre." But according to this source cited on this website What does this mean, exactly? And how did they make this conclusion for this statement? Did Chiang directly and knowingly kill those civilians? Or was it his subordinates, and he didn't stop them? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Both of them bears responsibility for the killings. Chen Yi was still the main perpetrator though. LeonChrisfield (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. But what was his exact justification, was Communist spying a legitimate issue for his society at the time?

And a more personal question, do you think that Chiang would be happy to see the way that China is today, as some quotes famously insist? Do you think he would be happy or sad, mostly?

(P.S. I found this, I think it describes the true impression of Chiang from most people. Misunderstood and nearly forgotten by history, but a man whose legacy nevertheless lives on in two vastly different states, the democratic Taiwan and the non-democratic China. Without his presence in Taiwan, Taiwan would never have become a flourishing democracy, and without his presence in China, the warlords would never have been defeated, and much of China would not have been united, much less able to fight the Japanese.) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There were communists in Taiwan, but not all of them. Even if Chiang was concerned about communist infiltration, it didn’t justify the killings. But yeah, without Chiang, Taiwan would never have become a prosperous Asian four tiger with the most progressive democratic status due to a communist takeover.

It is complicated to say. On the one hand, he would be glad that Xi is trying to bring back Confucian traditions destroyed by Mao and his autocratic methods; on the other hand, he would never approve of a communist system of governance as he was a firm believer in Tridemism and the 5 Power Constitution of Sun Yat-sen. LeonChrisfield (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone prosecuted by Chiang and the KMT was communist, and many of them were innocent. He targeted both communists and Taiwanese independentists and democrats too, and yes, without Chiang, China would probably never have reunified and would still be a broken and divided country. LeonChrisfield (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Btw, what makes you so interested in Chinese history? Which edit of mine you found about Chiang Kai-shek did you find interesting? LeonChrisfield (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on Taylor’s book, I don’t think the nationalists had enough popularity or legitimacy to compete with Taiwanese local parties in the 1950s, and the election of Chiang was indirect by unelected National Assembly representatives. So no, he wasn't democratically elected in Taiwan. As for the 1948 Chinese general election that was held soon before the nationalists escaped to Taiwan, I believe the election was relatively fair even though it wasn’t perfect, and Li Zongren was elected the Vice President despite being a foe of Chiang. LeonChrisfield (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally think that Chiang would at first smile and nod at China's economic prosperity, and not exclusively embracing Mao's very absolutist ideologies, but then after much thought, he would slowly pause and sigh and perhaps turn away from Beijing, at its having failed to uphold democracy. I think Chiang if he had lived for example another 50 years, would have eventually agreed to much greater democracy in Taiwan, and perhaps even in China for that matter - and that if he were here today and forced to choose, he would choose Taiwan over China, because I think he would be mature enough to recognise Taiwan is the true fulfillment of Sun's noble dream; this might be sentimental...but I think unlike what others say, I think deep down, he would be happy at the way Taiwan is today. No matter how people here try their best to portray him, I do not think he was truly an evil man, at his core. Maybe not support independence, but he would genuinely admire how happy and free their people are. And I don't think he would much mind his statues being taken down, I'm not so sure he ever wanted to be commemorated that way either, he seemed pretty humble actually. I don't exactly sympathise much with the party that Chiang built (the Kuomintang, apart from perhaps its founder's ideals), I do know that it was too corrupt to effectively rule China. Sadly, while I don't think this was entirely Chiang's fault, there were too many complicated factors at the time, and it is never easy to govern such a huge country after two world wars, but the Kuomintang has ruined its image in the eyes of too many Chinese people.

I noticed you seem to have edited the page after I recently did, and thought you might have some knowledge and experience to share. And yet, I do respect Chiang as a person and as a leader, and if forced to choose between defending or criticizing him, I would defend him. It is so easy these days especially, I think, to quickly tear someone down, to judge them critically and then take them apart, yet it is much less so to make a real effort to defend them, even while acknowledging their flaws and mistakes. On another note, most people here don't know of course, but it's also interesting that the KMT today has become so much pro-mainland China. It's a bit weird the traditional party has now been sympathising with a Marxist state which they fought so very hard against, but interesting how politics and times change. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You can check a lot of my historical edits. I added a lot of things on the Chiang page before. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Not everything was Chiang’s fault and if he had succeed, today’s China would look much better and more democratic. He would definitely approve today’s Taiwan despite it portrays him rather negatively. LeonChrisfield (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as popular as it is to hate Chiang among lots of people in the West...when it comes down to it, and they have no other choice, I still think they'd choose him over Mao to have won the war. Many other forums even the progressive Reddit has lots of people who admire him in fact, at least from his WW2 achievements. It is only on this site that Chiang seems to be treated quite harshly, honestly. I was really surprised when I read Chiang's article for the first time, I think even lots of Communist Party members if they read it would be...taken aback at how critically he is evaluated here.

But anyway, do you have any source (from any site or book) that either 1. Chiang contributed to the Taiwanese social and economc reforms; or 2. Chiang allowed limited local elections in Taiwan during his reign (some kind of limited democracy)? If so, I think they should be added to the article also! Thanks a lot! :)

And this website states that around 4.2 million Chinese "conscripts" died in total "just during conscription", this seems like an extremely high number, almost equal to Chiang's entire military in 1946 during the Chinese Civil War, do you have any sources corroborating that? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

https://ghresource.mt.ntnu.edu.tw/uploads/1638291886164TxVDPFgD.pdf

This article is in Chinese. It explains how despite corrupt conducts and electoral frauds, the local elections in Taiwan’s martial law era were mostly democratic. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel’s estimates were biased against nationalist and communist regimes due to his right-libertarian perspective. He blamed many deaths inflicted by the Japanese invasion, like the Henan Famine, on the nationalist government. He also condemns the killings of Yugoslavian Nazi collaborationists and purges on Tito (even though Moscow ordered many purges and many Nazis/Nazi collaborationists who were executed were war criminals). Many of his figures, like the killings of Greeks in the Turkish War of Independence, are also primarily based on speculations, not reality. He also mentions the US genocides in Indo-China and Operation Condor, etc. I would say he is a right-wing version of Grover Furr in terms of reliability, and his figures are highly questionable and reliable.

Regarding the 420 million Conscription Campaign figure, I’ve never heard of any Chinese or other English sources mentioning it. It’s almost definitely based on his speculation and over-exaggeration. I agree that the campaign probably resulted in many deaths, but it was not intentional. He blames deaths of natural causes or conscriptions of wars on nationalist behalf, which is just pathetic. LeonChrisfield (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was 4.2 million, but that is still a massive number (and Chiang still likely wasn't personally responsible for most of them, they were likely a result of incompetence and accidents even if so, which I strongly doubt in the first place). Thank you for your link, you should perhaps add that to the article if you like; it doesn't seem to mention that Chiang allowed ANY elections in Taiwan whatsoever. What about Taiwan's economic development? Was the Taiwan Miracle started or the work of Chiang or not? Or did he, for example, start some of the economic development and then others like Chiang's son move it further along? How much can be attributed to Chiang's government polciies, and how much to American assistance and investment? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And with all due respect, this site these days seems like a constant minefield, you never know who you're going to set off and where. I don't know how some of the most active editors can manage the stress of being here most of their daily lives, spending 10 hours daily or more, to be utterly jaded and desensitised like that is something almost a little scary, maybe even unnatural. I remember browsing Wikipedia when I was much younger, and it seemed much more enjoyable and relaxed and laid-back, less overt conflict and animosity at least. And a note of personal advice, it's okay to enjoy editing once in a while, and you don't necessarily have to feel intimidated by others, but please don't ever allow yourself to be hardened or too deeply absorbed in your work. There does exist a universe outside this website, whether some people here emphasise that or not most of the time. If ever it gets too overwhelming, try to work out or do some other more enjoyable activities. Life is about so much more than arguing over right and wrong on an online encyclopedia. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The article did mention that Taiwan’s local elections were largely democratic, and Taylor’s book also says independent Tangwai movement candidates were elected. As for the Taiwan miracle, Chen Cheng was assigned to the land reform initiative in Taiwan, and technocrats like Li Kwoh-ting and Yen Chia-kan oversaw the successful economic planning and free-market reforms in Taiwan that were key to the success of Taiwan’s miracle. Taylor’s book about Chiang Ching Kuo also mentioned how Taiwan had the lowest Gini index among western capitalist-aligned countries.

https://www.amazon.com/Generalissimos-Son-Chiang-Ching-kuo-Revolutions/dp/0674002873

The Gini index of Taiwan was brought down from 0.52 in the Japanese colonial era to just 0.28 during the nationalist rule, and the lower 40% income group doubled their income share to 22% of total income with the income share of the upper 20% shrunk from 61% to 39%. Taiwan also experienced a period of prosperity and rapid growth that topped in Asian four tigers, albeit with the most egalitarian developmental model due to the socialist ideology of Kuomintang. LeonChrisfield (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, friend. So can Chiang be legitimately credited with contributing to the Taiwan Miracle or not? When exactly did it begin for example, and he did indeed oversee the socioeconomic policies for the changes? I mean, he was the legitimate President of Taiwan at the time, was he not? Do you have any secondary sources other than Taylor that you've read? I've read his book, several by Rana Mitter about Japan's war in China, and recently the Making of An Accidental State, but I wonder whether there are any other sources out there also, which I might have missed somehow. Thanks a lot! ConeWalsh978 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/media/articles/c162-201706021.pdf Here you go. Another article in Chinese about how Chiang instructed the land reform and oversaw the prosperity of Taiwan, as well as promoting education and science. I’ll actually add it on Chiang’s wiki. LeonChrisfield (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! I think that it would also help greatly if you could find 1-2 book sources to corroborate some of these things (Chiang's contributions to the Taiwan Miracle, and his limited democratic elections). 1. Do you think Chiang was a overall decent military commander and leader, do historians have any verdict on him either way?

And 2. Why do you think he lost the civil war, was it his fault in the end? Was there any way at all that he might have won against Mao, for example? ConeWalsh978 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Other historians such as Jay Taylor, Robert Cowley, and Anne W. Carroll argue that Chiang’s failure was largely caused by external factors outside of Chiang’s control, most notably, the refusal of the Truman administration to support Chiang with the withdrawal of aid, US armed embargo, the failed pursuit of a detente between the nationalists and the communists, and the USSR’s consistent support of the CPC in the Chinese Civil War.^[1][2][3][4]

They largely reflect my view on why Chiang lost the civil war. I would say Chiang wasn’t an outstanding military leader; he was a great political leader and mediocre strategist but a poor tactician. -Zhou Enlai However, he did have a lot of competent generals, but so was the CCP. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Haha, thanks a lot! Do you think Chiang was right to not allow elections (mostly) after Sun's death? For example, would it have been better or worse had he stepped down and allowed for some nationwide elections before the Japanese invaded?

And do you think that China COULD have worked after the Second World War, with the Communists forming the main left-wing party and the Nationalists the main right-wing party - not unlike the Democrats and Republicans of today? Of course, now it does seem like a pipe dream, but they were seriously considering it, America was literally holding the peace talks between Mao and Chiang after the war with the Japanese ended. Why do you think they failed, was it really the Communists' fault? Or was it the Nationalists, as I think Chiang attacked Mao's forces first?

P.S. It would be so amusing and fun to imagine and think about in the 21st century if those talks had succeeded and they'd formed a unity government, seeing the Chinese (and presumably the Taiwanese) people fight together every 4 years before each and every national election, over which party was the worse one, Chinese people of all ages posting angry messages every week on social media like Facebook about how much they hate the other party's leaders and policies, maybe even stupid fist-fighting in the parliament in the capital of Nanjing when they disagree too strongly...not unlike Americans and Europeans, or Taiwanese people today. And China and America's relationship would be so totally, completely different, they'd have remained allies and would BOTH be close superpowers today, perhaps with competition, yes, but mostly friendly competition, like two brothers I guess competing in sports with each other. China would certainly invoke a much different image for most people (btw, Democrats and Republicans alike hate China, and things are not getting much better these days ). Korea would be one united country, Taiwan would probably be part of the new democratic China, I guess, probably no Vietnam War either. Ah, think about the various policies the two Chinese parties would be debating in the 21st century, whether to legalise abortion or not in China, what kind of healthcare system to implement; what exact policy to take against Japan over the Diaoyutai / Senkaku islands; whether or not to support America's Iraq War in 2003 (with the CCP against it, and the KMT perhaps more supportive). And China as an American ally at least would not be supporting Russia on Ukraine, but 100% against them at the UN and economically with sanctions and boycotts. Ah, well, perhaps another world, I suppose. :) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The CCP is a communist party whose principles are based on Marxism-Leninism. It views democratic elections in liberal democracies as illegitimate and a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It would always pursue violent revolution to as the means to seize power, with the party as the vanguard of the revolution. The KMT could co-exist with other parties in a democratic China, but not the CCP as it rejects the principles of liberal democracy. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There were a few historical examples of communist parties being democratic, but it wouldn’t happen if Mao was at the helm of the party leadership. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The political tutelage of the KMT was based on Sun’s ideals, immediately established after the end of the military rule. It was initially decided that the KMT would end the tutelage in 1936, but it was unfortunately interrupted by the military upheavals of the Sino-Japanese War. The KMT immediately began to work with other parties, including the CCP, to draft a New Democratic constitution in 1946, and many provisions of the ROC’s constitution today were, in fact, written by the CCP. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Then do you think for example, if something had "happened" to Mao and Zhou Enlai had become the Communist Party head, the unity government talks might have been successful? Perhaps he could have tried to reform it into a more liberal and diverse party of some kind, he also worked with Chiang and his followers during the war against the Japanese, he was quite friendly with Chiang, I think. I still think in better circumstances, war might have been averted, and perhaps a reformed CCP - KMT unity government might have been somewhat possible, under American and perhaps U.N. oversight for the first decade or so. It's really sad, I think not all the Communist Party, like the KMT members, were bad people, they both had good and corrupt people inside their ranks. For example, Zhou was a well-known moderate within his party for decades, and was able to balance some of Mao's radical ambitions.

Reading about that era, the civil war and the events afterwards...I am so grateful that I wasn't able to witness such carnage and bloodshed myself, I mean, the Cultural Revolution especially truly was unthinkable. Sigh, it seems that there were NO "good choices" for most people in China at the time, most of whom weren't really too far in either political extreme, they were starving and exhausted and just wanted to feed and protect their families. I think the KMT although founded on noble ideals did become too corrupt over the years, you cannot talk about democracy from the big cities while most of your population is starving to death. I might not like how Mao won, but I do understand why he did. Still, I wonder if anything might have gone differently. Perhaps a third powerful party of some kind in China might have helped, I'm not sure. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure if the communists would be popular enough to beat parties like China Youth Party and China Democratic Socialist Party. But yeah, it’s possible that under Zhou Enlai’s leadership, the communists become the democratic type of Nepalese Maoists. LeonChrisfield (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that they should have both retired. He was forced to resign due to the pressures exerted by the United States and his generals, such as Li Zongren and Bai Chongxi, for the nationalist military defeats. Still, he never lost his real power, and Li could not move a finger without his orders, so he was still behind the shadows. Regarding which side Chian would pick, I think he will probably side with the Taiwanese army unless Taiwan declares independence due to his firm anti-communism. He will also try to purge Taiwan of pan-green separatist influence and install a more authoritarian regime, similar to the PiS in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary. LeonChrisfield (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I think both Mao and Chiang should have retired from leadership roles after the war with the Japanese, and allowed moderates and reformists to negotiate between their two parties, both had made so many mistakes by then that it was perhaps better for them to try a new start. Perhaps serve in a limited advising capacity, but nothing more, they might both be happier also, enjoying the rest of their lives in their home villages in peace. I have 2 more questions:

1. I read that Chiang "resigned" from Presidency after the Second World War and allowed someone else to take his place in his party, but then he became President again on Taiwan, not that person? Why was this so?

2. If Chiang were here today somehow, what do you think he would do in the event of a real war between China and Taiwan? Would he side with China, where he was born, or would he move to command the Taiwanese army to defend the place he died at? 06:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

06:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it's right for some Green supporters in Taiwan to always attack and hate Chiang? I understand their emotions, somewhat, they don't have to like him, but I mean...he was still their first modern President, and he did set the foundation for their state, the modernisation and development of their entire economy, as well as a very strong military, etc. I feel he might still be owed some degree of respect. Chiang is one of those VERY sensitive, divisive and complex historical figures that if you attack him too much, lots of people will hate you, and if you defend him too much, others will likewise hate you, it seems like a difficult and uncomfortable place honestly. (Taiwan's military is incredibly formidable today for such a small island.)

Question 2: Why do you think some of the Western historians on Chiang seemed so harsh on him? I think even historians in China today do not criticise him THAT much, honestly. Do you think it was due to some kind of "propaganda" from obvious places? These two reviews might be of interest to you:

I actually think that Chiang would have (perhaps reluctantly and under enough American pressure) allowed a slow process into democracy eventually, if he had lived longer; his views changed a lot over the years, for example, he was interested or curious in Marxism and socialism in his early years, he tried to pursue cooperation with the Soviets for years, his party was based off of Leninist structures after all. The point being is that if he had lived longer, he might softened some of his policies and have yielded to the demands of the people. Chiang's great-grandson is still active in Taiwanese politics, trying to reform his party (although with limited success these days), he does seem like a really nice person though! It's weird because I've also kind of heard that the Blue Party in Taiwan is incredibly pro-China these days...although I think it's because of racial / ethnic / cultural affinity, not due to admiration for Mao or Marxism. They think that China's government is making the Chinese civilisation great again...and they are very proud of that, even if China still has little democracy. Cone Walsh978 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It is the freedom of speech to criticize or interpret a historical leader. But yes, I agree that western historians are assessing him too harshly as a leader who fought against the Axis in WW2. Ofc he would have transitioned China into democracy because that was his ultimate goal, and he wrote a democratic constitution with other parties participating in the draft. I think the reason that many western historians are very critical of Chiang is due to their sympathy with Mao and Maoism, which was the result of the propaganda of the CCP and the CPSU abroad that demonized Chiang in the 1930s and the 1940s. LeonChrisfield (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure it's propaganda, although it could be, the review article said something about that, I think. Most Cold War historians of China were likely so upset by Chiang's overwhelming loss of China that they decided to find the easiest excuse, and find ways to further discredit and attack him (although I do think from the books I've read, views might be slowly improving over the years and becoming more nuanced). What is interesting is that lots of Western scholars at least in the past seem to have hated both Mao and Chiang, it's almost like a very interesting contest between which of the two leaders is more harshly attacked and criticised among American historians and like. Half of them hate Mao more, and half of them hate Chiang more. I don't think Chiang deserves to be pushed and locked into the same category as the likes of Stalin and Mussolini, for example, but sadly, history is indeed sometimes "written by the victors", or so it seems.

I do think it would so exciting if Chiang did somehow time travel to the present and saw how things were with China and Taiwan, it would be very, very interesting. I think he would travel to Beijing to try to dissuade the Chinese leadership from invading Taiwan. If that failed, he'd probably take command of Taiwan's army for a last stand, and even young Taiwanese people who dislike him would be truly inspired by his courage. He would be a literal living legend to both sides. I do kind of feel sorry for him, leader of Asia's strongest and most powerful nation, a winner of the Allied Powers in WW2, and now reduced to what he is today. I heard that during one of his last moments in mainland China, he visited Sun's mauseoleum and bowed his head there to pay his last respects. Perhaps he was apologising to Sun for failing to defeat Mao and bring a democratic China, it must have truly been heartbreaking. Sun wanted a world where all men were equal and free. And now, it seems neither China nor America for that matter is truly the vision that Sun, who spent so much time in both places, quite imagined. :(

I have 2 more questions. What did Chiang generally think of the United States, did he like America or not mostly? And secondly, what do most Chinese people outside of China today generally think of Chiang versus Mao, do they ever talk about him much? Do they think that Chiang would have been a better leader had he won the civil war? Thanks a lot! :) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a joint government is less likely to be achieved under CKS. It would be like to be achieved under the more moderate nationalist Li Zongren’s leadership. LeonChrisfield (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I can say that Chiang liked America less than Sun and he despised all foreign powers as imperialists. Sun was inspired by western ideologies like Lincolnism and Georgism, whilst Chiang relied heavy on traditional Chinese philosophies in his ideologies. He was only forced to be aligned with America due to bloc politics, similar to how Mao was forced to be aligned with the USSR initially. Most Overseas Chinese don’t talk about him or Mao much, and most have forgotten that he left his footprints on the path of the history of China. LeonChrisfield (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is very interesting, it seems I will need to do more research on him, but still, I think without his considerable assistance, America and the Allies could not have won the Second World War, what exactly did he say about America specifically as a country though? I do think he hated the Soviets much more though, because of their ongoing support for Mao, and their disputes with China's northern territories; his son Ching-kuo was literally held as a prisoner for 12 years - America at least had no direct land dispute with him. Regardless of his feelings, his was the army which lost as many as 10 million Chinese lives, and that is not easily forgotten, even today. I've read of some conflict between Chiang and the general Stilwell, but I am not too familiar with that, someone recommended several books to me recently, do you know much about their relationship? Who was at fault for their disagreement? (Perhaps that also shaped his feelings in some part). ConeWalsh978 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Their relationship between Stilwell and Chiang was bad because Stilwell considered him a cunning, corrupt, and conservative leader with poor military skills who often left his soldiers in neglect of the abuse and unethical conduct of their officers. They both expressed dislike of each other because of Stilwell’s Puritan family background and lifestyle, which deeply conflicted with Chiang’s traditional Chinese Confucian lifestyle and culture. It was a cultural conflict between a traditionalist Chinese and a modernist American of a Christian background. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Chiang was also staunchly against imperialism and colonialism, as he opposed FDR’s offer of China’s seizure of Indo-China and argued that China had no intent to replace western imperialism with its own. He also viewed foreign powers, including the USA, the USSR, and the Empire of Japan as imperialist powers that wanted to exploit China.^[5][6][7]

Chiang’s staunch anti-imperialist and Chinese nationalist stance means that he disliked all foreign powers that tried to interfere in Chinese politics, especially the USSR, the UK, and France. He supported many independence movements like the Indian Independence Movement an the Vietnamese Kuomintang against imperialist powers. He might hate America the least among imperialist powers, but he was still no fan of them. LeonChrisfield (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, friend. This talk page is becoming a bit too bulky, but I will try to respond all the same. The problem is, as I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is also arguably a very oversimplified view which overlooks many different things; also Chiang's views of "foreign powers" in the 1930s might not be the same as afterwards when they won the Second World War, for example. Again, I will also try to do more reading into his life and complicated personal views. It does seem that Chiang did contribute some things quite positively to the Chinese / Taiwanese society, whatever his other crimes or misdeeds. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Chiang supported modernization policies such as scientific advancement, universal education, and women’s rights. The Kuomintang and the Nationalist Government supported women’s suffrage and education and the abolition of polygamy and foot binding. The government of the Republic of China under Chiang’s leadership also enacted a women’s quota in the parliament with reserved seats for women. During the Nanjing Decade, average Chinese citizens received the education they’d never had the chance to get in the dynasties that increased the literacy rate across China. The education also promotes the ideals of Tridemism of democracy, republicanism, science, constitutionalism, and Chinese Nationalism based on the Political Tutelage of the Kuomintang.^{[8][9][10][11][12]}

Contrary to Communist propaganda that he was pro-capitalism, Chiang antagonized the capitalists of Shanghai, often attacking them and confiscating their capital and assets for the use of the government. Chiang confiscated the wealth of capitalists even while he denounced and fought against communists.^[13] Chiang crushed pro-communist worker and peasant organizations and rich Shanghai capitalists at the same time. Chiang continued the anti-capitalist ideology of Sun Yat-sen, directing Kuomintang media to openly attack capitalists and capitalism, while demanding government controlled industry instead.^[14]

Also, contrary to communist propaganda that Chiang was highly corrupt, he and his family were not involved in corruption. Chiang and his son lived plain lives, and his wife Soong Mei-ling only had 120 thousand USD as the inheritance when she died in the US with no real estate. One of Chiang’s grandsons even struggles to make a living, which surprised a Taiwanese Mayor. Chiang Ching-kuo’s Belarusian wife also struggled to make a living in her late life. She only inherited 1.152 million New Taiwan (USD 38.5 thousand) of her husband's salary. However, Chiang was rather benevolent to people in his inner circles or high-ranking nationalist officials who were corrupt.^[15]

And this: "Chiang’s land reform more than doubled the land ownership of Taiwanese farmers. It removed the rent burdens on them, with former land owners using the government compensation to become the new capitalist class. He promoted a mixed economy of state and private ownership with economic planning. Chiang also promoted a 9-years free education and the importance of science in Taiwanese education and values. These measures generated great success with consistent and strong growth and the stabilization of inflation."

So I have 3 more questions, and I would hear your personal thoughts on them: 1. Who do you think was "more at fault" for the fallout between Chiang and Stilwell? Did Stilwell break some code by defying Chiang's command during the war? (From Stilwell's article, it seems he too was something of an American conservative who held bigoted views of Asians, so I think people should take a more balanced view.)

2. So Chiang himself was not corrupt, but were his close followers and subordinates corrupt? Was that kind of why he lost the civil war?

3. As per the above statement regarding land reform which I quoted, do you think that this basically proves that Chiang WAS mostly responsible for the Taiwan Miracle in the end? That is one of the issues I have with some here, they always firmly call to attention Chiang's bad things, but if he did significantly help modernise the economy and society of Taiwan before his death, then that should not be overlooked or understated either. ConeWalsh978 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1. I think Stilwell was more responsible due to his racist views (which were very common under that historical context, though), especially considering how FDR threw Japanese Americans into internment camps.

2. Yes.

3. Both Chiang and his son Ching-Kuo and Taiwanese technocrats like Yan Chia-kan and Li Kwoh-ting deserve credit for it. LeonChrisfield (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I find the arguments here kind of tiresome, the past few days have been pretty stressful to be honest, and I frankly don't have much more time and energy to spend here, with few replies and no real resolution in the near future. Not all of us can log in every day, much less stay here 24/7, and I guess, I don't have much inclination to do so much longer, it's like fighting an almost unwinnable battle sometimes. But I hope you don't feel too much pressure here for your part; try to stay relaxed and don't get too obsessed over things! Again, there is a real living and tangible universe of human interaction outside this website, and we should never, ever forget that. So I think I'm basically going to be logging out pretty soon, and not sure when I'll be back if ever. I'll probably do some more reading and research into Chiang and his life and career, perhaps look into those other sources you and others have mentioned so far, perhaps expand my views. But anyway, I wish you all the best in your future though!! Do you have any kind of email address which I could perhaps reach you at off-Wikipedia after I leave? I think there is yet lots of knowledge and profound insight we could share with each other, thanks a lot! :)

And 2 more questions, and these are kind of important:

Do you think China and America today can ever improve or somehow heal their deeply strained relationship? And do you think the two countries WOULD be friends today if history had gone differently, or would there still have been lots of conflicting issues and interests regardless of which government controlled China? (For example, the island dispute with Japan and the South China Sea, etc.) ConeWalsh978 (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ButterCashier. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Age of consent, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ButterCashier (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stalinism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-communist resistance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for 7 days for your edits to Mikhail Suslov. I would have blocked indef, but you seem to be a good faith editor. What happened? Did you get drunk or something? I am willing to unblock early, if I can reassured that this will not reoccur. PhilKnight (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have indeed been drunk. I assure you I won’t vandalize any page next time when editing Wikipedia. Sorry for my mistake. LeonChrisfield (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have unblocked. Any further vandalism, and you will blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Another reason I did the vandalizing edits was because I saw a lot of other users vandalized this page and other pages but were unpunished/very lightly punished. LeonChrisfield (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Getulismo, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 19:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of fascist movements into Draft:Getulismo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mao Zedong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian Revolution.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) Nazism is most certainly not a "third position" ideology. Don;t make this change anywhere on Wikipedia.

(2) Nazism did not original from socialism. Do not make this change anywhere on Wikipedia either.

Continuing to make these changes will almost certainly end up with you being blocked from editing certain subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

As our article on Third Position makes crystal clear, "third position" as a brand label for neo-fascism was a post-World War 2 phenomenon of neo-fascism's development. It has nothing to do with Nazism or fascism in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding content that is already linked in the article to the see also section of articles like you did at Nazism. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@LeonChrisfield: You are still continuing with this. Please read WP:NOTSEEALSO. Please take extra care to make sure the links are not repeated. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. LeonChrisfield (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi LeonChrisfield, I noticed your latest edit to Chiang Kai-shek where you included the word "recently". MOS:RELTIME strongly suggests against using relative time terminology because it is ambigous even at the time of writing and will be even more ambigous when read in the future. –Vipz (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LeonChrisfield. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Getulismo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LeonChrisfield. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Getulismo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello can you check out this draft. Thank you Jyix2944884 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Anti-Stalinist left into Anti-communism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please use edit summaries on such a fast-developing article, especially when making potentially contentious edits. Also, while I'm here:

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I would not be making any more contentious edits without providing summaries. Can I be unblocked? Thank you very much. LeonChrisfield (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad the block got your attention but it's just about the mildest possible sanction and for a very short duration. Please use the 48 hours to contribute to the talk page. You can of course appeal by following the instructions below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chiang Kai-shek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White terror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)