What's behind the pro KMT shift in historiography of sino-Japanese war?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Over the last thirty years I've noticed a marked trend towards more positive or charitable interpretations of Chiang Kai Shek and the Chinese nationalist government's performance in World War Two in published historical articles and books (in English language pubs at least) dealing with that era.

In the 80s over and over again the emphasis was on the KMT regime's corruption and lack of sincere commitment to the anti Japanese struggle. At the sametime Communist guerrilla resistance against the Japanese was extolled.

This generally went hand in hand with a portrayal of the CBI front as a resource sink for the allies and with relatively positive portrayals of Stilwell.

Since the 90s the trend has been increasingly opposite direction with Chiang being given more credit for resisting the Japanese and receiving more recognition for his sacrifice of forces early in the war. This is paired with a downgrading in the estimation of the communists anti Japanese commitment and effectiveness.

This goes along with a trend of decreased sympathy for Stilwell in his disputes with Chiang.
How much of this is attributable to continuous discover of materials vindicating Chiang and deflating Mao and Stilwell versus changes in what is politically convenient to say?
 
because the Chi coms has firmly and completly won the war and can now safely clam credit for nationalist victories and resistance against japan by claiming those fighters for their own under the we are all chinese blanket.
 
Perhaps because of their antagonism to the PRC since 1989?

For the very short answer, yes.

For the longer answer, most part of Chiang Kai Shek's daily was declassified during 2004, once Historians carefully cross-exterminating CKS and Stilwell's accounts, they found out the former got more credibility.

For the much longer answer, take a look at this (at least pp.1-63 if you don't have time).
 
Top