The article, written a few months before Chiang Kai-shek's defeat and retreat to the island, gives a picture of an island under occupation, and of course, of the extensive looting....
Under the attack of the mainland locusts the island's economy slipped lower and lower, and took the people's living standard -- always high than on the mainland -- with it. For the first time in history rice had to be rationed here. The mainland businessmen were hoarding rice for speculative purposes.
Commodity speculation by Nationalist businessmen would reach a crescendo the following summer with the expectation that China would invade -- but Chiang would be saved by the Korean War. As the brilliant journalist I. F. Stone pointed out in his masterful The Hidden History of the Korean War 1950-1951, just 56 Nationalist Chinese held half of all global soybean futures as the Korean War began -- and others in bed with them in soybean futures included one Cold War hawk in the Senate by the name of McCarthy. But that is a tale for another day....
Berrigan's article contains a discussion of the collapse of bureaucratic rectitude under the Chiang regime....
"Before you can talk to an official these days," a farmer told me, "you have to give him money. I hate to say this, but they are all corrupt. Every one."
The farmer's harsh judgment, held by thousands of Formosans, is unquestionably an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that corruption is widespread. An entire region I visited was without water -- its rice and sugar cane dying in the fields -- because the farmers higher up on the canal had bribed the officials to let them empty the canal for their own use....
Berrigan also provides descriptions of the tension in everyday life, where....
...In carrying out their duties the soldiers have intensified the hatred the Formosans have developed for their mainland brothers. They patrol the streets of the cities tensely, obviously afraid of the idling Formosans, lunging at the islanders with fixed bayonets at the slightest provocation.
Not only was the situation on the island desperate, but treason was rampant. Berrigan reported that there were so many pilot defections that no one was permitted to fly without a wife and child on the island and aviation gas was strictly limited, while the coast guard cutters patrolled in pairs in case one defected. Formosans Berrigan talked to warned him of the secret police and of "disappearances in the night." Berrigan also observed that the islanders were planning another revolt, and wrote of their "island nationalism." In 1949.
Berrigan argues that the US should take possession of Formosa, a move he claims the islanders would support. He also notes that the Formosans repeated to him a statement made by State Department spokesman Michael McDermott:
"...to the effect that 'the disposition of Formosa must await the Japanese treaty.' The Communists, of course, claim that the US is trying to take over the island. Propaganda like that makes the islanders very happy."
How things might have been different, if we had grabbed Formosa...
I've placed images of the four pages of the article in my Flickr account. If you download the original size it should be easy to read the article, which is long and detailed. The images are large (~2400 x 1600) and will take a moment to download.
Page One Original size.
Page Two Original Size.
Page Three Original Size.
Page Four Original Size.
Don't miss the many interesting ads and cartoons from a bygone age.....
[Taiwan]
5 comments:
This article is a gem! Thanks for posting it. It gave me a look into my island roots. Really makes you think what if..
This article is great that it gives background on many of the differences in perception between the BSR and WSR and pointing out that there is a lot of truth in both viewpoints.
Having dealt mainly with barely literate soldiers and greedy petty bureaucrats, it is understandable why many BSR have a condescending view of WSR.
Coming from large modern cosmopolitan cities like Shanghai or Wuhan, it is understandable why some WSR (500,000 persons by the author's estimate) viewed inhabitants of even relatively modern Taiwanese cities like 1940s Taipei as country bumpkins.
WSR never fail to point to former VP Chen Cheng as an example of a WSR who genuinely cared about Taiwan, and tried to improve life on the island and redistribute scarce resources into the hands of ordinary Tawanese.
On the other hand, the article notes that any order issued by Chen Cheng had to be implemented by an entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy with its own agenda so despite Chen's good intentions, Taiwanese never saw many of the benefits that Chen promised.
We know from history that in the late 40s, the US had decided not to intevene in a PRC invasion of Taiwan. It's interesting to note from this article that the Taiwanese at that time also knew the US had written them off and instead of any organized resistance, they were resigned to their fate.
I wonder if it is true that the US did indeed do a cost/benefit analysis on taking Taiwan at that time and decided the costs outweighed the benefits. I've never seen such a thing in the history books I've read.
Am I incorrect with the idea that US troops were in Taiwan into the seventies? The article implies that they all pulled out after WW II. Though everyone talks about the history of TienMu and MinSheng neighborhood as if it was more recent.
Yes, US troops were here in the seventies. Beyond that their presence here is a a secret.
A book called 'Untying the Knot' by a former AIT director says the US decided they needed China's help in containing the USSR. Because of this they had a hands-off policy towards Taiwan until of course, the Korean War.
Post a Comment