Główne nurty historiografii anglosaskiej wobec Narodowych Chin Kuomintangu

Anglo-Saxon historiography concerning China ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang, KMT) is very impressive. The content of official American documents United States Relations with China (Washington 1949) shows the common, primary critical viewpoint of that period. But during the 1950s and 1960s, the written records of some American authors (Chang Kia-ngau, Arthur N. Young, John K. Chang, Paul K.T. Sih), former co-workers of Chinese Nationalist Government, revealed impressive progress in educational, economic and financial aspects, which proceeded during the Nationalist era. This image was quickly tarnished. Another group of scholars, with the most eminent representative Lloyd E. Eastman, denounced Nationalist as militarily incompetent and anti-democratic. Hung-mao Tien, Suzanne Pepper and Hsi-sheng Ch’i emphasized the ineffectiveness, brutality, corruption and economic stagnation during the Nationalist rule. The reputed progress was, in their opinion, purely illusory and the KMT officials were not dedicated to the welfare of the society. In The Soong Dynasty (New York 1985), one of more readable books by Sterling Seagrave, the author exposed the ties of the KMT leaders with the Chinese criminal underworld. Since the beginning of 1980s, Robert Bedeski (Canada), Donald A. Gillin (USA), Brian Martin (Australia), Julia Strauss and Hans van de Ven (Great Britain) have played a major role in a partial rehabilitation of the KMT. They offered a new interpretation of the Chinese Nationalists, focusing particularly on their efforts to transform China into an independent and modern nation. They found evidence for the theory that the infamous corruption was a direct result of the War of Resistance against Japan; during the so-called Nanking Decade (1927-1937) central state organizations were surprisingly successful. Furthermore, the above mentioned researchers placed the War of Resistance in the context of KMT prolonged efforts to establish control over China and provided a critical reassessment of Allied policy. Finally, they accused the Western Allies of being disloyal to China.