Nanjing Government and Japanese Occupation - Essay Example

? Nanjing Government and the Japanese Invasion s Nanjing Government and Japanese Occupation Japanese invasion of China was one of the main reasons that escalated the violence during the World War II. It has been considered as the bloodiest incident in the history of China. The Japanese had conquered Shanghai and by 1937 they had conquered the whole Nanking that was the Chinese Nationalist capital at that time. The invasion of Nanking left the Japanese bring tried for countless war crimes because of the heart wrenching atrocities that the soldiers committed in the region that left millions dead and several others with traumatic memories. Historians have speculated how things would have been different for the Nanjing Government, had the Japanese not launched their onslaught in to the region. The substance of this prose will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Nanjing government and whether or not it would have been successful in unifying and rebuilding China. From the year 1928 till 1937, the Kuomintang (KMT) was the dominant political party, but was readily losing their popularity amongst the people. They had come to power in China during a time when the country was embroiled political and social turmoil following the success of the northern expedition in the year 1927 by the same party. They unified China under one banner but failed to hold the nation together. This unification move signified a time during which the KMT had the greatest potential to rebuild China (Cochran, 1983). The KMT party started off with the noble purpose of establishing democracy in the country and wished to educate the people in order to make them capable of self-governing. They started off with a profound ideology and wished to instil nationalist feelings within the masses and slowly began expanding their control, first from the north and then they worked their way down to the southern region. The ideology of the KMT was established upon the beliefs of Sun Yat-Sen, but after his demise, Chiang Kai-Shek became the leader of the KMT and his policies later on decide the course of events that took place during the Nanjing decade and also indirectly led to the Japanese invasion of Nanjing (Sun Yat-Sen, 1953). The question whether or not the Nanjing government would have been successful in integrating the nation has a very straight forward answer to it, which will be discussed in the following parts of the prose. The greatest flaw of this entire expedition was the fact that it was done primarily by military force and the party lacked a strong ideology that would draw the diverse range of people living in the country and unite them on a single platform. KMT further did not introduce the relevant land reforms that would protect the interests of the peasants and farmers, which naturally caused them to drawn in by the communist faction of the society. Reconstruction became even difficult as the schism between communism and republicanism intensified. It was not just ideology that separated them, but the weakness of their political leader was also one of the crucial reasons that hindered the State Building project. The KMT did work to improve upon the financial and education system that had severely debilitated the country and were vastly successful in doing so. However, despite their many achievements, KMT lacked a certain amount of political acumen that left them in a major predicament. They failed to launch a full-fledged democratic rule in the country and they further did not take any steps to enlighten the people about the democratic system of government. The people remained completely ignorant regarding the procedures of self-government and it was further speculated that the KMT wanted maintain their iron-clad control over the land and were not interested in democracy (Musgrove, 2000). One prime instance that supports the aforementioned statement occurred, when the KMT party established a ‘tutelage government’ and extended it indefinitely beyond the 6 years that it was originally meant to be in effect. There was widespread speculation that further incited the liberal factions to believe that the KMT was unable to let go of their monopoly of power. They further framed the Chinese constitution in such a way that automatically gave their executives and officials greater power in the governance of the country. Even the proponents of democracy were forced into a situation where they began lobbying for the communist party. The KMT used the military to solve such political problems that further sparked political unrest and resentment amongst the people. They further never legalized and suppressed the formation of opposition parties, so that no criticism directed towards the party can be voiced (Eastman et,al, 1986). These were just the tip of the ice berg and by 1930’s they began overtly expressing their true intentions after establishing an unspoken one-party rule and making Chang Kai-Shek the unofficial dictator of China, who had the ultimate authority over the military and government activities. Chang Kai-Shek was not at all required to adhere by the chain of command and therefore, his rule over China is an example of military authoritarianism. The party had no real support from the general masses and was fundamentally supported by a hand full of people consisting of bureaucrats and businessmen, who benefited greatly by providing funds and maintaining their alliance with the KMT. It was indeed a despotic regime and nepotism was the norm. The general masses were unable to voice their discontent because they had been given no proper platform to voice their opinions and have their say in the running of the country. The political and social unrest kept on escalating and even if the KMT genuinely tried to take measures to make the situation better, it was met with intense distrust as everybody thought that it was yet another move to tighten the KMT’s control over China. (Lieberthall, 2004.) The conflict within the political sphere further deepened because of the use of military force by Chiang. However, it was understandable since Chiang himself was a soldier in the Chinese army and therefore, it was not only sympathy on his part but his lack of political acumen kept him from using tact over military force to tackle problems, especially in 1929 when Chiang used force when the National Congress failed to include the armed forces in the Central government activities. This was fundamentally because of Chiang’s power struggle that kept him from involving third parties and sharing the governance of the country. The general masses in China became increasingly resentful of the Chiang’s regime and this was partly because of his military mentality that was instilled in him during his time in the army. As stated earlier, Chiang was not particularly cut out for a political career and historians have often described his views of society as being extremely narrow-minded (Gray, 1990). He had a huge army at his disposal and he was never afraid to use it, he carried out successful expedition but lacked the sensibility to take up the necessary measures to hold the territories together. Chiang believed that he could dominate the people through and therefore, did not use any ideas to help make the lives of the people better. Chiang did not even use emotional tact to bring the people together. Many complained that the KMT rule was devoid of any political or philosophical depth that failed to draw the people towards them or at least feel sympathetic towards their cause. Chiang spent most of the finances to empower the army, he was vastly seen as a greedy land-grabber, who just wanted to expand his domain and other than he had no real interest in maintaining the law and order and actually governing the country in a proper manner. It is further postulated that Chiang just did not have any idea on how to run the country; he had further kept all the power to himself and since he was not interested in sharing the governance of the country, there was no way anyone could have helped him mend his ways. Furthermore, it has been discovered that Chiang’s apparent apathy towards the introduction of land reforms in general earned him the ire of peasants and farmers. Not only land, but he failed to introduce any relevant social reforms that would keep the unrest at bay. It was not only Chiang’s apathy but many historians have postulated that the land-owning class indeed had a huge role to play in this. Following the political unification, their support and funding rendered the KMT indebted to them and as a result, their strong opposition to land reforms further prevented Chiang from actually passing or implementing any. Chiang had tried very hard to appease these factions, in order to help him keep his party in power. Any sort of land reform meant that the land owning class might lose control over their land and Chiang further cemented the status quo. Throughout their regime, the KMT under Chiang deemed annexation of land or political unification as one of their topmost priorities. Chiang’s regime was never ‘reform-oriented’ and throughout the Nanjing decade, even if by chance any legislation was passed, it was never properly implemented. Many farmers and the peasant class felt completely alienated because of this and as a result the entire country found itself embracing the communist ideology, because they were slowly losing their faith in democracy. Though, it was not the ideology of democracy that they were disappointed in, but it was in fact the empty promises of the KMT that had led to their inclination towards a communist government (Strauss, 1994). There were striking differences between the communist party and the KMT, the former provided them with a vision of equality and a society where the status quo doesn’t exist, whereas on the other hand the latter just had promises and asked the masses to wait till they established a democratic system of government (Fitzgerald, 1996). While the Nationalist party was busy acquiring lands, the Japanese had already set their eyes on invading the whole of China. It was the glaring gaps in the governance of the country and the fact that Chiang had depleted most of his military resources on domestic issues. China under KMT was already weak from an administrative perspective and after the Mukden incident, which was orchestrated by the Japanese army. Following the incident, they quickly attacked and annexed the Northern part of China, Manchuria. The Japanese army posed a major threat to the solidarity of China and with the invasion of Manchuria; it was only a matter of time before they launched a full scale operation to make China a part of the Japanese empire. Many people criticized the central government policy for the annexation of Manchuria and the lack of resistance to the invasion was also a point of great resentment for the masses. The fact that Chiang’s military force failed to counter this attack was because that they were already battling several internal problems of their own that left them completely unprepared for the Japanese onslaught. The communist party was one of the biggest problems in Nationalist China because of which there was widespread social unrest and the army was busy subduing them. Moreover, there was heavy flooding in the Yangtze River that left millions of refugees that needed to be rehabilitated and the newly annexed states by the KMT also raised problems for the government. Therefore, it was these issues that eventually provided the Japanese forces an opening into the country and they took full advantage of it. They slowly waded their way in to their Capital city, Nanking and July 1937 turned out to be the day of reckoning for the inhabitants of the city. Following these attacks, Chiang quickly stepped down from his position and the capital was moved to a different city. The communist party and the remaining soldiers of the Chinese army tried their best to defend Nanjing, but outnumbered and ill-equipped compared to the Japanese and therefore, they soon surrendered to the Japanese forces and from then on began the nightmare, which was popularized as the “Rape of Nanking” by historians. The KMT made numerous efforts to regain their lost territory but to no avail. The Japanese army ran amok; looting, raping and killing everyone in sight to break their spirits and instill fear in their hearts so that they may not put up any resistance. As they continue to invade more land, the KMT were forced to move way back into the western territory and this continued till the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after which Japan conceded defeat and China, was reclaimed by the communist party. Upon close examination of the various policies implemented by the KMT, it is obvious that even if Japan had not put a stop to their political tenure, sooner or later it would have been overthrown by the communist ideology. They had broken the trust of the people and eventually widened the gap between the rich and the poor that made them highly unpopular amongst the people. As mentioned above, the KMT and all their members had deviated from their original philosophy and ideology that was to establish to democracy in China and make the people able to make the right choice and self-govern. However, they failed to give people the autonomy and thereby, instilled a sense of alienation within them. The KMT completely ignored the importance of national integration and focused more on expansion. Under any circumstances, social and political reforms are of crucial importance. The fact that they extended the tutelage government longer than planned was actually the fuse that fired the explosive that not only triggered suspicion on various factions of the country, but may have also led to their obsession with power. As mentioned earlier, the lure of power caused them to deviate from their real purpose and established their own monopoly, much to the ire of the masses. In conclusion, it seems complete unlikely that the KMT would let go of their monopoly and establish a democratic nations. Their attempts at national unification were a total fiasco because they had a very one-sided view on the matter. Building or unifying a nation requires a sympathetic government that works in the interest of the masses and not just one group. The resentment against the government was far too many to actually lead to the establishment of a stable government or country for that matter. Their empty promises actually led to the development of a void that was then filled by the Communist party, which gave the people the hope of a favorable change over the one that was always promised by the KMT but never fulfilled. They further did not allow the formations of other parties, clearly out of fear of competition and also had reservations about giving people the autonomy to raise their voice against KMT. In the end, they had become what they were fighting against that is an oppressive and authoritarian regime that just did not want to voice of the opinions of the people and any longer and subsequently silenced all the groups that might have raised their voices and criticized their way of governing - The communist group is one example. In short, the Nanjing Government was an example of how an oppressed segment of the population turned into an oppressive system of government. Bibliography Cochran, H. et.al. (1983). One day in China: May 21st, 1936. New Haven: Yale University Press Eastman, L. E et.al. (1986). The Nationalist Era in China: Nationalist China during the Nanjing decade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fitzgerald, J. (1996). “Awakening China: Politics, Class, and Culture in the Nationalisst Revolution. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gray, J. (1990). Rebellions and Revolutions: China from the 1800’s to the 1980’s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lierberthal, K. (2004). Governing China. New York: Norton Publishing. Musgrove, C. (2000). Building a Dream: Constructing a National Capital in Nanjing, 1927-1937. Honolulu University, Hawaii Press. Strauss, J.C. (1994). Symbol and Reflection of the Reconstituting State: The Examination Yuan in the 1930’s, Modern China. New York: Sage Publications. Sun Yat-Sen. (1953). The Fundamentals of National Reconstruction. Taipei: China Cultural Service. Read More