Over the past few weeks, a number of people have contributed informative articles on the 228 Incident and its ramifications on Taiwanese society.
One subject of interest for me is how the Japanese colonial period is viewed compared with rule under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) before and after the 228 Incident.
In his latest piece, Jerome Keating argues that "Taiwan's experience under Chiang and the KMT proved far worse than that under a colonizing Japan" ("Taiwan and its past: CKS must go, " March 18, page 8).
Although I have heard similar opinions expressed by others in Taiwan, I do, however, believe it is a subjective viewpoint based on Taiwan's unique experience during World War II.
Why do many Taiwanese believe the Japanese were far better than the KMT? Is it because of the 228 Incident and the subsequent White Terror?
These events do explain why people have a negative impression of the KMT, but why are the Japanese judged more favorably?
Maybe this attitude is based on a crucial event that did not happen. If you look at a map of the Pacific campaigns during World War II, it is difficult to understand why Taiwan was not invaded as the Allies prepared for the invasion of Japan.
What would have happened if Taiwan had been invaded? Many Taiwanese lives would surely have been lost during the invasion.
The Allied invasion of the Philippines provides a good example of what could have happened in Taiwan.
The invasion was bitterly contested by the Japanese troops stationed there and an estimated 1 million people died in related fighting. During the Battle of Manila from Feb. 3, 1945, to March 3, 1945, the city was completely devastated and 100,000 Filipinos lost their lives in this single battle.
Historians believe that Taiwan was a prime target for invasion, but military planners were overruled by US General Douglas MacArthur, who wanted to avenge his early defeat in the Philippines.
As a result of the fierce fighting in the Philippines, the Allies decided to skip Taiwan and directly invaded Okinawa, which also suffered massive loss of life.
Compared with other places in Asia, Taiwan did not experience widespread destruction and high civilian casualties during the war.
Although we can only speculate how this has affected how Taiwanese view the Japanese colonial period, discussing Taiwanese history in the context of regional events does help people to understand that the US military decision not to invade Taiwan certainly influenced post-war attitudes toward Japan and even China.
William Hoyle
Taichung
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS