No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Alternative to Kuomintang—Communist Collaboration: Sun Yat-sen and Hong Kong, January–June 1923
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Extract
Sun Yat-sen arrived in Shanghai in August 1922 after suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of his former ally, Ch'en Chiung-ming. In the next five months, he negotiated with Russian and Chinese Communists for their collaboration with the Kuomintang. His effort was fruitful, On January 26, 1923, he issued a joint manifesto with the Soviet emissary, Adolf Joffe, who assured the Chinese revolutionary leader—in the name of the ‘Russian people’—of their ‘warmest sympathy for China’ and their ‘willingness to lend support.’.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979
References
In a slightly modified form, this paper was presented to the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Ohio Academy of History on April 26, 1975. Acknowledgments are due to Professors C. Martin Wilbut of Columbia University and Lloyed E. Eastman of the University of Illinois at Urbana for their constructive criticisms. I am also appreciative of the valuable suggestions for improvement made by my colleagues in the History Department Feculty Seminar at Miami University.Google Scholar
1 For the complete text of the manifesto, see Woodhead, H. G. W. (ed.), The China Year Book, 1924–5 (Tientsin: Tientsin Press, Ltd, n.d.), p. 863.Google Scholar The evolution of the Kuomintang–Russian alliance is discussed in my article, ‘Sun Yat-sen and the Origins of the Kuomintang Reorganization,’ in Chan, F. Gilbert and Etzold, Thomas H., (eds), China in the 1920s: Nationalism and Revolution (New York: New Viewpoints, 1976), pp. 15–37.Google Scholar
2 Wou, Odoric Y. K., ‘Wu P'ei-fu and the Communists’ (preliminary report to University Seminar on Modern China, Columbia University, 11 28, 1973);Google Scholar and Whiting, Allen S., Soviet Policies in China, 1917–1924 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), pp. 208–35.Google Scholar
3 For example, as Chung-gi Kwei (Ch'ung-chi Kuei) insists, it was ‘only natural’ that Russia should be ‘anxious’ to align itself with the Kuomintang. See Kwei, Chung-gi, The Kuomintang—Communist Struggle in China, 1922–1949 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), pp. 18 and 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Chan, F. Gilbert, ‘Revolutionary Leadership in Transition: Sun Yat-sen and His Comrades, 1905–1925’ (unpublished paper presented to the 30th International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, Mexico City, 08 3, 1976).Google Scholar An expanded version of the paper was delivered at the Ohio East Asian Seminar, November 13, 1976. For a revisionist study of the Chinese revolution in Kwangtung, see Rhoads, Edward J. M., China's Republican Revolution: The Case of Kwangtung, 1895–1913 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
5 Min-li pao (Shanghai), June 20, 1912; June 23, 1912; and June 24, 1912. Sun endorsed Liao's reform program in a meeting with the provincial leaders in Canton.Google Scholar See ibid., June 15, 1912. For Henry George's influence on the Chinese intellectuals, see Schiffrin, Harold Z. and Sohn, Pow-key, ‘Henry George on Two Continents: A Comparative Study in the Diffusion of Ideas,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. II, No. 1 (10 1959), pp. 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Reinsch, Paul S. to Secretary of State, September 27, 1917, in United States Department of State, Records Relating to Internal Affairs of China, 1910–29 (hereafter cited as USDS), 893.00/2724; and Millard's Review of the Far East (renamed Weekly Review of the Far East in June 1921Google Scholar, and later China Weekly Review in June 1923;Google Scholarhereafter cited as CWR), December 1, 1917, p. 1.Google Scholar
7 North China Herald (hereafter abbreviated as NCH), December 8, 1917, p. 584.Google Scholar See also Chien-nung, Li, The Political History of China, 1840–1928, trans. by Teng, Ssu-yu and Ingalls, Jeremy (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1956), pp. 384–8.Google Scholar
8 Quoted from Sun's letter to his party comrades, September 18, 1922, in Archives, Kuomintang (ed.), Kuo-fu ch'uan-chi, (Taipei: Chung-hua min-kuo ko-chieh chi-nien kuo-fu pai-nien tan-ch'en ch'ou-pei wei-yuan-hui, 1965), Vol. III, p. IX:544.Google Scholar In spite of Sun's claim, however, his relations with Ch'en were by no means intimate. See Chan, , ‘Sun Yat-sen and the Origins of the Kuomintang Reorganization,’ p. 16.Google Scholar Indeed, Ch'en's image of a treacherous warlord, as projected by Kuomintang historians, needs reevaluation. See Hsieh, Winston, ‘The Ideas and Ideals of a Warlord: Ch'en Chiung-ming (1878–1933),’ in Papers on China (Harvard University), Vol. XVI (12 1962), pp. 192–252.Google Scholar
9 NCH, January 8, 1921, p. 94;Google Scholar and Gourlay, Walter E., ‘The Kuomintang and the Rise of Chiang Kai-shek, 1920–1924’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1966), p. 16.Google Scholar For the Chinese federalist movement, see Chesneaux, Jean, ‘The Federalist Movement in China, 1920–3,’ in Gray, Jack (ed.), Modern China's Search for a Political Form (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 96–137.Google Scholar
10 While Liao's association with Sun began in 1903, Hu met the latter for the first time in 1905. See Chan, F. Gilbert, ‘Liao Chung-k'ai (1878–1925): The Career of a Chinese Revolutionary,’ in Essays in Chinese Studies Presented to Professor Lo Hsiang-lin on His Retirement from the Chair of Chinese, University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, 1970), p. 325;Google Scholar and Han-min, Hu, ‘Hu Han-min tzu-chuan,’ in Archives, Kuomintang (ed.), Ke-ming wen-hsien (Taipei: Chung-yang wen-wu kung-ying-she, 1953–), Vol. III, p. 386.Google Scholar According to James R. Shirley, Wang became acquainted with Sun through Hu's introduction. See Shirley, , ‘Political Conflict in the Kuomintang: The Career of Wang Ching-wei to 1932’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1962), p. 12.Google Scholar
11 Ch'ao-chun, Ma, Ma Ch'ao-chun hsien-sheng yen-lun hsuan-chi (Taipei: Chung-kuo lao-kung fu-li ch'u-pan-she, 1967), Vol. II, pp. 193–4;Google Scholar and Ch'ao-chun, Ma et al., Chung-kuo lao-kung yun-tung shih (Taipei: Chung-hua ta-tien pien-yin-hui, 1966), Vol. I, pp. 236–7.Google ScholarCf. Kuo-t'ao, Chang, The Rise of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921–1927: Volume One of the Autobiography of Chang Kuo-t'ao (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1971), p. 267.Google Scholar
12 While C. C. Wu, son of Wu T'ing-fang, graduated from University of London, Fu P'ing-ch'ang was a graduate of University of Hong Kong. Each married a daughter of Ho Kai, the first Chinese knighted in the British colony of Hong Kong. See Gourlay, , ‘The Kuomintang and the Rise of Chiang Kai-shek,’ p. 167.Google Scholar
13 Fo, Sun, the eldest child of Sun Yat-sen, was Mayor of Canton in 1921–1922. He left the city after Ch'en Chiung-ming's June 16 coup of 1922.Google Scholar
14 Gourlay, , ‘The Kuomintang and the Rise of Chiang Kai-shek,’ p. 168. Walter Gourlay interviewed Fu P'ing-ch'ang in Taipei on July 27, 1965.Google Scholar
15 Dalin, , ‘Velikii povorot: Sun Yat-sen v 1922g,’ in Sun Yat-sen, 1866–1966, K stoletiiu so dnia rozhdeniia: Sbornik statei, vospominanii i materialov (Moscow: Glavnaia redaktsiia vostochnoi literatury izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka,’ 1966), p. 269.Google Scholar
16 NCH, January 27, 1923, p. 218. See also American Minister in China to Secretary of State, January 18, 1923, in USDS, 893.00/4823. The military successes did not really surprise Sun Yat-sen. On January 7, he had confidently predicted that he would soon return in triumph to Canton.Google Scholar See the record of his interview in NCH, January 13, 1923, p. 73.Google Scholar
17 Barton's first dispatch to Peking, January 17, 1923, in Great Britain Foreign Office, ‘General Correspondence’ series, FO 371/9181/F 649 [F 649/12/10], and his second dispatch, dated January 22, 1923Google Scholar, in ibid., FO 371/9181/F 946 [F 946/12/10].
18 While Joffe had sent an aide to call on Sun in Shanghai as early as August 25, 1922, the Soviet emissary did not come to the city until January 17 of the following year. On 01 18, a day prior to Eugene Ch'en's second visit to Barton, Sun entertained Joffe at a dinner. After this meeting, the two leaders conferred repeatedly at Sun's residence in the French Concession. See Chan, , ‘Sun Yat-sen and the Origins of the Kuomintang Reorganization,’ p. 33;Google Scholar and Wilbur, C. Martin, Sun Yat-sen: Frustrated Patriot (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 135.Google Scholar
19 Great Britain Foreign Office, ‘Confidential Print,’ Vol. 236, Further Correspondence Respecting China, F 1107/12/10 (report #62).Google Scholar
20 NCH, February 24, 1923, p. 500;Google Scholar and American Consul in Charge (Canton) to Secretary of State, February 24, 1923, in USDS, 893.00/4936. Sun Yat-sen later claimed that his meeting with Governor Stubbs ‘augured well for future relationships between Hong Kong and Canton.’ See South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), 02 22, 1923.Google Scholar
21 NCH, February 24, 1923, p. 500; and USDS, 893.00/4936.Google Scholar
22 USDS, 893.00/4936. The university was named Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese when Sun was a student there. See Hornell, W. W., The University of Hong Kong: Its Origins and Growth (Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, 1925), p. 1;Google Scholar and Hsiang-lin, Lo, Kuo-fu ta-hsueh shih-tai (Taipei: Commercial Press, 1954), esp. pp. 27–65.Google Scholar
23 South China Morning Post, February 20, 1923.Google Scholar
24 CWR, March 3, 1923, p. 1.Google Scholar
25 NCH, March 24, 1923, p. 787.Google Scholar
26 American Consul in Charge (Canton) to Secretary of State, March 13, 1923, in USDS, 893.00/4950; and Wilbur, , Sun Yat-sen, p. 337, n. 63.Google Scholar
27 USDS, 893.00/4950; Chia-lun, Lo (ed.), Kuo-fu nien-p'u tseng-ting-pen, with additions by Chi-lu, Huang (Taipei: Kuomintang Archives, 1969)Google Scholar, hereafter cited as KFNP, Vol. II, pp. 958–9 and 963;Google Scholar and Lu-hai-chun ta-yuan-shuai ta-pen-ying kung-pao (Canton; reprinted in 12 volumes in 1969 by the Kuomintang Archives in Taipei), No. 1, 03 9, 1923, in Vol. I, pp. 58–9.Google Scholar
28 KFNP, Vol. II, p. 958; and Lu-hai-chun ta-yuan-shuai ta-pen-ying kung-pao, March 9, 1923, in Vol. I, p. 58.Google Scholar
29 Ching-wei, Wang, ‘Tui Chung-kuo kuo-min-tang ti-erh-tz'u ch'uan-kuo tai-piao ta-hui cheng-chih pao-kao,’ in Ke-ming wen-hsien, Vol. XX, p. 3856.Google Scholar To emphasize the element of Soviet influence, Lyon Sharman labels Liao ‘Joffe's disciple.’ See Sharman, , Sun Yat-sen, His Life and Its Meaning: A Critical Biography (Hamden: Archon Books, 1965), p. 225.Google Scholar For further discussion of Liao's attitude toward the Kuomintang—Communist alliance, see Chan, F. Gilbert, ‘The Death of a Revolutionary: Liao Chung-k'ai's Assassination’ (unpublished paper presented to Midwest Regional Seminar on China, May 19, 1973).Google Scholar
30 Hua-tzu jih-pao (Hong Kong), 04 9, 1923.Google Scholar
31 See Gourlay's, interview with P'ing-ch'ang, Fu in ‘The Kuomintang and the Rise of Chiang Kai-shek,’ pp. 174–6; and Hua-tzu jih-pao, March 30, 1923; May 17, 1923; May 18, 1923; and May 19, 1923.Google Scholar
32 NCH, March 24, 1923, p. 787.Google Scholar
33 CWR, May 10, 1924, p. 396.Google Scholar
34 NCH, May 6, 1922, p. 373.Google Scholar
35 See the records of conversation in Hong Kong between Liang Shih-yi and S. F. Mayers of the British and Chinese Corporation, March 16, 1923, in Great Britain Foreign Office, ‘General Correspondence’ series, FO 371/9181/F 1520.
36 Hsueh-lu, Ts'en, San-shui Liang Yen-sun hsien-sheng nien-p'u (Taipei: Wen-hsing shu-tien, 1962), Vol. II, p. 255;Google ScholarLu-hai-chun ta-yuan-shuai ta-pen-ying kung-pao, No. 10, May 11, 1923, in Vol. I, pp. 502–3; KFNP, Vol. II, p. 973;Google Scholar and China Review (New York), Vol. IV, No. 6 (06 1923), p. 263.Google Scholar See also CWR, May 19, 1923, p. 426; and May 26, 1923, p. 462.Google Scholar
37 CWR, July 7, 1923, p. 188.Google Scholar
38 NCH, March 24, 1923, p. 787; and April 28, 1923, p. 218;Google ScholarCWR, April 7, 1923, p. 216; and KFNP, Vol. II, p. 968.
39 China Review, June 1923, p. 259.Google ScholarNCH reported the presence in Shen's camp of ‘northern troops sent by General Wu P'ei-fu’—‘men speaking a northern dialect and wearing a queue’ (April 28, 1923, p. 221). Without substantiating the NCH account, CWR described Wu's intervention as an attempt ‘to effect a nominal reunification of China by force.’ The same publication considered Wu's policy ‘extremely unwise,’ since it might unite all opposing forces in Kwangtung behind Sun (July 7, 1923, p. 12).Google Scholar
40 CWR, September 8, 1923, p. 60.Google Scholar
41 Ibid., November 3, 1923, p. 350. See also september 8, 1923, p. 60; September 22, 1923, p. 143; and October 13, 1923, p. 235.
42 Bing, Dov, ‘Sneevliet and the Early Years of the CCP,’ in China Quarterly, No. 48 (10–12 1971), pp. 677–97;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Bing, Dov, ‘Revolution in China: Sneevliet Strategy’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1968). Maring was the pseudonym of H. Sneevliet, a Dutch Communist of the Comintern.Google Scholar
43 On May 1, the Soviet leaders telegraphed Sun about their ‘readiness to render necessary assistance to China.’ There is, however, no available record to show Sun's receipt of the telegram. See Wilbur, , Sun Yat-sen, p. 148;Google Scholarand Wilbur, C. Martin, ‘Further Reflections on Sun Yat-sen’ (preliminary report to University Seminar on Modern China, Columbia University, March 21, 1973), p. 42.Google Scholar
44 According to Maring, Liao Chung-k'ai, Hu Han-min, and Chiang Kai-shek supported him ‘wholeheartedly’ in his effort to guide Sun toward the policy of Kuomintang–Communist collaboration. See Sneevliet, H., ‘Met en bij Soen Yat-sen, enige persoonlijke herinneringen,’ Klassenstrijd (Amsterdam), No. 3 (03 1926).Google Scholar
45 For an analysis of the subject, see Chan, F. Gilbert, ‘Liao Chung-k'ai and the Labor Movement in Kwangtung, 1924–1925’ (preliminary report to University Seminar on Modern China, Columbia University, November 13, 1975). A revised version of the paper was presented to the Annual Meeting of Association for Asian Studies, March 20, 1976.Google Scholar