No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
In January 1932 Wang Ching-wei and Chiang Kai-shek came to an agreement and formed a joint leadership in the Kuomintang (KMT) Government. The alliance between the two men lasted until December 1938 when Wang defected to the Japanese side during the Sino-Japanese War. Chinese historians often term this period as the era of ‘Wang-Chiang cooperation’ (Wang Chiang ho-tso). In fact, this was not the first time when these two men came to ally with each other in the party. The first time when Wang and Chiang formed a joint leadership was in August 1925 after the assassination of Liao Chung-k'ai. The death of Liao at that time had great repercussions throughout the party and both Wang and Chiang eventually emerged as the beneficiaries in the ensuing power struggle; for a time they jointly ruled the party. However, this alliance did not last long. The outbreak of the March Twentieth Incident in 1926 made Wang Ching-wei decide to let Chiang have his way and he later led a self-imposed exiled life in Europe. It was not until April 1927 when the KMT was seriously divided on the communist issue that Wang went back to China. Immediately after that was a split in the party with Wuhan and Nanking as the two rival centres, each of which claimed to be the legitimate Party Central. Wang and Chiang respectively became the leaders of these two Party Centrals.
1 Throughout the period of ‘Wang–Chiang cooperation’, Wang twice retired from the government and went to Europe. The first time was in October 1932 when Wang, irritated by Chang Hsueh-liang's non-resistance policy towards Japan, resigned in protest and went to Europe. He came back in March 1933. The second time was in November 1935 when he was wounded by an assassin and retired to Europe in Febrauary 1936. He was back on the political stage in January 1937 after the outbreak of the Sian Incident. See Li, Li, Ch'ao, Hsia, Wang C'hing-wei p'ing-chuan (Wuhan, 1988), pp. 201–14, 244–56.Google Scholar
2 See, for example, T'ung-hsin, Chang, Chiang-Wang ho-tso te kuo-min cheng-fu (Harbin, 1988), p. 1;Google ScholarTe-chin, Ts'ai, Wang Ching-wei p'ing-chuan (Chengtu, 1987), p. 226.Google Scholar The term, the ‘Second Wang–Chiang cooperation’ was used by Wang Ching-wei’s close associate, Ch'en Kung-po, in his memoirs. See Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, ed. Lee, Ngok et al. , (Hong Kong, 1979), p. 336.Google Scholar
3 For an account of the party history during this period, see Yun-han, Li, Ts'ung yung-kung tao ch'ing-tang (Taipei, 1966), vol. 1, passim.Google Scholar
4 The term KMT Left as used in this article refers to those party members who followed Wang Ching-wei, Ch'en Kung-po and Ku Meng-yu and accepted their ideology and policies. Thus, party figures such as Teng Yen-ta and Madame Sun Yat-sen are not counted as KMT Leftists in this sense.
5 See, for example, Tung-fang, Li, Chiang-kung Chieh-shih hsu-chuan (Taipei, 1977), pp. 266–7;Google ScholarYun-lung, Shen, Min-kuo shih-shih yu jen-wu lun-ts'ung (Taipei, 1981), pp. 322–9.Google Scholar
6 Tong, Hollington K., Chiang Kai-shek: Soldier and Statesman (Shanghai, 1937), vol. 2, pp. 336–7.Google Scholar
7 It is no detraction to point out that Lloyd E. Eastman, an authority on KMT history, in his recent article contributed to The Cambridge History of China, does not address the question of how the ‘Wang—Chiang cooperation’ came about in 1932. See Eastman, Lloyd E., ‘Nationalist China during the Nanking Decade, 1927–1937’, in John, K. Fairbank (ed.), The Cambridge History of China (Cambridge, 1986), vol. 13, pp. 128–30.Google Scholar
8 Furuya, Keiji, Chiang Kai-shek: His Life and Times (New York, 1981), pp. 343–7.Google Scholar
9 T'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa hun-chan shih-lueh (Harbin, 1982), pp. 479–85.Google Scholar
10 For a history of the opposition movement during the years 1929–1930, see ibid., chs 4–5.
11 For an account about the strength of the KMT Left in the party and the social support it received during this period, see Wai-chor, So, ‘The Organization and Power Base of the Kuomintang Left, 1928–31’, Papers on Far Eastern History 32 (1985): 139–64.Google Scholar
12 Wai-chor, So, ‘The Kuomintang Left in Opposition, 1928–1931: The Leftist Alternative in Chinese Politics’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, 1986, pp. 167–71.Google Scholar
13 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 247–52.Google Scholar
14 Hu hsien-sheng chi-nien chuan-k'an (Canton, 1936), pt I, pp. 32–3, 38–40, pt 2, p. 14;Google ScholarHan-min, Hu, ‘Ko-ming kuo-ch'eng chung chih chi-chien shih-shih’, San-min chu-i yueh-k'an 2.6 (15 12 1933): 105–6, 117.Google Scholar
15 For the differences between Hu Han-min and Chiang Kai-shek over policy issues, see ibid., 2.6: 106–9; Hollington K. Tong, Chiang Kai-shek, vol. I, p. 312; Kung Te-po, Kung Te-po hui-i lu (Hong Kong, 1963), vol. I, p. 240.
16 ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 7.40 (16 10 1930): 2–4.Google Scholar
17 For Hu Han-min's role in the years 1924–27, see Barret, David P., ‘The Role of Hu Hanmin in the “First United Front”: 1922–1927’, China Quarterly 89 (03 1982): 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 See Yung-ching, Chiang, Hu Han-min hsien-sheng nien-pu (Taipei, 1978), pp. 491–2.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., pp. 488–91.
20 Ibid., pp. 492–6.
21 See Han-min, Hu, ‘Tsun-i Tsung-li i-chiao k'ai kuo-min hui-i’, in The Historical Commission of the Kuomintang (ed.), Hu Han-min hsien-sheng wen-chi (Taipei, 1978), vol. 3, pp. 756–69.Google Scholar
22 Han-min, Hu, ‘Ko-ming kuo-ch'eng chung chih chi-chien shih-shih’, p. 115.Google Scholar
23 The rumour was so widely circulated in the party that on 22 March Chiang Kaishek had to come out denying that he wanted to become President. See Kai-shek, Chiang, ‘Hsun-cheng shih-ch'i pu hsu-yao ch'an-sheng tsung-t'ung’, Chung-yang chou-pao 147 (30 03 1931): 1–2.Google Scholar
24 Han-min, Hu, ‘Ko-ming kuo-ch'eng chung’, p. 117.Google Scholar
25 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 190;Google ScholarMing-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso” ch'in-li chi’, in The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, National Committee (ed.), Wen-shih tzu-liao hsuan-chi (Peking, 1962), vol. 9, p. 49.Google Scholar
26 she, Chung-kuo ch'ing-nien chun-jen, Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih (Canton, 1934), p. 289.Google Scholar
27 Ibid., pp. 289–93, 302–4.
28 Ibid., pp. 285–8.
29 Wei-yuan, Kuang-chon cheng-hsieh wen-shih tzu-liao hui (ed.), Nan-t'ien sui-yueh (Canton, 1987), p. 86.Google Scholar
30 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu (Hong Kong, 1978), p. 231;Google ScholarI'chih, Chou, “Fei-ch'ang hui-i” ch'ien-hou’, in Wen-shih tzu-liao hsuan-chi. vol. 9, p. 85.Google Scholar
31 For the circular telegram, see Nan-hua p'ing-lun 1.1 (15 05 1931): 2.Google Scholar
32 For a discussion about Wang Ching-wei's pragmatic approach to politics, see Wai-chor, So, “The Kuomintang Left in Opposition, 1928–1931’, pp. 156–62. 265.Google Scholar
33 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 234;Google ScholarChung-yang chou-pao 155 (25 05 1931): 13–14.Google Scholar
34 Ching-wei, Wang, ‘Tui Hsiang-kang Nan-hua hsing-ch'i pao chu-hu chi-che t'an-hua’, Nan-hua p'ing-lun. 1.1 (15 05 1931): 4–5.Google Scholar
35 chu, Chung-yang tiao-ch'a t'ung-chi (comp.), ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, handwritten document, ch. 7, sect. I, no pagination; ‘I-chou ta-shih hui-shu’, Chung-yang chou-pao 157 (8 06 1931): 11;Google ScholarChu-ch'eng, Hsu, Pao-hai chiu-wen (Shanghai, 1981), p. 171.Google Scholar
36 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 229.Google Scholar
37 Ibid., p. 231; Ch'en Kung-po, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 265; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 85.
38 ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.21 (1 06 1931): 1.Google Scholar
39 Ti-ssu-chun chi-shih pien-hsuan wei-yuan-hui, Ti-ssu-chun chi-shih (Canton, 1949), p. 383.Google Scholar
40 According to Ch'en Kung-po's account, Wang told Ch'en that Pai Ch'ung-hsi and Chang Fa-k'uei agreed to collaborate with the Kwangtung army on condition that Wang himself should first go to Canton expressing his support for the opposition movement there. See Ch'en Kung-po, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 265.Google Scholar
41 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 343–5, 395–7.Google Scholar
42 These six major factions are identified on the basis that each of them had a group of core leaders formed before 1931 and they fought for their factional interests against other factions in the party at one time or another during the Northern Expedition. For a discussion about factional struggle in the KMT during this period, see T'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa hun-chan shih-lueh (Harbin, 1982).Google Scholar
43 Chung-kuo-min-tang chung-yang chih-hsing wei-yuan-hui hsuan-ch'uan pu (ed.), Kuei-chen Kuang-tung-shih-pien chi wen-tien (n.p., 1931), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
44 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 265; ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, ch. 7, sect. 5; Nan-t'ien sui-yueh, p. 86.Google Scholar
45 Hsi, Meng ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i” ho “ning-yuch ho-tso”’, in Wen-shih tzu-liao hsuan-chi, vol. 9, p. 104.Google Scholar
46 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 265–7.Google Scholar
47 Ta-kung pao (24 June 1931), p. 3; (10 July 1931), p. 5.Google Scholar
48 Ching-wei, Wang, ‘Lu-ho lien-ho ch'i-lai’, Nan-hua p'ing-lun 1.1 (5 05 1931): 2–3.Google Scholar
49 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 331–3, 349–52.Google Scholar
50 For the controversy over the party-legitimacy issue in the Enlarged Party Conference, see T'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang-hsin-chun-fa, pp. 360–6.Google Scholar
51 The term ‘tang-chi hsien-sheng (Mr Party Constitution)’ was first and frequently used by Wu Chih-hui, the leading Nanking spokesman, to label Wang Ching-wei in an uncomplimentary manner. See, for example, Chih-hui, Wu, ‘Liang-ko chiu tien-pao’, in Chih-hui, Wu, Wu Chih-hui hsien-sheng ch'uan-chi (Taipei, 1969), vol. 9, pp. 869–70.Google Scholar
52 For the Manifesto, see Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 343–5.Google Scholar
53 Ching-wei, Wang, ‘I-feng kuan-yu p'ai-pieh tsu-chih ti kung-k'ai hsin’, Nan-hua p'ing-lun 1.8 (4 07 1931): 13–14.Google Scholar
54 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, p. 401. The deputy Foreign Minister was Fu P'ing ch'ang, who was a close associate of Hu Han-min, and the Deputy Finance Minister was Wu Shang-ying, who was Sun Fo's protégé.Google Scholar
56 The Kwangtung group led by Ch'en Chi-tang and his protégé, Lin I-chung, had since 1929 gradually consolidated their power in both Kwangtung Provincial Party Branch and Canton Municipal Party Branch. For details, see Nan-t'ien sui-yueh, pp. 131–8.Google Scholar
57 Chung-yang jih-pao (9 June 1931), (15 June 1931), Newspaper clippings, Kuomin-tang Archives, 625/1(3).Google Scholar
58 Ch'en Ming-shu later went to Nanking and declared his allegiance to Chiang Kai-shek. For his account of the episode, see Ming-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso” ch'in-li chi’, in Wen-shih tzu-liao hsuan-chi, vol. 9, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
59 ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.36 (14 09 1931): 1;Google ScholarT'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, pp. 435–6.Google Scholar
60 Kuei-chen Kuang-tung shih-pien chi wen-tien, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar
61 Hsi, Meng, ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 105; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 87;Google ScholarKuo, Ting-yee (ed.), Chou Yung-neng hsien-sheng fang-wen chi-lu (Taipei, 1984), p. 136.Google Scholar
62 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 235.Google Scholar
63 Nan-t'ien sui-yueh, p. 83;Google ScholarPai-shih, Kao, Ku Ch'un-feng lou so-chi (Taipei, 1977), vol. 13, pp. 124, 127;Google ScholarI-chih, Chou, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 84;Google ScholarYun, Han, ‘Ku Ying-fen shih-shih chih ch'ien-hou’, in Hsien-tai shih-liao (Shanghai, 1933), vol. 2, p. 200.Google Scholar
64 Chung-yang jih-pao (15 June 1931), News paper clippings, Kuomintang Archives, 625/1(3); Ch'en Ming-shu, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso” ch'in-li chi’, p. 49.Google Scholar
65 Nan-t'ien sui-yueh, p. 90; Ming-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso” ch'in-li chi’, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
66 It was said that Ku Ying-fen had so dominated the political scene in Kwangtung that it created discontent among other factions. In June, a secret movement was initiated to boycott Ku. But it proved to be a petty power struggle and did not split the opposition forces. See Chung-yang chou-pao 160 (29 06 1931): 11–12;Google ScholarT'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, pp. 433–5.Google Scholar
67 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 234; Chung-yang jih-pao (15 June 1931), Newspaper clippings, Kuomintang Archives, 625/1(3);Google ScholarChun, Chang, ‘Fei-ch'ang hui-i yi-shih’, in Hsien-taif shih-liao, vol. 3, p. 37.Google Scholar
68 To be sure, Hsieh Chih, Fu Yu-lin and T'an Chen had expressed support for the opposition movement. See Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, p. 401;Google ScholarChing-wei, Wang, ‘Tui Hsiang-kang Nan-hua jih-pao she chu-hu chi-che t'an-hua’, Nan-hua p'ing-lun 1.1 (15 05 1931): 3–4. Another well known Western Hills member, Chu Cheng, was arrested by the Nanking Government in late 1929 because of his involvement in the opposition movement.Google Scholar See Hsiao-ts'en, Lei, Yu-huan yu-sheng chi tzu-shu (Taipei, 1982), p. 78.Google Scholar
69 See Wai-chor, So, ‘The Western Hills Group in the National Revolution (1924–1928): A study of ideology and politics within the Kuomintang’, unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of Hong Kong, 1981, pp. 219–67.Google Scholar
70 I-chih, Chou, ‘Wo-tui Hsu Ch'ung-chih liao-chieh ti p'ien-tuan’. in It'en-shih tzu-tiao hsuan-chi, vol. 13, pp. 130–7;Google ScholarT'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, p. 434.Google Scholar
71 ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.27 (13 07 1931): 3.Google Scholar
72 ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, ch. 7, sect. 4; Chun, Chang, ‘Fei-ch'ang hui-i yi-shih’, pp. 36–7; Ch'eng T'ien-ku, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i-lu, p. 232.Google Scholar
73 Hsi, Meng, ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, pp. 104–5.Google Scholar
74 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i-lu, pp. 235–6;Google ScholarYu-wen, Chien, Hsi-peits'ung-hun chun chi (Taipei, 1982), p. 163.Google Scholar
75 Hsi, Meng, ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 105; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 85.Google Scholar
76 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i-lu, pp. 234–5.Google Scholar
77 Chu-ch'eng, Hsu, Pao-hai chiu-wen, p. 181. See also Ta-kung pao (10 July 1931), p. 3.Google Scholar
78 Tong, Hollington K., Chiang Kai-shek, vol. I, p. 324.Google Scholar
79 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 264–6.Google Scholar
80 At that time Canton had established communications with several army commanders in the North such as Ho Chien (Hunan), Chiang Kuang-nai (Kiangsi), Shih Yu-shan (Hopei), and Shang Chen (Shansi). Only Shih Yu-shan responded to the call and staged a campaign against Nanking on 19 July 1931. No sooner had he started the campalign than he was quickly suppressed. See Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 422–5; Chang T'ung-hsin, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, pp. 438–9).
81 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 432–3, 438–48.Google Scholar
82 Ibid., pp. 348–93, 400–16.
83 T'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, pp. 418–24.Google Scholar
84 It was said that Ch'en Chi-t'ang eventually agreed to launch a military campaign against Nanking because of the pressure from Wang Ching-wei and Li Tsung-jen. See ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pav 8.36 (14 09 1931): 1–2;Google ScholarT'ung-hsin, Chang, Kuo-min-tang hsin-chun-fa, pp. 435–41.Google Scholar
85 For a detailed account of the dialogue between Canton and Nanking before the Shanghai Peace Conference, see Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 457–78; Ch'en Ming-shu, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, pp. 56–62.Google Scholar
86 The Canton delegation was composed of Wang Ching-wei, Tsou Lu, Eugene Ch'en, Sun Fo, Li Wen-fan and Wu Ch'ao-shu. On the Nanking negotiation team were Ts'ai Yuan-p'ei, Chang Chi, Li Shih-tseng, Chang Ching-chiang and Ch'en Ming-shu. See ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p', Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.43 (2 11 1931): 1, 6.Google Scholar
87 The 7 November agreement was couched in the form of a Manifesto jointly issued by the two delegations. For the agreement, see ‘I-chou chien kuo-nei-wai ta-shih shu-p'ing’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.45 (16 11 1931): 4–5.Google Scholar
88 Ch'en Kung-po, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 264–6. Ch'en did not entertain Wang's request to contact T. V. Soong; at the time he favoured more a ‘Wang–Hu cooperation’ than a ‘Wang–Chiang cooperation’. See ibid.
89 Wang Ching-wei, ‘Chiu-wang chih wei-i t'u-ching’, Nan-hua p'ing-lun 1. 20/21 (10 October 1931): 6–8; Wang Ching-wei, ‘I-chih mai-kuo hai-shih i-chih chiu-kuo’, ibid., I. 20/21 (10 October 1931): 2–6.
90 T'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 235; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, pp. 87–8; Meng Hsi ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch’ang hui-i”’, p. 106; Ch'en Kung-po, K'uhsiao lu, pp. 264–6.Google Scholar
91 ‘Wang Ching-wei: “chiu-i-pa” ch'ien-hou t'ai-tu chih shuo-ming’, Kuomintang Archives, 240/79. The telegram has two puzzling points. It is not known to whom the telegram was addressed, and the year in which the telegram was issued was not put down. According to the Kuomintang Archives Commission's opinion, it was probably issued in May 1932.
92 For Ch'en Kung-po's attitude, see K'u-hsiav lu, pp. 266–8. For Chang Fa-k'.uei's attitude, see Meng Hsi, ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 108. For the attitude of T'an Chen and Sun Fo's followers, see Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 90. Ch'eng T'ien-ku also related that many party members would like Wang Ching-wei and Hu Han-min to collaborate with each other to save the country. See Ch'eng T'ien-ku, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hui-i lu, p. 236.Google Scholar
93 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 264–8.Google Scholar
94 Ibid., p. 267. Wang Ching-wei's decision to ally with Chiang Kai-shek was supported by Ku Meng-yu who was once an ardent advocate for ‘Wang–Chiang cooperation’. See Fan Yu-sui, ‘Wo so chih-tao ti kai-tsu p'ai’, in Wen shih tzu-liao hsuan-chi, vol. 45, p. 211.
95 Yu-wen, Chien, Hsi-pei ts'ung-chun chi, p. 166; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 88.Google Scholar
96 Jung-hsi, Wei, ‘Ning-yueh yu-fen-erh-ho ti i-tuan nei-mu’, Ch'un-ch'iu 25 (16 07 1958): 5. Chou I-chih, a participant in the Extraordinary Conference, noted that when Wang Ching-wei left Canton for Shanghai to attend the Peace Conference, he behaved as if he would leave Canton for good. See Chou I-chih,‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 90.Google Scholar
97 For the Fourth National Party Congress in Nanking, see ‘Nan-ching kuo-min-tang ti-ssu-tz'u ch'uan-kuo tai-piao ta-hui’, Kuo-wen chou-pao 8.46 (23 11 1931); 1–11, 8.47 (30 November 1931): 1–9. See also Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 490–7.Google Scholar
98 ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, ch. 7, sect. 5.Google Scholar
99 In a press conference on 27 November 1931, Wang Ching-wei stated that the 7 November agreement was not a concession to Chiang Kai-shek. He argued that even if the agreement had violated ‘some basic principle’, it was done entirely in the intersts of the whole nation. See Chung-yang jih-pao, 29 November, 1931, News paper clippings, Kuomintang Archives, 440/3(20).Google Scholar
100 Apart from the question of Chiang Kai-shek's resignation, the Kwangtung group and the party elders group also disputed the procedure of electing new CEC and CSC members as laid down by the agreement on the ground that it was not ‘democratic’, For their views, see ‘Hsiu-cheng ho-hui chueh-i an t'ung-tien’, in Ti-ssu-tz'u ch uan-kuo tai-piao ta-hui pi-shu ch'u hsuan-ch'uan pu (ed.). Chung-kuo kuo min-tang ti-ssu-tz'u ch'uan-kuo tai-piao la-hui chi-nien ts'e (Canton, 1931), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
101 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 502–4.Google Scholar
102 Chung-yang jih-pao, 29 November 1931, Newspaper clippings, Kuomintang Archives, 440/3(20); ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, ch. 7, sect. 9; Ch'en Kung-po, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 267; Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, p. 501.Google Scholar
103 Ibid., p. 511; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, pp. 92–3.
104 For the mini-party congress in Shanghai, see ‘Kuan-yu kai-tsu p'ai ti tsung-pao-kao’, ch. 7, sect. 9, Fan-Chiang yun-yun shih, pp. 519–29; Ch'en Kung-pos, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 267.Google Scholar
105 At the beginning both Nanking and Canton had reached an agreement that the new CEC and CSC should have a membership of 160. As the KMT Left had produced an additional 9 CEC members, both Canton and Nanking also nominated 9 more members for each side. Thus, the new CEC and CSC membership was increased to 178. See Shen, Yun-lung, Min-kuo shih-shih yu jen-wu lun-ts'ung, pp. 320–3 Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 501–14.Google Scholar
106 The Fourth National Party Congress in Canton ended on 5 December 1931. It was insistent on demanding the resignation of Chiang Kai-shek and sent a delegation comprising Sun Fo, Wu Ch'ao-shu, Li Wen-fan and Eugene Ch'en to Shanghai with a view to pressing for this demand. On 10 December the Canton delegation discussed the issue with the Nanking authorities, and five days later Chiang announced his resignation. See Fan-Chiangyun-tung shih, pp. 532–3; Ch'en Ming-shu, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, p. 63.Google Scholar
107 Ibid., pp. 68–70; Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 548–9. The list of appointments was first discussed in a meeting between Wang Ching-wei's right-hand men, Ch'en Kung-po and Ku Meng-yu and Nanking leaders, Yu Yu-jen, Chu P'ei-te, Shao Litzu, Ho Ying-chin and Ch'en Kuo-fu. See Ch'en Kung-po, K'u-hsiao lu, p. 278.
108 Hu Han-mm also declined to take up his posts in Nanking. See Yungching, Chiang, Hu Han-min hsien-sheng nien-pu, p. 515–16.Google Scholar
109 Ta-kung pao (6 January 1932), p. 3.Google Scholar
110 Ibid. (8 January 1932), p. 3.
111 Ming-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, p. 67; Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, p. 543.Google Scholar
112 Ming-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, p. 80.Google Scholar
113 Ta-kung pao (15 January 1932), p. 3.Google Scholar
114 Ibid. (17 January 1932), p. 3.
115 In October 1931, when Hu Han-min and Wang Ching-wei met in Shanghai, they agreed to nominate Sun Fo as President of the Executive Yuan. In the event, Wang did not back Sun Fo when he reached an understanding with Chiang Kai-shek. Hu was said to have been enraged by Wang's ‘betrayal’. See Hsi-chang, Ch'en, Kuang-chou shu-fu shih-hua (Tainan, 1974), p. 270;Google ScholarT'ien-ku, Ch'eng, Ch'eng T'ien-ku hid-i lu, p. 236. Eye-witnesses' accounts confirmed that Hu Han-min strongly supported Sun Fo's government. See Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, pp. 93–4; Ch'en Ming-shu, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, pp. 72–3; Meng Hsi, ‘Kuan-yu “fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 107. Hu's firm support for Sun Fo was most clearly expressed in his telegram (8 January 1932) to Wang Ching-wei and Chiang Kai-shek where he frankly stated that he hoped that Sun Fo could still be allowed to carry out his government duties and policies.Google Scholar For the telegram, see ‘Fu Wang Ching-wei Chiang Chieh-shih liang hsiensheng yen shih-cheng tien’, in Han-min, Hu, Hu Han-min hsien-sheng-cheng-lun hsuan-pien (Canton, 1934), p. 669.Google Scholar
116 Ming-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, pp. 73–5; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i’”, p. 95; Chien Yu-wen, Hsi-pei ts'ung-chun chi, pp. 180–1.Google Scholar
117 Ibid., pp. 180–1; Ch'en Ming-shu, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, pp. 76–8; Chou Ichih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, pp. 95–6.
118 Ta-kung pao (9 January 1932), p. 3, (22 January 1932), p. 3.Google Scholar
119 Ibid.
120 Furuya, Keiji, Chiang Kai-shek, pp. 346–7;Google ScholarTong, Hollington K., Chiang Kai-shek, vol. 2, p. 337;Google ScholarMing-shu, Ch'en, ‘“Ning-yueh ho-tso”’, pp. 79–80; Chou I-chih, ‘“Fei-ch'ang hui-i”’, p. 96.Google Scholar
121 In a publication printed by Hu Han-min's supporters in Canton in 1934, it was alleged that both Wang and Chiang had forced Sun Fo to resign. See Fan-Chiang yun-tung shih, pp. 552, 557.
122 Furuya, Keiji, Chiang Kai-shek, p. 347.Google Scholar
123 Kung-po, Ch'en, K'u-hsiao lu, pp. 327–32;Google ScholarYu-sui, Fan, ‘Wo so chih-tao ti kai-tsu p'ai”, in Wen-shih tsu-liao hsuan, vol. 45, p. 230.Google Scholar