Everything you know about the 'Flying Tigers' (AVG) is wrong

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Today's South China Morning Post has a review of a new book that apparently calls into questions the standard view of the 'Flying Tigers'.

Peter Gordon:
Book review – A Few Planes for China: The Birth of the Flying Tigers unravels the myth behind legendary fighter pilots

The review was originally published in the Asian Review of Books.

The author has also created an excellent website, which often has a cliff-hanger at the end of the page to encourage you to click further, so I suspect that the book is a page-turner too. The book is a popularization of her PhD research under Richard Overy, so this is not just some crank.

According to the reviews and website, she claims that the decision to authorize the AVG was taken earlier than usually thought. Chennault was brought in much later as the front man. In her account, the driving force behind it was Curtiss-Wright's Asian sales broker. That fits with one of the most solid conclusions from research into Western imperialism in Asia: most intervention was the result of Westerners on the spot pressuring the metropolis for their own reasons, not grand strategies drawn up in imperial capitals. Of course, the UK had bought every fighter the US would sell, but that did not generate commission for the broker in Nanjing. In order to get the sale, they came up with the idea that the aircraft would essentially be used to defend British territories (Burma). The US government was also keen to redirect Japanese airpower away from the South China Sea. The 'America helps China' angle was brought in for logistical and propaganda purposes, but so many people believed it that it spun out of control and has dominated historiography. As this story is still useful whenever the PRC, Taiwan or US need an example of Sino-American co-operation in their propaganda, alternative stories have not gained traction.

The blurbs (by Rana Mitter and other leading historians of the period) suggest that they take Buchan seriously, but are not convinced by her conclusions (yet). I think they're right: it seems to me that she has missed the extent to which the China had persuaded Roosevelt that the US should invest in a democratic China as a very-long-term strategic partner. But it's certainly an interesting take.

@Pyro157, this might be of interest to you.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Interesting post.

Clickbait title. Work on that.

 

[Pyro157]

Today's South China Morning Post has a review of a new book that apparently calls into questions the standard view of the 'Flying Tigers'.

Peter Gordon:
Book review – A Few Planes for China: The Birth of the Flying Tigers unravels the myth behind legendary fighter pilots

The review was originally published in the Asian Review of Books.

The author has also created an excellent website, which often has a cliff-hanger at the end of the page to encourage you to click further, so I suspect that the book is a page-turner too. The book is a popularization of her PhD research under Richard Overy, so this is not just some crank.

According to the reviews and website, she claims that the decision to authorize the AVG was taken earlier than usually thought. Chennault was brought in much later as the front man. In her account, the driving force behind it was Curtiss-Wright's Asian sales broker. That fits with one of the most solid conclusions from research into Western imperialism in Asia: most intervention was the result of Westerners on the spot pressuring the metropolis for their own reasons, not grand strategies drawn up in imperial capitals. Of course, the UK had bought every fighter the US would sell, but that did not generate commission for the broker in Nanjing. In order to get the sale, they came up with the idea that the aircraft would essentially be used to defend British territories (Burma). The US government was also keen to redirect Japanese airpower away from the South China Sea. The 'America helps China' angle was brought in for logistical and propaganda purposes, but so many people believed it that it spun out of control and has dominated historiography. As this story is still useful whenever the PRC, Taiwan or US need an example of Sino-American co-operation in their propaganda, alternative stories have not gained traction.

The blurbs (by Rana Mitter and other leading historians of the period) suggest that they take Buchan seriously, but are not convinced by her conclusions (yet). I think they're right: it seems to me that she has missed the extent to which the China had persuaded Roosevelt that the US should invest in a democratic China as a very-long-term strategic partner. But it's certainly an interesting take.

@Pyro157, this might be of interest to you.

Ooh, very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link! Didn't know you followed the SCMP too, as a fellow Hongkonger.

It always strikes me as interesting how the Nationalists enjoyed persuading and promoting the idea that they were a potential liberal democracy to the US, when Chiang was clearly leading an authoritarian military dictatorship.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Clickbait title. Work on that.

I was enjoying pretending to be a Daily Mail journalist, re-writing an article from another website.

Ooh, very interesting. Thanks for sharing the link! Didn't know you followed the SCMP too, as a fellow Hongkonger.

They have had a series of scoops on the Party Congress, so I've been reading more than usual.

It always strikes me as interesting how the Nationalists enjoyed persuading and promoting the idea that they were a potential liberal democracy to the US, when Chiang was clearly leading an authoritarian military dictatorship.

Yes. I think that one major cause was the Americans (and many other Westerners) believed it was true because they wanted it to be true.

Everybody wants to be like us + We are a liberal democracy + The Chinese want to be a liberal democracy = The Chinese want to be like us = We are wonderful.

There are still people who believe that the mainland is going to start political reforms any day now, and the cynic in me suspects it for the same reasons for the same reasons.

Having said that, I greatly respect the political skill and patriotic devotion of Soong May-ling, T.V. Soong and other Nationalists who understood this and exploited it brilliantly. Of course, they had personal reasons for their actions too!

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Yes. I think that one major cause was the Americans (and many other Westerners) believed it was true because they wanted it to be true.

Everybody wants to be like us + We are a liberal democracy + The Chinese want to be a liberal democracy = The Chinese want to be like us = We are wonderful.

There are still people who believe that the mainland is going to start political reforms any day now, and the cynic in me suspects it for the same reasons for the same reasons.

Having said that, I greatly respect the political skill and patriotic devotion of Soong May-ling, T.V. Soong and other Nationalists who understood this and exploited it brilliantly. Of course, they had personal reasons for their actions too!

On one hand you have the Japanese in Manchuko pushing into China who are a clear threat to Western interests. On the other hand, you have Communists; the West does not care for Communists in any form. The only remaining option for the West was Chiang. And it did not hurt that Madame Chiang was great at buttering up Western Journalists.

BTW, I have a brother-in-law whose family is from Taiwan. At his wedding I met his uncle who served with the AVG, hence my comment that maybe not all my conceptions about the Flying Tigers are incorrect.

 

[Pyro157]

Yes. I think that one major cause was the Americans (and many other Westerners) believed it was true because they wanted it to be true.

Everybody wants to be like us + We are a liberal democracy + The Chinese want to be a liberal democracy = The Chinese want to be like us = We are wonderful.

Having said that, I greatly respect the political skill and patriotic devotion of Soong May-ling, T.V. Soong and other Nationalists who understood this and exploited it brilliantly. Of course, they had personal reasons for their actions too!

Indeed, America really thought China desired to Americanize (like the Philippines and South Korea) and they would become Big Bro USA to their neighbor across the Pacific. Unfortunately, they forgot that historically, China likes to do stuff its own way and really doesn't look kindly on foreign guidance. On the other hand, Taiwan can into baseball like America's other Cold War allies.

Also, when Chiang makes himself president and reluctantly agrees to draft a new constitution, it doesn't mean his authoritarian iron fist is going to lift any time soon, Hurley.

That said, the USA was looked up to and admired in China, partially due to its sheer strength, partially because the Americans weren't very condescending towards the Chinese compared to other foreign powers (we're looking at you, Britain).

As for Soong Mei-ling, it helps she was a far warmer and pleasant person than CKS himself, plus the Georgia accent. T.V was a decent guy himself, and seems to be have been preferred over H.H Kung by the public.

 

[LordTempest]

It always strikes me as interesting how the Nationalists enjoyed persuading and promoting the idea that they were a potential liberal democracy to the US, when Chiang was clearly leading an authoritarian military dictatorship.

He was and they did, but much in the same way that People's Democratic Socialist Republics the world over enjoy promoting the fact that they are or seek to become Democratic Socialist Republics rather than the quasi-feudalistic totalitarian states they in fact happen to be right now. If you were a KMT apologist prior to the 1980's you'd make the argument that the KMT were committed to fulfilling the San-Min doctrine eventually, in the fullness of time, when circumstances were right, once the political situation stabilised, and so on.

This sort of behaviour tends to be par for the course for dictatorial regimes the world over, hardly surprising.

Indeed, America really thought China desired to Americanize (like the Philippines and South Korea) and they would become Big Bro USA to their neighbor across the Pacific. Unfortunately, they forgot that historically, China likes to do stuff its own way and really doesn't look kindly on foreign guidance.

Yes. I think that one major cause was the Americans (and many other Westerners) believed it was true because they wanted it to be true.

Everybody wants to be like us + We are a liberal democracy + The Chinese want to be a liberal democracy = The Chinese want to be like us = We are wonderful.

Well now, if you were a Republican Senator from say, the Midwest in the 30's or 40's, who has never actually met a living, breathing Chinaman in your life, and then all of a sudden you see this relatively young, intelligent, westernised, American-educated, Southern-accented, Christian, glamourous Chinese woman addressing Congress and talking about China's potential as an up-and-coming America of the East, would you have any real reason to doubt her? Taking her at face value, given your own limited knowledge pool about China, would seem a perfectly rational decision if you ask me.

On the other hand, Taiwan can into baseball like America's other Cold War allies.

Like Cuba, for instance.

partially because the Americans weren't very condescending towards the Chinese compared to other foreign powers (we're looking at you, Britain).

Chiang had a near-pathological hatred of the British, so it's not like the feeling wasn't in any way mutual.

T.V was a decent guy himself, and seems to be have been preferred over H.H Kung by the public.

Kung was basically a rich guy with zero charisma while TV was a born schmoozer, so this is also hardly surprising.

 

[Pyro157]

He was and they did, but much in the same way that People's Democratic Socialist Republics the world over enjoy promoting the fact that they are or seek to become Democratic Socialist Republics rather than the quasi-feudalistic totalitarian states they in fact happen to be right now. If you were a KMT apologist prior to the 1980's you'd make the argument that the KMT were committed to fulfilling the San-Min doctrine eventually, in the fullness of time, when circumstances were right, once the political situation stabilised, and so on.

This sort of behaviour tends to be par for the course for dictatorial regimes the world over, hardly surprising.

Chiang had a near-pathological hatred of the British, so it's not like the feeling wasn't in any way mutual.

Thanks for mentioning that. Although I dislike how the KMT are being portrayed by some (this is not referring to your post, just some crazed Han nationalists) as total murderous idiots who did nothing good at all for Taiwan, I am pretty irritated by the arguments of apologists:

• "Once the political situation stabilized": Did you see any other political parties on Taiwan during the 80s? Any at all? Also, if nobody has heard of communism prior to the KMT's occupation, then how have "Red gangster pirates" infiltrated glorious KMT ranks?
• "In the fullness of time/when circumstances were right": The new ROC Constitution for free and open elections that was drafted in 1947 is sitting right there, and if you listen carefully, you can hear Dr. Sun spinning in his grave at his party's blindness (and never-ending infighting).

Indeed, that behavior is mimicked by dictatorial regimes everywhere. Although North Korea has not done so, it would be funny if they did.

As a Hongkonger, we still have a very tiny dislike for the British, although it's not as angry as the older generation's. While we get along with them OK now, we do take digs at them every once in a while, usually towards drinking habits and that sort. That's not say we both can't be friends, though.

 

[Fanstar1]

Thanks for mentioning that. Although I dislike how the KMT are being portrayed by some (this is not referring to your post) as total murderous idiots who did nothing good at all for Taiwan, I am pretty irritated by the arguments of apologists:

• "Once the political situation stabilized": Did you see any other political parties on Taiwan during the 80s? Any at all? Also, if nobody has heard of communism prior to the KMT's occupation, then how have "Red gangster pirates" infiltrated glorious KMT ranks?
• "In the fullness of time/when circumstances were right": The new ROC Constitution for free and open elections that was drafted in 1947 is sitting right there, and if you listen carefully, you can hear Dr. Sun spinning in his grave at his party's blindness (and never-ending infighting).

Indeed, that behavior is mimicked by dictatorial regimes everywhere. Although North Korea has not done so, it would be funny if they did.

As a Hongkonger, we still have a very tiny dislike for the British, although it's not as angry as the older generation's. While we get along with them OK now, we do take digs at them every once in a while, usually towards drinking habits and that sort. That's not say we both can't be friends, though.

how do you feel about hongkongers who want to be under the british rather than china?

 

[Pyro157]

how do you feel about hongkongers who want to be under the british rather than china?

Honestly, I'm very embarrassed to see them waving the colonial flag. Despite their misgivings, it's very clear that Britain has no interest in restoring an empire anymore, or getting a former colony back. They're not gonna revise the whole agreement again to get Hong Kong away from China. We can never become fully independent and become our own nation-we depend on the mainland for too many things.

Most of the youth in HK do agree that while the mainland government can do some questionable things, full independence is an idea that can't possibly be achieved. It's just that there are a bunch of hardliners who keep making the news by vocally pushing for total independence. Taiwan has a good chance of being self-sustaining, and so does Catalonia, but I heavily doubt HK can pull it off.

 

[LordTempest]

Honestly, I'm very embarrassed to see them waving the colonial flag. Despite their misgivings, it's very clear that Britain has no interest in restoring an empire anymore, or getting a former colony back. They're not gonna revise the whole agreement again to get Hong Kong away from China. We can never become fully independent and become our own nation-we depend on the mainland for too many things.

Most of the youth in HK do agree that while the mainland government can do some questionable things, full independence is an idea that can't possibly be achieved. It's just that there are a bunch of hardliners who keep making the news by vocally pushing for total independence. Taiwan has a good chance of being self-sustaining, and so does Catalonia, but I heavily doubt HK can pull it off.

You can import water and obnoxious tourists from other countries.

The logic behind such moves is fairly reasonable. People want HK to be independent from China, people realise that HK would never be able to defend itself in the event of a UDI, so they campaign instead for the status quo ante as it's the only template most people have for a China-free HK.

The fact that any return to the status quo ante is nigh impossible doesn't detract from the general thesis that independence is only feasible if HK finds herself some powerful friends. The only real issue in this case is the particular powerful friend happens to be Britain, and not say, the international community at large.

You can sneer at the ridiculousness of such views as much as you like, but the people who genuinely hold them (not talking about the bulk of protesters who wave the old flag as a means of ironic protest) are simply attempting to reconcile their beliefs with reality as best they can. They're not entirely wrong, either: merely "misplaced."

 

[Pyro157]

You can import water and obnoxious tourists from other countries.

The logic behind such moves is fairly reasonable. People want HK to be independent from China, people realise that HK would never be able to defend itself in the event of a UDI, so they campaign instead for the status quo ante as it's the only template most people have for a China-free HK.

The fact that any return to the status quo ante is nigh impossible doesn't detract from the general thesis that independence is only feasible if HK finds herself some powerful friends. The only real issue in this case is the particular powerful friend happens to be Britain, and not say, the international community at large.

You can sneer at the ridiculousness of such views as much as you like, but the people who genuinely hold them (not talking about the bulk of protesters who wave the old flag as a means of ironic protest) are simply attempting to reconcile their beliefs with reality as best they can. They're not entirely wrong, either: merely "misplaced."

Hmm. Interesting view you have there-I've never really considered those before. Regarding powerful friends, Britain is shown to still have some sympathy for their former colony's plight, so befriending HK is not entirely out of the question.

Also, if you have any response to the other part of my previous post, @LordTempest, go ahead. As my historical interests lie in the history of the ROC, I'd like to know more about KMT single-party rule in Taiwan, especially as more new info is uncovered.

 

[Henry IX]

As an ex-colonial born in HK I have a slightly different perspective - Hong Kong is and always was a Chinese place, and although it is culturally different from the mainland, it is not that different. As far as I can tell the main thing driving the independence movement is a dislike and distrust of the CCP rather than a feeling of genuine difference - if the CCP could just lose some of its pathalogical dislike and distrust of dissent and give HK a little more political freedom most of the independence stuff would dissapear. This is in contrast to Catalonia, where the people (or at least a signifanct fraction thereof) view themselves as Catalans first rather than Spanish.

I have always put Hong Kong's slightly odd relationship with the mainland down to being populated primarilly by people (or the desendents of people) who chose to leave the mainland to live under a foreign power. The joining of Hong Kong to the mainland was always going to be uneasy.

The other key ingredient in some of the independence ideas is good old fasioned nostalgia. People tend to forget how much they disliked British rule at the time and how deeply undemocratic it was. While dissent was tolerated there was virtually no local voice in government, with the government appointed by Westminster and no elections run (at least until the very end of British rule). When I lived there in the 1980s Hong Kong was really no more democratic than say Taiwan or South Korea at the time.

 

[Pyro157]

As an ex-colonial born in HK I have a slightly different perspective - Hong Kong is and always was a Chinese place, and although it is culturally different from the mainland, it is not that different. As far as I can tell the main thing driving the independence movement is a dislike and distrust of the CCP rather than a feeling of genuine difference - if the CCP could just lose some of its pathalogical dislike and distrust of dissent and give HK a little more political freedom most of the independence stuff would dissapear. This is in contrast to Catalonia, where the people (or at least a signifanct fraction thereof) view themselves as Catalans first rather than Spanish.

I have always put Hong Kong's slightly odd relationship with the mainland down to being populated primarilly by people (or the desendents of people) who chose to leave the mainland to live under a foreign power. The joining of Hong Kong to the mainland was always going to be uneasy.

The other key ingredient in some of the independence ideas is good old fasioned nostalgia. People tend to forget how much they disliked British rule at the time and how deeply undemocratic it was. While dissent was tolerated there was virtually no local voice in government, with the government appointed by Westminster and no elections run (at least until the very end of British rule). When I lived there in the 1980s Hong Kong was really no more democratic than say Taiwan or South Korea at the time.

I would argue the same; although it seems that Hongkongers want to view themselves as genuinely different from mainlanders at times, honestly it's mostly out of dissatisfaction with the CCP rather than obnoxious mainland tourists. The local and English media agree that the movement (including Occupy Central) is rooted in anger at the current CCP too. Under Hu Jintao, my parents recall that many HKers actually liked him.

Foreign powers aside, the city housed a lot of pro-KMT immigrants fleeing from Mao's victory, then the people Mao kicked out of China, plus CCP officials who had incurred the party's wrath. When the Cultural Revolution hit, many people desperately tried to escape the bloodshed by fleeing to HK again. At one point, all the former KMT officials shacked up in one area, although it's gone now. There were plenty of CCP supporters too, but the brutality of the far-left protesters in the 1967 riots (eg. bombings and burning people alive) really decreased support for Mao's regime. The colonial HK police was plagued by corruption, but their actions in the riots gave them a giant boost in support. I can't speak for all of the populace, but Mao isn't viewed very positively in HK. He's not reviled, but most locals lean towards the idea that CKS, brutal as he was, was the lesser evil compared to Mao, who almost starved people's relatives to death. Sun Yat-sen is very well-liked in HK-he's practically a saint-and he got his own museum too.

It's true that most of the younger generation have little idea of what colonial rule was actually like, myself included-I've only gleamed snippets from primary and secondary sources in my own time. The older generation certainly have some resentment towards colonial rule. Thanks for the info, by the way-I've never known that before.

 

[Fanstar1]

I would argue the same; although it seems that Hongkongers want to view themselves as genuinely different from mainlanders at times, honestly it's mostly out of dissatisfaction with the CCP rather than obnoxious mainland tourists. The local and English media agree that the movement (including Occupy Central) is rooted in anger at the current CCP too. Under Hu Jintao, my parents recall that many HKers actually liked him.

Foreign powers aside, the city housed a lot of pro-KMT immigrants fleeing from Mao's victory, then the people Mao kicked out of China, plus CCP officials who had incurred the party's wrath. When the Cultural Revolution hit, many people desperately tried to escape the bloodshed by fleeing to HK again. At one point, all the former KMT officials shacked up in one area, although it's gone now. There were plenty of CCP supporters too, but the brutality of the far-left protesters in the 1967 riots (eg. bombings and burning people alive) really decreased support for Mao's regime. The colonial HK police was plagued by corruption, but their actions in the riots gave them a giant boost in support. I can't speak for all of the populace, but Mao isn't viewed very positively in HK. He's not reviled, but most locals lean towards the idea that CKS, brutal as he was, was the lesser evil compared to Mao, who almost starved people's relatives to death. Sun Yat-sen is very well-liked in HK-he's practically a saint-and he got his own museum too.

It's true that most of the younger generation have little idea of what colonial rule was actually like, myself included-I've only gleamed snippets from primary and secondary sources in my own time. The older generation certainly have some resentment towards colonial rule. Thanks for the info, by the way-I've never known that before.

China actually had hong kong not designated as a colony and threatened to invade hk if Britain gave HK independence

 

[Henry IX]

Both Britain and China considered Hong Kong to leased (for 99 years) by the British. At the end of the lease (in 1997) the British returned Hong Kong to China. Britain never seriously considered releasing Hong Kong as an independent state. For a start it is almost entirely dependent on China for most of its needs (food etc), and would not function as an independent state without the active support of China - no invasion was ever needed.

 

[LordTempest]

Britain never seriously considered releasing Hong Kong as an independent state.

Under Mark Young they did, briefly.

 

[olm]

Taiwan has a good chance of being self-sustaining, and so does Catalonia, but I heavily doubt HK can pull it off.

Singapore functions quite ok as an independent state, I see no reason why Hong-Kong couldn't do same if China wasn't strictly opposed to it.

 

[bz249]

Singapore functions quite ok as an independent state, I see no reason why Hong-Kong couldn't do same if China wasn't strictly opposed to it.

Well Hong Kong meant to be one of the trading hubs for China, but it is not indispensible... if the Chinese not cooperate (i.e. they do their export-import stuff somewhere else, which they can do more or less) then nothing justifies the existence of Hong Kong. Singapore however controls the Straits of Malacca, the shipping have to move through Singapore or make a huge detour.

 

[LordTempest]

Singapore functions quite ok as an independent state, I see no reason why Hong-Kong couldn't do same if China wasn't strictly opposed to it.

True, but that is a bit like saying that Erdogan would be an okay President if he only gave up his Ottoman revanchism, or that North Korea would be an okay country if only it got rid of its ruling class.