What's mainly interesting about it so far is that one of the characters in the book is George Kerr - the author of another book called "Formosa Betrayed", which was published in the 60s. "Formosa Betrayed" is essentially a 300-page diatribe about how corrupt and awful the Nationalist government was during the first few years of the handover of Taiwan from Japan to Nationalist China, and it reads less like a book and more like a list of crimes prepared by an offence lawyer about to go to court. I made it through 100 pages and then got bored.* The thing that stands out about George Kerr, when you're reading about him, is just how angry he is. What this book does well is talk about WHY he was so angry, which parts were fair, and which parts he was letting his emotions get the better of him. It's interesting because this and another book called "Thunder out China" - which came out around the same time - were highly influential in making a generation of Westerns around your age very anti Chiang Kai-shek. That author ALSO went through a traumatic experience that made him hate Chiang Kai-shek, and the extent to which his anger is justified and where he is biased is addressed in another book I read recently called "China's War with Japan". This brings me back to an argument I had back in summer 2018 which I told you about, but which you probably have forgotten about, with a pair of amateur historians around your age. Their position: Chiang Kai-shek was a corrupt piece of shit - I read so in "Thunder out of China" and "Formosa Betrayed". My position: I read that in my own books that Chiang Kai-shek wasn't so much a corrupt piece of shit as a man dealt an extremely bad hand and trying to play it as best he could. So, it's interesting that the authors of the first generation of books about this topic are now appearing as characters in the newer generation of books and their biases analyzed. *to be clear, the nationalists really WERE corrupt and awful in their first years of rule in Taiwan - I didn't get bored of reading "Formosa Betrayed" because I didn't believe this. Rather, I just felt like I was reading the same thing again and again. The other point is that yes, the nationalists were corrupt and awful in Taiwan - but you have to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that Chiang Kai-shek is in the middle of an increasingly desperate civil war with Mao Zedong- while at the same time there are revolts in Xinjiang, Tibet, and yes, Taiwan. If Chiang Kai-shek didn't have so much else doing on, I'm convinced he would have handled the Taiwan uprising (this is the famous 228 incident) better. But he's losing a civil war, and Taiwan is one of THREE uprisings he's supposed to somehow deal with while also turning the war around. What would you do in that position? The obvious thing is you make a quick but not necessarily pretty decision that you know for sure will make the uprising go away - that is, you kill the people responsible for it, without expending energy trying to figure out right and wrong - allowing you to continue to focus the majority of your mental energy on the battle for China. Of course, in the end, Chiang got the worst of both worlds - he lost the civil war AND he's hated for 228 incident.