What do you think?
Rate this book
台灣現代化的推手：蔣經國傳
美國在台協會前任理事主席丁大衛與《中國時報》董事長余紀忠決心推薦、贊助通曉中國事務、先後任職台北、北京的陶涵在「充分和完整的寫作與編審獨立自主權」之下，突破傳統中文傳記的格局撰寫《蔣經國傳》。 為了撰寫本書，陶涵訪問的關係人士超過一百六十人，多次前往台灣、中國大陸、莫斯科，尋訪蔣經國當年行跡，並大量引用莫斯科與美國國家檔案局迄未公開的資料，發掘蔣經國許多不為人知的祕密。 此外，陶涵還運用「資訊自由法案」（FOIA），要求美國中情局、國防部、國務院等單位提供尚未解密的文件，故本書引用資料之多、之廣、之新，幾可說是空前。在蔣經國逝世十二年之後的世紀之交，這本評價蔣經國一生功過的客觀傳記由哈佛大學出版社與時報出版分別在美國、英國、台灣三地同步出版，為蔣經國的生平志業留下一部中外皆能接受的信史，也完整見證了台灣政治、經濟發展的歷程。
552 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2000
12 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 6, 2021
If you’ve already read Taylor’s other biography of Chiang Kai-shek, a lot of the information in this one will be familiar to you. The first half of the book is mostly talking about the same things, just with some more details on what Chiang Ching-Kuo was particularly doing at those moments. The information on when he lived in the Soviet Union and his administering during WWII were particularly interesting. There are still some perplexing things about Chiang Ching-Kuo’s life, but Taylor does a good job of trying to make sense of it all to paint a cohesive picture of one person who did contradictory things throughout his life. He was quite good at dealing with very different kinds of people all at the same time throughout his life.
July 26, 2018
This book is by the same author who wrote "The Generalissimo", but was first published in 2000, nine years before "The Generalissimo". Both books tell the story of the Chinese Civil war and subsequent separation of China into a communist mainland and a defeated nationalist government in exile on Taiwan. However, "The Generalissimo" is told from the perspective of Chiang Kai Shek (the former leader of the Guomindang), and focuses more on the pre-Taiwan part of the story, whereas "The Generalissimo's son" is told from the perspective of Chiang Kai Shek's son Chiang Qing-Kuo, and focuses more on the period on Taiwan after the Generalissimo's death.
There are some parallels between this book and "Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China", and there are also parallels between Deng and Ching-Kuo. Both men were reformers - Deng, after taking over from Mao, steered China away from communism and turned it into the global powerhouse that it is today. Similarly, after taking over from Chiang Kai Shek, Chiang Qing-Kuo transformed Taiwan from a military dictatorship into a democracy. The rulers on opposite sides of the strait were, in fact, former classmates in the Soviet Union, where Qing-Kuo lived for ten years (Qing Kuo's wife is Russian, and - since Qing-Kuo was Kai-shek's only son, all descendants of the Chiang family are Eurasian).
One of the most interesting things about reading this book is how much the balance of power between China and Taiwan has changed since the events it chronicles, and also since the publication of the book itself. In the late 80's, when Qing-Kuo wrote most of his reforms into law (most importantly lifting the ban on opposition parties and ending martial law), there was real hope that communist China might make the transition into a democracy. Unlike his father who entertained fantasies until his death of retaking the mainland by military force, Qing-Kuo believed that the best way to defeat the communists was by giving the people of Taiwan a higher standard of living than their counterparts on the mainland, believing that this would lead the latter to demand democracy from their government.
"Almost every month some world event added to the growing sense that the era of dictatorships was coming to an end, and a Cambrian-like explosion of democratic forms was taking place. Following the 1987 Washinton summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, the Cold War began rapidly to recede. The Soviets affirmed their desire to withdraw from Afganistan. In South Korea strikes, student demonstrations, and a concern to remain host of the 1988 Olympics led to a peaceful transfer of power from military dictatorship to democracy. Ching-Kuo's image from a year before of the changing tide of human affairs seemed manifest. Of all the changes on Taiwan itself that year, the most dramatic was the opening of legal tavel to the mainland. The corps of arch-conservatives whose long lives had been devoted to hating and fighting the Communists believed that permission for such travel would betray the entire struggle. Chin-kuo, however, ordered the immediate end of the almost 40-year-old ban. Over the next two months tens of thousands of Taiwan residents rushed to apply for permits. The President welcomed the overwhelming response, which was in fact a major aspect of his strategy to encourage change on the mainland. "There is no need to worry," he told his companions. "The visits will let people on Taiwan understand the situation on the mainland and vice-versa". Many travellers ignored the official restriction to family visits. One Taipei paper sent two reporters to Peking and printed their stories datelined in the Chinese capital. Literally thousands of Taiwanese businessmen joined the mad rush across the Strait. Hundreds and soon thousands more small Taiwan-financed factories and workshops turning out labour-intensive products sprouted up in Amoy and other coastal cities.
In October Lee Huan publically declared that the KMT policy was no longer to seek to replace the Communist Party on the mainland, but to push for "political reforms, freedom of the press, and economic liberalization. The right wing was again livid - the top executive of the KMT was abandoning the Party's historic commitment to the destruction of the CCP. But Ching-Kuo told the seniors who came to his bedroom to complain that the people of the mainland had the right to decide whether they wanted the CCP, the KMT, or some other party to run the government."
At the time, this strategy made sense - Taiwan in the late 80's had already gone through its period of 10% per year miraculous economic growth - and since this was only beginning in the mainland, Taiwan was much richer than China. Today, China is the economic powerhouse while Taiwan's economy has been in a slump for more than a decade. Moreover, whether or not it has anything to do with Qing-Kuo's efforts, the year after his death in 1988, mainlanders did, in fact, demand Democracy from the CCP. However, as we all know, this didn't work out the way Ching-Kuo had hoped.
"In the mid-1980s, having successfully arranged the peaceful reincorporation of Hong Kong and Macao under Chinese authority, Deng gave the highest priority to convincing Taiwan to accept his "one country, two systems" approach to achieving Chinse unity. The goal gave Deng a strong incentive to support the liberal reformers in the CCP leadership, specifically Hu Yao-pang and Chao Tzu-yang. Deng knew that the more liberal and reformist China appeared to be, the more likely Ching-Kuo would be willing and able to seek a comprehensive resolution. The death of Qing-Kuo reduced Peking expectations of a possible breakthrough in relations with Taipei, and thus, to an unknowable but very likely significant extent, diminished Deng's interest in democratic reform and restraint.
All the same, the liberal reformers in Peking almost won. During the year after the death of Ching-Kuo, inflation on the mainland that followed the freeing of retail prices left the reformers again in disarray. Nevertheless, among the intellectuals and youth, the momentum in favor of more rather than less democracy accelerated. Peking University removed Mao's statutes from its campus...Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. The Soviets, as promised, withdrew from Afghanistan. There was a cease-fire in Nicaragua. The Iran-Iraq war ended. Hungary became a free nation and democratic movements elsewhere in Eastern Europe gathered momentum. Cuba, Angola, and South Africa agreed on peace and on independence for Namibia. Former enemies De Klerk and Mandela began to talk. When on April 8, 1989, Hu Yao-pang toppled over and died during a Politburo meeting, the outcome of the struggle between the CCP liberals and conservatives was by no means certain.
The demonstrations in the Square of Heavenly Peace (Tiananmen) that began on April 22 in honor of Hu Yao-pang soon provoked a showdown between contending forces. An estimated one million Peking residents poured out of their offices and factories to cheer the student protestors. Chao Tzu-yang persisted, like Chiang Ching-Kuo, in his opposition to firing on citizens protesting in the streets. If the students had accepted Chao's promise of more reforms and returned to their classes, the crisis would very likely have ended as a major victory for democratic forces in China rather than a shattering defeat. Chiang Ching-Kuo's hopes for a democratized China with which Taiwan could in truth unite might have been realized. But the perfect was once more the enemy of the good. The students refused to compromise. In early May Deng began to take charge. Elbowing Chao aside, he ordered the army to restore government control over Tiananmen Square and the city by all means necessary. In fact, he thought, shedding a little blood would be beneficial."
There are some parallels between this book and "Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China", and there are also parallels between Deng and Ching-Kuo. Both men were reformers - Deng, after taking over from Mao, steered China away from communism and turned it into the global powerhouse that it is today. Similarly, after taking over from Chiang Kai Shek, Chiang Qing-Kuo transformed Taiwan from a military dictatorship into a democracy. The rulers on opposite sides of the strait were, in fact, former classmates in the Soviet Union, where Qing-Kuo lived for ten years (Qing Kuo's wife is Russian, and - since Qing-Kuo was Kai-shek's only son, all descendants of the Chiang family are Eurasian).
One of the most interesting things about reading this book is how much the balance of power between China and Taiwan has changed since the events it chronicles, and also since the publication of the book itself. In the late 80's, when Qing-Kuo wrote most of his reforms into law (most importantly lifting the ban on opposition parties and ending martial law), there was real hope that communist China might make the transition into a democracy. Unlike his father who entertained fantasies until his death of retaking the mainland by military force, Qing-Kuo believed that the best way to defeat the communists was by giving the people of Taiwan a higher standard of living than their counterparts on the mainland, believing that this would lead the latter to demand democracy from their government.
"Almost every month some world event added to the growing sense that the era of dictatorships was coming to an end, and a Cambrian-like explosion of democratic forms was taking place. Following the 1987 Washinton summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, the Cold War began rapidly to recede. The Soviets affirmed their desire to withdraw from Afganistan. In South Korea strikes, student demonstrations, and a concern to remain host of the 1988 Olympics led to a peaceful transfer of power from military dictatorship to democracy. Ching-Kuo's image from a year before of the changing tide of human affairs seemed manifest. Of all the changes on Taiwan itself that year, the most dramatic was the opening of legal tavel to the mainland. The corps of arch-conservatives whose long lives had been devoted to hating and fighting the Communists believed that permission for such travel would betray the entire struggle. Chin-kuo, however, ordered the immediate end of the almost 40-year-old ban. Over the next two months tens of thousands of Taiwan residents rushed to apply for permits. The President welcomed the overwhelming response, which was in fact a major aspect of his strategy to encourage change on the mainland. "There is no need to worry," he told his companions. "The visits will let people on Taiwan understand the situation on the mainland and vice-versa". Many travellers ignored the official restriction to family visits. One Taipei paper sent two reporters to Peking and printed their stories datelined in the Chinese capital. Literally thousands of Taiwanese businessmen joined the mad rush across the Strait. Hundreds and soon thousands more small Taiwan-financed factories and workshops turning out labour-intensive products sprouted up in Amoy and other coastal cities.
In October Lee Huan publically declared that the KMT policy was no longer to seek to replace the Communist Party on the mainland, but to push for "political reforms, freedom of the press, and economic liberalization. The right wing was again livid - the top executive of the KMT was abandoning the Party's historic commitment to the destruction of the CCP. But Ching-Kuo told the seniors who came to his bedroom to complain that the people of the mainland had the right to decide whether they wanted the CCP, the KMT, or some other party to run the government."
At the time, this strategy made sense - Taiwan in the late 80's had already gone through its period of 10% per year miraculous economic growth - and since this was only beginning in the mainland, Taiwan was much richer than China. Today, China is the economic powerhouse while Taiwan's economy has been in a slump for more than a decade. Moreover, whether or not it has anything to do with Qing-Kuo's efforts, the year after his death in 1988, mainlanders did, in fact, demand Democracy from the CCP. However, as we all know, this didn't work out the way Ching-Kuo had hoped.
"In the mid-1980s, having successfully arranged the peaceful reincorporation of Hong Kong and Macao under Chinese authority, Deng gave the highest priority to convincing Taiwan to accept his "one country, two systems" approach to achieving Chinse unity. The goal gave Deng a strong incentive to support the liberal reformers in the CCP leadership, specifically Hu Yao-pang and Chao Tzu-yang. Deng knew that the more liberal and reformist China appeared to be, the more likely Ching-Kuo would be willing and able to seek a comprehensive resolution. The death of Qing-Kuo reduced Peking expectations of a possible breakthrough in relations with Taipei, and thus, to an unknowable but very likely significant extent, diminished Deng's interest in democratic reform and restraint.
All the same, the liberal reformers in Peking almost won. During the year after the death of Ching-Kuo, inflation on the mainland that followed the freeing of retail prices left the reformers again in disarray. Nevertheless, among the intellectuals and youth, the momentum in favor of more rather than less democracy accelerated. Peking University removed Mao's statutes from its campus...Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. The Soviets, as promised, withdrew from Afghanistan. There was a cease-fire in Nicaragua. The Iran-Iraq war ended. Hungary became a free nation and democratic movements elsewhere in Eastern Europe gathered momentum. Cuba, Angola, and South Africa agreed on peace and on independence for Namibia. Former enemies De Klerk and Mandela began to talk. When on April 8, 1989, Hu Yao-pang toppled over and died during a Politburo meeting, the outcome of the struggle between the CCP liberals and conservatives was by no means certain.
The demonstrations in the Square of Heavenly Peace (Tiananmen) that began on April 22 in honor of Hu Yao-pang soon provoked a showdown between contending forces. An estimated one million Peking residents poured out of their offices and factories to cheer the student protestors. Chao Tzu-yang persisted, like Chiang Ching-Kuo, in his opposition to firing on citizens protesting in the streets. If the students had accepted Chao's promise of more reforms and returned to their classes, the crisis would very likely have ended as a major victory for democratic forces in China rather than a shattering defeat. Chiang Ching-Kuo's hopes for a democratized China with which Taiwan could in truth unite might have been realized. But the perfect was once more the enemy of the good. The students refused to compromise. In early May Deng began to take charge. Elbowing Chao aside, he ordered the army to restore government control over Tiananmen Square and the city by all means necessary. In fact, he thought, shedding a little blood would be beneficial."
May 3, 2020
021-The Generalissimo's Son: Chiang Ching Kuo-Jay Taylor-Biography-2000
Barack
—— “There are no eternal friends, only eternal interests.”
" The Generalissimo's Son: Chiang Ching Kuo " was published in 2000. It mainly talks about Chiang Ching Kuo 's growth and political experience. The book strives to comment on Chiang Ching Kuo 's life in a fair, objective, vivid, and complete manner.
Jay Taylor, a senior US diplomat. After the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, he served as a political counselor at the US Embassy in Beijing. His representative works include " The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-Shek " and " The Generalissimo's Son: Chiang Ching-Kuo ".
Chiang Ching Kuo was born in Fenghua, Zhejiang Province in 1910 and died in 1988. In 1927, Chiang Kai-shek dismissed Chiang Ching Kuo as a soldier in Siberia. In 1937, due to the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War, he was allowed to return to his country. In 1978, Chiang Ching Kuo became the sixth "President" of the Republic of China.
The life of Chiang Ching Kuo is full of ups and downs. As the eldest son of Chiang Kai-shek, his status was special. At that time, China was in a historical torrent of internal and external troubles. It’s not easy for Chiang Ching Kuo to lead an ordinary life.
During his childhood, Chiang Ching Kuo stayed in Fenghua with his mother, who was 4 years older than his father. At the age of 15, he went to Russia to study at Sun Yat-sen University, which was established to commemorate Sun Yat-sen. Stalin used this university to infiltrate the Kuomintang in China.
Chiang Ching Kuo was confined to the Soviet Union for 12 years and was approved to return to China after the Xi'an Incident. He had a period of ardent belief in Bolshevism and criticized his father.
After Chiang Ching Kuo returned to China from Moscow, he underwent various disciplines under his father's arrangement. Later, with his father, he retreated to Taiwan. Step by step, Chiang Ching Kuo was prepared for inhering the power of this father.
In the 1970s, Taiwan ’s economy could give a score of A+, but political diplomacy can only be said to be B at best. Chiang Ching Kuo, who had just been promoted to vice president of the Executive Yuan, visited the United States. But he was unable to change the idea of Washington D.C. He was even attacked by the fanatics.
After Chiang Kai-shek's death, the people's hearts were unstable. Moreover, there were incidents of fraud in the Kuomintang elections. While Chiang Ching Kuo reformed politics, he was still unable to walk out of the shadow left by his father.
We have been far away from that era for many years. The geopolitics and international environment have changed a lot. Both the mainland and Taiwan have reached a new level in politics and economy. Every time I look back on that history, I can't help but feel a lot of thoughts.
I appreciate Chiang Ching Kuo and also feel some pity for some failures of his unachievable political goals.
The experience of the Soviet Union had a great influence on his life, and the influence of the polar bear's charm made him almost no friends later. Although he later became the Chairman of the Kuomintang and practiced close to the grassroots, he still had very few real friends. Is a person sitting in that position probably hardly to own true friends?
In terms of his knowledge, Chiang Ching Kuo should have surpassed his father. After all, the time they lived and the education they received was very different. Especially since Chiang Ching-Kuo vigorously advocated a clean government in Taiwan, he did not fear to start with relatives. We can still see the traces of his experience of “fighting against tigers” in Shanghai.
14/10/21
20/05/03
February 29, 2020
Following decades of war, Taiwan was a dictatorship from roughly mid-20th century until not that long ago. Nowadays Taiwan is a reliable democracy, arguably one of the most advanced in East Asia. The transition from dictatorship to democracy is generally tough, and most transitions in the 20th century are precipitated by war or revolution, and not all of the transitions stick. Add to this mix that the leader of Taiwan at its time of democratization, Ching-Kuo, was educated in Stalin's USSR and the son of the first dictator of Taiwan, and one wonders how did things turn out the way it did?
History is always more than the actions of a single individual, and reading this biography it is clear that some actions taken by Ching-Kuo were reactions to larger structural factors that pushed Taiwan towards democracy, regardless of who was in the leadership position. However, as this biography illustrates on a number of occasions, a person in Ching-Kuo's place could have chosen a more violent and self-serving path, and indeed there were political factions pushing in that direction. The biography also highlights the many similarities and a few key differences between Chiang Ching-Kuo and Deng Xiao-Ping, and how they both started out on similar paths toward democracy, but where the latter at a few critical junctures took a different turn. There are nuances a biography cannot capture in this, still, the contrast is illustrative of that a democratic Taiwan was not a given.
Therefore, I cannot help but believe after reading this biography, that at least one reason Taiwan managed to switch into a democracy with a relatively low bodycount, were the particular qualities of the individual Chiang Ching-Kuo. The biography is very informative. There is an imbalance in the amount of information, where Ching-Kuo's time in USSR still seems both critical to his development, yet not clearly described. I understand this is inherent to the time and place, but I state it because the biography does still leave questions about traits and predispositions of Chiang-Kuo open.
History is always more than the actions of a single individual, and reading this biography it is clear that some actions taken by Ching-Kuo were reactions to larger structural factors that pushed Taiwan towards democracy, regardless of who was in the leadership position. However, as this biography illustrates on a number of occasions, a person in Ching-Kuo's place could have chosen a more violent and self-serving path, and indeed there were political factions pushing in that direction. The biography also highlights the many similarities and a few key differences between Chiang Ching-Kuo and Deng Xiao-Ping, and how they both started out on similar paths toward democracy, but where the latter at a few critical junctures took a different turn. There are nuances a biography cannot capture in this, still, the contrast is illustrative of that a democratic Taiwan was not a given.
Therefore, I cannot help but believe after reading this biography, that at least one reason Taiwan managed to switch into a democracy with a relatively low bodycount, were the particular qualities of the individual Chiang Ching-Kuo. The biography is very informative. There is an imbalance in the amount of information, where Ching-Kuo's time in USSR still seems both critical to his development, yet not clearly described. I understand this is inherent to the time and place, but I state it because the biography does still leave questions about traits and predispositions of Chiang-Kuo open.
December 10, 2023
猶記得，那是我七、八歲的時候。
家裡管的嚴，能看電視的機會不多，當我正開心著能夠看連續劇的時候，忽然畫面“登”的一下，變成一張黑白的中年老頭臉！讓我幼小的心靈震撼不已！！我還跑出去別家看看是不是我們家電視中邪了！
不是！
大家都一樣！
後來才從大人口中聽到，原來是我們敬愛的蔣經國總統去世了。
那是我對他唯一的“親身”印象。
許多年許多年以後的今天，我忽然湧上了一股要多了解這個人的念頭，於是我去查了市面上關於蔣經國的傳記。江南版背景有點特殊，而在看完本書的前言跟介紹文後，我決定先讀由外國人撰寫的。因為人的先入為主觀念是很強烈的，我不想閱讀一本作者跟傳記主角關係太複雜的，也許是偏見，不過我對其客觀度沒什麼信心。至於本書作者陶涵是美國學者，其接受時報的贊助撰寫本書，英文版在美國由哈佛大學出版，內容有一定的評價，是我最後決定先閱讀的關鍵。
提起蔣經國，我想普遍的“台灣人”對他的評價應該都是很複雜的。絕大多數無法抹滅掉他建設台灣的功勞，但是，相信更多人無法忘記他也是手上沾滿“白色恐怖”而死的受害者所流之鮮血的獨裁者。可是，當我讀完本書之後，我想我能肯定作者給予蔣經國的評價：「開明專制」+「軟性威權」。
固然，在很多時間裡，蔣經國殺了很多無辜的人，這是他不得已的惡。然而，在更多的時間裡，他選擇了盡量能不流血的手法去處理事情。尤其是在晚期裡，他儘可能用最溫和的手法，把台灣從一個威權的政治體制，轉型成一個民主自由的國家。台灣少了多少的動亂，減少了多少犧牲，這份功勞也是難以抹滅的。
歷史的洪流裡，每個人都有他的無奈，權力的巔峰上，要進退自如的人又有幾個？蔣經國掌握了最不容挑戰的權力，但他卻不肯濫權。也許是時代背景的關係，但看完本書，我情願相信更多是出自於他本人的理想、信念。在這點上，他就走的比他的老同學鄧小平更遠了。
國共兩黨是中國近代影響最大的兩個政黨，蔣經國跟鄧小平剛好都是這兩個老舊政黨的改革者。前者領導台灣在面臨斷交困境、內部改革衝擊的風雨飄搖中安全度過；後者則力圖挽救在文革中奄奄一息的老大中國，來個“小平中興”。蔣經國成功了，雖然台灣的民主改革成型於他死後十餘年內，但是如果沒有他的一力主導與奠基，根本不會有後來的和平轉移政權。(今年又轉回來了，而且是由他提拔出來的一個後輩完成的)鄧小平只做了一半，落了個跟“自強運動”不相上下的局面，只治標，不治本，今天的中國依舊前途茫茫。當然，兩人之間也不能真的因此而論誰優誰劣，畢竟環境條件都不相同，焉知立場對調，鄧豈非也是一蔣，蔣也不是一鄧？
不過晚年的蔣經國跟他的老同學鄧小平是有默契的。
蔣經國很早就看透反攻大陸無望，剩下的出路，就是改革國民黨，落實在台灣真正的民主憲政體制，作為一種模範來影響中共，進而追求一個「民主自由」的統一中國。因此在他有生的餘年裏面，一邊在台灣開放政權，同時也透過各種不同的管道，跟北京暗中交流。由於當時世界上正發生“第三波”民主化浪潮，蘇聯在改革，中共內部也有要求民主的聲音，因此兩岸之間都悄悄的往同一個方向跑。可惜小蔣的身體似乎比他自己想像的更糟，改革的路剛走了1/3就病逝了，最後只好讓繼承人李登輝去完成。可是當台灣換了個本省籍領導人後，小鄧似乎就沒那麼有信心了，在改革開放的路上也踩了煞車。兩岸就變成今天這樣啦。
歷史是沒有如果的，但是大家通常會忍不住想問：
如果讓蔣經國也活到97，甚至不用這麼久，再多個兩三年到90年代，是否他真的能跟鄧小平聯手完成兩岸統一並民主化的願景？仰或是在89民運之後，鄧小平依舊採取武裝鎮壓的手法，而讓蔣經國從此對中共絕望？
本書的翻譯林添貴，相信是很多喜歡閱讀相關類似書籍的人，都會對他有印象。在《蔣經國傳》裡，林先生的結果是很成功的，同時，他與編輯也糾正了許多作者陶涵犯下的小錯誤，同時也會附加一些意見，為本書增加了完美度。
而作者陶涵在撰寫過程中，也提供了很多口述資料，對於爭議性的事件也儘可能給予多方意見，來讓讀者自己判斷。不失為一種客觀的撰史方法。
總而言之，本書作為一個帶有些爭議性的歷史人物的傳記，它是個優秀而出色，並且稱的上是客觀，值得一讀的好作品。
註 ：中共革命革了一輩子，現在它最提防被人革，也是該輪到它們嚐嚐這滋味了。
註2：中共也喜歡說西方的代議式民主不適合中國人，但是這已經很沒說服力了，尤其是台灣的民主政治發展的成熟度越來越高的時候。目前剩下的惟一一辯解方法就是說“台灣人不是中國人！”但是他們敢嗎？
家裡管的嚴，能看電視的機會不多，當我正開心著能夠看連續劇的時候，忽然畫面“登”的一下，變成一張黑白的中年老頭臉！讓我幼小的心靈震撼不已！！我還跑出去別家看看是不是我們家電視中邪了！
不是！
大家都一樣！
後來才從大人口中聽到，原來是我們敬愛的蔣經國總統去世了。
那是我對他唯一的“親身”印象。
許多年許多年以後的今天，我忽然湧上了一股要多了解這個人的念頭，於是我去查了市面上關於蔣經國的傳記。江南版背景有點特殊，而在看完本書的前言跟介紹文後，我決定先讀由外國人撰寫的。因為人的先入為主觀念是很強烈的，我不想閱讀一本作者跟傳記主角關係太複雜的，也許是偏見，不過我對其客觀度沒什麼信心。至於本書作者陶涵是美國學者，其接受時報的贊助撰寫本書，英文版在美國由哈佛大學出版，內容有一定的評價，是我最後決定先閱讀的關鍵。
提起蔣經國，我想普遍的“台灣人”對他的評價應該都是很複雜的。絕大多數無法抹滅掉他建設台灣的功勞，但是，相信更多人無法忘記他也是手上沾滿“白色恐怖”而死的受害者所流之鮮血的獨裁者。可是，當我讀完本書之後，我想我能肯定作者給予蔣經國的評價：「開明專制」+「軟性威權」。
固然，在很多時間裡，蔣經國殺了很多無辜的人，這是他不得已的惡。然而，在更多的時間裡，他選擇了盡量能不流血的手法去處理事情。尤其是在晚期裡，他儘可能用最溫和的手法，把台灣從一個威權的政治體制，轉型成一個民主自由的國家。台灣少了多少的動亂，減少了多少犧牲，這份功勞也是難以抹滅的。
歷史的洪流裡，每個人都有他的無奈，權力的巔峰上，要進退自如的人又有幾個？蔣經國掌握了最不容挑戰的權力，但他卻不肯濫權。也許是時代背景的關係，但看完本書，我情願相信更多是出自於他本人的理想、信念。在這點上，他就走的比他的老同學鄧小平更遠了。
國共兩黨是中國近代影響最大的兩個政黨，蔣經國跟鄧小平剛好都是這兩個老舊政黨的改革者。前者領導台灣在面臨斷交困境、內部改革衝擊的風雨飄搖中安全度過；後者則力圖挽救在文革中奄奄一息的老大中國，來個“小平中興”。蔣經國成功了，雖然台灣的民主改革成型於他死後十餘年內，但是如果沒有他的一力主導與奠基，根本不會有後來的和平轉移政權。(今年又轉回來了，而且是由他提拔出來的一個後輩完成的)鄧小平只做了一半，落了個跟“自強運動”不相上下的局面，只治標，不治本，今天的中國依舊前途茫茫。當然，兩人之間也不能真的因此而論誰優誰劣，畢竟環境條件都不相同，焉知立場對調，鄧豈非也是一蔣，蔣也不是一鄧？
不過晚年的蔣經國跟他的老同學鄧小平是有默契的。
蔣經國很早就看透反攻大陸無望，剩下的出路，就是改革國民黨，落實在台灣真正的民主憲政體制，作為一種模範來影響中共，進而追求一個「民主自由」的統一中國。因此在他有生的餘年裏面，一邊在台灣開放政權，同時也透過各種不同的管道，跟北京暗中交流。由於當時世界上正發生“第三波”民主化浪潮，蘇聯在改革，中共內部也有要求民主的聲音，因此兩岸之間都悄悄的往同一個方向跑。可惜小蔣的身體似乎比他自己想像的更糟，改革的路剛走了1/3就病逝了，最後只好讓繼承人李登輝去完成。可是當台灣換了個本省籍領導人後，小鄧似乎就沒那麼有信心了，在改革開放的路上也踩了煞車。兩岸就變成今天這樣啦。
歷史是沒有如果的，但是大家通常會忍不住想問：
如果讓蔣經國也活到97，甚至不用這麼久，再多個兩三年到90年代，是否他真的能跟鄧小平聯手完成兩岸統一並民主化的願景？仰或是在89民運之後，鄧小平依舊採取武裝鎮壓的手法，而讓蔣經國從此對中共絕望？
本書的翻譯林添貴，相信是很多喜歡閱讀相關類似書籍的人，都會對他有印象。在《蔣經國傳》裡，林先生的結果是很成功的，同時，他與編輯也糾正了許多作者陶涵犯下的小錯誤，同時也會附加一些意見，為本書增加了完美度。
而作者陶涵在撰寫過程中，也提供了很多口述資料，對於爭議性的事件也儘可能給予多方意見，來讓讀者自己判斷。不失為一種客觀的撰史方法。
總而言之，本書作為一個帶有些爭議性的歷史人物的傳記，它是個優秀而出色，並且稱的上是客觀，值得一讀的好作品。
註 ：中共革命革了一輩子，現在它最提防被人革，也是該輪到它們嚐嚐這滋味了。
註2：中共也喜歡說西方的代議式民主不適合中國人，但是這已經很沒說服力了，尤其是台灣的民主政治發展的成熟度越來越高的時候。目前剩下的惟一一辯解方法就是說“台灣人不是中國人！”但是他們敢嗎？
June 22, 2017
This book is 550 pages but I read each one with interest. Living in Taiwan and inspired by a photo in a restaurant of the proprietor with Chiang Ching-Kuo, I was inspired to pick this book up. It's the only long biography in English. It's frankly very positive on Ching-Kuo, comparing him favorably with Deng Xiaoping. Regardless there's many facts and details I've never seen anywhere else and thus I deeply enjoyed reading it.
December 26, 2022
有点粗略，大概了解下蒋经国的从政执政经历。蒋经国曾经是个苏联共产主义分子，与蒋介石决裂，在苏联待了十多年，后来蒋介石发现自己因为嫖娼失去生育能力，只好与儿子修复关系，父子重逢。蒋经国晚年推动台湾民主化，既是自60年代便有的民主多元意识的发展，也是台湾的政治处境使然：被逐出联合国、台美断交，台湾必须重新树立自己在世界政治格局中的位置，岛内本省人崛起参政要求高涨，此外还有南越倒台、朴正熙遇刺、全斗焕交权等等的刺激。蒋经国也希冀以台湾的民主化推动共产中国的改变，继而完成统一。小蒋确实是小舞台上的伟人，天若假年，现在会是怎样一番景象呢？也许小蒋去世也使中国失去了民主化转型和统一的机会，不过从台湾角度来看焉知非福？
November 20, 2021
2016-11-19 10:35:45
大致勾勒出了一个蒋经国的形象，他的中早年史料明显不足，美国人写史的缺点大概都是不够极致地还原最细节的史实，但这本书所写蒋经国晚年很值得参考，当我们真正权力在握，甘心放弃，因为有更美好的东西值得追求，有几人能做到？失去KMT，换来了真正的美好台湾。
大致勾勒出了一个蒋经国的形象，他的中早年史料明显不足，美国人写史的缺点大概都是不够极致地还原最细节的史实，但这本书所写蒋经国晚年很值得参考，当我们真正权力在握，甘心放弃，因为有更美好的东西值得追求，有几人能做到？失去KMT，换来了真正的美好台湾。
October 17, 2022
越往后读，越对小蒋表示尊敬。
December 24, 2021
由外人來做傳，難免有些隔靴搔癢與文化隔閡，不過好處是美國方面的資料與查證會相對充實點，但不可不小心內容仍有基於猜測與感想的部分，可是在沒有更好的蔣經國傳記問世前，仍是有可看與參考之處…
July 12, 2020
雖然很多地方不能認同，但是蔣經國是歷史上台灣社會能夠推動統一的最近點。
August 26, 2021
史料详实，很值得一读的历史书。
起先想读这本书，是因为看了《返校》，想更多的了解台湾历史。
读毕，有两个很深的感触。一个是蒋经国和才能管理好省级单位，而且可以管理的很好，但是国级单位不一定玩的转。另一个，美国在二战后真的是遍地点火，生怕哪个国家没有内乱发展起来，太坏了。
起先想读这本书，是因为看了《返校》，想更多的了解台湾历史。
读毕，有两个很深的感触。一个是蒋经国和才能管理好省级单位，而且可以管理的很好，但是国级单位不一定玩的转。另一个，美国在二战后真的是遍地点火，生怕哪个国家没有内乱发展起来，太坏了。
November 27, 2017
Not only a historical record of Chiang Ching-kuo but a 20th century China history. Felt there was some whitewashing during his time in charge of military intelligence.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews