"Report from Formosa"
SIR,—I appreciate, of course, that one who writes on a controversial subject invites comment. So far as I know twenty-four public references have been made to Report from Formosa—several have been critical, but only one could be termed unfair, and that appeared in the Spectator.
Your reviewer has chosen to take me to task on the spelling of Chinese names. There are no arbitary rules, and as for the spelling of " Kwangtung " with a "g "—that is the way it is spelt in the map attached to General Wedemeyer's report. I am accused of "major inaccuracies," and an " example " is said to arise in my reference to the massacre by the Nationalists in Formosa in February, 1947. Your reviewer says: "Mr. Bate claims Chiang Kai-shek took prompt action against the perpetrators of the crime. In actual fact he was content to do nothing till unfavourable publicity abroad forced his hand." I neither wrote nor implied that the Generalissimo took "prompt action." But I did record that he did in fact take salutary action and that the chief culprit was executed. The time-lag was not remarkable in view of the disasters which were facing Chiang Kai-shek on the mainland and the complexity of the investigations involved. Mr. Townsend is speeulating when he alleges that only outside pressure weighed with the Generalissimo. He has no first-hand knowledge of the matter whatsoever, and never at any time had access to the official reports which were naturally confidential. Not content with this fabri- cation. Mr. Townsend goes on to say that I "slurred over" this terrible episode. That is a mis-statement of fact which, if it were true, would suggest that I am callous and unobjective.
Having condemned the book on false premises, he then says the chronological summary is "plagued with omissions" and makes no mention of the "first British trade ventures." The latter statement is simply untrue. As a matter of fact I spent a great deal of time in the Public Records Office collecting such information, which is (m- bodied in the chronology. As for omissions, of course there are omissions, but the accusation is fatuous as the chronology is merely an appendage to a short book. As it is, it occupies more than thirty pages.
Another major inaccuracy" quoted is that on page 29 I say that
Koxinga sailed in 1651 whereas it should, according to Mr. Townsend, have been 1661. Had he had the courtesy or wish to be fair he would also have noted that on the next page the correct date is given, i.e., April, 1662 (not 1661). The error was obviously typographical.
I am further accused of " eluding " the moral issues of a possible British rapprochment with the Kuomintang and also with evading the discussion of probable repercussions of the extension of the present war upon India, Pakistan, Burma and Indonesia. One answer to that is the title of the book, Report from Formosa. 1 am not a political prophet nor a political philosopher. What I do do, however, is to point out that we are not marching in step with the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, nor with our ally, the United States.
As for your reviewer's attacks on Generalissimo Chiang Kia-shek, whom I regard as an ally, it is enough that he is still fighting the Communists who are killing and maltreating our brethren. It is un- gracious to attack the man whose loyalty to the Ailed cause was recorded by the investiture of the G.C.B. Oxford University conferred an honorary degree upon him in appreciation of his services against the Japanese. Mr. Eden's opinion of Chiang Kai-shek is recorded in a tribute in the Commons, (Hansard col. 1426. December 14th, 1943).
I am not concerned with Mr. Townsend's political affiliations—that is his own affair—but I am vitally concerned that my professional repu- tation should not be impugned in so reputable a journal as the Spectator. For this reason I have the temerity to ask you to publish
Previous page
