Chapter 245: Debate 1

February 2020, on a night that was still chilly after a brief warm spell. A question on Zhihu quietly rose to the hot list and, in the following days, ignited discussion across the entire Chinese internet: "How should we evaluate Li Yuxuan's life?"

The asker, ID "History Elementary Student", filled the question description with confusion:

"At first glance, the textbook mentions him in only a few lines: 'One of the core founders of the Huangpu Military Academy', 'Anti-Japanese General', 'In his later years devoted to Cross-Strait Unification'. It feels like this person is especially great, a national hero. Later, as the TV dramas 'Stormy Rain Nian'an' and 'Record of Jingxing' became wildly popular, I learned more about him. In the official history he is upright and fights bloodily against the enemy. Yet when I flip through some folk histories, street literature, even some radical history forums, he becomes a dark, brutal 'Reactionary Warlord' who harmed our predecessors. I was stunned. If I try to evaluate him objectively and fairly, it's hard to say. It seems any judgment has its logic, yet none feels complete. I ask the experts for guidance—how should we view this person?"

This question struck a chord with countless young people trying to understand history in the age of information overload. Within a few hours, the number of answers exceeded five thousand, and views reached millions.

The earliest highly praised answer came from ID "Shi Hai Yi Su", with a sharp style:

"Conducting moral criticism is the historical perspective we are most accustomed to, and also the laziest. We subconsciously split historical events and figures into gentlemen and villains, loyal ministers and treacherous ones, good and bad people, red‑faced and white‑faced. If we must categorize according to this childish binary, then Li Yuxuan is a schizophrenic."

"To the Taiwanese authorities and some stubborn 'Republic of China elders', he is undoubtedly a 'villain' or even a 'traitor'. The reason is simple: he was the absolute confidant, benefited from his patronage, rose to a high ministerial rank, yet ultimately 'joined the Communists', wrote memoirs at Gongde Lin, and in his later years still advocated Cross‑Strait Unification. This is 'disloyal and unjust'."

"But for the Huaxia Nation, for this country, he is undeniably a 'gentleman', a meritorious official. On the front lines of the anti‑Japanese war, he defended Wusongkou, protected the people of Jinling, fought at Jiangcheng, truly shed blood and saved countless civilians. He opposed civil war, preserved lives, protected Advance Personnel. In his later years he repented, wrote histories, and called for unification, embodying the traditional scholar‑officer's sense that 'when the world rises or falls, every individual bears responsibility'."

"Therefore, if you measure him with a simple loyalty‑treachery ruler, you cannot get a result. Because the object of his loyalty switched and conflicted across different periods and levels. His personal 'private loyalty' to that individual, and his 'public righteousness' toward the nation, were highly aligned during the anti‑Japanese war, making him a hero. During the Liberation War, intense conflict caused him pain and contradiction, leading to a final choice. That choice, judged from different standpoints, naturally receives different evaluations."

"Hard to evaluate? That's because you haven't stepped out of the mindset that 'evaluating historical figures is just labeling'."

This answer received tens of thousands of upvotes, but also sparked discussion from more angles.

The reply from ID "File Administrator" was more concrete, presenting several 'Case Studies':

"The above makes sense, but it's not enough. To evaluate Li Yuxuan, one cannot avoid several concrete historical controversies. These points precisely reflect the complexity of his character."

"First, the destruction of the Northeast Factory. This is true. In the prelude to the September 18, 1931 incident, the Kuomintang issued a non‑resistance order; Li Yuxuan, then the Southwest Supreme Commander, indeed ordered the demolition of certain important military‑industrial equipment that could not be evacuated or might fall into Japanese hands, including some key machine tools and blueprints at the Shenyang Arsenal. From the perspective of Kuomintang officers at the time, this was part of a military 'Scorched Earth Tactics' to weaken the enemy's war potential. Yet from the standpoint of the nation and its people, it was the destruction of precious industrial assets. Decades later, if this episode were highlighted, he could indeed be subjected to struggle sessions. The cruelty of historical appraisal lies here: what was 'duty' then may be a 'crime' against the long‑term nation. Of course, some research suggests the actual scale of destruction may have been exaggerated, and he tried to preserve the technical personnel. Nevertheless, this does not change the nature of the event."

"Second, his son Li Nian'an went to Nanyang to found a state. This matter is even more subtle. Legally and emotionally, Li Yuxuan bears no direct responsibility; the son acted independently as an adult. Yet in terms of historical connection, Li Nian'an was able to take three hundred thousand troops, whose backbone largely consisted of Li Yuxuan's former subordinates or Whampoa Faction Soldiers; Li Nian'an's personal ability and ambition are also closely tied to his father's education and influence. The subsequent actions of the Republic of Tang Han, viewed through the long lens of history, inevitably cast some of their light onto Li Yuxuan. This is a vague zone of historical 'Father's Debt Son's Repayment' or 'Father's Glory Son's Honor'."

"Third, the gap between private virtue and public duty. To be frank, among the Kuomintang senior ranks at the time, Li Yuxuan's private morality was indeed a clean stream. He had only one German lover in his life, never formally married, almost no scandals, and was not greedy for wealth (at least not obviously). Yet this 'clean stream' sometimes appeared 'odd' in the large vat of corruption. You say he was disloyal to that person? During the anti‑Japanese war, to consolidate the interior and eliminate dissent—such as certain undisciplined irregular troops and the Wang's Puppet Regime's courting—his methods were quite harsh, even ruthless, and he indeed 'cleansed' many obstacles for Chiang. You say he was loyal? In the Liberation War, regarding that person's 'Bandit Suppression' orders, he outwardly complied but covertly avoided combat, even secretly colluded, which is an iron‑clad fact."

"So, how to evaluate? You must pick up these puzzle pieces one by one, notice their different colors, varied shapes, and even some contradictions. Then you must understand that this is a person."

The discussion continued into the late night, and deeper reflections began to surface.

ID "Time Sculptor" wrote a long passage, full of philosophical thought:

"Our debate here about how to evaluate a historical figure also reveals the stage of our own historical cognition. The OP's question is highly representative. For our generation, the year 2000 is too close, fifty years too distant. It is close enough that we still feel the lingering warmth of that era's grudges and emotions, yet far enough that we can no longer personally sense the concrete temperature, pressure, and constraints behind those choices. Our perspective may not be accepted by later generations."

"So, what should we do? We can only adopt a scientific view of history, attempting to return to the historical context of the time, and conduct concrete condition and situation analyses of events and figures. Rather than wielding today's values and political correctness to judge the past from a lofty perch."