| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.5

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 211 words from this article are provided below; about 573 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 112.5 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Asia

Michael G. Murdock. Disarming the Allies of Imperialism: Agitation, Manipulation, and the State during China's Nationalist Revolution, 1922–1929. (Cornell East Asia Series.) Ithaca, N.Y.: East Asia Program, Cornell University. 2006. Pp. xii, 348. Cloth $65.00, paper $31.00.

The literature on the Chinese Nationalist Revolution of the 1920s has tended to focus on Sun Yat-sen and his campaigns against the twinned incubus of imperialism and warlordism, on the Guomindang (GMD)–Chinese Communist Party (CCP) united front and the Comintern agents, and on the factionalism within the GMD. In his new book, Michael G. Murdock offers a fresh perspective on how the GMD defeated its foes and rivals and eventually rose to power on the back of revolutionary nationalism in 1928. He criticizes the "faction-centered paradigm" in previous GMD studies, questioning the use of such labels as "left" and "right" and "radicals" and "liberals" as there was no consensus on their meaning but a lack of clarity about the political motives of those in question at any point. More importantly, Murdock rejects the view that GMD leaders followed a more or less defined ideology and a master revolutionary strategy. Instead, he argues that "inconsistency—more than culture, ideology, or any other factor—gave revolutionary nationalism its distinctive edge" (p. 13).

. . .

There are about 573 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.