Hey I'm actually working on a paper regarding the Communist Party's definition of the "Century of Humiliation" and this is kinda related to that!

The current Chinese government frames themselves as the creators of a "New China" which freed and continues to free the people from the influence of imperial powers. While the Nationalists also had their grievances regarding imperialism, the communist definition of the "Century of Humiliation" within Chinese history defines the period as roughly lasting from 1850-1949.

Therefore, opinion regarding Chiang is fairly negative from the point of view of the communists. For example, Chiang is viewed as someone who continued to allow foreigners to take advantage of China and someone who sold China out to Westerners after the fall of the Qing. Due to Chiang's association with Nazi Germany prior to the Japanese invasion as well as the failed "New Life Movement," Chiang is also viewed as a fascist by many.

In fact, Chiang's obvious admiration of National Socialism and German culture in general is really the defining factor of his legacy in terms of mainland China. Chiang is quoted as saying the following by William Kirby in his book Germany and Republican China:

Germany is the only country from which we can learn something. They can give us the base from which to develop our own style, firm and solid.

as well as,

We must, just like Germany, awaken our people's patriotic feelings and support the philosophy of a united China.

This meant that when the civil war resumed, the communists were able to fairly easily convince many that they were fighting a fascist who would continue to sell China to the highest bidders. If you have time, I highly suggest watching the first 20 minutes or so of the play "The East is Red." It gives a fantastic visual for how the communists wanted the people to remember the era that preceded their rise to power and the "role" they played in saving China from tyranny.

In short, Chiang was and still is viewed as a tyrant in the eyes of the current government. While Sun Yat-sen continues to be honored as the father of modern China, Chiang receives no such treatment and is almost universally condemned as a man who betrayed Sun's ideals of democracy as a foundation for a strong China.

Sources: Kirby, William C. Germany and Republican China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984.

Also, here is the link to "The East is Red" on YouTube.

In short, no.

Even within Mainland China, views on Chiang Kai-shek are quite divided. Naturally, Communist Party of China official stance toward him is contrary, there are many classroom materials, novels, drama and opera involved in casting negative light toward him.

Before 1990, he has been viewed as a rebel. Many colourful words have been used on him in both official and unofficial manner. Some of which might be difficult to translate into English. "「蔣幫頭子」、「流氓劊子手」、「新興軍閥」、「舊勢力之化身」、「軍閥之工具」、「群眾之仇敵」、「背叛革命」、「反革命」、「反動」、「無恥」、「美帝國主義走狗」、「美帝國主義，封建地主階級，官僚資產階級，買辦階級等反動勢力在中國的代表」etc. Most of which are "rebel" , "treason" , "croward" and "unethical" themed with "selling out their country" as the biggest keyword.

However, since then, CPC's influences toward historical view has been cooled down with media and internet becoming common case.

In actuality, most of the CPC member generally has a positive-natural view on him. Despite being an enemy. For example, while Mao views him exceptionally negatively, Zhou Enlai's criticism on him mostly regarding to being a general rather than a politician/leader. (1) Hu Qiaomu also said that while they have differences in principle, he did a lot against Japanese invasion. (2)

As for views from actual historians from Mainland, in general, their views are fairly unified as someone who has weaknesses toward economy and politic side of things. In philosophy and cultural standpoint, his impact can not be underestimated. For example, Lo Man criticised (3) his effort in understanding supply and operation of the military, as well as understanding Japan's view at the time along with many of his political mistake, but overall he is viewed as a talented leader with an interesting view.

However, the most critical part to get away from this information is your question: "Is his legacy perceived differently by historians in Mainland China than it is in the rest of the world?" I would have to say the answer is No. While there is certain evidence of propaganda on this individual caused toward Mainland population, most of the criticism I see from historians are reasonably technical with no apparent bias, nor are there any real dividend and influence from being in Mainland. Their overall opinion is in line with the rest of the world.

(1) from 王成斌等主編 (編). 《民國高級將領列傳》

(2) from 〈胡志偉序〉，刊安淑萍、王長生著，《蔣介石誄辭說屑》

(3) from 羅敏. 〈蔣介石的政治空間戰略觀念研究——以其「安內」政策為中心的探討〉. (編) 呂芳上主編. 《蔣介石的日常生活》. 香港: