740.0011 Pacific War/2069
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Counselor of Embassy in China ( Vincent ) to the Ambassador in China ( Gauss )32
I saw Mr. Fisher this morning and read him the Department’s 38, January 21, 10 p.m.33 He said that he had obtained the interview in response to instructions from his New York office, which had requested an interview with a high Chinese official, preferably Chiang Kai-shek, in regard to Chinese reaction to the statements by Alexander and Knox on January 10 and 12, respectively.33a Not having been able to obtain a statement from General Chiang, he had found that Dr. Sun Fo (President of the Legislative Yuan) was willing to make a statement. He pointed out that his report of the interview was entirely objective, containing only a summary lead and the quoted statement without any expression of opinion on his part.
I told him that we did not consider Sun Fo’s statement as representative of general Chinese official and public opinion, and informed him of the gist of our telegram no. 51, January 22, 12 noon. I said that I had been following the Chinese press rather carefully and been in contact with numbers of Chinese officials and that I had not detected evidence of a defeatist attitude such as that in Sun Fo’s statement.
Mr. Fisher said he thought the Sun Fo statement was representative of a certain section of Chinese opinion, and felt its publication had been beneficial in provoking reassuring statements from American officials which, in turn, had caused a modification of Chinese feeling. He agreed, however, that Sun Fo’s statement could not be taken as representing Chinese feeling generally.
Mr. James Stewart, who was also present during the conversation, referred to a story which he had sent in to Time Magazine in which he [Page 10] had reported Chinese indignation over the statements of Alexander and Knox and also indignation over the manner in which the British were handling matters in Burma. He said that he had quoted no officials, but said that his sources were close to the Generalissimo’s headquarters.
Reference was also made during the conversation to a report sent in by Reuters correspondent (Thomas Chao) which had taken the British severely to task for their ineptitude and “insincerity” in providing for Far Eastern defenses. (Subsequently, at the British Embassy, Sir Archibald Clark-Kerr34 showed me a section of the Reuters report which had been censored, containing a bitter and unobjective denunciation of the British).
Mr. Fisher, in commenting on his interview with Dr. Sun Fo, stated that Dr. Sun, before signing the prepared statement, had commented on the strength of some of the language and had asked Dr. Quo Tai-chi, ex-Foreign Minister, who was also present, what he thought of it. Dr. Quo replied that it looked all right to him; to let it go. Dr. Sun remarked that it had a hint of blackmail in it, but agreed nevertheless. The most outspoken portion was subsequently deleted by the censor without prior reference back to Dr. Sun Fo.
Mr. Fisher told me that General Chiang Kai-shek was critical of the interview when it was brought to his attention and that it was decided that should there be any approach from allied Governments in regard to the statement, Dr. Sun Fo would claim that he had been misquoted. (The Embassy has in its files the original text of the interview, signed by Sun Fo,35 with the comment “Seen and approved”, and with the “O. K., with these changes”, of the censor, Dr. Hollington K. Tong.36)
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Ambassador in China in his covering despatch No. 283, January 26; received March 6.↩
- See footnote 18, p. 5.↩
- See telegram No. 45, January 17, 11 a.m. from the Ambassador in China, p. 4.↩
- British Ambassador in China.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Chinese Vice Minister of Information.↩