Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, China

893.00/786

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Vincent)

[Washington,] September 21, 1943.

With reference to Chungking’s despatch no. 1254 of June 12, 1943, special attention is invited to the final paragraph in which the statement is made that General Hsiung Shih-hui, recently head of the Chinese Military Mission to the United States, returned to China with a strong anti-American attitude, according to reports, and with an inclination to align himself with members of the so-called “Peace Party” which favors making an endeavor at some appropriate time to come to terms with the Japanese.

General Hsiung’s period of assignment in Washington was not a happy one or one which benefited Chinese-American relations. This was due in large part to the treatment which General Hsiung received in this country. The military services treated him with scant courtesy and consideration and his general reception in Washington left much to be desired.

The character and background of General Hsiung may explain but not excuse the treatment he received. He did not speak English. He was not in the strict sense a military man. He was what is described in China as a “political general”. For many years prior to his coming to Washington he was Chairman of the Kiangsi Provincial Government. He is an ultra-conservative Kuomintang official.

Nevertheless, he came as the special emissary of General Chiang Kai-shek. He is one of Chiang Kai-shek’s most intimate and trusted officials. It is therefore much to be regretted that he was permitted, because of the treatment he received here, to return to China with what he no doubt feels are justifiable causes for complaint and with an unsympathetic attitude toward the United States.

It is interesting to observe that General Hsiung, probably one of the most representative officials that the Kuomintang Government could have sent to Washington, failed in his mission. This thought raises the question whether envoys who are most representative of the governments which send them abroad actually are able best to represent those governments.

With regard to the statement in the reference despatch that General Hsiung was to be appointed Secretary General of the National Planning Board, you will recall that this appointment of General Hsiung was gazetted a month or so ago. It is considered unfortunate that a man of General Hsiung’s character should have been appointed to this important position which may have a very large influence in shaping China’s post-war plans, development and policies. From the American point of view it is particularly unfortunate if, as reported, he has returned to China with an anti-American bias.