800.00B Communist International/309: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Standley) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 11—6:05 a.m.]
838. Department’s 455, June 18, 9 p.m., regarding attitude of Soviet press toward Chinese Communists since dissolution of Comintern.
Red Star for July 7th published a 4–column survey by Colonel Tolcgevov[Tolchenov] of 6 years of the Sino-Japanese war. This is the only Soviet press item appearing in recent months to the Embassy’s knowledge pertinent to the Department’s inquiry.
Most of the article factually summarizes the results of military operations during the war. Events are periodized into two phases. In the first, to the fall of 1938, Japan was on the offensive in China. Since then Japan has been able to launch only limited operations.
The conclusion is reached that Japan failed to achieve her objective in China despite her advantages largely because the Chinese people achieved “unity of all the national forces of the country” against the threat to their political existence.
With the beginning of the Pacific war “the struggle in China became one of many fronts of the world war.” The Chinese aid to the British at Hong Kong and in Burma is referred to. The loss of Burma is described as a grievous blow to China cutting her off from almost all help from her American and British allies.
The article points out, however, that China’s general military situation has now improved since Japan is forced to concentrate her main forces in the Pacific and is not in a position to undertake large scale operations in the Chinese theater which is for Japan “of secondary significance.”
The article refers frequently to the Chinese partisans. It regards their activities as a major factor making for successful Chinese resistance. Moreover, it declares that in the hinterland of much of the Japanese occupied territory the Chinese Government is still functioning “under the protection of partisan detachments.”
The article is extremely cautious regarding political matters. Its omissions, however, may be significant. Thus, no credit for Chinese success is given to Chiang Kai Shek or other political leaders, none of whom are even mentioned. At the same time no political characterization of the partisans is attempted. To the improvements in the Chinese Army’s tactics is attributed part of China’s success. There is no explicit condemnation of Japan, but the pro-Chinese bias of the article is obvious.
[Page 283]The article pays tribute to the Chinese people. It refers to the partisans after 1938 as embracing “ever broader masses of the Chinese people.”
It concludes, “The Chinese people continue courageously to fight for its liberty and national independence.”