893.00/15101a
The Secretary of State to the Secretary of War (Stimson)
My Dear Mr. Secretary: The article written by Hanson Baldwin entitled “Too Much Wishful Thinking About China” which appeared in the August issue of the Reader’s Digest has no doubt been brought to your attention and you have probably heard something of the reaction to this highly critical—uncomplimentary—discussion of China’s past and present military effort and military potential.
[Page 103]In a signed article in the August 16 issue of the New York Herald Tribune Mr. Rodney Gilbert, “an old China hand” and by no means a sentimentalist about China (he is the author of What’s Wrong with China?), takes issue with the “absurd theory” for which Mr. Baldwin makes himself the spokesman, and the Herald Tribune editorially supports Mr. Gilbert.
Mr. Gilbert states that the source of the military gossip about China as reflected in Mr. Baldwin’s article is Washington, “Where desk men of high rank in the various offices of the fighting forces meet all the boys who come back from the Far East and piece together from their lightly told anecdotes of hit or miss Chinese ways, a pattern of hopeless inefficiency, graft, misleading Chinese propaganda, and fumbling of opportunities.” Mr. Gilbert states that Mr. Baldwin, who has never been in China, has made himself “a sounding board for all the idle gossip about Chinese military ineptitude that has filtered into Washington.…”25
The reaction in China to Mr. Baldwin’s article has been most unfortunate. The Chinese—and I think rightly—have deeply resented Mr. Baldwin’s unreserved, unsympathetic and in many respects, unsound analysis of the Chinese military position. The Ta Kung Pao, most influential paper in China, states “… we cannot but feel indignant because his (Baldwin’s) words have not only caused him loss of prestige as a commentator but also have insulted China and her people … When her (China’s) independence is interfered with … she fights to protect her independence and freedom and fight to the last she must.” The Hsin Hua Jih Pao (Communist Party daily newspaper published in Chungking) terms Mr. Baldwin’s statement that “China is not a nation in our sense of the word but a geographer’s expression” not only criticism but purposeful slander disclosing his own ignorance.
Our Embassy at Chungking has informed the Department that Mr. Baldwin’s article has caused resentment in China that is deep and bitter and wide-spread. The Embassy states that the article has been the subject of discussion at a special meeting of Cabinet ministers and party leaders and of a conference held by Generalissimo and Madame Chiang with various high Chinese officials. The Embassy expresses the opinion that continued public criticism of China may have an adverse effect on our relations with the Chinese Government.
My purpose in writing to you about this matter is not to take issue with Mr. Baldwin or to go into the subject of what is fact and what is not fact with regard to Chinese military performance and Chinese military potential. I wish rather to bring to your attention—if you [Page 104] have not already noticed it—the suggestion made by Mr. Gilbert that military men in Washington are the source and inspiration of Mr. Baldwin’s statements and theories regarding these subjects, for which suggestion it is believed, both from external and from internal evidence, that there may be some basis of fact. I venture to believe that, in the interest of our relations with China, both political and military, as a friend and ally, you would wish to consider the implications of Mr. Gilbert’s suggestion and, whether it is or is not warranted by developments in the past, to take appropriate steps toward insuring against its being warranted as regards the future.
Sincerely yours,
- Omissions in this document indicated in the original.↩