Office of the Historian

124.911/7–1044: Telegram

The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State

[Extract]
Chungking, July 10, 1944—9 p.m.
[Received July 11—11 p.m.]

1193. For Davis,23 Frank24 and Erhardt25 from Cochran.26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Page 122]
2.
Ambassador showed me Delhi’s cable27 and consulted me before sending his July 8 to Department28 with which I concur. Following suggestions Davis letter June 5,29 I had already begun study of detail of our officers to Army. I had found the Embassy, Chungking, willing to cooperate to the extent of its manpower. Deputy Chief of Staff here expressed to me high appreciation of this cooperation and of the services of the officers detailed to Army duty. I talked with John Service and Emmerson and found them getting [along] satisfactorily. I shall make a detailed report after inspecting in India where I may see other detailed officers. My immediate recommendation is not to let the utilization of these militarily detailed men get beyond control of the chief of diplomatic mission to whom they are normally responsible as Foreign Service officers. It would seem logical for our ranking military officer in any capital to approach our diplomatic mission in that country at the proper level for direct contact and exchange of information and advice. For field jobs as at Chengtu there should be the choice of detailing an officer to the military or establishing our officer independently as an observer and political reporter to the Embassy with instructions to be of every possible service to the Army.
I question the whole idea of selecting a Foreign Service officer in one particular country, finding his liaison duties which lead to the title of “political adviser” to some General and then expecting him to serve expertly with that General or the latter’s successor, American or foreign, in whatever area the General may move and take along this adviser. Such officer might do excellently in his one known area but fail disastrously with the Department’s senior and better informed diplomatic representative in the next country into which the General moves or operates. Perhaps we should leave our diplomatic advising in each country to the diplomatic mission or officer in or for that country that the Department is utilizing and detach officers from a mission from any country only for service within that country. Has Department formulated any procedure to insure that political advice given to our military by detached officers in a given area conforms to Department’s policies as communicated to the chief diplomatic and political representative in that area?
3.
Department’s 470, June 27, 4 p.m.30 addressed to me Calcutta. Dawson31 could be well used in Embassy considering importance of China’s agricultural problems and his familiarity therewith. To improve Embassy’s economic reporting, I recommend an early assignment of first class officer especially qualified to analyze and comment [Page 123] on China’s vital economic and financial problems which have great bearing on the war effort. Such officer should prove useful in studying Chinese commercial and business policies now under formulation and having direct bearing on future American business interests and also in following Chinese plans and needs for postwar reconstruction. Without awaiting my inspection report on Chungking, please select and send urgently needed trained American accountant to this Embassy. [Cochran.]
Gauss
  1. Nathaniel P. Davis, Chief, Division of Foreign Service Personnel.↩
  2. Laurence C. Frank, Chief, Division of Foreign Service Administration.↩
  3. John G. Erhardt, Director, Office of the Foreign Service.↩
  4. H. Merle Cochran, Foreign Service Inspector.↩
  5. Telegram No. 485, July 3, 3 p.m., from the Officer in Charge at New Delhi, p. 112.↩
  6. Telegram No. 1182, p. 118.↩
  7. Not found in Department files.↩
  8. Not printed.↩
  9. Owen L. Dawson, Agricultural Attaché in China.↩