893.20/9–2244
The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 25.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a summary translation of an editorial which appeared in the Ta Kung Pao, regarded as China’s leading newspaper, on September 11, 1944, and which is sharply critical of the present situation of the Chinese army, particularly as regards food and treatment of soldiers.
Summary of Editorial. Military affairs are foremost. First of all the soldiers should have sufficient food. This is a point about which the whole nation should feel shame. The emergency motion of the PPC77 states that on account of poor treatment the soldiers have suffered from hunger and cold, and some have died of starvation. The cause of this is indulgence; indulgent propaganda to fool the enemy has fooled ourselves. Being indulgent in concealing the facts, military affairs are kept from publication. In the new censorship rules there is an article forbidding any obstruction to the food administration or the military administration which is due to fear of exposure. The first person to be hoodwinked is the Commander-in-Chief. The great malpractices in the food administration have [Page 161] injured both the country and the people, as the Minister concerned has acknowledged. The mess that the military service administration is in has even involved Chungking, the seat of the National Government, in the vicious and confused conditions that have resulted from it. The measures to be adopted now are to look at the facts with open eyes and permit responsible officers to assume their responsibility. It will do no harm for the Commander-in-Chief to express his anger and to punish severely some of the persons concerned. To improve the treatment of the soldiers, the most important thing is to assure them of enough to eat. This is the most urgent problem before us, and the principal road for us to follow in the struggle for victory. End of Summary.
This editorial contains one of the most straightforward and outspoken arraignments of the present Government that have appeared in the local press for many months. Competent political observers in Chungking, Chinese and foreign alike, would probably agree that the two departments in which mismanagement and corruption are most flagrant and most dangerous to the continuance of the Government itself are the Ministries of Food and War. Hsu Kan, the Minister of Food, is stated to have made a very frank confession of existing conditions in his Ministry in answer to the interpellations of members of the People’s Political Council. A reliable informant states that in answer to a question why he permitted such conditions, Mr. Hsu answered, “You must all know that no honest man seeks to enter the service of my Ministry”. The informant interpreted this reply as a suggestion that opportunities for corruption in the administration of food are so notorious that the Ministry was staffed almost exclusively by people who had taken their positions with a view to sharing in this graft.
The editorial’s attack on the military service administration, which is as direct and sharp as that upon the administration of food, is by open implication an attack on General Ho Ying-ch’in, the present Minister of War and Chief of Staff, the individual whom most Chinese critical of the present situation appear to hold responsible for the maladministration of the Chinese Army, for the prevalent favoritism and for the general breakdown in discipline and morale which has evidently affected most Chinese troops, especially those on the Honan and Hunan fronts. In the interpellation of General Ho, which was held in secret session, he was pressed for an explanation of the condition of Chinese troops at the front, who were said to be wretchedly equipped, without adequate arms, with many of them starving. His replies were reported to have been unsatisfactory, and it is said that he was confronted by the accounts of members of the Council who had themselves come from the areas affected and who were witnesses of the truth of many of the charges. General Ho was pressed particularly for an explanation of the punishment, if any, [Page 162] which had been meted out to General Tang En-po for the Honan debacle. One member of the Council (a woman) is stated to have twice asked General Ho why the defender of Changsha (a Cantonese follower of General Hsueh Yueh) should have been executed when Tang (a Chekiangese, like the Generalissimo) should be allowed to go free.
Almost as significant as the sharpness of the tone of the editorial is the circumstance that it should be published at all. The relaxation of the earlier control of the press, of which this editorial is an illustration, is regarded by some observers as indicating that pressure upon the Central Government is increasing and that it is no longer able to cover up its own weaknesses.
Respectfully yours,
- People’s Political Council.↩