893.24/10–1344
The Consul General at Kunming (Langdon) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 26.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation89 of an editorial from the Central Daily News (Kuomintang) of October 5, 1944, entitled “Mr. Churchill’s Regrets!!!”, which is bitterly critical of the Prime Minister’s description, in his report to the House of Commons, of American aid to China, and to report Chinese press comment regarding China’s present military weakness.
Summary of Editorial. It is stated that the Chinese military spokesman at Chungking has given concrete answers to Mr. Churchill’s “regrets” that China is still experiencing serious military reverses and has shown how pitifully small American aid to China has been. Mr. Churchill’s use of the word “lavish” to describe this aid and his expression of “regrets” are said to have aroused public indignation in China. Comparisons are made between the quantity of lend-lease supplies made available to China and that to other nations and between the material used on the European fronts and that in the Far East,” China’s misfortune is said to lie in the adoption of the policy of subordinating the war in the east to that in Europe. The criticism of foreign newspaper correspondents, who are described as “strange and mysterious”, is said to be partially responsible for Mr. Churchill’s attitude. End of Summary.
Mr. Churchill’s comments on this subject have given rise to widespread editorial comment in the Kunming press, all of which indicate strong resentment of the Prime Minister’s remarks but which depict President Roosevelt’s description of American aid to China in a favorable light.
Much of the comment is unrealistic and unreasonable. One local newspaper comments that if American aid for China is actually “lavish” the United States might as well cancel all lend-lease aid to China and “call off the war against Japan”. Another states that “the turning point of the war will hinge upon the amount of American war materials for China”. The Cheng I Pao (provincial) states that Mr. Churchill’s “irresponsible and absurd” statement cannot be accepted and gives figures to show that China has received 2 per cent of American lend-lease supplies while Great Britain has received 70 per cent and Soviet Russia 28 per cent. The paper goes on to point out that Admiral Mountbatten has “been behind the screen for more than a year but has not yet made an appearance” and expresses the hope that “England will take action instead of indulging in empty talk”. The newspaper concludes that Mr. Churchill’s speech has taught China a valuable lesson: that China should “not cling to other [Page 172] countries” but should depend upon her own efforts. The Sao Tang Pao (army-controlled) editorially points out that Mr. Churchill’s statement showed that the Allies have not yet grasped the significance and importance of the China theater but that his statement has brought home to Allied military leaders and to the foreign press a deeper, clearer and more accurate understanding of the China situation. Concern is expressed over the Allied failure to carry out a landing on the China coast and questions are raised regarding the real meaning of Admiral Nimitz’s89 predictions of an American landing on the east China coast. The Chao Pao points to the “chivalrous spirit” displayed by China in coming to the aid of the British in Burma and appeals for a similar spirit on the part of the Allies. The paper states that if the Allies continue to criticize China without extending material aid it will be a “breach of obligation” on their part.
Mr. Churchill’s statement has brought into the limelight both the anti-British feeling among many Chinese and the Chinese attitude toward what many Chinese consider the inadequate aid given to China by her Allies. Many otherwise reasonable Chinese apparently agree with the Chungking military spokesman in his description of American aid as a mere trickle and some usually unbiased Chinese at Kunming describe Mr. Churchill’s statement as one to be expected from the British “when they feel that victory is assured and there is less need of the assistance of other nations”. Mr. Churchill has succeeded chiefly in fanning the flames of the already existing anti-British feeling in China but he has also drawn widespread attention to the question of American aid to China.
While initially the chief emphasis in the Chinese press was one of bitter resentment of Mr. Churchill’s statement, there has since developed a feeling on the part of many Chinese, as expressed in the press, that American aid to China has been insufficient and that China’s military weakness and present serious situation have been caused solely by the lack of aid from her Allies. This attitude has been bolstered by American press comment published in the Kunming newspapers, which indicates American agreement with the contention of the Chungking spokesman that American aid has been slight and that China has suffered military reverses because of this neglect.
Impartial Chinese observers, however, are aware that the fundamental causes of China’s military weakness and reverses go deeper than a mere lack of military equipment. During recent weeks there has appeared in the Kunming Chinese press a number of editorials strongly critical of China’s military weakness. (The Chinese press at Kunming is far less subject to rigid censorship than that at Chungking and is believed to be as representative of public opinion in China [Page 173] as it is possible for a censored press to be.) These editorials place the responsibility for China’s military weakness and reverses on the treatment accorded to Chinese soldiers and on the inefficiency of Chinese military administration. The newspapers have charged that Chinese soldiers who were strong and vigorous at the time of their conscription can now be seen on the streets of Kunming thin and pale and often barely able to walk. One local newspaper has reported that as an “indication that the Chinese military authorities (Central Government) are paying more attention to their soldiers” the Municipal Health Department of Kunming reports that only 69 dead Chinese soldiers were picked up on the streets of Kunming in September in comparison with 138 such corpses in August. The poor treatment given to the soldiers is said to have its roots in corruption—at the time of conscription, during their transfer to training centers and during their service in the army, a corruption which results in starvation and lack of medical attention. One newspaper states that the primary reason for China’s “weak combative power” lies in the “bad treatment” given to Chinese soldiers. Another editorial states that hundreds and thousands of Chinese soldiers are daily growing weaker and that China’s fighting power continues to diminish “until we can scarcely meet any attack”. Another Chinese newspaper goes so far as to place the responsibility for Chinese military reverses on the Chinese attitude of “waiting for victory”, charging that every phase of activity—politics, economics, military affairs et cetera—revolve around the false idea of depending upon others.
Press comments such as the foregoing give some indication from Chinese published sources of the views held by Chinese themselves and offer further evidence of the extent of physical deterioration of the Central Government’s armies. It is, therefore, all the more unrealistic for Chungking’s military spokesman to imply that China’s military reverses are caused only by her lack of weapons. One influential and well-placed Chinese recently informed officers of the Consulate General that in the military field China’s need for modern weapons was of secondary importance. This observer felt that, in order of importance, came food for the soldiers, medical care and medicines, able commanders versed in modern military tactics and, last of all, modern weapons. He stated that nothing could be done during this war to meet the need for able, modern commanders—it was too late—but that the food and medical problems could and should be solved. It is generally agreed among Chinese independent observers, however, that no reorganization of the army or improvement in the treatment of the Chinese soldiers can be expected unless there is a wholesale shakeup in the higher military organization accompanied by honest administration to ensure the effectiveness of the [Page 174] reform. The volume of American supplies shipped to China would thus seem to have little relation to the fundamental causes for China’s military weakness and reverses.
Respectfully yours,