740.0011 P.W./11–444
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs (Vincent) to the Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs (Grew)
Mr. Grew: With regard to your statement at this morning’s FE10 meeting, I want to put on record the following with regard to my press contacts during this week.
As you can readily understand the past week has been an unusually active one in the matter of interviews with representatives of the press. These interviews have, I would roughly estimate, taken almost half of my time. The subjects, of course, have been the recall of General Stilwell and the reported resignation of Ambassador Gauss. Stories such as those by Atkinson and Berringer in the New York Times have also come up for discussion. I have followed a consistent line in my discussions—a line consistent with the announcements from the White House and with our own understanding of the situation.
With regard to Mr. Gauss, I have disabused inquirers of any idea that his resignation was “forced” either from China or from Washington. I have also, with my knowledge of the man, endeavored to give [Page 190] them a favorable picture of Mr. Gauss. I have also stressed the point that there was no connection between the recall of General Stilwell and the resignation of Mr. Gauss.
With regard to the recall of General Stilwell, I have endeavored from my store of knowledge of the situation to support the White House announcement that there are no political angles to his recall; that there was no question of withdrawal of support to China in connection with his recall; that the use of the word “ultimatum” in connection with the reported proceedings which had preceded his recall was to my mind a misrepresentation of the situation; and that in so far as I knew his recall carried with it no “quid pro quo” connected with China.
I have been at some pains to explain the background of recent developments in China, pointing out that although conditions are admittedly unsatisfactory in some respects, we should not lose sight of the fact that China is an ally, that China still has a part to play in this war and that we have reason to hope that China will play a part commensurate with her ability.
When Chinese Communist–Kuomintang relations have been mentioned, I have endeavored to direct the attention of correspondents along the following lines: We have been for years and are now vitally interested in the achievement of unity in China. Our interest at present focuses on effective prosecution of the war in China. Where it is clearly indicated that changes, reforms and other action might result in a more effective prosecution of the war we have favored them. With regard to the character of needed reforms, one has but to read the account of the discussions and recommendations which came out of the People’s Political Council session during September. Those discussions, which have been published by the China News Service, concern finance and economic administration, military administration, and Communist–Kuomintang relations.
To the best of my memory I have talked with the following men in the past week, several of them on more than one occasion: Raymond Gram Swing, Joseph Harsch, Edgar Mowrer, Visson,* Lewis (AP), White (AP), Eaton of the Whaley–Eaton Service, Shackford (UP), Hightower (AP), and Fitzmaurice, Newsweek. There may have been others I do not recall.
I take some satisfaction in saying that a reading of the stories and broadcasts of the various men that I have interviewed will indicate that they have followed a fairly consistent line in playing down the sensational and in giving constructive treatment to the news.