124.93/592
The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 13.]
Sir: I have considered for some time raising with the Department a number of questions in respect to the various Foreign Service Officers nominally assigned to this Embassy and detailed to the staff of General Stilwell. These questions, which have of late been confronting the Embassy with increasing frequency, relate to the status and functions of those officers—and especially to their usefulness in their present details. It will be recalled that the Embassy was not in any way consulted in regard to the detailing of these officers to our Army Headquarters in the China, Burma and India theater—either as regards the suitability of individual officers for such detail or as regards the comparative need, from the point of view of the overall interests of the American Government, of Headquarters and the Embassy for their services. The selections were made, I have some reason to believe, on the informal recommendation of Mr. John Davies, Jr., assigned to this Embassy as Second Secretary, and were put into effect without, so far as the Embassy is aware, any consideration of the Embassy’s position in the matter, consideration of making specific replacements to ameliorate the sudden disruption of the Embassy’s staff, or consideration of their duties and status with respect to the military organization.
We wish, of course, to be as helpful as we can to our military and in principle I am in favor of the details of Foreign Service Officers to Headquarters to staff positions of real usefulness. But with the exception of Secretaries John Davies, Jr., and John K. Emmerson, it has become clear that our officers are not being fully, or even properly, employed. Neither they nor the responsible military officers [Page 66] appear to know what their status and functions are or should be. We see them traveling about in enlisted men’s clothing (indeed I am told that one brigadier general in this theater insists that civil officers and employees of the Government while visiting or on duty at his station must wear “G. I.” apparel) with the result that they are not only themselves constantly confronted with obvious difficulties but also cause confusion to military officers, enlisted men including sentries, and military police and transport crews. They do not seem to have ready access to their military chiefs, are not consulted or informed in regard to political matters, and have not been given specific duties or any but very meager facilities for the performance of the odd jobs which come their way.
I have no doubt that Second Secretary Davies has made himself useful, especially in connection with psychological warfare projects. I hear that Second Secretary John K. Emmerson is proving useful. On the other hand, the outstanding capabilities of Second Secretary John S. Service—the officer with whom I am in closest contact because he is stationed in Chungking—are not by any means being utilized to any appreciable extent. From my observation of the situation neither the Chief of Staff who is in charge of Headquarters in Chungking, nor his military officers, nor Mr. Service have ever been given any specific delineation of Mr. Service’s duties. If he is supposed to be a political adviser, he is not being used as such. If he is supposed to be a liaison officer with this Embassy, he is being utilized only meagerly. He does not seem to have any formal status on the Headquarters staff, sees very little of the Chief of Staff and apparently is not consulted by Headquarters officers; on his own initiative he maintains contacts with a large number of Chinese in Chungking (but without transportation facilities to do so) and gathers and reports political information. These reports are often very useful to the Embassy; it is doubtful whether they are of concrete use to Headquarters. Mr. Calvin Joyner, an FEA (Lend-Lease) officer with offices and living quarters at Headquarters has formal status as a staff officer and knows definitely his place in the organization. Dr. E. C. Acheson, financial adviser to Headquarters, functions with similar definiteness.
As previously reported to the Department, I recently detailed Second Secretary James K. Penfield to Chengtu with the specific purpose of staffing that post with a competent officer who could be of service to our military authorities. General Hearn expressed himself as very pleased with this assignment—which took from the Chancery one of the Embassy’s key men. Shortly thereafter, General Stilwell or his deputy in India detailed Second Secretary Raymond P. Ludden to Chengtu under orders which, if I recall them correctly, specified as [Page 67] among his duties the dealing with Chinese civil officials. I do not think this is at all an appropriate assignment for Mr. Ludden and I have some reason to believe that it is principally in the nature of an expedient having as its purpose merely the removal, at Secretary Davies’ instance, of Mr. Ludden from some psychological warfare work he was engaged in in Burma under Mr. Davies’ direction.
All of our officers detailed to General Stilwell have, I believe, commissions as Consuls. Under the applicable Executive Order Consuls rank with Colonels in the Army and as Second Secretaries they rank above Assistant Military Attachés. I understand that in North Africa some of our officers have, in addition to their consular or diplomatic commissions, designation as Civil Affairs Officers attached to military organizations and function under definite and regularized arrangements.
The status and functions of our officers in the China–Burma–India theater should be regularized with a view to placing them in position to be of maximum usefulness. If it is impracticable to come to an understanding with the War Department which will serve that end, they should be returned to Foreign Service duties where they can be used effectively. General Hearn, Chief of Staff, U. S. Army Forces, C. B. L, expects to be en route to the United States by the time this despatch goes forward. I have not discussed the question with him, as it appears to be one which in the first instance should be worked out between the Department of State and the War Department and because my impression is that he is as much in the dark in the matter of the functions of the Foreign Service Officers attached to General Stilwell’s Headquarters as are the officers themselves.
Respectfully yours,