893.00/4–2545
Memorandum by Mr. Everett F. Drumright of the Division of Chinese Affairs
Reference is made to Moscow’s attached telegram no. 1345, April 25, 1945,16 summarizing an article on China which appeared in the April 15, 1945 issue of War and the Working Class.
It will be apparent that this article is highly critical of the Chungking Government and its policies. It represents, at the same time, an open defense of the Chinese Communists and their policies. The Chungking Government is charged with being undemocratic, reactionary, unrepresentative of the people, et cetera, while it is suggested that the Chinese Communists are democratic, peace loving, et cetera. The article purports to show that the Kuomintang-Communist negotiations of last January and February came to nothing because of the rejection by Kuomintang “ruling circles” of “democratic proposals”. Ridicule is heaped on the Kuomintang for offering to include representatives of other parties in the Executive Yuan and for proposing to call a National Assembly next November. These “clumsy maneuvers” are dismissed as an attempt on the part of the Kuomintang to perpetuate its power. Of particular interest are the suggestions that certain Chungking leaders (who are not clearly identified) will link up with the Japanese in the “struggle against the genuine people’s partisan movement” (presumably a reference to the Chinese Communists), and that “some of the [Chungking]17 Generals in the isolated territories have entered upon their duties as Chinese ‘Mihailovitchs’”.18
[Page 348]This and other recent Moscow press comments on China indicate that the Soviet Union has embarked on a campaign of discrediting the Chungking Government—with which it maintains diplomatic relations—and of praising the Chinese Communists and enhancing their prestige. It is a campaign which appears to be similar to that carried out by the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia.
What are the underlying motives of the Soviet Union in connection with its press policy vis-à-vis China? If past Soviet actions may be taken as a criterion, it would appear reasonable to conclude that the Soviet Union is taking a more active interest in China and is preparing the ground for active intervention at a suitable time in the internal affairs of that country. The nature of the articles recently appearing in Soviet publications on China (and they may be expected to appear more frequently and in stronger terms as time goes by) clearly suggests that the Soviet Government is readying itself to turn its back altogether on the Chungking Government and lend its support to the Chinese Communists who will be represented as the “democratic hope” of China and as the “champions” of the Chinese people.
If the Soviet Union should move to put into practice the policy toward China which is being enunciated in the Soviet press, it is obvious that it would be a matter of grave concern to the United States. If unchecked, it might lead to the Communization of China and perhaps to Soviet domination of China—possibilities that require our most earnest reflection and consideration.
It would be interesting to know what attitude the Chungking authorities are taking in the face of these Soviet press attacks and whether they have protested or contemplate protesting to the Soviet Government. It would also be interesting to know whether these Soviet press comments have contributed to the apparent stiffening of the Chinese Communist attitude toward the Chungking Government.