Marshall Mission Files, Lot 54–D270
Notes on Conference of Three (Meeting No. 3)—General Marshall, Governor Chang Chun, Central Government Representative, and General Chou En-lai, Communist Party Representative—at General Marshall’s Residence, Chungking, January 8, 1946, 4:30 p.m.
M[arshall]: If agreeable to you gentlemen the meeting will come to order. I would first call attention to the fact that we placed on the table at your places copies of the minutes of this morning’s meeting, and at some later time we can inquire whether or not they are accurate records, in your opinion. We also placed there two copies each of the Cessation of Hostilities Order as we understood it as agreed upon this morning. At your convenience you can confirm as to whether or not that is an accurate statement of your agreement.
Now, I have here three exceptions to which there has been an agreement. I said three; I should have said two. The first exception reads as follows: “Paragraph b, Cessation of Hostilities Order, does not prejudice military movements South of the Yangtze River for the continued execution of the plan of military reorganization of the National Government.” Is that a correct statement?
G[overnor Chang]: It is.
C[hou]: Yes.
M: It is accepted as correct. Another exception which I read this morning and which was agreed to was: “Lines of communications mentioned in paragraph c, Cessation of Hostilities Order, includes post communications.” That was accepted. Now in paragraph 2 of the sheet you were handed is the present wording of the exception regarding movements in regard to Manchuria. I will read them as they are now written: “Paragraph b, Cessation of Hostilities Order, does not prejudice military movements of forces of the National Army toward and within Manchuria which are for the purpose of restoring Chinese sovereignty.” Is that wording satisfactory and acceptable?
G: Yes.
C: General Chou inquires about the word “toward.” Can it be so understood that all troops within China proper may be moved under this provision?
M: It was not so intended.
[Page 77]C: Is this not too inclusive?
M: Has General Chou another word he wishes to submit?
G: The present plan of the Government only envisages the sending of troops into Manchuria necessary to maintain peace and order in that region and not—
M: I think the problem is the use of the word “toward”, and I assume General Chou’s question is whether any troops in China could move toward Manchuria that is due North. But the intention of this “toward” was, from my point of view, to the ports for shipment to Manchuria or the marches overland, the troops having arrived at Shanhaikuan—
C: Chinwangtao?
M: Chinwangtao.
C: Hulutao?
M: Hulutao may be frozen—they might disembark at Chinwangtao. Was not that your question?
C: General Chou says that Governor Chang and General Marshall have answered his question in two distinct respects. General Marshall has replied about the route of moving troops, the route that is going to be pursued, that is by sea, and Governor Chang has answered him on the purpose and the strength of troop movements, and he would like those to be recorded in some way.
M: Can General Chou suggest another word instead of “toward”?
C: He is afraid that if he makes another change it would make the phrase rather long and if he is asked to make a proposal, he would propose to say that the troop movements for this purpose will be effected only by agreement.
M: Will be what?
C: Troop movements will be effected, will be carried out each time after agreement.
M: I don’t think that would work. Will General Chou please consider this suggestion? Following the words “National Army into or within, or toward ports in China for embarkation for Manchuria.” I will read it again. “Paragraph b, Cessation of Hostilities Order, does not prejudice movements of forces of the National Army into or within, or toward ports in China for embarkation for Manchuria which are for the purpose of restoring Chinese sovereignty.”
G: General Marshall, do you mean to say, “forces of the National Army into or within Manchuria or toward ports in China for embarkation for Manchuria” etc.?
M: Yes, that’s right.
G: I believe in this case it would be better to repeat the word “Manchuria” again.
M: All right, “into or within Manchuria or toward ports in China [Page 78] for embarkation for Manchuria.” Insert “Manchuria” after “within”. The word “Manchuria” would then appear twice. I was trying to avoid too involved statements. My statement and that of the Governor’s are in the minutes but they would make very lengthy and debatable exceptions because these will be stated almost like an order. (to General Chou’s interpreter: Will you translate that?)
C: I personally don’t agree, because on this particular subject, the Manchurian problem, there has been dispute during the talks of the Government and the Communist Party previously. In the past both parties had discussed the movement of troops along eight railway lines in the North. At that time, the Government representatives had proposed to make an exception on the western section of the Peiping–Liaoning Railway so that the Government may move troops without consulting the Communist Party, but the Communist Party insists that movements of troops along this railway line—
M: Railway line?
C: Yes, along the western section of the Peiping–Liaoning Railway line—should be done after consultation with the Communists.
M: Western section, meaning Peiping to Shanhaikuan?
C: To Chinchou.
M: Chinchou is in Manchuria, is it not?
C: Yes, in Manchuria. This problem was left unsolved.
M: Why Shanhaikuan to Chinchou?
C: Because certain regions covering the section between Shanhaikuan and Chinchou, constitute a base of guerrilla operations of the Communist troops before the Japanese surrender. Because this problem has not been solved, I returned to Yenan to talk over all this matter. At that time one of the Government representatives, Mr. Shao Li-tse, had told us that if we are not opposed to the moving of National troops along this section, then the Government is willing to discuss with the Communist representatives on the number of troops that will be moved, and also after all troops have been reorganized certain units of the Communist troops may be stationed in Manchuria. I reported all of this to Yenan and Yenan was of the opinion that it has no objection to the taking over of Manchuria by the National Government, but it hopes that the Government would consult the Communists on the number of troops to be sent to Manchuria and the routes which will be taken by these troops.
C: With regard to this paragraph, General Marshall and Governor Chang have explained to my satisfaction and I personally agree with the amendments made in this paragraph, but I feel obliged to report to Yenan about these amendments and I hope to receive a reply in a day or two.
[Page 79]M: When General Chou used the word, the expression, consult with the National Government, did he have in mind that the executive headquarters we have talked about only operates by virture of the unanimous vote. If that agreement for the executive headquarters was accepted, then the expression consult with [will?] imply a single vote at executive headquarters could stop all movements to Manchuria.
C: When I was talking about consultation with the Government, I referred to past negotiations between the National Government and the Communist Party. I do not have in mind the executive headquarters. I personally am entirely satisfied with the explanation made by you and Governor Chang, but I feel that I have to report to Yenan on this particular subject.
M: Therefore, if it is agreeable to both of you gentlemen, we will leave this to be decided later.
C: Yes.
G: Governor Chang likes to make a few remarks. In our past discussions with the Communist representatives, we always insisted on the right to send troops into Manchuria by rail but the Communist representatives suggested that to transport troops into Manchuria by rail should be done only by consultation, but the Government representatives never agreed to this point. Then the Communist representatives suggested that inasmuch as there were Communist troops around the region into which the Government intended to send troops, the Government troops had better fight their way into Manchuria. Then quite privately Mr. Shao Li-tse, referring to what was just referred to by the Communist representative, suggested that instead of having any real fighting some consultation might take place, but that was simply a suggestion made casually for which the Government should not be responsible. Whatever may have transpired in the past, the matter has been discussed already here and only this morning we agreed to this, both sides seemed to have agreed to this matter relating to Manchuria and it was after I had considered the opinion furnished by General Chou that I agreed to put this paragraph into the minutes and I would rather see this paragraph retained in its original form. That is, movement of forces of the National Army into and in Manchuria. Let it stand as it is without any additional phrases or words.
C: General Chou doubts whether it can be stated as Governor Chang has said that Mr Shao Li-tse does not represent the view of the government seeing Mr. Shao Li-tse made this statement in a formal meeting with the Communist representatives as an official representative of the Government.
M: One minute, gentlemen, you are getting away from me here.
[Page 80]G: Governor Chang, in commenting on the point made by General Chou that certain words were said by Mr. Shao Li-tse to the effect that consultation should be held before transporting troops into Manchuria, emphasized that that was a personal opinion in answer to the remark made by the Communist representative that the Central Government troops would have to fight their way into Manchuria. Mr. Shao Li-tse made that point on his own initiative. It was a personal opinion.
M: It seems to me that we are getting a little bit into the PCC and beyond my responsibility in the conference. I understand. I understand that Governor Chang agrees to the paragraph I am about to read and General Chou expresses his tentative acceptance of the paragraph in view of statements in the record by the Governor and myself and pending reference to Yenan. If that is correct, I propose that we drop this for the time being until we hear from General Chou after his consultation with Yenan. Is that agreeable to the conferees?
G: Yes, I agree to the postponing of the discussion of this question, but as far as I am concerned I cannot and will not give up my views on this question.
M: It is understood that we will postpone further discussion of this pending a report from General Chou.
At the bottom of this same page appears paragraph 5 which reads as follows: “It is further agreed that moves of the forces of the National Army under the foregoing stipulations shall be reported daily to the executive headquarters.” The understanding being that this is the final paragraph to the various exceptions that we finally record. The executive headquarters as a normal procedure of any military procedure, should itself make a daily report of troop dispositions. It, of course, could not do this unless it received reports. The procedure, of course, would keep all informed of the general troop situation and so make for general understanding and avoid unfounded rumors. I repeat again that this paragraph would be the last one on whatever exceptions we have. Is such a paragraph acceptable, or what amendments are required?
C: General Chou agrees.
G: This seems to be a new point and we should like to reserve our comments until the proceeding [preceding?] four paragraphs are approved.
M: We will delay action on that paragraph. In that paper the third paragraph referred to the exception of the understanding regarding the situation in Jehol and Chahar. We adjourned this morning in a state of incomplete discussion. Has General Chou anything further to say on the subject?
[Page 81]C: On this matter I have the following comment: First, I wish to know to what an extent an agreement has actually been reached between China and Soviet Russia, because in the past I was not informed on this matter at all, and therefore I think there are two concrete means to achieve this. Firstly, I hope that the Government may let me read the telegram sent by General Hsiung Shih-hui to the National Government regarding the agreement between China and Soviet Russia on this particular matter. Secondly, I hope that U. S. Army headquarters would let me read the document sent by the Chinese National Government to it notifying this agreement.
M: Read the last again.
C: Secondly, I hope that the U. S. Army headquarters would let me read the document sent by the Chinese National Government notifying it on this agreement. There might be another means that is since I am thinking that this affects the relation between China and Soviet Russia, so I am considering whether we should invite Soviet Russia to participate in this discussion. If I can read over the official document of the Sino-Soviet agreement on this particular matter and if it can be ascertained that there have been listed in the document the places that have to be taken over, definitely taken over by the National Government, so I would make a study and consider Governor Chang’s proposal.
M: I understand. Have you any comment? (to Governor Chang).
G: I feel that the document I brought up this morning serves the purpose which General Chou has in mind. If he wants to see the document, he can either see the document which I produced this morning or the document which the American headquarters may supply to General Chou. The document is just the same, either one will serve his purpose.
C: General Chou remarks that this morning the official document was not presented and he would like to see the official document.
(Telegram then produced for General Chou to read).55
M: How about the over-lay.
G: We didn’t bring that.
M: The Governor filed that, eh?
Would the records of the U. S. headquarters be in Shanghai?
Colonel Pee:56 General Caraway was here at the time.
Captain Eng:57 His files would remain here in Chungking.
M: Records will be in the combined staff file then.
C: This telegram alone cannot make me fully understand the situation and problem related to Jehol and Chahar. As far as I am informed, [Page 82] at the end of October there were no more Soviet troops in Jehol, and in certain places Soviet troops have never been there and still I don’t feel that I am getting wiser about the actual situation there. Secondly, this telegram is sent by General Hsiung reporting certain arrangements he made with the Soviet troops, but it is not disclosed in this telegram whether the arrangements were verbal or written. Really the telegram only stated about withdrawal of Soviet troops. No mention was made of how the different places will be taken over by the Chinese troops or whether there are already certain Chinese troops there. It bears no relation to the business to be handled here. From what I can read from the telegram, it is just a general report. It is not a formal clear-cut verbal agreement reached by both sides, and therefore I hope to see the formal document of agreement, so that my report to be sent up to Yenan may then carry more weight, because this is an entirely new problem to us.
M: With apologies for interrupting the present discussion, but in an effort to avoid long delays and discussions in order that hostilities may actually cease at as early a date as possible, I have a very rough proposal here which would affect the exception we were discussing regarding movements into Manchuria and make that specific exception unnecessary and would also endeavor to compose the difference in Jehol and Chahar.
M: In other words, this would cover two exceptions. I will read it and I am going to suggest after it that you do not endeavor to reply today at all. “It is understood and agreed that the provisions of paragraph b of the Cessation of Hostilities Order, do not prohibit the movement of National Army troops in accordance with the terms of the formal agreement, dated . . . . . . . . . . ., between the representatives of the National Government of China and the Soviet Government, for the transfer of control in the unrecognized and so-called principality of Manchukuo. However, it is further understood that in the provinces of Jehol and Chahar such movements will be specifically restricted pending further agreements to the occupation of the towns of Chihfeng and Tolun, and that the size of the force in each case will not exceed one thousand soldiers.” I think it best not to attempt to discuss that now, Gentlemen, if agreeable to you, my suggestion to be that we would postpone any further discussion of this until tomorrow because I have introduced an entirely new proposition and I would like you to have plenty of time to examine it, as well as some time for me to assimilate what you have already said. Are you willing to take that answer?
G: Yes, we can defer the discussion until tomorrow.
C: Yes, it is.
[Page 83]M: Is it agreeable to you to make at least a partial effort to reconstruct this order for the Executive Headquarters?
C: Yes.
M: Is that agreeable to you, Governor?
G: Yes.
M: Here are two corrected copies58 which have been gone over making a number of very definite changes in the document which was originally gotten out.59 The principal change is to produce a joint agreement by you gentlemen here, you having been duly authorized by your respective chiefs to so agree. It being assumed, of course, that this would have to be confirmed by your chiefs before you could agree. The joint agreement would therefore be in the persons of Governor Chang and General Chou. I have made the changes accordingly in the document. “By joint agreement we, Governor Chang Chun, authorized representative of the Central Government, and Chou En-lai, authorized representative of the Chinese Communist Party, do establish in the name of the President of the Republic of China, as of . . . . . . . . . . . . date, an Executive Headquarters empowered to implement the agreements for cessation of hostilities.” I submit that paragraph for discussion.
G: I believe the Governor prefers to be called “General” here (in this document).
M: Oh, General instead of Governor?
G: Yes.
M: And then that should be General Chou, should it not?
C: Yes. I apologize for getting it all wrong.
G: The preamble in its present form is not easy to translate into Chinese.
M: What changes do you suggest?
G: We suggest, so and so “do establish with the approval of the National Government” an Executive Headquarters.
M: “With the approval of the National Government.” That conveys an entirely different meaning.
B[yroade]: He means in here. It’s all right.
G: That is not the Chinese way of saying it.
M: Yes, that is a different indication to us. What other corrections?
G: Substitute “with the approval of the National Government” for “in the name of the President of the Republic of China.”
M: Is that the correct use of the word Central Government that way?
[Page 84]B: Yes, should we use Central Government or National Government throughout?
G: National Government.
M: In the changes proposed by General Chang, I understand that the second line, change the word “Governor” to “General.” In the third line, change the word “Central” to “National.” In the fourth line, add the word “General” in front of Chou En-lai. In the fifth line, add to the word “establish”, insert the words “with the approval of the National Government” and strike out the words “in the name of the President of the Republic.” The sentence then would read: “By joint agreement we, General Chang Chun, authorized representative of the National Government, and General Chou En-lai, authorized representative of the Chinese Communist Party, do establish with the approval of the National Government of China, as of . . . . . . . . . . date, an Executive Headquarters empowered to implement the agreements for cessation of hostilities.” General Chou, is that acceptable to you?
C: Yes.
M: Is that acceptable to you, General Chang?
G: Yes.
M: That first paragraph as I read it is acceptable. Are there any comments on the second paragraph?
C: General Chou requests explanation on two points. The first one is regarding the repatriation of Japanese. He inquires whether it refers to war prisoners only or to all Japanese, civilians as well as military men?
M: As far as the United States is concerned, the interest is specifically directed toward soldiers. So far as you gentlemen are concerned, it seems to me the decision is what you choose to make it.
(Interpreter to Marshall: General Chou is asking Governor Chang about the Chinese Government’s decision on that.)
C: Which refers only to war prisoners.
M: Soldiers.
C: Yes.
M: Is that satisfactory?
G & C: Yes.
C: Secondly, General Chou inquires whether the recommendations made by the Headquarters should first go through the conference here and then be issued in the name of the Government.
M: Which conference?
C: This conference here, or their recommendations go directly to the Government and be issued?
M: My assumption was that this particular conference might not [Page 85] then exist, and I assume that the reports would be submitted in this manner: Each Commissioner would submit the report to his own chief. Your Commissioner to Mao Tse-tung, or you, or whatever you direct. The National Government Commissioner would report to his Chief, and the American representative to me. The record copy would go to the Generalissimo for the ordinary procedure of implementing it. Would that be your understanding, General Chang?
G: Yes.
M: Is that a satisfactory reply?
C: Yes.
M: Are there any other questions, General Chou?
C: No.
G: May we ask you a few questions in regard to certain points. In the first place, the first sentence says, “The Executive Headquarters established by this order will implement the agreed policies.” We take it that “agreed policies” refers to policies based on agreements for the cessation of hostilities. Don’t you think it desirable to make it clearer? That is point one.
M: If you go up to the preceding paragraph in the last two lines it says, “The Executive Headquarters is empowered to implement the agreements” etc. Do you wish to repeat the same thing that is up there in the preceding line?
G: I don’t know if that is clear. The above-mentioned paragraph only says “empowered to implement the agreements for the cessation of——
M: Now, if you want to put that it [in?], “the agreed policies of the cessation of hostilities order”, that’s all right if that’s what you prefer?
G: Yes.
M: That is agreed?
C & G: Yes.
M: And the next point?
G: “By this order.” Is it an order or an agreement? It seems to be an agreement. This whole document is an agreement.
M: It establishes the details of the order for the Executive Headquarters. However, if that is confusing in the Chinese translation, you can make another suggestion.
G: I was thinking you could very well say “The Executive Headquarters will implement the agreed policies for the cessation of hostilities.”
M: Is that agreeable?
C & G: Yes.
M: It is agreed to strike out the words “established by this order.”
[Page 86]C & G: Yes.
G: Then the part “The Headquarters will submit recommendations.” First of all, to whom will the Headquarters submit its recommendations?
M: We did not like it in there for the reason that it is a rather lengthy statement. In the preceding paragraph the implication “with the approval of the National Government” in the English defines the Headquarters under which this was going to operate. Now you have three Commissioners, each with a responsibility each to a different chief. Certainly each one would report to his Chief or his Government or Party. The record copy though should go to the Generalissimo. Now that is rather a complicated statement. There was no doubt in our minds that each Commissioner would report to his own Chief. Therefore, why complicate the paragraph by stating that? The only purpose for a reference of that kind would be a prohibition against his making such reports which we assume to be quite out of the question. Therefore, this statement was put in this simple form and the last sentence implies the whole, which reads: “The formal instructions unanimously agreed upon by the three Commissioners, will be issued in the name of the President of the Republic of China.” Is that satisfactory?
G: It is all right. Then the phrase to include disarmament of the Japanese forces. Does this phrase follow the word “agreements to insure” “Agreements to include”?
M: “To insure more effective implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities orders to include [”] the Cessation of Hostilities Orders. It covers all of these things I think.
G: What includes it?
M: How would you wish to state it?
G: Recommendations covering the disarmament?
B: He is wondering what includes this?
M: The recommendations they submit will include matters on this subject.
G: Rather change to “Such recommendations to include”?
B: All right.
M: Would it not also be required in connection with that last modification to add the words after include “measures for.”
G: Yes, that’s right.
M: “Such recommendations to include measures for disarmament of the Japanese forces.”
M: The next to the last line, the word “representatives” should read “commissioners”.
G: Do you think the word “functions” would be better than “mission”.
[Page 87]M: I will now read the paragraph as I understand it has been amended acceptable to you two gentlemen: “Functions. The Executive Headquarters will implement the agreed policies for cessation of hostilities. The Headquarters will submit recommendations covering necessary additional subsidiary agreements to insure more effective implementation of the cessation of hostilities orders; such recommendations to include measures for the disarmament of the Japanese forces, restoration of lines of communication and coordination of the movement of Japanese soldiers to the coast for repatriation. The formal instructions unanimously agreed upon by the three commissioners will be issued in the name of the President of the Republic of China.” Is that agreeable to you gentlemen.
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: It is so agreed.
M: On the next page the leading paragraph is entitled, “Jurisdiction”. In view of the various exceptions and all, the whole paragraph may be omitted, because we are going into the details of that very exactingly.
G: Agreed.
C: Yes.
M: The next paragraph is entitled, “Organization”. At the end of the paragraph the word “representatives” should read “commissioners”. Are there any suggestions for amendments.
G: These three words “of the group” at the end of the first paragraph can be omitted. To make it read, “the U. S. representative will be invited to be the chairman.” The second sentence in the second paragraph, “The Chinese representatives shall be accordingly divided between the National Government and the Chinese Communist Party”[;] the idea of this is that the two sides should have an equal number of personnel in the Operations section. Is that the intention?
M: That is the intention.
G: If that is so, we believe it should read, “The National Government and the Chinese Communist Party will have an equal number of personnel in the Operations Section.
M: Will you repeat that again.
G: The National Government and the Chinese Communist Party will have an equal number of personnel in the Operations Section.
M: No other comments.
C: No objection.
M: I will reread this paragraph as now amended: “Organization. The Executive Headquarters will consist of three commissioners with authority to vote, and to negotiate among themselves; one to represent [Page 88] the Chinese National Government; one to represent the Chinese Communist Party and one to represent the United States of America. The United States representative will be invited to be the chairman. The Headquarters will have within itself as its implementing agency a group to be called the Operations Section composed of the number of officers and men required to supervise in the field the various agreements, and to render the required reports. The National Government and the Chinese Communist Party will have an equal number of personnel in the Operations section. There will be included within the executive headquarters the necessary secretarial staff to support the headquarters.” Is that acceptable?
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: It is agreed.
M: Next paragraph is entitled, “Housing and Supply”. Certain portions have been struck out in your copies. Are there any comments? Next to the last line, first word, should be “headquarters”. We might have said about the representatives, too. Are there any comments?
G: We take it that this sentence means if the personnel of the headquarters should go out to these various places they will be protected by small units.
M: It refers to immediate security.
G: In that case this sentence would not apply.
M: We could say headquarters and detachments will be—after the word, “headquarters” put “and detachments”. Local security and headquarters and detachments.
G: Attachments or detachments?
M: Detachments.
G: Forces of each party. Does it mean each of the three parties?
M: No. Forces of each Army. That refers to the National Army and the Chinese Communist Army. It must be understood that this does not apply to U. S. troops.
G: No, that is understood. Governor Chang says that the Government will provide housing accommodations and subsistence and also protection for the executive headquarters. Since the executive headquarters will be located in Peiping, the Government will be responsible for the security of the personnel of the headquarters and it will be confusing if both sides should provide certain units for maintaining the security of the headquarters, but when certain personnel should be sent out to the field, then they would be protected by the units belonging to that side which happens to be in control of those places. General Chou seems to be of the same opinion, but he likes to know whether it was the original intention of the person, or persons, [Page 89] who drafted this paragraph that when both sides bring large numbers of personnel to the headquarters, would they also bring along certain guards in small numbers for the protection of their respective personnel.
M: The intention when the draft of the paragraph was made, first it was drafted without a knowledge of where the headquarters would be placed. To provide for the security of the headquarters and as it was a combined headquarters it was the feeling that there should be an equal representative, maybe not an equal representation, but at least a representation of the side who had no troops, or fighting troops, in that vicinity. Whatever the troops that are brought in should be in accordance with the agreement of the headquarters and not of the choice of the individuals. That would be my conception. I don’t think we can write this solely for Peiping because it may prove later desirable to move the headquarters when we are sure that communications and other conveniences in the paragraph should apply to wherever we go. It is assumed that these detachments are very small forces, customarily around a headquarters. With us they would be military police detachments. I am not talking about regiments, brigades or divisions. I am not talking about large units, more in platoons and I was assuming that this arrangement would be by agreement as in other matters. This paragraph stating the policy.
G: General Chang still is of the opinion that it is much better to entrust the security of the headquarters to the local authorities and the local authorities would only use police and gendarmes for this purpose and it would be confusing if you let both sides to bring in a number of men to protect the respective sides and if anything would happen then the local authorities would say each side has its own protection.
B: I think you have misunderstood the remark, local security. I had in mind mostly immediate guards, say at your radio station. Each party will have [a?] radio station. Perhaps there will be your men to protect the immediate security of the code file. I am speaking here of a very few men around by the headquarters by local security.
C: I agree without making any amendments.
M: I think the trouble is over the employment of the word local. We had in mind, as Colonel Byroade has said, guards such as are around these quarters here, guards around the various radio stations; guards meaning sentinels guarding the record rooms and sentinels guarding the entrance and exits into and from the buildings. We were not referring to deployment of battalions or major units to guard a locality. The Communist Party will have certain number of rooms, certain number of records and a radio station. All we had in mind is they would have their own soldiers to guard those. We did not have [Page 90] in mind that in Peiping, for example, the Communist Party would bring in, the Communist Army would send in troops to deploy in defense of half of the headquarters. The question then as I see it is this. If the headquarters is located entirely within the zone of one Army, will the representatives of the other Army be authorized to have the necessary individual guards for their particular offices and their radio stations, for example.
G: Can it be made more clear.
M: How would you suggest.
G: To distinguish what you mean by local security from general security.
M: How would you suggest.
G: General Chang has in mind the distinction between general and local security. The general security of the place should be intrusted to the local authorities, but the protection of personnel may be taken up by small units.
M: How do you propose to word this.
G: I don’t know.
M: How would this read: “Immediate security for offices, quarters, and installations will be provided by military personnel of each other Army as requested and agreed upon.” Now previously we had a sentence in there, “Over all security will be furnished principally by the National Government and Chinese Communist Party forces. We might precede that by “Over all security will be furnished by the local commanders” if you want to say that, but we can leave it with that sentence I have just read. What do you think of that.
G: Over-all security.
M: Yes. I am talking about this sentence I have just read.
G: Military personnel, what were the words following military personnel?
M: Of each Army. I could say individual military personnel.
B: I think that is all right.
G: We would like to retain the sentence that has been stricken out but in another form: “Over all security will be furnished by the local authorities. Immediate security of offices, quarters and installations will be provided by small units of each Army as required and agreed upon.”
M: Will be provided by small units of each Army as required and agreed upon. Now the first, “Over all security will be furnished by the local authorities.”, that is all?
G: Yes.
C: I agree.
M: Then the paragraph now reads: “Housing and Supply. The [Page 91] National Government will furnish adequate living and office accommodations for the Executive Headquarters. The National Government will also furnish the subsistence for this Headquarters. Over all security will be furnished by the local authorities. Immediate security for offices, quarters, and installations will be provided by small units of each Army as required and agreed upon.” Is that acceptable?
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: The paragraph is so ordered. The next paragraph is headed “Location. The Executive Headquarters will be located initially at Peiping.” I have inserted the word initially. Any comment regarding that?
C: OK.
G: Yes.
M: That is adopted. The next paragraph “Procedure”, you have the changes there[,] have you any comment?
G: Does the second sentence in the second paragraph mean that when a decision has been taken by certain commissioners one side through its head may veto the decision. Does it mean that?
M: The intention of the sentence was this, that first the commissioners could veto it by refusing to agree to it. If he agrees and the other two commissioners agree, then it is an accepted arrangement to go through the formality of being issued in the name of the President of China. The paragraph was intended to indicate that before reaching an agreement, the individual commissioner, or his chief acting through the commissioner—I think it is badly written and I would like to hear your proposal, because once the commissioners have agreed. The problem as I see it is this. If the commissioner has no latitude then all—every detail will have to be referred to his chief. Certainly all matters of policy will have to go to his chief, but if he has no discretion there for himself, he is merely a figurehead. Now how to construct the sentence?
G: You say “proposed action.” If it is a proposed action it is not an action, it is not a decision at all, it is simply under consideration, it hasn’t become a valid decision. If that is the case then you can not apply the word “veto.”
M: Let’s take the word “veto” out then?
G: Yes, personally I think the whole sentence is useless; when you have already said “All actions must be unanimous decisions” then this is just useless.
M: Yes. Do you agree to that General Chou? I think everything is implied in the second sentence, so it is agreed that we strike out the sentence?
[Page 92]C & G: Yes.
C: General Chou inquires whether you stick to your original intentions to establish several subsidiary headquarters, or something like that, or you would only have such teams as are included in “The Operations Section will dispatch supervisory and reporting teams as required.” This means there are dispatched no others than these teams?
M: These teams will operate from these various stations and control points set up.
C: Do you still have subsidiary headquarters?
M: No, we didn’t contemplate that, but the team will be there and it can be enlarged according to the circumstances. If the situation is difficult or enlarged in that place the team will have to be larger, that will mean there will [sic] both in and out. We have the machinery at the present time for five places. If we get additional communications we can have more places, but the size of the team will depend upon what is to be done at that particular place. The radio will be the means for the team to keep in touch with the main headquarters. The suggestion that Colonel Byroade makes is that the paragraph you mention is, “The Operation Section will establish sub-headquarters and will dispatch” and so on.
C: Yes.
M: And, as I say, we have five communications sections at the present time.
C: Yes.
M: I am going to change that paragraph again, in the second line, “teams as required to implement the policies and agreements.”
C: Second paragraph?
M: Yes, second line, “teams as required to implement the policies and agreements.[”]
G: Are there any proposed alterations?
M: Yes, in the paragraph in the middle of page four, “The Operations Section will” it reads “dispatch”. General Chou and myself have agreed at [on?] these modifications: “The Operations Section will establish sub-headquarters and will”, and it reads on, “dispatch supervisory and reporting teams as required,” you strike out next two words “to implement the policies and agreements.” “The Operations Section will dispatch sub-headquarters—[”]
G: “Dispatch sub-headquarters”?
M: “The Operations Section will dispatch sub-headquarters—” that doesn’t make it good English then.
G: Leave out “Dispatch sub-headquarters”.
M: No. “and will dispatch supervisory and reporting team as required to implement the policies and agreements.”
[Page 93]G: But take out “proper implementation”?
M: Yes. “to implement the policies and agreements.”
G: Sub-headquarters for the Operations Section, not for the Executive Headquarters itself?
M: Yes, it is for the Executive Headquarters. The Operations Section is a subordinate part. The Operations Section is going to do it, but it is working for the Executive Headquarters. This is not a new set of Commissioners.
C & G: No.
G: The word “Headquarters” is very confusing—sub-headquarters, sub-station—
M: “Sub-stations”, is that more acceptable?
G: Yes, “sub-stations”, that is the word.
C: Sub-stations.
M: “stations” or “sections”? “Stations” I guess is all right, “will establish sub-stations and will dispatch supervisory.”
G: I think instead of “will” you should use “may establish.”
M: All right. “May establish sub-stations and will dispatch supervisory and reporting teams as required to implement the policies and agreements.”
G: Is it right that anything that is adopted and decided upon by the Executive Headquarters should be in the name of the President of the Republic?
M: The Executive Headquarters will issue the necessary formal instructions and amendments in the name of the President of the Republic of China.
G: So whatever reports are submitted by the Headquarters would also be in the name of the President of the Republic of China?
M: Yes, but the reports here are up to the Operations Section.
G: We are referring to the first paragraph of page four “Daily reports will be rendered to the President of the Republic of China and to the Chairman of the Central Committee, Chinese Communist Party.”
M: That report would be done in the name of the Executive Headquarters.
G: But if everything is in the name of the President of the Republic that would be—
M: No, this is just a situation report.
G: Would it not be better to leave the Commissioners to report themselves?
M: The Commissioners generally discuss these matters.
G: Yes, but the Commissioners will report the discussions back to their Chiefs?
M: Yes, but there is a lot of detailed reporting that is like troop [Page 94] movements, number of men, number of Japanese disarmed, miles of railroad reconstruction, etc. to be reported on. We can do this in the name of the Commissioners if you desire, but there is a wealth of detail that has got to be prepared by somebody. You are going to be involved in progressive reports on the development of certain things, on the reconstruction of the railroads, reports on accidents, reports on such troop movements as may be required, the reports on where the various units are. All those things are ordinary, functional details which would almost stop the Commissioners from doing the business of policy-making. Now the Commissioners can control it, or stop it if you want to, but in the end you are making office boys of the Commissioners.
B: The Operations Section works for the three Commissioners.
M: It isn’t an independent agency. We are trying to define what the duties are, but if you want to qualify it, we can do this. Listen to this: “Daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section and rendered by the Commissioners.” How would this do? “Daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section to be rendered by the Commissioners to the President of the Republic of China and to the Chairman of the Central Committee, Chinese Communist Party.” I’ll read that again: “Daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section to be rendered by the Commissioners to the President of the Republic of China and to the Chairman of the Central Committee, Chinese Communist Party.”
C: All right.
M: Is that all right with you?
G: Could you say “to be rendered by the Commissioners to their respective Chiefs?”
B: That we assume will be done anyway. This was a report of the whole Headquarters. I would like very much to cross it out all together.
G: Cross the whole thing out, the whole paragraph out?
B: I would rather cross it out rather than change it as suggested. We assume here that they will have their independent signal communications and that each Commissioner will report daily or as many times as they want to to their Chiefs.
G: That is what we think, that it is quite unnecessary to have a special report.
M: Let’s have it like this: “The daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section to be rendered to the Commissioners.[”]
B: Don’t you think there ought to be one official report which goes to everybody? It seems to me that is a necessity.
G: If the reports are prepared by the Operations Section and rendered to the Commissioners, there will only be one report?
[Page 95]B: That isn’t what he means, he means that we are blocking other reports. That isn’t the intention to block other reports.
M: Here is probably your trouble and our trouble. In the American Army on the staff there has to be a daily report, that is a technical report. The Commander doesn’t read everything that comes in, there is too much of it, so it is digested for him, but from this report he will get the essential facts, but wouldn’t have special things on policy, special points of view from the Commissioners to their Chief. We are talking about the ordinary operating procedure of a well organized headquarters. Maybe we are all wrong on this. I told them to put something of this sort in, because I thought the record requires a daily report of the one hundred details that will be coming up from all over the regions. I am not talking about policy, I am not talking about the critical decisions, I am talking about this mass of things which is put together into a report so there will not be great gaps in the understanding of the higher officials. For the protection of the officials, for the protection of the interests of the United States Government, I would feel that it was quite essential to know that Mao Tse-tung had received a detailed operations report. What else he received I am not concerned with, but I am concerned what the reports of this or of that or of the dozens of things that will come in, too much for the Headquarters, enough to flood the Headquarters, that all of that will go out in a business-like form, because the United States Government has a responsibility, through the presence of its own individual there, and there can be little misunderstanding if all the details are covered in a report of this kind. What you propose to call it is something else.
C: General Chou entirely agrees with your amendment made to this paragraph. “Daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section to be rendered by the Commissioners to their respective Chiefs.”
M: You wish the word “respective” chiefs?
C & G: Yes.
M: It would now read this way: “Daily reports will be prepared by the Operations Section to be rendered by the Commissioners to their respective Chiefs.” Is that acceptable?
C & G: Yes.
M: Is there any other paragraph?
G: The Director of the Operations Section will be an United States Army officer should be changed to “The Operations Section will have a U. S. Army officer as its director”.
M: “The Operations Section will have an United States Army Officer as its director.” But we will not concede the point on “an”. Is that acceptable?
[Page 96]C: Yes.
G: Yes.
M: Is there any other paragraph?
G: The last paragraph refers to radio installations. Is that right?
M: Yes.
G: We would like to suggest the addition of a phrase to the last paragraph. Where may the stations be established, at the place of the headquarters? Where may such signal communication be installed.
B: They would be if we each had individual signal communications out of the Executive Headquarters—three radio stations at the Executive Headquarters. It was my opinion that the sub-sections would be merely contact points for parties of three going out in the field to report in to the Executive Headquarters and as such there would probably be only one radio station at each sub-station, with each member of the party being able to send anything he wants to send to the Executive Headquarters.
M: But at the Executive Headquarters there would be these three individual stations for communications with the Generalissimo, with Mao and with the American Embassy.
G: Then at each sub-station.
M: We don’t have enough sets for that, we were referring to the main headquarters. It’s just a question of how much equipment is available. If you have the equipment. It is within the agreement to do as much as you want in setting it up.
G: Then would it be better to make it clearer by saying, “Each may maintain independent signal communications at the place where the Executive Headquarters is located.”
M: “The National Government of the Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party will each maintain signal communications at the location of the Executive Headquarters.”
C: General Chou doesn’t think it is practical because the headquarters Commissioners have each separate communication system with his own troops in the field. Therefore communications cannot be restricted to the location of headquarters alone.
B: It appears to me that once you get stations, the people could contact anyone you wanted.
M: We are not asking you to tear down your stations. We are making sure each one had communications. Is that agreeable?
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: Then this is the paragraph on procedure. “Procedure. The Executive Headquarters will operate as the executives of the National Government, the Chinese Communist Party and the United States [Page 97] respectively. The three commissioners shall each have one vote. All action must be by unanimous agreement. The Executive Headquarters will issue the necessary formal orders, directives, and instructions in the name of the President of the Republic of China. Daily reports will be prepared by the Operation Section to be rendered by the commissioners to their respective chiefs. The Executive Headquarters will operate through its Operations Section. The Operations Section will have a United States Army Officer as its director. The Operations Section will supervise the publication and dissemination of all orders, directives, and instructions to all forces concerned. The Operations Section may establish sub-stations and will dispatch supervisory and reporting teams as required to implement the policies and agreements. The National Government, the Chinese Communist Party and the United States may each maintain independent signal communications at the location of the Executive Headquarters.” That completes the paragraph. Is it acceptable.
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: It is so ordered. We come down to the last paragraph. Any comments on it. I have several changes to propose to that. May I read it?
“The Executive Headquarters shall remain in existence and operate until this agreement is rescinded by the President of the Republic of China or the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party after due notification to the other party.” Scratch out there after Chinese Communist Party, scratch out remainder. I will read it again. “The Executive Headquarters shall remain in existence and operate until this agreement is rescinded by the President of the Republic of China or the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party after due notification to the other party.” Is that agreeable?
G: Yes.
C: Yes.
M: Then, gentlemen, we have reached agreement as to the form of this document and I will have a clear copy prepared tonight and sent to you. I will also have a clear copy of the policies or exceptions which have been agreed upon sent to you. We have agreed upon a form for the order for the cessation of hostilities. May I suggest that an effort be made to secure approval of those documents as soon as possible so it will only remain to fill in the disputed points. It seems to me that will save us time later on. That is only a suggestion. As the hour is late I suggest that we adjourn, but I would like to have your desires as to the next meeting.
[Page 98]C: General Chou suggests tomorrow afternoon.
G: General Chang says 4:30.
M: Then it is agreed that we adjourn now to meet again tomorrow here at 4:30.
Agreed release to press: Major portions of the problem have been settled but there remain some details to be agreed upon.
- General Hsiung Shih-hui’s radiogram of October 31, p. 98.↩
- Col. Peter Pee, aide to Generalissimo Chiang.↩
- Capt. Horace Eng, member of General Marshall’s staff.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Reference is to the draft plan prepared by the staff of General Marshall entitled “The Executive Headquarters,” p. 6.↩