893.00/8–2047
The Consul General at Hankow (Krentz) to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)5
Subject: Political Notes Given to Wedemeyer Mission—Hankow
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a brief memorandum6 which I submitted to Admiral Trexel and Mr. Walker during the course of briefing them for interviews with Hankow persons.
The memorandum was purposely made brief and exclusive of many subjects as I wished to emphasize what I considered a basic fact in regard to Central China.
In the course of my conversations with Admiral Trexel and Mr. Walker I elaborated certain points, especially when briefing them on the mental outlook, reliability, etcetera, of persons they were about to [Page 736] interview. Those elaborations were roughly along the following lines:
It is easy to say, and perhaps too often said, that China is in chaos. Certainly the currency is chaotic but to my mind the country, as seen in my district, is perhaps less chaotic than it has been at most times in the present century. One has only to look at the peasants, the small merchants, the coolies to see that they are well dressed and well fed by Chinese standards. The great agrarian background goes on much as it has through the centuries and the urban centers benefit as they always have from this stable hinterland. Even the ports such as Hankow, which were dependent for their great prosperity on foreign trade, are badly off only relatively. No longer can the Jardines, Butterfields7 and their Chinese counterparts amass great fortunes and build great mansions—but the life of “Old Hundred Names” goes on much as it always has.
In other words when one speaks of help for China it would be useful to know what one expects the help to do. Central China generally is prosperous to the extent that it has ever been prosperous. The restoration of railways and other communications would make it more prosperous and provide some insurance against crop failures, disasters etcetera. Other relatively minor works would also contribute to stability and make Central China self-supporting and self-reliant in the sense that it has been in the past.
If, however, one is contemplating the emergence in the immediate future of a strong, modern, united and democratic China, then one is contemplating help on a scale far beyond what a pedestrian mind can envisage—with the materials at hand.
I hope that I am looking at China with a practised, rather than jaundiced eye. In the twenty some years that I have been in China and neighboring areas, I see little basic change in certain factors which must be the starting point for a “New” China. Nepotism—that unbearable burden on all enterprise seems to me to be every bit as prevalent and as ingrained as it was in 1926. Chinese, versed in our ways of thought will deplore this vice to us. I know of few who follow the example of their words. The others do not even see why we consider nepotism a vice.
Red government, on which I have reported at length, is not as bad as it used to be, either under the Kuomintang or its predecessor “governments”. Order is much better maintained, public utilities etcetera function most of the time, instead of only occasionally. In a sense, the inefficiency of the government contributes to the general welfare as a Chinese sees the general welfare. For example, taxation while still a great burden is less onerous than under the ancien régime for the very reason that the bureaucracy is a much [Page 737] less efficient collector than an individual warlord to whom taxes meant his personal fortune. I do not say or think that drastic improvement in Government is not necessary sooner or later—but I think that the present government need not hamstring prosperity on a reasonable Chinese scale and I do not think that even the amazing collection of incompetents who govern the Wuhan cities would much handicap the area were it freed from inflation and the civil war. I do not see where any sufficient number of competent officials are to come from in the next few decades at least.
Certainly some things like agrarian reform are urgently necessary. As the Communists have in some cases proven this is something which can be done within the Chinese system and without a modern state and good government as we see it.
As a Lieutenant General is paid less than my cook I do not see how graft can be eliminated until the state is in a position to remedy this obvious absurdity. But as this is no new problem and perquisites as a means of livelihood are accepted to the same extent as nepotism is, it seems to me that this reform is one which cannot be hoped for in the next decades.
Certainly most of the antecedents of the Kuomintang philosophy can be traced to Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo. It is certainly totalitarian in the most objectionable sense. But it does provide the best government China has had since the beginning of the end of the Ch’ing dynasty. I know of no alternative which can be developed from the ineffective groups who could contribute to government. The student class is as immature as the man in the street is indifferent. Certainly there is a nucleus of intelligent patriotic men—without experience. There is hope for the future. Just now there seems no reason to hope that the few competents can do other than infiltrate into the present government and use their influence for reform from within. I do not see that there is much we can do except press from without and insist on at least some degree of reform before undertaking any assistance at all.
Although the Kuomintang and/or the supposedly non-party new government is “totalitarian”, it seems to me that one may go far afield in applying ideological concepts to China. This totalitarian government (with due respects to the late Tai Li) is an inefficient totalitarianism as only Chinese inefficiency can be inefficient. This is a contradiction in terms if we are thinking of Mussolini, Tojo and Hitler. China has been governed by “totalitarian” regimes during the coming of age of Europe and America. Within these “totalitarian” regimes there has always existed a peculiarly Chinese social democracy which had, and has, contempt for government. The Chinese people may be goats, but, unlike the Japanese and the Germans, they are not sheep. Autocracy of many varieties has been frustrated by an infinite passive [Page 738] resistance. An inefficient autocracy at the present moment may, if one is not thinking of non-Chinese forms, be as relatively harmless as the autocracy of “Old Buddha”, or Yuan Shih-kai. It is a discouraging thought, but the ringing words of the opening of the Declaration of Independence will ring few bells in typically Chinese minds.
The only assistances I could recommend for this district in conscience would be such as could qualify under Eximbank or commercial conditions; or rehabilitation of the railways, waterways etcetera, under complete American technical control.
Undoubtedly places like the Wuhan cities will continue the trend of industrialization. I have not discussed industrialization or foreign trade. The latter must undoubtedly precede the former. I have no new ideas to offer on these much explored subjects—my only point is that Central China can get along by itself without these boons—granted only currency and a reasonable amount of peace.
Unless there are high questions of policy beyond the categories in which I work—it seems to me that The Problem of China can well simmer along for a while with only our assistance as possible to reduce the military load and stabilize the currency. Anything else seems to me to be only assistance to groups and interests.
Economic and other data furnished the Wedemeyer Mission will be sent to the Department and the Embassy separately, as it is not classified material.
Respectfully yours,
[For substance of remarks made by General Wedemeyer on August 22 before a joint meeting of the State Council and all Ministers of the National Government at Nanking, see United States Relations With China, page 758. This text was communicated to the Department by the Ambassador in China in telegram No. 1799, August 25, 6 p.m. (121.893/8–2547).]