893.00B/4–2049
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cabot) to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)26
Sir: I have read with great interest the Embassy’s despatch No. 70, March 30, enclosing an interesting memorandum prepared by Mr. Bennett on the subject of Chinese Communist anti-American propaganda. While Mr. Bennett’s analysis of this propaganda may well, and probably does, give the correct explanation, I feel that another explanation is possible and that it should not be fully discarded.
Totalitarian propaganda always requires a whipping boy. With Nazism it was the Jews; with Communism it is monopoly capitalism and its allegedly resultant imperialism. The downfall of Japan deprived the Chinese Communists of their favored whipping boy. The void was the more embarrassing because Chinese nationalism had a peculiarly strong antipathy for foreign imperialism and the most obvious imperialism against which it might turn was that of Soviet Russia. Alleged American imperialism was obviously the most satisfactory substitute and was therefore picked for attack. It may be said that Kuomintang propaganda showed its utter ineptitude by not only failing to counterattack on the issue of Soviet imperialism but also playing into the hands of Communist propaganda: (a) by soft pedaling attacks on Soviet Russia; and (b) by itself making forays into the field of anti-American and anti-British propaganda. It may be argued that the United States also played into the hands of Communist propaganda by various of its actions here after the renewal of the civil war, for example, by the maintenance of Marines and of the Advisory Groups in China.
It is obvious that Chinese Communist propaganda derives much of its inspiration and tactics from world Communism. It is nevertheless probable, in my opinion, that in considerable measure the propaganda is a reflection of what Chinese Communists sincerely feel. It would not be surprising, for example, if most Chinese Communists were very resentful of the aid which the United States has given to the Nationalist Government and if many of them honestly believed that this aid was given for imperialistic motives. The charge that the Nationalist Government is subservient to the United States is equally convenient from the Chinese Communist and the Soviet viewpoint.
It is impossible, however, to explain—especially with reference to their timing—the recent Chinese Communist declarations of solidarity with Soviet Russia in the event of an aggressive war against the latter, [Page 257] and Chinese Communist denunciation of the Atlantic Pact as dictated by what the Chinese Communists would logically feel to be in their own immediate interests. Clearly they reflect a Soviet Russian rather than a Chinese Communist inspiration. The most plausible explanation is that they were made because the Kremlin demanded it—either by explicit directive or by indications so unmistakable as to be tantamount thereto. It is a very cogent argument that the Chinese Communists would not gratuitously take such a strong stand in a matter not vitally affecting their interests unless they were acting in accordance with orders from the Kremlin, which presumably does feel that its vital interests are at stake.
I think nevertheless that there may be another explanation. All over the world, and particularly in the United States, there has been a great deal of public speculation as to whether the Chinese Communist movement is headed for “Titoism”, more especially since Mao Tze-tung has on past occasions not followed faithfully the Communist party line as dictated by the Kremlin. He must feel that the Kremlin does not altogether trust him, and the same is believed to apply to many of the other Chinese Communist leaders. Obviously at this particular moment, the Chinese Communists must be embarrassed by all this speculation, and must be seriously concerned at its corrosive effects on the abnormally suspicious minds of the Soviet Politburo. Lip service is the cheapest kind of service to give Soviet Russia to reassure the latter of the loyalty of the Chinese Communists. It seems to me quite possible therefore that the notable vehemence in recent weeks of the Communist anti-American propaganda may well stem from a desire to reassure and placate Soviet Russia rather than from any increased spleen at the United States, and that it should not necessarily be taken as proving that the Chinese Communists are, and will remain, completely subservient to the Kremlin’s orders, as has been so widely assumed. If it is assumed that some, but not all, Chinese Communist leaders take orders from Moscow, the same line of thought suggests that those not subservient to Moscow might for reasons of prudence and harmony go along with those that are in giving lip service to the party line dictated by the Soviets. In other words, the rule that nothing a Communist says is to be believed cuts both ways; the recent spate of Communist anti-American propaganda strongly suggests that the Chinese Communists are in fact subservient to Moscow, but we should not uncritically overlook the other possibility that some Chinese Communist leaders have mouthed this propaganda with tongue in cheek to conceal their intention to be eventually masters in their own house.
Respectfully yours,
- Copy transmitted to the Department without covering despatch; received May 3.↩