Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Far East: China, Volume VIII

893.00/6–2249

Memorandum by General Chen Ming-shu, Chairman of the Shanghai Board of the Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee (KmtRC)⁷⁸

Supplementary Memo to Conversation With Mr. L. Stuart

As I have a long standing friendship with the Chinese Communist authorities and I also have with you a recent friendship of a special nature, I had personal conversations with you several times at your invitation and was commissioned by you to discuss them with the Chinese Communist authorities. I now wish to inform you of the important points in the replies which I received as a result of my conversations with the Chinese Communist authorities.

Before reporting what they said I first want to tell you, with complete objectivity and lack of prejudice, what I personally gained from my observations. We must both put aside our national concepts—only thus will it be easy to gain a true insight. The results of my observations may be divided into five points:

1. Chinese revolutionary history is divided into periods.

[Here follows historical discourse. It concludes that success of present revolution is merely military success in war and political construction will be much more difficult.]

2. The peopled century is beginning to appear in China.

What does it mean to say that the people’s century is beginning to appear in China? It may be proved by the following points:

(a) In my contacts with all classes in China it may be said without exception, no bureaucratic attitudes are to be observed, still less bureaucratic habits. From administrative organs through the various social groups, all give evidence of having thoroughly destroyed bureaucracy. While in Peiping at this time I observed that from Chairman Mao on down they all had eradicated official calls and similar empty forms. If you had an important matter and asked to see someone then a time would be fixed for an interview or they might not wait for a request for an interview but go themselves to see you. There was absolutely no “polite conversation”. Talk was confined to discussion or solution of actual problems. There was not one among them who did not display the aspect of the most ordinary man, particularly Mr. Mao. Immediately upon seeing his friendly attitude one unconsciously felt “this is truly a leader of the people”. It might be said that if you draw apart from the people you cannot see Mao Tse-tung. Mao is the people. Also, if you draw apart from the people you cannot see the Communist Party. The Communist Party is the people. Their spirit of study, the rigid execution of their system of criticism and self-criticism, particularly as it hastens political reform and as a motive power for construction, I will not take time to elucidate in detail.

(b) What is the secret of success of the People’s Liberation Army’s high discipline and high education? It is in causing each officer and soldier to understand not only the object of the revolution but to understand that his duty is to act for the people and that acting for the people is acting for himself. The people are the owners of the land, that is to say, he himself is owner of the land although the portion belonging to him may be extremely small. However, without struggling to establish the correct position of the whole body of land, his small portion might be lost. Therefore, the sole policy and objective of the PLA is to fight for the attainment of the rights of all the people. In contrast, the men in Chiang Kai-shek’s army do not know why they are fighting. They fight blindly and without purpose. It is this which determines victory or defeat, prosperity or adversity.

(c) The People’s Liberation Army, both behind the lines and at the front, creates all kinds of lines of support through the organized strength and the great contributions of the “People’s auxiliaries”. This is a veritable miracle. The 600,000 people’s auxiliaries organized by the present Vice-Governor of Shantung, General Kuo Tzu-hua, may be cited as evidence. This enormous unit of people’s auxiliaries with innumerable camels, horses and carts was initiated, brought together, apportioned, sent forward, controlled and managed by the people themselves without any need for supervision by soldiers and without any case of desertion. According to what General Kuo told me when I passed through Tsinan on my way north, at the present time there are 50,000 people’s auxiliaries who have crossed the Yangtze with the Army and have not yet returned from south of the river. This amazing kind of organization and enormous strength seems almost unbelievable. If it is not a miracle what is it? Another instance was that of the Tientsin–Pukow railway where, except for the bridge across the Yellow River, almost all of the steel bridges along the route had been destroyed by Chiang’s army, but the army and the people’s auxiliaries worked day and night to restore them so that section by section through traffic was resumed. Finally, because the great steel bridge across the Huai River had been blown up, another crossing spot was found and by the use of wood alone in place of steel, within a very short time they were successful in restoring through traffic. This also was almost unbelievable. These two things are proof of the immense strength of the people and its inexhaustibility.

(d) On my trip south from Peiping between Hsuchow, Pengpu and Nanking I saw the whole body of civil and military public employees, troops and aroused people struggling day and night against the floods. Everywhere newspapers were full of the struggle for flood prevention. This again is sufficient proof of the cooperation of Army and people, and the unity of the officials and the people. Officials and army do not exist outside the ranks of the people. The four facts which I have cited are confirmation that my assertion that the people’s century is beginning to appear in China is not merely empty words.

3. The importance of this great manifestation of the Chinese People’s Revolution in influencing the world situation.

This point need not be dwelt upon at length. I shall mention briefly two recent illustrations. First, are the successive meetings in Europe in the last six months of the World Peace Congress, the World Federation of Trade Unions, and other labor and professional bodies, all of which unanimously announced their recognition of the influence on the world situation of the victory of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, expressing their highest hopes for the Chinese Revolution and submitting valuable criticisms. Second, is the revolutionary success of Mr. Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine of progression from agrarianism to urbanism, which was not contained in earlier Marxist-Leninist thought. As it gradually enters upon its period of success, we first see the extraordinary contribution of his theory to Marxism-Leninism. Thus, it may be called a Sinicized Marxism–Leninism. Mr. Stalin also has told his comrades that the Soviet Union was not aiding the Chinese Communist Party, but we should study the excellent discoveries made by the CCP. It may be seen that the success of the present revolution exercises an influence, not only on international bodies, as shown above, but on Russia as well. This is of great importance.

We must thoroughly explain the essence and content of the foregoing three points in order to avoid any misconception of the Chinese Communist political line and to make clear that that line has always been definite, unalterable and correct. The phrase, “leaning to one-side” indicates this, but on no account can “leaning to one side” be mis-interpreted as implying dependence on others. To understand the phrase in that way would be an insult. It must be understood that our political line is entirely our own. It must be further understood as regards our national independence there can never be any question of dependence on others.

Furthermore, national position and political line must not be confused. These two questions basically are one, but they also stand opposite to each other. For example, during the Second World War, the political line of Russia was not the same as that of England and America; yet, from the point of view of national position, Russia could fight shoulder to shoulder with England and America. Another example is the sympathy manifested by your Mr. “Wallace⁷⁹ for the peopled front, naturally, in opposition to the position of President Truman. Notwithstanding, Mr. Wallace cannot be said to differ with President Truman on the question of American national standing, since in this matter he is necessarily profoundly patriotic. China’s present revolution, aside from uprooting feudal and compradore influences and casting off all foreign bonds, must uphold the dignity of the nation’s independence and sovereignty. We must obtain a long period of peaceful construction and achieve a strong position.

It is essential that we understand thoroughly the unity and the opposition of the foregoing two propositions in order to understand the kind of mission with regard to China’s future being undertaken by Mr. Mao Tse-tung and the party led by him. I offer these explanations to assist you in judging soundly because your remarks with respect to Mr. Mao’s statements to the opening session of the Preparatory Committee of the new PCC and on the anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1, indicated disagreement and doubt. What I have said above is in accordance with Mr. Mao’s comment, “In politics, severity is necessary. In economics, give-and-take is permissible.” In our conversation yesterday, because of considerations of time, I was unable to complete my remarks, and I agreed to write a supplementary memorandum for your reference. The four points which Mr. Chou En-lai asked me to convey to you, I have already stated in detail in our conversation and have also recorded them on a separate sheet.

Ch’en Ming-shu

,

July 10 [1949]

.

[Annex 1]

Memoranda by Mr. Lo Hai-sha for General Chen Ming-shu

undated

1. Chou (En-lai) and Yeh (Chien-ying)⁸⁰ repeated last year’s telegraphic request for continued liaison.

2. Mao (Tse-tung) was still able to name the date of the Stuart-Ch’en talks last year.

3. The emphasis they placed on studying the documents and (the way) they mentioned comparative figures.

4. Praise for Mr. Stuart’s spirit during the Japanese period and his accomplishments during several decades of educational work in China.

5. The friendship of President Roosevelt, General Stilwell,⁸¹ and Mr. Wallace for China.

6. They sent Mr. Stuart their most important hopes for the future.

The importance attached by the CCP to future Sino-American relations as evidenced by the above 6 points.

Moreover, it can be said with respect to the very great hopes sent Mr. Stuart that these are the very great hopes for future Sino-American relations. What they mean by “hopes” is of course not that the U.S. walk the road of the Soviet Union or enter the embrace of the Soviet Union, but they hope that hereafter the U.S. will not again aid the reactionary government of Chiang Kai-shek in China; and they hope that she will be able to act and formulate policies in the manner of President Roosevelt, General Stilwell and Mr. Wallace. If the U.S. can treat the future China like this, China will naturally treat the U.S. with similar friendship. This of course will depend upon Mr. Stuart’s efforts after he returns to his country. (Signed) Lo Hai-sha

1. Looking at their general propaganda Mr. Mao spoke personally to Mr. Ch’en asking that Mr. Stuart read his statement of June 20,⁸² from which he would know his (Mao’s) attitude. Of course what he referred to was the last section, in which he hoped that China would open diplomatic and commercial relations with all countries on the basis of independence and sovereignty.

2. The July 1 article was of course a sort of statement for his own party⁸³ and cannot be viewed in a purely political light. Furthermore, in the sixth paragraph from the end he clearly admits that the realization of socialism will still require a long time and that it can be said that China is a special case.

3. The July 7 message to the Preparatory Committee for the New Political Consultative Council commemorates Japanese aggression against China. Since Japan today is under American leadership, America is mentioned at many points. Their way of talking about America should be divided into two types. The first type, constituting 7 or 8 tenths, uses only the word “America”. The second type, only about 2 or 3 tenths, uses “American imperialism.” From this we can see that they discriminate in their method of speaking. References to “America” means the great part of the American administration which is friendly to China. Reference to “American imperialism” means the bad part of the American Government. This is like the case of the Kmt, where they cooperate with the KmtRC but stand in opposition to the Kmt reactionary clique. This is a very clear fact.

Judging from the above three points, as soon as formal diplomatic relations are established between the U.S. and China, a different attitude will be manifest in their propaganda. (Signed) Lo Hai-sha.

Regarding the individual treatment of foreigners according to what their authorities told Mr. Ch’en, they dispose of Soviet citizens infringing the law in the Northeast uniformly in accordance with Chinese methods. Hence, they will treat the individual nationals of other countries in the same way. This point is also a general phenomenon in sovereign and independent states and cannot, of course, be considered as a specially hostile attitude.

Concerning the disposition on this occasion of the American cotton in Shanghai, the CCP has not issued one word. In my opinion, this is because it is not proper for them to speak in the absence of formal diplomatic relations. At the same time, pressed by personal consideration for Mr. Stuart, I think that even without going through formal diplomatic procedures, if America publicizes this affair, they will of course not deny it. (Signed) Lo Hai-sha

[Annex 2]

Two Talks With Mr. Chou En-lai

undated

I. The Revolution has been forced upon us.

The breaking of the peace originated with the U.S. Because the U.S. wanted dictatorial rule, she supported reactionaries.

Nobody can interfere with the self-determination of the people’s democracies.

Interference has taken place in countries such as Greece, Italy, and China.

Today has come about because there has been supporting of reaction and disruption of unity.

Mr. Mao Tse-tung’s four steps for dealing with the enemy:

1. Control others by letting them have the initiative;

2. To retire and not seek a struggle (in the face of superior force);

3. To requite good with good (and bad with bad);

4. In dealing with others, use their own methods.

That the supporters of peace should be opposed to aggression, interference, and monopoly is because of their freely made decision.

Our peace front has been built by all peoples. This is the first idea.

II. 1. In the time of Yuan Shih-k’ai the Soviet Union was the first to establish friendly relations with the Kuomintang of Sun Yat-sen.⁸⁴

2. The Soviet Union was the first to recognize the Chinese Revolution.

3. Also in the anti-Japanese War, the Soviet Union was the first to give aid to China.

4. The U.S. in the beginning gave Japan material aid—such as scrap iron, etc.

5. The U.S. aided Chiang Kai-shek

6. The Soviet Union respected Sino-Soviet treaties.

7. We will always remember the friendship accorded us in the period after the war by President Roosevelt, General Stilwell, and Mr. Wallace.

8. The plan of Marshall⁸⁵ and Wedemeyer⁸⁶ to aid Chiang. Great virtue never commits transgressions; small virtue may transgress.

America’s many good points pertain to small matters, Soviet Russia’s to large.

III. With respect to the question of Mr. Stuart himself, we must estimate virtue and measure power. Of course, he is a representative of imperialism—people in government carry out the policies of their government. But the personal qualities he displayed during the time he was confined in Japan (sic)⁸⁷ very much deserve respect. In the present case too, we must listen to his words and observe his actions.

IV. When he says that China depends upon the American economy and that America does not depend upon China, he is completely wrong.

His statistics are reliable, but his conclusion is the reverse of the truth.

He says the U.S. has no need at all for t’ung oil, raw silk, pig’s bristles, etc.

1937 69,000,000 (dollars) [U.S. imports from China]⁸⁸

Imports he says cannot be done without: Petroleum, steel, machinery, cotton, timber, automobiles, paper, photographic supplies, etc. U.S. $55,000,000 [Chinese imports from U.S.]88a

1947	Imports:	U.S. $233,000,000
	Exports:	U.S. $46,000,000

The result is quite the opposite (of what he says).

The U.S. wants to relieve its crisis and is exporting in great quantity. Its stomach is sick with glut, ours with hunger. It is not at all equivalent to there being no market for our exports—goods not purchased would not exceed $46,000,000. (US $69,000,000 is less than the value of a million tons of soy beans.) In expanding its production, China does not fear lack of markets. For example, England and Russia want t’ung oil. England is the most important buyer of pig’s bristles. Other countries all want our vegetable oil, eggs, handicrafts, tungsten ore, etc.

Imports

Such things as tobacco we can plant for ourselves and don’t need to seek outside. As for iron and steel, there are the factories at An-shan, Ta-ming, Shih-ching-shan, etc. We also don’t depend (on the outside) for paper, cotton, or timber. That leaves petroleum, machinery, automobiles, and photographic materials which must be imported. But in 1937 these four classes (of goods) which were imported from the U.S. amounted to only U.S. [$]11,000,000.

Food

North of the Yangtze (this problem) was solved in two years, so that this area is now more than self-sufficient, with land reform production increasing daily. South of the Yangtze we have not yet investigated the problem.

Heavy Industry

When the tide is in flood the boat is high. Agricultural production has increased. Cotton production has improved and increased. Within five years it will be possible to start on the road of construction of heavy industry.

Petroleum Products

After new lands have been opened up, we will export on a big scale. These exports will be exchanged for machine goods. (In 1937 imports of American machine goods amounted to U.S. $3,000,000 and were 6% of U.S. exports.)

(Production of) food in the Northeast is 11,000,000 tons (sic). This year’s plan calls for production [increase?] of 1,500,000 tons. In future years we will be able to return to the figure of the time of the Japanese (occupation).

(American) exports last year included $13,000,000,000 of Marshall Plan (aid). The $353,000,000, including relief goods, which entered China amounted to 2.6%.

We must still base ourselves on the principle of equal advantage.

We must reject unplanned economic surplus material.

No special rights, no monopolies, equal advantage, when the tide is in flood the boat is high.

In conclusion, I do not depend upon you, you depend upon me.

If you should seek to come in a private capacity, it is possible that you would be able to meet a person in responsible position.

78. Handed to the Ambassador in China and carried by him on his return to the United States; received in the Department about August 15. The Chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs (Sprouse) in a memorandum on August 25 described this as “of considerable interest as indicative of the thinking of the Chinese Communists and also at least of one non-Communist Chinese”. (893.00/8–2549)
79. Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States, 1941–1945; Progressive Party nominee for President in 1948.
80. Communist Mayor of Peiping.
81. Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell, Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces in the China–Burma–India Theater, 1942–44, and Chief of Staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
82. See telegram No. 1045, June 20, from the Consul General at Peiping, p. 392.
83. See telegram No. 1443, July 6,, 1 p.m., from the Ambassador in China, p. 405.
84. President Yuan Shih-kai (1912–1916) died, in June 1916; in 1923: Moscow’s representative in China A. A. Joffe issued a joint statement at Shanghai with Sun Yat-sen, leader of the Kuomintang. This preceded the sending of Soviet Ambassador L. M. Karakhan to Peiping.
85. General of the Army George C. Marshall, President Truman’s Special Representative with rank of Ambassador in China, December 1945–January 1947.
86. Lt. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, President Truman’s Special Representative in China, July–September 1947.
87. Mr. Stuart, at the time President of Yenching University, was held in Japanese military custody at Peiping from 1941 to 1945.
88. Brackets appear in the source text.