Reactions in Communist China: An Analysis of Letters to Newspaper Editors.

Abstract

by the Communists." He produces an example. General Wedemeyer in a speech in 1946 revealed his belief that the Chinese empire in the nineteenth century "consisted essentially of feudal dynasties, whose leaders, or warlords, paid tribute to the Emperor," and went on to praise the achievements of that great leader Chiang Kai-shek, who, he suggested, was devoted to the principle of free enterprise. I t is clear that General Wedemeyer would never pass an examination in Chinese history, and Lord Lindsay quite justly points out the error of supposing that the Kuomintang favoured free enterprise in the American sense. But, seriously, is this of the slightest importance? Does Lord Lindsay really think that mistakes of this kind, resulting from a lack of acquaintance with Chinese affairs, are to be mentioned in the same breath with the Communist fabrications? Why does he not simply prove his point by giving us an American falsification of Chinese history "quite as bad" as the Communist stories of germ warfare? Indeed, Lord Lindsay seems far too apt to make mountains out of molehills. For instance, it is common knowledge that the authorities in Chungking retained contact with some of the civil and military officials of the Wang Chingwei regime. We learn from Lord Lindsay that General Ho Ying-ch'in told the American Air Force that it would be safe for American airmen to make forced landings in certain areas held by "puppet" units, as he had sufficient authority with these latter to secure the return of any such Americans. To most people, all this would seem a commendable example of old-fashioned Chinese commonsense, but Lord Lindsay will have no truck with it and denounces it as "evidence of Kuomintang-Japanese collaboration." As Lord Lindsay tells us himself that General Ho was at pains to explain to his American friends that he was able to make such an arrangement only because the "puppet" troops had comparatively few Japanese attached to them, it is not easy to see how he can have arrived at such a conclusion. HENRY MCALEAVY School of Oriental and African Studies University of London