Tom Kerry: A Mao-Stalin Rift - Myth Or Fact? (September )
Stalin came to power through his own tactics but Mao camt to power through bold pronouncements. Mao sought to make allies where as Stalin. Conversation between Stalin and Mao, Moscow, 16 December a serious boost to Chinese communists in their relations with the national bourgeoisie. “Mao Versus Khrushchev: An Analysis of the Sino-Soviet Split ” First , Khrushchev's policy of de-Stalinization was offensive to Mao because Stalin the deteriorating personal relationship between the top leaders, Mao Zedong.
Those people within the Party and outside it who gloated about the Polish affair and the Hungarian affair made a good show of it! They talked about Poznan one moment and about Hungary the next.
In this way they exposed themselves; the ants left their holes, and even the turtles have come out. The situation has changed now, and they do not utter a sound. Silence [,however,] is not their true intention; their true intention is to make a lot of noise. I advise everybody to pay attention to this problem…. Version I is also available in SW vol. See below for the same passage from version II. Before it rains, there are bound to be ants leaving their holes. In China, too, a small number of ants wanted to leave their holes to engage in some activity.
Now Khrushchev has changed, and the ants have withdrawn, gone back [into the holes]. The [Communist] parties in many countries suffered damage: The British Party lost one-fourth [of its membership], the Swiss [Party] half; and the United States made chaos throughout the world. The Eastern parties and the Party in China were not quite so severely affected. The problem of Stalin has involved the entire Communist movement. Some people criticize Stalin without making any analysis.
The people who were most staunchly supportive of Stalin in the past are precisely the most vehemently opposed to Stalin now. They have suddenly turned around degrees; they no longer talk of Marxism-Leninism, or of ethics. In the Party, some people begin to teeter as soon as there is any rustling in the wind.
Some sway once or twice and then stop swaying; some will go on swaying forever. Saplings, the stalks of rice, barley, corn, and the grass on the wall always sway when they see the wind coming; only the big tree will not sway.
There are typhoons every year, but there is not necessarily a political typhoon every year. This phenomenon is a natural phenomenon in society and politics. Some Party members, even though they have struggled hard and arduously for many years, have not learned Marxism-Leninism well, and cannot endure typhoons ideologically and politically; they ought to pay attention. Some people in the Party have passed every gate except this gate of socialism…. See previous item for the same passage from version I.
The shortcoming of some of our Communist Party members and Communist intellectuals is precisely that they know too little about the things on the opposite side. They read a few books written by Marx and proceed to talk about them accordingly; this is relatively monotonous. Their speeches and writings [therefore] lack persuasiveness. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were not like that. They all studied energetically and learned all sorts of contemporary and historical things; moreover, they counseled others to do the same.
The three component parts of Marxism were produced through the process of studying the things in bourgeois [society], studying German classical philosophy, British classical economics, and French utopian socialism, and struggling against them. Stalin was a bit less sound. For instance during his time German classical idealist philosophy was said to be a kind of reaction on the part of the German aristocracy to the French Revolution.
To draw a conclusion like that is to totally negate German classical idealist philosophy. The first that he talked about was the relationship between things, as if all things were related for no reason. In fact, how are things related? The relationship is actually between the two aspects of a contradiction. In everything there are two aspects in opposition to each other.
The fourth [characteristic] he talked about was the internal contradiction in things. Again, he only talked about the struggle between opposites, but not about the unity of opposites. According to this unity of opposites—this basic law of dialectics—opposites struggle against each other, and at the same time they are united; they are mutually exclusive and also interrelated, and under certain conditions they transform themselves into each other.
This interpretation is fundamentally incorrect. The thought of some people in the Soviet Union is just metaphysical and petrified like that; they view things in either this way or that way [arbitrarily] and do not acknowledge the unity of opposites.
Therefore, they make mistakes in politics. We uphold the viewpoint of the unity of opposites and adopt the policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and letting a hundred schools contend. At the same time that fragrant flowers are blooming, there will inevitably be poisonous weeds blooming too.
This is nothing to fear, and, under certain conditions, it may even be beneficial. Differences of opinion in the Party are a common occurrence. If opinions happen to coincide, after a month or two, new and differing opinions will again emerge. It was only when he wrote Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR one year before his death that he hesitantly discussed the contradictions between the relations of production and the forces of production under the socialist system and said that if policies were incorrect or improperly regulated, problems would arise.
Even so, he still did not present [the problem of] contradictions under a socialist system between the relations and the forces of production and between the superstructure and the economic base as an issue of overall significance, he still did not recognize that these contradictions are the basic contradictions that propel socialist society forward.
He thought that his state was secure. They are no longer concerned about class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the Party, democratic centralism, and the connection between the Party and the masses. The [political] atmosphere is thinning out. Consequently, the Hungarian affair has occurred. We must firmly uphold the fundamental theories of Marxism. Every province, municipality, and autonomous region must promote theoretical work and cultivate Marxist theoreticians and critics in a planned way.
Truth emerges out of struggle with error. Beauty emerges out of comparison with and struggle with ugliness. Good deeds and good people emerge out of comparison with and struggle with evil deeds and evil people. Fragrant flowers emerge from the comparison with and struggle with poisonous weeds. Materialism emerges out of the comparison with and struggle with idealism. Therefore we should publish the collected works of Chiang Kai-shek.
We should also publish the collected works of Sun Yat-sen and the collected works of Kang Youwei. To prohibit people from coming into contact with ugliness, error and fallacies, idealism, and metaphysics is a very dangerous policy. We Communists know too little about the opposite side, so we are comparatively monotonous and can hardly produce any persuasive statements.
Neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin was like this. They all strenuously studied contemporary and historical matters and also instructed other people to study in a like manner. Stalin was a bit inferior. He rejected German philosophy Kant and Feuerbachand because Germany was defeated in war he also rejected German military teachings. Stalin was in reality metaphysical [in his ideas], and he did not recognize the unity of opposites.
In the Dictionary of Philosophy they employed a metaphysical way of putting things. Lenin said that war was an extension of politics and a special means, and that peace was a result of war.
Stalin misled many people. These people had a lot of metaphysics in their minds and became rigid in their thinking, thus they committed political mistakes.
Mao’s Evaluations of Stalin
When others disagreed [with them] occasionally, they were ostracized. But in real life Stalin could not do all things in this way. In and he killed many people. In he killed fewer, and in he killed even fewer. It is not possible to execute everyone who disagrees. We, for one, had disagreements with Stalin. Therefore we must persuade cadres to go to the rural areas; if we want to industrialize, then we must engage in agriculture. A ratio of accumulation must be worked out.
Stalin emphasized accumulation too much, which had a [negative] impact on industry.
What ratio is actually desirable still needs to be studied. In short, we must make the cooperatives expand reproduction so that we can be assured of even greater accumulation. We must not drain the pond to catch the fish. With philosophy there is always struggle; to discuss philosophy you have to struggle. Some people, when they discuss philosophy, only talk about one side [of the issue]; [when they talk about] letting a hundred flowers bloom, they only talk about letting fragrant flowers bloom, and not about getting rid of poisonous weeds.
We acknowledge that opposites exist in socialism. Stalin had his metaphysics, and his subjectivism. The Soviet Union does not acknowledge the existence of opposites [within socialism], and forbids [their existence] by law; as a matter of fact, many wrong things are hidden behind the front of socialism. Lenin believed that merely talking about materialism could not solve problems.
To solve problems, one must struggle with idealism. To struggle with it, one must study idealism. The three component parts of Marxism are the result of struggle after having studied capitalist things. One of the reasons why it has developed is because the Communist party has come into power. They had to exert great efforts to outargue them. Stalin was different he was in power. So his criticism was not balanced and was very similar to a father scolding his son.
If you use Marxism, if you apply effort, you can prevail. See how Lenin wrote his empirio-criticism. Later on Stalin was different. Some of the things he wrote were good, others he wrote as if he were sitting on a hillock and picking up stones to hit people.
One is uncomfortable after reading [such writings]…. But Stalin in power was different. He had dialectics as well as metaphysics. Precisely for this reason he had both merits and demerits; his merits surpass his demerits. He also has some [sense of] dialectics, but not quite that much of dialectics.
This is probably an alternate translation of the previous item. As for antagonism, is it possible for contradictions among the people to be transformed from non-antagonistic contradictions into antagonistic ones? After the October Revolution, during the period when Stalin was in charge, for a long time he confused these two types of contradictions.
Problems like bad mouthing the government, talking about the government, being dissatisfied with the government, being dissatisfied with the Communist party, criticizing the government, criticizing the Communist party, are in origin problems among the people. But there are two types of criticism: There is the enemy criticizing us, the enemy being dissatisfied with the Communist party; and there are the people criticizing us, the people being dissatisfied with us; and the two must be distinguished.
Stalin for so many years did not make such distinctions, or rarely did. A few [comrades] who have worked in the Soviet Union for many years have told me there were no distinctions; you could only talk about good things, not bad; you could only sing praises, not make criticisms; whoever made a criticism was suspect of being an enemy and ran the risk of imprisonment or execution.
Quoted in TMT, p. These people excessively emphasize antagonistic contradictions between the enemy and ourselves. For example, Stalin was this kind of person; we, too, have such people who stress [them] to excess, mistaking the second type of contradiction, contradictions originally among the people, for the first type, mistaking them as [contradictions] between the enemy and ourselves….
This policy was apparently [sic] raised in the Rectification [Movement]. Mao is speaking here of intra-party struggle. Very badly, or very well? In my opinion, there have been shortcomings, but if we compare ourselves with other countries, we have done relatively well. We have done better than the Soviet Union, and better than Hungary.
The Soviet Union has been too leftist, and Hungary too rightist…. He had two aspects. On the one hand, he eliminated genuine counter-revolutionaries; this aspect was correct.
On the other hand, he wrongly killed a large number of people, important people, such as delegates to the Party Congress…. Historically, Marx and Engels said very little about this problem, and though Lenin referred to it, he only just referred to it. He said that in a socialist society antagonisms died away, but contradictions continued to exist; in other words … the bourgeoisie had been overthrown, but there continued to be contradictions among the people.
As for antagonism, can contradictions among the people be transformed from non-antagonistic to antagonistic contradictions? There was so little time allotted to him. Of course, after the October Revolution, during the period when Stalin was in charge, for a long time he mixed up these two types of contradictions. Speaking comparatively, in the last analysis how has our country handled the work of eliminating counterrevolutionaries?
In my view there have been shortcomings, but in comparison with other countries we have done relatively well. Better than the Soviet Union, better than Hungary. The Soviet Union was too leftist, Hungary was too rightist. Because the Soviet Union has been too left, we have learned something from that experience. We ourselves have committed leftist excesses, too. During the period of the southern base areas, when we were still rather ignorant, we suffered losses and every base area without exception used the same Soviet method.
Later [we] put things right, and only then did we gain experience. Not a single person was to be killed and the bulk [of offenders] were not to be arrested.
Once in Beijing [i. Still, by now progress has been made. Compared with the Soviet Union, it is two lines [i. There were two sides to him. One side was the elimination of true counterrevolutionaries; that was the correct side.
The other side was the incorrect killing of numerous people, important people. For example, a high percentage of delegates to the Communist Party [National] Congress were killed. How many in the Central Committee did he kill? He sized and killed 80 percent of the Seventeenth Party Congress delegates, and he seized and killed 50 percent of the Central Committee members elected at the Seventeenth Congress [in ]. An alternate translation of some of this passage is given above.
These contradictions all appear as contradictions among the people. Because at this time socialist society does not have exploiters, the system of ownership is that of the whole people or collective [ownership]; there are no private capitalists, no private landowners, no private factory owners [or] enterprise owners.
Therefore Stalin, we say that Stalin was somewhat deficient in dialectics, but [not that he] was without dialectics. Under his influence a book was written, called A Concise Dictionary of Philosophy, written by two men.
Of the two, one is the Soviet Ambassador [Pavel] Yudin. Then [he] quoted Engels to say, Engels said there is no such identity, in reality everything exists in change, in objective reality there is no such identity.
Then he brought up some metaphysics; he says things in opposition, mutually repellent opposites, cannot be said to have identity. For example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, these two classes in a single society, they have no identity, have only mutual rejection, have only struggle. War and peace have no identity; life and death have no identity.
To say these things have identity is a mistaken concept [he said]. After Stalin died, Soviet philosophers, the Soviet Union began to change on this question. In philosophy Stalin had a rather metaphysical outlook. The so-called metaphysical outlook [means that things] have no change, war is war, the bourgeoisie is the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is the proletariat. Our theory is different: The bourgeoisie becomes the proletariat; the oppressed proletariat transform into the proletariat which rules the nation.
War turns into peace, peace turns into war, life turns into death, death turns into life.
Who Killed More: Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? | ChinaFile
In the midst of identity, after quoting what Engels said what Engels said had no metaphysicshe [Stalin, or Yudin, et al. This is well said; nonetheless it is not thorough. I say his dialectics are bashful dialectics, are coy dialectics, or could be called hesitant dialectics.
As we look at this question now, we should recognize socialism contains contradictions; the basic contradiction is the contradiction between relations of production and productive forces. The ideologies of the superstructure politics, law, religion, philosophy, these various ideologies should serve the economic base; [they] should match the economic base. If [they] do not match [it], then contradictions emerge. If while you are living you receive no criticism, after you are dead, people will still criticize you.
We have criticized the dead, [we have] criticized Confucius: Down with the house of Confucius! Even a man who has been dead for several thousand years, [we] still criticize! Now Confucius is a bit better. Stalin was also criticized after his death! Living people can be criticized [and] dead people can also be criticized….
After committing an error, one should always be criticized. We [humans] are also commodities of dual character. One side has real benefit; one side is not good. To expose the cult of Stalin, to tear off the lid, to liberate people, this is a liberation movement; but his [i. On the one hand, this provoked the worldwide currents of the latter half of last year; on the other hand, it later also provoked the Hungarian and Polish incidents. What have we discussed with the Soviet comrades face to face?
About how the Stalin problem has not been handled appropriately; [we] discussed our great-nation chauvinism…. When Lenin was alive, the Third International was well led. Only the period under Dimitrov was well led. Of course, the Third International had [its] merits as well, for instance, helping various countries to establish a [communist] party.
Later on, [however] the dogmatists paid no attention to the special features of various countries [and] blindly transplanted everything from Russia. China [for one] suffered great losses.
We have [in the CP —Ed. For another translation, see SSCM, p. The dogmatists of the past were just like that. Can you say Stalin was entirely dogmatist? This man, he did a lot of things, but he did have [some] dogmatism. This dogmatism of his influenced China, making us fail in our revolution during a certain period. Who built the building? Stalin had [things on] both sides; he also had [some] dogmatism—[wanting us to] transplant the [experience of the] Soviet Union in everything.
We must learn from the Soviet Union. The things of the Soviet Union, both the mistakes and the achievements, are very worthy of being learned from. When did we ever propose such a slogan? However, even though it was not proposed, some things like that came over with the [good ones] all the same, [especially] in the last seven years. For another translation, see SSCM, pp. It would not be good to have no criticism, or to suppress criticism.
It is this mistake that Stalin committed. Stalin did a lot of good things, but he also did some bad things.
Mao's Evaluations of Stalin
He confused the two; he used the methods that are for dealing with the enemy to deal with the people, with contradictions among the people. For a different translation, see SSCM, p. The Twentieth Congress [of the CPSU] which criticized Stalin, the incidents in Poland and Hungary, the worldwide anti-Soviet and anti-communist agitation, the speeches of Tito and Kardelj have the Shandong newspapers carried this article?
Kardelj was the Vice President of Yugoslavia. The first type, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, should not be mixed up with the second type, contradictions among the people.
That there are contradictions in socialist society, that contradictions persist in socialist society, this is something Lenin once pointed out.
He recognized that there were contradictions in socialist society. There, too, were different parties, different factions, and well-known personages such as Trotsky. If Stalin had not believed that a socialist revolution was possible in China, as Ali correctly asserts, neither had Mao.
And Mao persisted in this disbelief to the very end. Tariq Ali wrote this article for the anthology before the announcement of his adherence to the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Fourth International. Earlier this year, in a valuable eyewitness report from Pakistan, he published some trenchant criticism of the attitudes of the Chinese leadership and the native Maoists toward the mass upheavals against the military dictatorship in that country.
Milovan Djilas reports a statement by Stalin in his Conversations with Stalin published in But Stalin remained adamant: The United States is directly engaged there—the strongest state in the world. China is a different case, relations in the Far East are different. True, we, too, can make a mistake! Here, when the war with Japan ended, we invited the Chinese comrades to reach an agreement as to how a modus vivendi with Chiang Kai-shek might be found.
They agreed with us in word, but in deed they did it their own way when they got home: They mustered their forces and struck. It has been shown that they were right, and not we. But Greece is a different case—we should not hesitate, but let us put an end to the Greek uprising.
The alleged conversation occurred in February when sharp differences had already arisen between Stalin and the Yugoslavs. Soon after this the Kremlin launched a public attack on the Yugoslav leaders and the open break occurred in June, Djilas did draw a generalization that is, on the whole, valid: Nor can it be excluded that he anticipated future danger to his own work and to his own empire from the new Communist great power, especially since there were no prospects of subordinating it internally.
At any rate, he knew that every revolution, simply by virtue of being new, also becomes a separate epicenter and shapes its own government and state, and this was what he feared in the Chinese case, all the more since the phenomenon was involved that was as significant and as momentous as the October revolution.
There was no difference on this score between Mao and Stalin. Maoist criticisms of Stalin Aside from the Djilas revelation there is the evidence of differences between Mao and Stalin cited by the Maoists themselves. The article, republished as a pamphlet, was entitled On the Question of Stalin. A comparison of the two shows that his merits outweighed his faults. He was primarily correct, and his faults were secondary. In the matter of the party and government organization, he did not fully apply proletarian democratic centralism and, to some extent, violated it.
They hasten on to another subject. One more instance is cited: But that is another story. It hardly constitutes proof of a break between Mao and Stalin on the question of the character or course of the Chinese revolution of In fact, the authors of On the Question of Stalin insist: No one dared place the blame on Stalin—where it properly belonged.
The date is significant.Why Stalin Let the Korean War Happen - Explained
The leaders of the national sections of the Communist International were junked in wholesale lots, including the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. He considered that the Chinese democratic revolution must be carried out to the end, saying: Misconceptions such as denying this period of democratic revolution and considering that the opportune moment for a socialist revolution in China has arrived are extremely detrimental to the Chinese revolution.
Mao Tse-tung regarded the opinion then held by the Communist International that the character of the Chinese revolution remained bourgeois-democratic as completely correct. We stand for the attainment of socialism through all the necessary stages of the democratic republic. We are opposed to tail-ism, but we are also opposed to adventurism and ultra-revolutionism. It was developed as part of the theoretical arsenal of the reformist socialists in Europe and was advocated by the Russian Mensheviks in opposition to the course followed by the Bolsheviks.
They pressed forward to the socialist victory of October, along the line laid down by Trotsky in his theory of permanent revolution. The theory of the revolution in stages leads ineluctably to the practice of class collaboration through coalitionism. However, the text of this speech was published ten years earlier in this country in December by New Century Publishers, the Communist Party publishing house, with the title The Fight for a New China, and with an introduction by William Z.
There are extensive changes, alterations, amendments and deletions in the later Chinese editions compared to the text. The citations which follow are from the earlier New Century edition. The struggle for democracy in China still requires a prolonged period. Without a new democratic, united state, without the economic development of a new democratic nation, without the development of a broad private capitalist and cooperative economy, without the development of a national, scientific, popular and new democratic culture, without the emancipation and development of the individuality of hundreds of millions of people, in short, without the thorough, new bourgeois democratic revolution, to establish socialism over the ruins of the colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal China would be a Utopian dream.
To them we can simply say this much: Mao advances a theory of Russian exceptionalism. We can tell these people this: A new democracy of a union of democratic classes is different in principle from a socialist state with the dictatorship of the proletariat. China, throughout the period of her new democratic system, cannot and should not have a system of government of one-class dictatorship or one-party monopoly of government.
There the social system in which man exploits man has been abolished; a new democratic socialist political, economic and cultural system has been established; all anti-socialist political parties have been rejected by the people, who support only the Bolshevik Party.
But even in Russia, where the Bolshevik Party is the only political party, the governmental authority is invested in the alliance of workers, peasants and intellectuals, or in the bloc of party members and non-party members, and not in the hands of the working class, or Bolsheviks alone.
In the same way, Chinese history will determine the Chinese system. A unique form—a new democratic state and regime or a union of the democratic classes—will be produced, which will be different from the Russian system. This is not a question of the subjective willingness or unwillingness of certain individuals to do the advancing; it is due to the fact that the objective political and social conditions in China do not permit the advance.
The interests of the workers will be protected. An eight to ten-hour day system, according to varying circumstances, will be established, as well as suitable relief for the unemployed, social security, and the rights of labor unions.
On the other hand, the proper profits, under reasonable management, of state, private and cooperative enterprises will be assured. Thus, both labor and capital will work jointly for the development of industrial production. It is no wonder that those sections of his speech in which he expresses gratitude to these powers are carefully deleted from the revised Chinese versions. For example, in expressing his gratitude to the Soviet Union for its help, he adds: We are grateful to the governments and the peoples of both countries for their sympathy with the Chinese people and their help.
Mao dangled more tangible material benefits to whet their appetites. They will come chiefly from the accumulated wealth of the Chinese people, and at the same time from foreign assistance. Enterprises profitable to both the Chinese people and foreigners are swiftly expanding large-scale light and heavy industries and modernizing agriculture, which can become a reality when there is a firm internal and international peace, and when political and agrarian reforms are thoroughly carried out.
On this basis, we shall be able to absorb vast amounts of foreign investments. A politically retrogressive and economically impoverished China will be unprofitable not only to the Chinese people, but also to foreigners. In his foreword to the American edition, William Z. Foster indicated the setting in which the speech was made. Rangoon and Davao were about to fall to the Allies in the Pacific theater. American Marines were writing a glorious chapter in military history in Okinawa.
The Soviet Union had already made clear its intention of joining the war against Japan by abrogating its treaty with the Mikado. On the basis of the pacts and agreements forged by the Big Three Teheran, Yalta, etc. Peaceful coexistence was to reign supreme. With the exception of the Soviet Union, of course, the struggle for socialism was postponed to the Greek Kalends.
In Europe, the French Communist Party entered a coalition government, disarmed the Resistance and, along with de Gaulle, proceeded to restore the bourgeois democratic order. The same process was duplicated in Italy. In Eastern Europe, coalition governments were hastily rigged under the umbrella of Soviet occupation forces.
To the consternation of the Stalinist pipedream of an era of permanent peace and prosperity following the war, however, the imperialist jackals resumed their scramble for spheres of influence, markets, areas for the investment of capital, sources of raw material, the super-exploitation of cheap labor and colonial dominion.
The war had changed nothing in the nature of the beast. The class struggle, so cavalierly consigned to the limbo of innocuous desuetude, soon asserted its lusty presence. Dual power in the Chinese revolution In China, the path to coalition government was bestrewn with booby traps. The Chinese Communist Party headed a surging mass movement that made it a power to be reckoned with. The Japanese invasion of China in the s sparked a recurrent and mounting wave of nationalist feeling that infected all sections of the population.
The CCP rode that wave from the beginning. Stalin viewed a Japanese military presence in China with considerable alarm. It was a dagger pointed at the 3,mile Soviet eastern frontier and held the threat of a war on two fronts in the event of a military conflict in Europe. The Kuomintang had less to fear from the Japanese invaders than from the Red Army.
Instead, Chiang mounted a series of major military campaigns designed to encircle and destroy the Red Army. Dissatisfaction grew and along with mounting discontent a process of disintegration ensued which led to splits and defections by dissident groups in the Chiang forces. A number joined with the Red Army to carry forward the resistance. When the war in the Pacific ended with the unconditional surrender of Japan on August 14,de facto dual power existed in China.
Unlike Russia inwhere the dual power was institutionalized in the form of Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers deputies on one side, and the bourgeois government on the other, the dual power in China took the form of rival armies engaged in military conflict. The state, wrote Engels, consists of bodies of armed men.
Marshall as his personal representative to mediate the dispute. This policy was based on the conviction that the Red Army could not be eliminatedby military means. In his later testimony before a joint session of the House and Senate committees on foreign affairs, February 20,Marshall observed: For, as Lyman P. The time was not propitious for a massive American military intervention in China.
Marshall arrived in China in January, The circumstances were not auspicious. The United States had made commitments to the Chiang regime beginning with the Moscow Declaration of and there was burgeoning opposition to compromise by the rabid anti-communists in Washington, among whom Chiang had his staunchest supporters. Hurley had already arrived in China. He expressed clearly the goals of American policy: It is clear now that these goals were irreconcilable, for if there was no possibility of withdrawing our support from Chiang, there was no way of getting him to make changes he did not choose to make.
But this was far from clear at the time, except to those who knew the situation in China most intimately.