• U.S.

National Affairs: Secondary Front

4 minute read
TIME

Ruddy and jolly as his bright necktie, Roger Lapham, ex-mayor of San Francisco and boss of ECA’s China operation, flew into Washington to report to ECAdministrator Paul Hoffman. The essence of his report was that EGA in China was doing all right. That is, economic aid was being delivered in fair amounts (299,065 bales of cotton by the end of September, 17,800 long tons of flour and 94,000 long tons of rice by early October). Lapham seemed to feel also that the whole job was being carried out in a businesslike, American fashion.

But he did not think that the $275 million which Congress had appropriated for the purpose, to last until April 2, was going to be enough. Lapham thought it was unrealistic to suppose that the U.S. could pull China out of her economic hole with a one-year program. Unless Congress was prepared to hand out many more millions, under firm U.S. controls, China’s economic future was dim.

No Hurry. But China’s chief worry last week was her military future, on which everything, including her economy, depended. That was worse than dim (see FOREIGN NEWS). Communist forces had overrun just about all of northeast China, were extending a throttling grip on the whole nation.

Six months ago the U.S. had declared its intention of giving Chiang Kai-shek military aid. Congress, forcing a reluctant State Department to include China in the EGA program,, authorized $275 million in economic aid and added $125 million for military supplies.

But so far only a little more than $2,000,000 in military supplies has trickled into Chiang Kai-shek’s military depots. From May to October, Chinese procurement agents trotted fruitlessly around Washington. There was haggling over prices. Chiang Kai-shek sent a personal appeal to President Truman to hurry things up. But not until last week did the Chinese finally get some definite answers. Forty percent of the top priority items on their shopping lists, they were told, would be shipped from West Coast ports in early December; 60% would be ready to ship in January.

The Key to Power. Why the delay? The fundamental reason was the fact that the U.S. has been in psychological retreat from China ever since the end of the war. Secretary of State George Marshall had never reconciled himself to doing business with a Chinese government which he considered corrupt. Furthermore, his policy was to give Europe top priority which had been U.S. policy during the war. Right or wrong, he considered the Far East situation secondary.

Was he right or wrong? The question might soon be settled by history. The military news indicated that he might have been tragically wrong, for reasons which he himself had foreseen eight months ago. In February 1948, Marshall had appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had there engaged in a blunt exchange with Minnesota’s Congressman Walter Judd.

Marshall: If the present [Chiang Kaishek] government falls, the Communists will take power north of the Yangtze River.

Judd: And if the Communists take power in the area north of the Yangtze . . . what would be our position in southern Korea?

Marshall: It would be untenable.

Judd: And with the Asiatic continent under control of Soviet Russia, what would be the position of Japan?

Marshall: We would have to put forth great effort to insure that Japan continued to move under her own steam.

Judd: The U.S., in fact, would have either to withdraw from Japan, would it not, or continue to support her in definitely with uncounted sums of money? Marshall: We would face a very serious situation.

. . .

Last week Lieut. General Robert Eichelberger, who commanded the Eighth Army in Japan, picked up the prediction where Marshall left off. Said he, in a Chicago’speech: “One can appreciate what a great prize Japan would be to the Communist nations . . . To the U.S., Canada, the Philippines and Australia it would signify the loss of World War II and a potential defeat in the Pacific in any future war that might be forced upon us.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com