July 12, 1945 The U.S. policy toward China, as epitomized by Hurley, was increasingly giving rise to a crisis that could be overcome only by taking into account both the immediate danger and long-term interests. This crisis was none other than the Chinese civil war. The Nationalist government, which persisted in its reactionary policies of passive resistance to Japan and suppression of the people’s democratic movement, had made civil war its very raison d’être since its establishment eighteen years earlier. It was only on occasions such as the Xi’an Incident of 1936 or Japan’s full-scale invasion of mainland China in 1937 that it was compelled temporarily to suspend the nationwide civil war. Yet from 1939 onward, localized hostilities resumed without interruption. Within the Nationalist camp, the rallying cry was “Anti-Communism First,” relegating resistance to Japan to second place. At present, the central focus of all military deployments by the Nationalist government lies not in confronting the Japanese aggressors, but in “reclaiming lost territory” from the liberated areas and in seeking to annihilate the Communist forces. In order to secure victory in the War of Resistance and to build postwar peace, this situation must be taken very seriously. While President Roosevelt was still alive, he recognized this fact; yet, in the interest of the United States, he refrained from adopting a policy that would have favored one Chinese faction over another. In November 1944, when Hurley arrived in Yan’an in his capacity as Roosevelt’s personal representative, he endorsed the Communists’ proposal to abolish the Kuomintang’s one-party dictatorship and establish a democratic coalition government, thereby remaining true to Roosevelt’s original intention of not siding with the Nationalist government. Unfortunately, Hurley later reversed course and betrayed the commitments he had made in Yan’an. This about-face was starkly revealed in a statement he issued in Washington on April 11. By that time, in Hurley’s own words, the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek had become the “good guy,” while the Communists were portrayed as utterly despicable. He bluntly declared that the United States would cooperate solely with Chiang Kai-shek and not with the Communists. Of course, this did not merely reflect Hurley’s personal views; it represented the stance of a whole cohort within the U.S. government—men like Hurley. Nevertheless, it was a mistaken and dangerous departure from Roosevelt’s policy. Shortly thereafter, Roosevelt passed away, and an emboldened Hurley returned to the U.S. Embassy in Chongqing. The peril of this U.S. policy toward China, as embodied by Hurley, lay in its encouragement of the Nationalist regime’s reactionary tendencies and in its exacerbation of the Chinese civil war. Should this crisis remain unchecked, the inevitable outcome would not only be a protracted calamity for the Chinese people but also, through its own actions, the entrapment of the U.S. government in the fetid, bottomless mire of Chinese reactionaries—placing itself squarely in opposition to hundreds of millions of Chinese who have already awakened and continue to awaken. Such a development would obstruct the War of Resistance today and undermine world peace tomorrow. Is this inexorable trend not already abundantly clear? As for China’s future, the powerful, unstoppable force represented by the Chinese people—demanding independence, freedom, democracy, unity, and prosperity—was bound to supplant national oppression and feudal exploitation. In certain segments of American public opinion, there was growing anxiety over Hurley’s dangerous China policy, and calls were being made to reverse course. However, whether and when such a change would occur remains uncertain at this juncture. What can be said with certainty is this: the continued pursuit of a Hurley-style policy that props up anti-popular forces in China and sets the United States at odds with so vast a segment of the Chinese population will continue to impose an enormous burden and pose endless dangers upon both the U.S. government and the American people—risks that are becoming increasingly apparent to broad sections of the American public.