Chiang Kai-shek – The Intelligent Collector Magazine

Marshall proved indispensable during his 50 years of service to the United States

A signed photograph of General George C. Marshall went to auction in 2007.

By Jim O’Neal

French President (General) Charles de Gaulle was known for reminding his aides that “the world’s graveyards were filled with indispensable men.” Skeptics were offered a simple test: Stick a finger into a glass of water and describe the hole it leaves when it is removed. Somewhat quirky, but remember this was a France where de Gaulle complained “How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?” Sacré bleu!

I suspect Amazon would yawn at the degree of complexity implied, but they have become almost indispensable in our home, just as George C. Marshall (1880-1959) was indispensable during his remarkable 50 years of service to the United States. When he died, he left behind a cadre of admirers like Harvard President James Conant, who declared that only George Washington was Marshall’s equal as soldier/statesman (which overlooks Marshall’s superb diplomatic skills). Others like Winston Churchill went even further, crediting Marshall with high praise as the “Organizer of Victory.” Recall that when Churchill was asked what history would say about him, he deftly replied, “History will be very kind to me. I plan to write it!” And he certainly did with his six-volume “The History of the Second World War.”

In order to squeeze in a small insight into George Marshall’s extensive career, it is useful to start at the beginning of the 20th century. The Russian Empire, ruled by Czar Nicholas II, was probably the largest territorial power in the world, with control over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. But they lacked a warm water port and had ambitions that included Korea and China. Japan was dominant in Asia and the two clashed in 1904-05, primarily in northeastern China and the waters surrounding the Korean peninsula.

The Russo-Japanese War sowed the seeds for World War I and although Japan, surprisingly, eventually prevailed, President Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize for brokering the Treaty of Portsmouth (Sept. 5, 1905), which formally ended the war. Some historians now call this episode World War Zero, since it was so closely linked to what followed a mere 10 years later.

Enter George Catlett Marshall Jr. on the last day of August 1899, when he decided to become an officer in the U.S. Army. However, his ascent to prominence and power began on Jan. 27, 1914 when 5,000 U.S. Army soldiers landed on Luzon and prepared to attack Manila, some 60 miles away. It was a maneuver to test the readiness against an attack on the Philippines by Japan. After defeating the Russians, the Japanese had completed the entire annexation of Korea and the American–controlled Philippines was logically next up.

The 34–year–old Lieutenant Marshall choreographed the myriad details of the mock invasion and eight days later it was being hailed as a brilliant success. The word began to spread widely that Marshall was not only a military genius, but one of the most talented strategic thinkers in the entire Army. General Henry “Hap” Arnold would write that he had “met a man who was going to be the Chief of Staff someday soon.” Arnold would have the distinction of holding the ranks of General of the Army and General of the Air Force. He was the only U.S. Air Force General to hold the five-star rank and the only officer to hold five-star rank in two different U.S. military services. He was a keen judge of talent and George Marshall would benefit during WW2.

Marshall assumed the position as Army Chief of Staff on the same day German Panzers attacked Poland and proceeded to transform our nation’s modest military forces into the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen. In addition to guiding global strategy, he demonstrated a unique ability to win the trust of both political parties, unionists, isolationists, pro–war factions and, importantly, the U.S. Congress. The result was legislation that enabled the country to wage war on both sides of the globe, with the full support of virtually every American.

Marshall was responsible for turning raw draftees into trained fighters while running military logistics in Europe, the Pacific, China and the Mediterranean. His genius for balancing economic, political and pragmatism with the gift of eloquence shaped the willpower of military staff and world leaders FDR, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and even prima donna generals like Douglas MacArthur, who tended to be highly independent.

Instinctively, he recognized the strategic advantage of attacking France to regain control of Europe and was widely viewed as the logical commander to lead the D-Day invasion. Instead, this quiet man from Pennsylvania, who had become the nation’s first five-star general, was considered too valuable to the overall war effort and General Eisenhower was selected. President Roosevelt explained to him, “I didn’t feel that I could sleep at ease if you were out of Washington, D.C.” Eisenhower could handle the massive amphibious assault, but only Marshall could be trusted to manage both wars.

Finally, after all the guns and bombs fell silent, the 64–year-old indispensable man was ready to retire. However, fate intervened and President Truman asked him to help reconcile post-war China, but the Communists prevailed over Chiang Kai-shek, who fled to Taiwan. Then Truman fired his Secretary of State and called on Marshall once again. Despite being retired, five-star generals were still considered to be subject to service. Next, he became the Secretary of Defense. Later, when Truman was asked about who had contributed the most over the past 30 years, Truman picked Marshall: “I don’t think in this age in which I’ve lived that there has been a greater administrator; a man with a knowledge of military affairs equal to George Marshall.”

Amen.

He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his post-war work in 1953, the only career officer in the U.S. Army to ever receive this honor. The Marshall Plan merely saved Europe by restoring a broad area that had been devastated by the war and gave them an opportunity to rebuild and thrive during the 20th century. R.I.P.

Intelligent Collector blogger JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is president and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as chair and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].

Moral arguments continue over the use of atomic weapons in WWII

A 1971 photograph of Emperor Hirohito and Empress Nagako, signed, sold for $8,125 at an April 2015 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

If history is any guide, the month of August will arrive right on schedule. Inevitably, it will be accompanied by yet another birthday (no. 82 if my math is correct) and intellectual debates over the use of atomic bombs dropped on two Japanese cities in August 1945. Despite the passage of 74 years and the fact that it ended World War II, it remains the most controversial decision of a long, bloody war.

As a reminder, President Franklin Roosevelt had died in April 1945 soon after the start of his record fourth term in office. Vice President Harry Truman had taken his place and the new president attended a conference in defeated Germany to discuss how to persuade or force Japan to surrender. Persuasion was not really an option since the Empire of Japan was firmly committed to continue even if it resulted in the annihilation of its people and the total destruction of their country.

They had demonstrated their resolve during the bloody island-by-island fighting that left the Japanese mainland as the final target. Another amphibious landing was ruled out due to the expected enormous loss of life and an oath of 100 million inhabitants to fight until killed. Estimates vary on how many Americans would die … but they were all too high.

One strategy was to simply blockade all their ports and use our overwhelming air superiority to bomb them until they relented. But President Truman had a secret weapon and was fully prepared to use it if Japan resisted.

On July 26, 1945, Truman, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China signed the Potsdam Declaration that warned the Japanese that if they did not agree to an “unconditional surrender,” they would face “prompt and utter destruction.” In addition, 3 million leaflets were dropped on the mainland to be sure the people were aware of the stakes and perhaps help pressure the leadership.

Afterwards, critics of what became the nuclear option have argued it was inhumane and violated a wartime code-of-ethics, perhaps like mustard gas or the chemical weapons ban we have today. However, it helps to remember that the avoidance of attacking non-combatant civilians had long been discarded by the mass bombings of European cities (e.g. the infamous firebombing of Dresden). And then the even more brutally systematic firebombing of Japanese cities. Destruction became the singular objective, knowing that ending the war would save more lives than any precision bombing.

Case in point is Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who arrived in Guam in January 1945 to take command of the 21st Bomber Command. His theory of war is eerily similar to General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea” in the Civil War. LeMay explained: “You’ve got to kill people, and when you kill enough, they stop fighting.” Precision bombing had given way to terror attacks that included civilian deaths indiscriminately.

Importantly, Lemay had just the right equipment to destroy Japan’s highly flammable cities filled with wooden houses. First was a highly lethal weapon called the M-69 projectile developed by Standard Oil. It was a 6-pound bomblet that consisted of burning gelatinized gasoline that, when stuck to a target, was inextinguishable. Second was a fleet of B-29 Superfortresses, ideal for continental bombing. They were powered by 4×2200 hp engines with a crew of 11 and a range of 4,000 miles. On March 9 … 344 B-29s began dropping M-69s over Tokyo in a crisscross pattern that merged into a sea of flames. The result was 90,000 dead and another million homeless. The victims died from fire, asphyxiation and buildings falling on them. Some were simply boiled to death in superheated canals or ponds where they sought refuge from the fire.

Over the next four to five months, they attacked 66 of Japan’s largest cities, killing another 800,000 and leaving 8 million homeless.

Despite this demonstration of power, the Japanese formal reply to the Potsdam Declaration included the word “mokusatsu,” which was interpreted as an imperial refusal. It was on this basis that Truman gave the order to proceed with bombing Hiroshima on Aug. 6. He left Potsdam and was at sea when the ship’s radio received a prearranged statement from the White House: “16 hours ago, an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima … it is an atomic bomb … it is harnessing the basic power of the universe.” Three days later on Aug. 9, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Japanese Emperor Hirohito agreed to capitulate and an imperial script announcing the decision to the Japanese people was recorded for radio broadcast. Most Japanese had never heard the emperor’s voice.

As the moral arguments continue about the use of atomic weapons on people (in WWII), I find it to be a distinction without a difference … at least compared to having one of Lemay’s little M-69s stuck on my back.

Childhood has always been tough, but let’s not go too far

A 1962 first edition, first printing of *The Guns of August*, signed by author Barbara Tuchman, sold for $625 at an April 2013 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

Simply mention the name of Barbara Tuchman and it brings back fond memories of her wonderful book The Guns of August, which won the Pulitzer in 1963. It brilliantly explains the complicated political intrigue that started innocuously in the summer of 1914 and then erupted into the horrors of the First World War. It is always a good reminder of how easily our foreign entanglements can innocently provoke another, except survivors today would call it the Last World War.

Tuchman (1912-89) won a second Pulitzer for her biography of General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell and his travails in China-Burma-India during World War II. He was faced with trying to manage/control aviator Claire “Old Leatherface” Chennault and his famous Flying Tigers. He also had to contend with Chiang Kai-shek, who eventually became the first president of the Republic of China (1950-75). This dynamic duo conspired to have General Stilwell removed and were finally successful by badgering a tired and sick FDR.

However, it was a totally different award-winning book Tuchman published in 1978 that was much more provocative and controversial (at least to me). In A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, she writes, “Of all the characteristics in which the medieval age differs from the modern, none is so striking as the comparative absence of interest in children.” She concluded, chillingly, that “a child was born and died and another took its place.”

Tuchman asserted that investing love in young children was so risky, so unrewarding, that everywhere it was seen as a pointless waste of energy. I politely refuse to accept that our ancestors were ever so jaded and callous. Surely, there was at least a twinge of sorrow, guilt or emotion.

Yet earlier, French author Philippe Ariès in his Centuries of Childhood made a remarkable claim that until the Victorian Age “the concept of childhood did not exist.” There is no doubt that children once died in great numbers. One-third died in their first year and 50 percent before their 5^th birthday. Life was full of perils from the moment of conception and the most dangerous milestone was birth itself, when both child and mother were at risk due to a veritable catalog of dangerous practices and harmful substances.

And it was not just happening to poor or needy families. As Stephen Inwood notes in A History of London, death was a visitor in the best of homes and cities. English historian Edward Gibbon (The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) lost all six of his siblings while growing up in the 1700s in Putney, a rich, healthy suburb of London. In his autobiography, Gibbon describes his childhood as “a puny child, neglected by my mother, starved by my nurse.” So death was apparently totally indifferent in choosing between rich and poor; but that is a far cry from not having a childhood per se.

To extend this into a situation where mothers became totally indifferent to young children because of high rates on infant mortality and thus it made little sense to invest emotionally in infants defies logic. Obviously, parents adjusted and had many children in order to guarantee that a few would survive … just as a sea turtle lays 1,000 eggs to have a few survive. To do otherwise is to invite extinction.

The world these respected people write so persuasively about would have been a sad, almost morbid place, with a landscape of tiny coffins. I say where is the proof?

JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is president and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as chair and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].

Dewey Had It All – Except Maybe a Genuine Connection with Voters

Two scarce Tom Dewey buttons sold for $1,075 at a May 2010 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

The political tidal wave that washed over the American continent in November 1946 left in its wake a vastly altered landscape. The triumphant Republican Party had polled 3 million more votes than the Democrats, gaining 54 House seats and 12 in the Senate. Even Democratic President Harry Truman’s old seat would be occupied by a conservative Republican and Kentucky elected its first Republican Senator in 22 years.

It was a rout.

It was also a referendum on Truman’s two-year stewardship and a belated rejection of a New Deal without FDR. Senator J. William Fulbright suggested Truman appoint a Republican Secretary of State and then resign, turning the country over to a president the electorate preferred. U.S. News & World Report declared the president’s chances of winning another nomination at less than 50 percent and predicted Tom Dewey of New York would be in the White House in two years.

Dewey then went on the offensive, attacking the Truman Doctrine as inadequate – “Unthinkable we would surrender the fruits of victory after a staggering cost in blood and resources” – and citing the broken pledge to China, failure to give Chiang Kai-shek airplane parts, and grossly inadequate supplies of arms and ammunition. Also, allowing the Soviets to hold the northern half of Korea and building a well-trained army of 200,000, while the American half had no civil government and no military – a political void with ominous consequences. Dewey predicted “23 million Korean people would move from Japanese tyranny to Soviet tyranny and China would be next.”

America was in a hurry to disarm and Truman’s people were not standing up to the Soviets with sufficient conviction, distracted into debating Universal Military Training. Was it courage or inexperience?

Soon the answer would become apparent to everyone. First, labor leader John L. Lewis and 200,000 striking coalminers were humbled by a contempt citation, fined $3.5 million and ordered back to work immediately. “He couldn’t take the guff,” the president wrote. “No bully can. Now I have the autoworkers, steel workers and railroad men to look forward to. They will get the same treatment.”

This was followed by Truman’s promise to protect Greece and Turkey from the communist threat, the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (replacing the OSS) and the Marshall Plan to rescue Europe. Suddenly, the man who had seemed a political dead duck six months before was flying high. The polls reflected a remarkable comeback by the president. After trailing Dewey 50 to 28, he had drawn even with him in the polls!

Dewey was not naive. He knew the incumbent president would be a tough opponent and any future election would be closer than the pundits were predicting. But he was an experienced politician and had a terrific record of making government work on whatever level he was at. As New York’s famous district attorney, he made the judicial system work as he rounded up the city’s most powerful and infamous gangsters. As governor, he founded a state university, built a thruway, battled cancer and tuberculosis, and never submitted an unbalanced budget. When he left office, state taxes were 10 percent lower than when he had taken office.

Then, after he accepted the nomination to be the Republican candidate for president in 1948, he was buoyed by a steady stream of congratulations. Winston Churchill wired his discreet best wishes from “the English friend who met you on March 12, 1946.” The editors of Who’s Who sent an advance copy listing Dewey’s address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, D.C. Pollsters and the press almost unanimously projected him as the winner. Ernest Lindley in Newsweek predicted “only a miracle or a series of political blunders not to be expected of a man of Dewey’s astuteness can save Truman from an overwhelming defeat.”

Even Truman’s closet advisors were worried. “We’ve got our backs on the one-yard line with only a minute to play,” explained presidential adviser Clark Clifford.

Amidst the euphoria, the “first lady of American journalism” Dorothy Celene Thompson – who in 1939 was recognized by Time magazine as the second most influential woman in America next to Eleanor Roosevelt – struck a cautionary note. She wondered aloud if Dewey was the man to rouse something more from voters. It takes understanding to really connect … human feelings, humor, compassion, loyalty – qualities that evoke affection and faith, which is different from confidence.

Thompson seemed to be saying only Dewey could defeat Dewey. We know now that may have happened in 1948, and it also may have happened again in 2016. Voters are savvy people and it takes a special quality to really connect – something polls can’t seem to capture.

China’s Fall to Communists Launched Dark Period in American History

Andy Warhol’s screenprint *Mao (With Orange Face)*, 1972, realized $47,500 at a May 2015 Heritage auction.

By Jim O’Neal

On April 4, 1949, the day the United States and 11 other nations signed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a Communist General by the name of Chu Teh began massing a million of Mao Tse-tung’s seasoned troops on the north bank of the Yangtze River. This was the last natural barrier between Mao and the few southern provinces still loyal to Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT).

Three weeks later, Chu Teh’s veterans stormed across the Yangtze, but only met token resistance. Chiang had withdrawn 300,000 of his most reliable soldiers to form a rear-guard perimeter around Shanghai. A week later, Chiang fled across the Formosa Strait to Taiwan, along with a cadre of KMT, but it seemed clear that China was a lost cause.

Mao Tse-tung proclaimed Red China’s sovereignty on Sept. 21, 1949 – the same day West Germany declared its sovereignty – and this was followed by Chiang announcing the formation of his new government in Taipei. Chinese politician Sun Yat-sen’s 50-year-old vision for a democratic China was dead, and the U.S. expectation that Chiang would establish the non-communist world’s eastern anchor died with it.

The world now had two Chinas!

The American response was slow. Newspapers had carried regular accounts of the Chinese Communists and the KMT’s slow disintegration, but China was so vast, the geography so unfamiliar and movements of the unmechanized armies so slow, that Americans had lost interest in these distant battles.

However, when the KMT collapsed, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson decided to lay out the entire situation before the American people. On Aug. 5, 1949, the State Department issued a 1,054-page white paper, conceding the world’s largest nation had fallen into communist hands. The chain of events leading to this tragic end was also explained, including the $2 billion that had been largely wasted and the 75 percent of American arms shipments that had fallen into Mao’s hands.

The American people were stunned by this admission. Everything American diplomats had achieved in Europe – the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, NATO – seemed to have been annulled by this disaster in Asia.

The burning question was … who was responsible for losing China?

Richard Nixon of California flatly blamed the Democrats. On Feb. 21, a young congressman from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, said that at Yalta, a “sick” Franklin Roosevelt had given strategic places to the USSR. This, Kennedy concluded, “is the tragic story of China, whose freedom we fought to preserve. What our young men saved, our diplomats and our presidents have frittered away.”

Thus began one of the darkest periods in American history. President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9835 created the “Loyalty Order” program and in 1947, the FBI began stalking “disloyal and subversive persons” by conducting name checks on 2 million federal employees and background checks on 500,000 annual applicants for government jobs. During the program’s five years, the FBI screened over 3 million Americans and conducted 10,000 field interviews. Preliminary indictments were filed against 9,977, of whom 2,961 were arraigned.

Seth Richardson, chairman of the Subversive Activities Control Board, summed up his findings for a Congressional committee: “Not one single case or evidence directing toward a case of espionage has been found by the FBI indicating that a particular case involves a question of espionage.”

In the entertainment industry, “blacklisting” became a form of blackmail and took its toll on a small group for a full decade.

Time has blurred the sharp contours of the Age of Suspicion, but it was a dark period that must never be allowed to recur.

We still don’t know, or agree on, who lost China.

Intelligent Collector blogger JIM O’NEAL is an avid collector and history buff. He is President and CEO of Frito-Lay International [retired] and earlier served as Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo Restaurants International [KFC Pizza Hut and Taco Bell].