Marshall Mission Files, Lot 54–D270
Memorandum by Mr. Tung Pi-wu to General Marshall
My Dear General: I wish to acknowledge your OSE 472 dated 29 September.1 I share your view that the investigation of Anping Incident should brook no more delay and that it should be concluded at an early date.
After nearly two months of exertions, the 25th Team has interrogated 21 witnesses freely designated by the three branches, conducted 3 field inspections at Anping and interviewed senior American, Government and Communist commanders. Thus, a flood of light has been thrown upon the subject.
The Government branch advanced two witnesses one month after the investigation had been started, namely the oxen cart owner and the “Communist captive”, Chien Tien-wen, allegedly taken by the Government troops. Although this already went beyond the agreed scope of investigation, the Communist Commissioner General Yeh Chien-ying made the maximum concession in agreeing to place the questioning of the oxen cart owner under Section (F) of the Program of Procedure. As to the “Communist captive”, Chien Tien-wen, General Yeh proposed to query him under Section (G). It appears to me that this proposition of General Yeh’s is quite reasonable.
Since the occurrence of the Anping Incident, the Government branch and the 11th War Zone Headquarters flatly denied the participation of Government troops in the conflict at Anping. If none of them took part in the conflict, the question would arise as to how they could take the “captive”. In the event that he was but an Anping resident captured after the joint occupation of that city by American and Nationalist forces, he could not only by no means be regarded [Page 308] as a captive, but also have no connection with the incident. Therefore the assertion of his being a “captive” must be preceded by the premise that the Government did participate in the incident.
It thereby appears a very logical proposition that the “captive” be interrogated after the interrogating of the witnesses concerning the participation of Government troops in the conflict, under Section (G).
I do not find myself in a position to accede to your procedure that the American member be instructed to unilaterally take testimony of the two witnesses and, if necessary, to submit his own report of the entire affairs. Any insistence upon realizing this procedure would mean deliberately disrupting the investigation and would seriously jeopardize the cooperation and friendly relations between the Americans and the Communists.
I hereby suggest that you instruct the Executive Headquarters to act in line with General Yeh’s compromising proposition so as to effect an early completion of the investigation.
Awaiting your comments.