Mao: The Unknown Story

4 –226 N4A HQ appeals to Mao: cables, in Central Archive 1982, pp. 131ff. Xiang’s cable of 10th to Chiang again suppressed: in Li Liangzhi, p. 211. Mao informed Chou only on 11th: Mao cable in Central Archive 1982, p. 135; Chou first raised it with Nationalist General Ku, in a tone more of sorrow than of anger, at 9–11 pm on 11th, cable in ZS vol. 5, no. 2, p. 541; also Tong Xiaopeng, vol. 1, p. 224. Mao toned down level of crisis on 12th: compare Mao to Chou that day with N4A HQ to Mao on 10th, in Central Archive 1982, pp. 137, 132.

5 13th: Chou serious protest; Chiang had already stopped killing: Chou two cables to Mao on 13th, ibid., pp. 140, 142–3.

6 –227 Mao cranked up PR campaigns: orders, ibid., pp. 138ff. “overthrow Chiang”: Mao to Peng, 23 Jan. 1941, in Li Liangzhi, p. 295, plus many other cables, ibid., pp. 294–7. Chou saw Russian ambassador, who suspected Mao: Panyushkin, pp. 113ff; cf. Mirovitskaya 1999, pp. 64–6; Tikhvinsky 2000, p. 628 (Chou — Panyushkin, 15 Jan. 1941). Mao appeals to Moscow for all-out civil war: Titov, vol. 3, pp. 461–2; Dimitrov, 16 Jan. 1941; Panyushkin, pp. 129–30; cf. RGASPI, 495/74/317, p. 75. Dimitrov reaction: Dimitrov, 18 Jan. 1941; cf. Avreyski, pp. 384–5. Stalin annoyed: Dimitrov, 21 Jan. 1941. Ye Ting: RGASPI, 495/1/942; cf. ibid., 495/154/353, p. 3.

7 Tikhvinsky 2000, p. 628 (Chou — Panyushkin, 15 Jan. 1941).

8 Dimitrov blamed Mao: Dallin & Firsov, p. 135 (Dimitrov to Mao, 4 Feb. 1941, and to Stalin, 6 Feb. 1941); cf. Dimitrov, 4, 5 & 6 Feb. 1941. Order, 13 Feb.: Dimitrov, 12 Feb. 1941. Mao cable that day: to Dimitrov, in Dallin & Firsov, pp. 137–41; contrast with Mao to Dimitrov, 1 Feb. 1941, ibid., p. 136. Mao unusual letter to sons: 31 Jan. 1941, Mao 1984, pp. 166–7. This and some other Mao letters to his sons in Usov 1997, pp. 109ff; three An-ying letters to Mao intercepted in NA, HW17/55 (ISCOT 297, sent 29 July 1944), HW17/66 (ISCOT 1359, sent 2 May 1945), HW17/67 (ISCOT 1475, sent 28 Nov. 1945); An-ying letters (to others) in Romanov & Kharitonov, pp. 159ff.

9 –228 Xiang death: killer Liu Houzong’s own account, in LD, 1981, no. 2, pp. 81, 96; Xu & Tang, pp. 613–19. Mao condemns Xiang: Resolution, Jan. 1941, in ZZWX vol. 13, pp. 31–4 (E: Saich 1996, pp. 956–8); cf. Panyushkin, pp. 123–4. Russian heat on Chiang: Chuikov 1981, pp. 76, 78–9; Panyushkin, p. 127; Titov, vol. 3, p. 466; DVP vol. 23, book 2, part 1 (1940–1941), pp. 350ff. Chiang, p. 1667. Pressure from US: Currie, “Notes …,” cit. Currie report to Roosevelt: FRUS 1941, vol. 4, pp. 81–5; cf. Snow 1972, pp. 236–7. Carlson: Ickes, vol. 2, pp. 327–8; Wang, A., p. 328.

10 British ambassador: Panyushkin, pp. 117, 129; Hayter 1974, p. 51. Casualties: Mao cable, 1 Feb. 1941, in Mao 1993a, vol. 2, p. 622; Ye Ting letter, Feb. 1941, in South Anhui Incident Committee, p. 211. Chiang had not set a trap: ibid., pp. 388–419; Li Liangzhi, pp. 232–45. Chiang and Reds kept quiet about clashes before: Ta Kung Pao editorial, 10 Mar. 1941, in GS vol. 3, pp. 257–60; Wang Yan et al., p. 205.

11 –230 Hemingway on Chou: Morgenthau Diary vol. 1, p. 458 (letter to Morgenthau, 30 July 1941). Snow article: “Reds Fought off Chiang’s Troops 9 Days in China,” NY-HT, 22 Jan. 1941; cf. Thomas, pp. 239, 373, n. 39; Farnsworth, pp. 375–8. Hemingway on Reds: Morgenthau Diary vol. 1, p. 460 (to Morgenthau, 30 July 1941). Dissuaded from publishing by Currie: ibid., p. 461 (Hemingway to Morgenthau, 30 July 1941). Currie: Sandilands, pp. 107ff; Persico, p. 378 (“friend,” not spy); ZS vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 533ff.

12 –231 Verbal message: Currie, “Notes …,” cit., p. 2. Report to Roosevelt: FRUS 1941, vol. 4, pp. 81ff, 83. Chiang asked Kremlin to intervene: Tikhvinsky 2000, pp. 629–32 (Ambassador Shao Li-tzu to Lozovsky, 29 Jan. 1941). Mao referred to Chiang as “rebel”: 1 Feb. 1941, Mao 1993a, vol. 2, p. 623.