106. Still on the British Road to Socialism?

Readings on the programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain

Sometimes unimaginatively referred to by its critics as the ‘The British Road to Nowhere’, the programmatic publication of the Communist Party of Great Britain was first published in 1951 as The British Road to Socialism.

It superseded the previous programme titled For Soviet Britain that was published for the party’s 13th Congress in 1935. The publication of Communist Party programmes in Britain began in the 1920s with the release of Class against Class, the General Election Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain published in 1929.

At its heart, since the end of the Second World War, the CPGB’s political stance has been on “the leading role of the organised working class in a broad democratic alliance directed against state monopoly capitalism.” Often translated in practice to fighting the Tories. How this has been understood and presented has undergone modification and revision as subsequent editions of The British Road to Socialism were issued and criticised from within and without as essentially a left social democratic and reformist programme.

Thanks Stalin

Rumours that the first edition of the document received the personal approval of Joseph Stalin have been largely substantiate which led some Stalinist to distinguish between the first edition and the revised 1958 edition – seeing evidence of the reformism and revisionism evident in the post-Stalin publication. However the first edition was explicit that

“The enemies of Communism accuse the Communist Party of aiming to introduce Soviet power in Britain and abolish Parliament. This is a slanderous misrepresentation … British Communists declare that the people of Britain can transform capitalist democracy into a real People’s Democracy, transforming Parliament, the product of Britain’s historic struggle for democracy, into the democratic instrument of the will of the vast majority of her people.”


First Edition The British Road to Socialism, https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1951/51.htm

1950 Stalin On_the_British_Road_to_Socialism

Ray Jones Stalin &  The British Road to Socialism

Andy Brooks Stalin & The British Road to Socialism

Parker No word on Uncle Joe

Vijay Singh 1951 A Programme of People’s Democracy

Subsequent editions of BRS were issued in 1958 – https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1958/58.htm

The anti-revisionist inner-opposition,  that had criticism of the strategy inherent in the British Road to Socialism, drew inspiration from the disputes in the International Communist Movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to organise and coalesce their forces.

The crisis around the Communist Party was an intricate affair, however the groups that supported the anti-revisionist position championed by the Albanian and Chinese parties in the early 1960s had little support within the CPGB. From the anti-revisionist viewpoint one might rankle at the state’s view of the CPGB as “the largest single subversive group in the UK” but in terms of membership even a terminal declining CP for most of its existence outnumbered the rest of the far left. It was the organisation, with its roots in the labour movement that others often revolved around or responded too. Its debates, as around the Alternative Economic Strategy, seeped into the general left agenda. The CP remained the dominant organisation on the Left even when others (particularly following the outbursts of the ’68 activism) were attracting the media headlines. An early break away from the party, the Action Centre for Marxist-Leninist Unity, argued against the revisionist leading clique of the CPGB, explained:

“It has been the extremely protracted and long – standing character of the degeneration of the C.PG.B., dating as it does from at least the year 1943 and the dissolution of the Comintern, that has been a most decisive factor in the development of our Movement .”

The early criticism of the British Road to Socialism from the anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists included:


Opposition Inside the Party [Chapter 6 from What’s Left? What’s Right? by Muriel Seltman]

Destroy the Old to Build the New! by Michael McCreery

The Way Forward – The need to establish a Communist Party in England, Scotland and Wales by Michael McCreery

The Road to Nowhere  FORUM for Marxist-Leninist Inner-Party Struggle, Supplement, October 1964.

Editorial Comment: Back To Square One? The Marxist, No. 3, March-April 1967

The Communist Party No Longer Exists in Britain Action Centre for Marxist-Leninist Unity

A New Surface on the British Road by W. B. Bland

The ’British Road’: An Opportunist Path to Counter-Revolution CFB(ML) Revolution issue 5. May 1977


Revisionism: The Politics of the CPGB Past & Present   RCLB Briefing


9781909831056Warring camps had emerged within the party, those critics of the BRS that remained in the party were mainly associated with those less critical of the Soviet Union and traditional orthodox practices of the party. There is an intricate history of interminable manoeuvring and struggle to be written on the factional life within the decaying party as no single authoritative account has emerged from the literary out pouring and polemical material of the time.

CPGB Bibliography

Another edition of the British Road to Socialism was produced in 1968


1968 BRS ed

The British Road to Socialism by Nina Stead [Nina Fishman]

The British Road to Socialism – A Reply to Criticisms by Nina Stead [Nina Fishman]


Since the 1960s a secret faction known as the “Smith Group” and later as the “Party Group” had operated within the CPGB based around the theories of the Italian communist leader Antonio Gramsci. This provided the political base for the emergence of an open Eurocommunist faction in the early 1970s. The John Gollan leadership sought to prop itself up by aligning itself with the Eurocommunist forces further to their right. Within that camp was an active faction that called itself the “Revolutionary Democratic Current”. (see: Evan Smith & Matthew Worley (2014) Against the Grain: The British Far Left from 1956 . Manchester University Press)

By the late 1970s the tensions and contradictory positions within the party were reflected in the pre-Congress discussion period that saw furious arguments within the party – with the majority saying that the British Road to Socialism new programme was about building a broad alliance for revolutionary social change, though implicitly or explicitly agreeing that the proposals broke with the Leninist tradition.

BRS draft 1977The proposed revisions in the 1977 draft and the leadership’s intention to stamp on its disloyal critics saw the premature breakaway by oppositionists members of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1977, centred on the Sid French-led Surrey district, who disagreed with the direction that party was taking, perceiving that it had abandoned Marxism-Leninism in favour of social democracy. This was heavily linked to the New Communist Party’s support for the Soviet Union and the CPGB’s more nuanced critical stance on the policies and actions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.


1977 The Crisis in the British Communist Party

1977 Sid French The British Road to Socialism

Pete Cockcroft Australian Left Review 61 September 1977

1978 Cook the BRS and the CP

1978 Smith the BRS and the CP

1978 Ward the BRS and the CP


 The factional universe that revolved around the CPGB

The internal crisis 1980s saw a deep rift appeared amongst what many had assumed to be an ideologically united minority in the C.P.G.B. On the one hand those who believed it correct to stay in the C.P.G.B., and continue the fight against Eurocommunism from within, regarded the NCP ‘breakaway’ as betrayal and desertion in the face of the class enemy. On the other hand, those who join the New Communist Party, (reportedly some 700) believing the struggle in the C.P.G.B. to be a lost cause, regarded those who refused to leave as misguided people who naively clung to the notion ( like the anti-revisionists Marxist-Leninists before them) that the revisionist stranglehold on the party apparatus could be broken.

Internally there were two oppositional groupings: Straight Left led by former CPGB student organiser Fergus Nicholson and the Communist Campaign Group (supporting the Morning Star newspaper since 1945 owned by a readers’ co-operative, the People’s Press Printing Society) against the leadership’s Eurocommunist faction aligned to the magazine, Marxism Today. These groupings were as equally opposed to each other; the CCG explicitly excluded from membership fellow oppositionists within the party:


On the fringes were groupscule publishing ‘The Leninist’, the NCP and an expelled group from the NCP – Proletarian (hardly to be confused with the publication published since 2004 by the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)).

The Leninist, noted for their polemical zeal, (and criticised as semi-trotskyists by CP members who questioned their political pedigree) made no reference to the British Road in its founding statement however observed that:

“The leaders of the NCP and the vast majority of the rank and file fought over many years in the Communist Party to defeat what they call the ‘revisionism’ of the party. In this fight, ideological struggle was reduced to the almost ritualistic incantation of the ‘holy trinity’. Proletarian Internationalism, Democratic Centralism, Dictatorship of the Proletariat they chanted, as if that was enough to exorcise the devil of ‘revisionism’.”

[Founding Statement of the Leninist: The Communist Party, the crisis and its crisis. The Leninist No.1 Winter 1981/2 p6]

The group had its roots as a section of the NCP’s youth wing that decided to re-enter the CPGB in the early 1980s under the auspices of The Leninist, which in turn became involved in further factional disputes before being expelled in the mid-1980s. It survived the liquidation of the CPGB and metamorphosed in name to publish the Weekly Worker, “a paper of Marxist polemic and Marxist unity” published under the reclaimed (vacant) name of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee).

Likewise, the Proletarian group emerged from a split in the New Communist Party (NCP). The Proletarian faction around Keith Nelson emerged in 1981, expelled from the NCP in 1982 and dissolved in 1988 following a domestic abuse incident that split the leadership. It briefly spawned ‘Partisan’ that, against the reality of contemporary experience, advocated the united front of communists in the early 1990s.

The Proletarian faction argued that the NCP’s newspaper, The New Worker, should be aimed at raising the level of politically advanced workers. Specifically they looked towards CPGB which they believed was corrupt but had to be saved as it was the largest party for the politically conscious members of the working class. (See: “Economism, Tailism and the New Communist Party” Proletarian No.1 1982)

The group went on to produce a journal, Proletarian: Two issues appeared, the first in 1983 and the second in 1984. Selected articles and correspondence was published in 1987. The specific political stance taken by the journal was clearly its pro-Sovietism as its basic credo, a policy pursued out of genuine loyalty to the Soviet Union and an opportunist hope that they would gain Soviet recognition.

[In the 1990s another expulsion from the NCP later formed the short-lived Communist Action Group.]

Pyrrhic victory

After the arguments, expulsions and splits the victorious the Euro-communists dissolved the Party and transformed themselves into the short-lived and never lamented Democratic Left. When the CPGB’s leadership abandoned The British Road to Socialism in 1985, elements in the party that remained loyal to the programme, including the then editorial board of The Morning Star, form the Communist Party of Britain in 1988.

Discussion around the new draft of the British Road to Socialism “is a vital step in the fight to restore the damage done to the Party by revisionism, to build the Party and to resume the struggle for socialism in line with the proud traditions of broad-based working class struggle that have always characterised our Party throughout its history” wrote Tony Charter, editor of the Morning Star (in Communist Review Number 3 Spring 1989).

However the former members of the CPGB (re)established the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), not on the revolutionary ideology of the CPGB at its height in the twenties and thirties but on the basis of the 1978 British Road to Socialism.

1989 40th congressPrior to the first Congress, following the re-establishment Congress in April 1988, a commission of nine was established to prepare a redraft of the 1977 edition of the British Road. The draft programme attracted 367 amendments along with 69 policy resolutions provided the main business of, what was labelled to claim the legacy of continuity, the 40th Congress of the Communist Party of Britain. The final version of the programme was to be published to coincide with the 70th anniversary of a communist party in Britain. Still at the Congress , held on the 18th/19th November 1989 in Islington , north London, Mike Hicks, NCP General Secretary, described BRS as “a strategy for advance” and that the party’s “relationship to the Labour Party are crucial questions for this whole strategy”. 1989 Hicks Congress Speech

Noted in an earlier posting ‘Left Counting’: Far Left is a bit of a misnomer given their actual activity which so often revolved, like the CP, around involving Labour Party activism. Come the General Election most far left groups are encouraging its audience to support Labour critically which is largely what they were already doing.

In essence, a political position that is waiting for the historic election of a left-led Labour government while trying to explain that there should be no illusions that social democracy can ever bring about socialism.

Affiliation has been the longstanding position of the CPGB/CPB since the 1930s but without the slightest chance of it since around 1945. There is not the slightest chance of any organisation with “communist” in its title affiliating to the Labour Party. The CPB may have adopted the NCP line of ‘Vote Labour Everywhere!’ but if CPB members want to become part of the Labour Party, they simply leave the former and join the latter. The Labour Party did away with the old proscribed list in the early 1970s. Instead it relies on this catch-all clause in its Constitution:

“Political organisations not affiliated or associated under a national agreement with the Party, having their own programme, principles and policy, or distinctive and separate propaganda, or possessing branches in the constituencies, or engaged in the promotion of parliamentary or local government candidates, or having allegiance to any political organisation situated abroad, shall be ineligible for affiliation to the Party.”

The CPB took no chances and was sole copyright holder for 6th edition of “the British Road to Socialism.”

Jeremy Corbyn MP welcoming the delegates to his consistency

The 40th Congress report pictures Jeremy Corbyn MP welcoming the delegates to his constituency.



1985 Communist Campaign Group1985 CCG_crisis in the CP

1989 Communist Review Number 3 Spring 1989

Adereth A Consistent class policy

Bellamy Revisionism and the 1977 BRS

1989 Hicks 1989 Hicks Congress Speech

1989 https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1989/

2006 New Communist Party,  2006 NCP The Case for Communism,

2008 Lalkar 2008 Lalkar The British Road to Socialism

The CPB at its 41st Reconvened Congress in November 1992 decided to amend sections on the world situation in the light of the enormous changes which had occurred in the former countries of Eastern Europe. This is the revised and amended version of The Present World Situation based on the decisions of that Congress. https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/1989/ch1rev.htm

BRS 2001Two subsequent editions of the programmatic document have been produced with further revisions and the 7th edition in 2001 was renamed Britain’s Road to Socialism.


The political message was consistent from those nominal opponents that remained in the NCP: NCP leader Andy Brookes at the 15th Congress of the New Communist Party of Britain, at the Marx Memorial Library in London on the weekend of 2nd / 3rd of December 2006:

“We believe that the working class can never come to power through bourgeois elections but that doesn’t mean that we turn our back on working class demands for social justice and state welfare. We believe that social democracy can never lead to people’s democracy but that doesn’t mean that we turn our back on social democratic movements that represent millions upon millions of working people in Britain in the unions and in the Labour Party.

“We believe that the class collaborationist ideas of social democracy must be defeated within the working class but not by imitating it in the countless variations of the British Road to Socialism upheld by the revisionist and Trotskyist movements in Britain today. The fact that these platforms do not work; that they are rejected time and time again by the same working class these programmes claim to advance never deters these pseudo-revolutionaries who believe they can change the consciousness of the masses through rhetoric and wild promises.

“Now we can all play that game and call upon imaginary legions beyond the British working class to advance along the revolutionary road. We can all invent a class that is seething with anger and mobilised for revolutionary change that is just waiting for the correct party with the correct formula to lead them to victory. Unfortunately as communists we have to work with the working class that exists and not the phantom of romantic leftism.

“Running left candidates without mass support against Labour divides the movement and the class and ignores the obvious fact that the only realistic alternate governments are those of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats that would be much worse than any Labour government.” http://www.newworker.org/congressdocs/index.html

An 8th edition was adopted by the CPB Executive Committee in July 2011. https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/brs/2011/toc.htm

In this programme, the CPB explained its view that:

  • Capitalism is a system of exploitation that generates crisis, inequality, corruption, environmental degradation and war; and is innately incapable of solving the most fundamental problems of humanity.
  • The capitalist monopoly corporations and the state apparatus which serves their interests are the main obstacles to progress on every front: economic, social, cultural and political.
  • Socialism is the only form of society that offers the potential for solving humanity’s problems in conditions of individual and collective freedom.
  • Because the working class has the most direct and immediate interest in putting an end to capitalism and replacing it with a socialist society, its own class interest also represents the interests of society as a whole.
  • In Britain, the potential exists to pursue an alternative economic and political strategy that challenges and ultimately defeats the ruling class.
  • More specifically, a popular democratic alliance can be built, led by the labour movement, to fight for a left-wing programme of policies that would make inroads into the wealth and power of the monopoly capitalists.
  • Through an upsurge in working class and popular action, a left government can be elected in Britain based on parliamentary majorities of Labour, socialist, communist and progressive representatives, and strengthened by the election of left majorities in Scotland and Wales.
  • In striving to implement the most advanced policies of a left-wing programme (LWP), the mass movement and its left governments will have to engage in a decisive struggle for state power and win.
  • Ensuring a united challenge to British state-monopoly capitalism will require a high level of working class and progressive coordination and unity, maximising the democratic potential of national rights in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall and minimising the scope for division.
  • Achieving state power and minimising the opportunities for counter-revolution will create the conditions in which capitalism can be fully dismantled and the foundations laid for a democratic and peaceful future in a federal, socialist Britain.
  • A socialist society can then be built in which wealth and power are held in common and used in a planned way for the benefit of all, with the working class and its allies liberating the people generally from all forms of exploitation and oppression.
  • Putting an end to British imperialism – the exercise of monopoly capitalist exploitation and power in other parts of the world – is the biggest contribution we can make to international human liberation and socialism.
  • A Communist Party that exercises mass influence will be essential if Britain’s road to socialism is to be realised in practice, through political class struggle.

This programme is based on the study, analysis and assessment of concrete realities, tendencies and trends. It is intended to be a guide to action, not a speculative prediction or a dogmatic blueprint. It is a living, developing programme to be constantly tested in practice and reassessed in the light of experience.

Above all, it is subject to the Marxist insistence that the liberation of the working class and the emancipation of the people can only be achieved by the action of the working class and the people themselves. Freedom cannot be imposed from outside or above – it has to be fought for and won by the overwhelming majority of the population.

It proposes that socialism can be achieved in Britain by the working class leading the other classes in a popular democratic anti-monopoly alliance against monopoly capital, and implementing a left-wing programme of socialist construction. Part of this strategy involves winning the labour movement with a left-wing position, through struggle in the existing democratic bodies of the working class, such as trades unions, trades union councils and tenant’s associations.

A draft of an updated 8th edition of the Communist Party’s programme was issued on International Workers Day, May 1 2018, by the CPB’s Political Committee for wider discussion before an Executive Committee decision on yet another edition of the British Road to Socialism .

Robert GriffithsPresent chairman of the CPB, former welsh republican, Robert Griffiths spoke  that June at a conference in Shenzhen, China, on Marxism in the 21st Century and the Future for World Socialism on Mapping an updated road to socialism for today’s world


2018 Robert Griffiths Mapping an updated road to socialism

2018 draft BRS

The present BRS  is actually far weaker than the 1978 CPGB Edition.

It talks of a “left government”, but, unlike the 1978 BRS, cannot define what a “left government” would be, and then seems to assume this government will first try and implement the Left Wing programme (a modest list of mildly reformist palliatives), and will then have to progressively democratise the state until it is so democratic it becomes the state of the working people and we have arrived in socialism. This incremental path to socialism is one of the problems with the British Road to Socialism. In all its editions is the unrealism and mechanical progression in depicting the evolution of more and more left and then socialist governments, in the attempts to set out a credible scenario of societal transformation there is a binary position that seems to have faded from the scenarios of political transformation : This can only end one way or another; either in revolution where the working class takes control of the state and ownership of the means of production for their benefit as a class, or the ruling class carries out a counter revolution and snuffs out the workers struggle, if only temporarily. It’s only temporary because capitalism needs workers to produce surplus value and the class struggle is always a product of capitalism. No one can plan out how a revolution will take place, not least because it will be the working class who makes a revolution rather than any individual or any party. All the same it is Leninist ABC that the revolutionary party would have be so much a part of the class that it would be able to take a leading role in bringing about a revolution.

The programme recognised the aim and the need of having a socialist government in power. However you cannot somehow ‘snowball’ democratic, peaceful extra parliamentary activity and then in some way convert that into a movement for revolutionary change. Class struggle is a part of the contradiction of capitalism and if you elect a left reformist government you will inevitably get a left reformist policy, which is then dramatically reversed as the left government is forced to face up to the ebb and flow of capitalist realities. All the workers struggles are reformist – an attempt to improve or reform capitalism to their benefit and as such, they can’t change the system. The British Road to Socialism had long abandoned the notion that only by destroying the bourgeois state can you liberate the working class and only by creating a dictatorship of the proletariat can you build a socialist society.

Just Read………….. The China Triangle

Herbert Feis (1953) The China Triangle: the American effort in China from Pearl Harbour to the Marshal Mission. Princeton University Press.

Two things are immediately clear when reading The China Triangle: why Herbert Feis was described as “a court historian”, and that release of official records often adds to the texture but not the substance of journalistic first drafts of history.

Feis has the establishment background to be scholarly and accurate in demolishing the claim that the American Government was responsible for the collapse of the Chinese Nationalists and the triumph of the communists led by Mao Zedong.

A Harvard academic economist, staff member of the Council on Foreign Relations, State Department economic advisor, Feis’ contribution to the “who lost China” debacle, that convulsed Washington’s political circles in the early 1950s, points the finger in the direction of Chang Kai-shek.

The China Triangle explores and substantially supports US policies arguing that America’s policy priorities lay in winning the war, supporting Chang Kai-shek, preserving the independence and unity of China.

After the great retreat to Taiwan by the Nationalist forces and the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949, Senator McCarthy amplified the charges raised by Patrick Hurley, frustrated ambassador to China, defender of Chang Kai-shek ; in 1950, McCarthy brandished a sheath of papers and declared that he had in his hand “a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

The China Triangle obliquely addresses the charges by reviewing, and justifying, state policy. Feis has no disagreement with the administration’s objective of a world beneficently organised by the United States but the unsubstantial accusations, the slanders and lies of McCarthyism offends the sensibilities and insults the intelligent analysis of state officials.

McCarthy’s shrieking denunciations and anti-communist fear-mongering created a climate of fear and suspicion across the USA.  The Foreign Service reports on the rival forces battling the occupying Japanese — Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists and Mao Zedong’s Communists — that observed the corruption and weakness of the former, came under particular scrutiny: ”Selfish and corrupt, incapable and obstructive,” were a few of the words used to describe the Chiang Government in a 1944 memo to General Stilwell. In July 1944, John Service[i] managed to get to Mao’s headquarters in Yanan. He wrote that he felt he had ”come into a different country,” one marked by hard work, cooperation and ”the absence of banditry.”

Recording his first impressions, he wrote: ”There is an absence of show and formality, both in speech and action. Relations of the officials and people toward us, and of the Chinese themselves, are open, direct and friendly. Mao Zedong and other leaders are universally spoken of with respect (amounting in the case of Mao to a kind of veneration).”

This was in sharp contrast to the ”crisis” of the Chiang Government he described in a crucial memo to General Stilwell that Oct. 11. ”Recent defeats have exposed its military ineffectiveness and will hasten the approaching economic disaster.”

It was not solely the Yenan Observer Mission – often referred to as the Dixie Mission because it was in rebel territory – reporting on a dictatorial suppression of dissent in Nationalist-controlled areas, the corrupt political and military elite that made the Republic of China Government vulnerable. The Chinese Communist Party for its part, experienced success in its early efforts at land reform and was lauded by peasants for its unflagging efforts to fight against the Japanese invaders. Eventually Service drafted a letter, signed by the rest of the diplomatic staff in the Nationalist capital, Chongqing, urging that the United States provide aid to the Communists in order to reduce casualties in an expected Allied invasion from the sea. General Hurley charged betrayal and got him recalled, this time for good. Telling it as it was saw loyal US officials like John Service accused of being communist sympathisers. Service, John Vincent, John Davies, Oliver Edmund Clubb were all forced out of the Foreign Service. All were eventually vindicated: cleared by a State Department loyalty board — by his count Service would eventually pass nine such inquiries. [ii] Critical reports from American military leaders – General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who assumed command over US forces in China following the dismissal of the equally critical General Joseph Stilwell in October 1944- concluded that China was lost:

“Notwithstanding all the corruption and incompetence that one notes in China, it is a certainty that the bulk of the people are not disposed to a Communist political and economic structure. Some have become affiliated with Communism in indignant protest against oppressive police measures, corrupt practices and maladministration of National Government officials. Some have lost all hope for China under existing leadership and turn to the Communists in despair. Some accept a new leadership by mere inertia.”[iii]



Mao Zedong had a different take on things describing The White Paper as a counter-revolutionary document which openly demonstrates U.S. imperialist intervention in China:

“China is in the midst of a great revolution. All China is seething with enthusiasm. The conditions are favourable for winning over and uniting with all those who do not have a bitter and deep-seated hatred for the cause of the people’s revolution, even though they have mistaken ideas. Progressives should use the White Paper to persuade all these persons.”

The Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung contains five commentaries written by Mao Tse-tung for the Hsinhua News Agency on the U.S. State Department’s White Paper and Dean Acheson’s Letter of Transmittal. The White Paper supplied the material in ‘Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle’ (August 14, 1949) , “Farewell, Leighton Stuart!”, “Why It Is Necessary to Discuss the White Paper”, “‘Friendship’ or Aggression?” and “The Bankruptcy of the Idealist Conception of History” to exposed the imperialist nature of United States policy towards China, criticized the illusions about U.S. imperialism harboured by some of the bourgeois intellectuals in China and gave a theoretical explanation of the reasons for the rise of the Chinese revolution and for its victory. The press campaign sought to discredit the United States for everything it had done in China since the Treaty of Wanghia in 1844, and especially for its recent actions. In a fair summary, Mao wrote,

“Acheson’s White Paper admits that the U.S. imperialists are at a complete loss as to what to do about the present situation in China. The Kuomintang is so impotent that no amount of help can save it from inevitable doom; the U.S. imperialists are losing grip over things and feel helpless.”


In the narrative of the American effort in China from Pearl Harbour to the Marshal Mission, Feis writing mainly from the official record substantially follows the 1,054-page ‘white paper’ titled United States relations with China, with special reference to the period 1944-49. Published in early August 1949, it outlined the situation in China, detailed American involvement and assistance to the Chinese and suggested reasons for the failure of the Chinese Nationalist government was that it was so corrupt, inefficient, and unpopular that no amount of U.S. aid could save it. Nevertheless, the communist victory in China brought forth a wave of criticism from Republicans who charged that the Truman administration lost China through gross mishandling of the situation,

Dean Acheson (1893-1971) introduction to the White Paper stated otherwise:

“… This is a frank record of an extremely complicated and most unhappy period in the life of a great country to which the United States has long been attached by ties of closest friendship…

By the beginning of the 20th century, the combined force of overpopulation and new ideas set in motion that chain of events which can be called the Chinese Revolution. It is one of the most imposing revolutions in recorded history and its outcome and consequences are yet to be foreseen…

Representatives of our government, military and civilian, who were sent to assist the Chinese on prosecuting [World War II] soon discovered that the long struggle had seriously weakened the Chinese government, not only militarily and economically but also politically and in morale… It was evident to us that only a rejuvenated and progressive Chinese government which could recapture the enthusiastic loyalty of the people could and would wage and effective war against Japan…

When peace came, the United States was confronted with three possible alternatives in China: it could have pulled out lock, stock and barrel; it could have intervened militarily on a major scale to assist the Nationalists to destroy the Communists; [or] it could, while assisting the Nationalists to assert their authority over as much as China as possible, endeavour to avoid a civil war by working for a compromise between the two sides…

The second objective, of assisting the Nationalist government, we pursued vigorously from 1945 to 1949. The National government was the recognised government of a friendly power. Our friendship, and our right under international law alike, called for our aid to the government instead of to the Communists, who were seeking to subvert and overthrow it…

The reasons for the failure of the Chinese National government… do not stem from any inadequacy of American aid… The fact was that the decay which our observers had detected… early in the war had fatally sapped the powers of resistance of the Guomindang. Its leaders had proved incapable of meeting the crisis confronting them, its troops had lost the will to fight, and its government had lost popular support.

The Communists, on the other hand, through a ruthless discipline and fanatical zeal, attempted to sell themselves as guardians and liberators of the people. The Nationalist armies did not have to be defeated, they disintegrated. History has proved again and again that a regime without faith in itself and an army without morale cannot survive the test of battle…

The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the ominous result of the civil war in China was beyond the control of the government of the United States. Nothing that this country did or could have done, within the reasonable limits of its capabilities, could have changed that result; nothing that was left undone by this country has contributed to it. It was the product of internal Chinese forces, forces which this country tried to influence but could not…”


That perspective has never been accepted by the China Lobby. Although the basic premise should be that China wasn’t America’s to lose in the first place, when the Chiang Government disintegrated, the search for culprits intensified. This historic episode – “Who Lost China?” is one repeatedly returned to in academia, less so in mainstream publishing occasional sellers like Sterling Seagrave’s The Soong Dynasty.


This bibliography taken from an FromTheDixieMissionToTheMarshallMission-1943-1946  on the events:



Annexes to United States Relations with China, with Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949. Published by the Department of State, with a “Letter from Secretary of State Acheson to President Truman Transmitting the Record,” 30 July 1949 (“The China White Paper”).

Barrett, Colonel David, Dixie Mission: The United States Army Observer Group in Yenan, 1944. The Center for Chinese Studies: University of California at Berkeley, 1970.

Buhite, Russell, Patrick Hurley and American Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press, 1973.

Carter, Carolle, Mission to Yenan: American Liaison with the Chinese Communists, 1944-1947. The University Press of Kentucky, 1997.

Ching-kuo, Chiang, My Father. Taipei, 1956.

Claudin, Fernando, The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform, Volume II , New York, 1975.

Davies, John, China Hand: An Autobiography. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.

Davies, John, “Memoranda by Foreign Service Officers in China, 1943-1945,” in The China White Paper.

Dedijer, Vladimer, Tito Speaks, 1953.

Feis, Herbert, The China Tangle: The American Effort in China from Pearl Harbor to the Marshall Mission. Princeton University Press, 1965.

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1944 and 1945.

Garver, John, Chinese-Soviet Relations 1937-1945: The Diplomacy of Chinese Nationalism. Oxford University Press, 1988.

Gauss, Clarence, “The Ambassador in China to Secretary Hull,” 31 August 1944 in The China White Paper.

Harding, Harry and Ming, Yuan editors, Sino-American Relations, 1945-1955, SR Books, 1989.

Hurley, Patrick to Chou Enlai, 11 December 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) 1944, 6.

Jian, Chen, Mao’s China and the Cold War. The University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Joiner, Lynne, Honorable Survivor: Mao’s China, McCarthy’s America, and the Persecution of John S. Service. Naval Institute Press, 2009.

Jun, Niu, From Yen’an Marching toward the World: The Origin of the CCP’s Foreign Policies, 1935-1949. Fujian People’s Press, 1992. Passages translated in English by Chen Jian in Mao’s China.

Kai-shek, Chiang, China’s Destiny, 1943, published in English in 1947. New York, Roy Publishers.

Kai-shek, Chiang, “Statement to the Fifth Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang,” 13 September 1943 in The China White Paper.

Koen, Ross, The China Lobby in American Politics. Harper & Row, 1974.

Levine, Steven, Anvil of Victory: The Communist Revolution in Manchuria, 1945-1948, Columbia University Press, 1987.

Marshall, George, Marshall’s Mission to China, Volumes I and II, December 1945-January 1947, including “Appended Documents.” University Publications of America, 1976.

People’s Political Council, “Report by the Representative of the National Government and the Report by the Representative of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party,” 15 September 1944 in The China White Paper.

Pepper, Suzanne, “The KMT-CCP Conflict, 1945-1949” in The Nationalist Era in China, 1927-1949. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Pepper, Suzanne, Civil War in China: The Political Struggle, 1945-1949. University of California Press, 1978.

Peterkin, Colonel W. J., Inside China: 1943-1945, An Eyewitness Account of America’s Mission to Yenan. Gateway Press, 1992.

Reardon-Anderson, James, Yenan and the Great Powers: The Origins of Chinese Communist Foreign Policy, 1944-1946. Columbia University Press, 1980.

Schaller, Michael, The U.S. Crusade in China, 1938-1945. Columbia University Press, 1979.

Service, John, “Memoranda by Foreign Service Officers in China, 1943-1945,” in The China White Paper.

Service, John, Lost Chance in China: The World War II Despatches of John S. Service, edited by Joseph Esherick, Random House, 1974.

Sheng, Michael, Battling Western Imperialism: Mao, Stalin and the United States. Princeton University Press, 1997.

Snow, Edgar, Red Star Over China. Grove Press, 1961.

Stilwell, Joseph, The Stilwell Papers: General Joseph W. Stilwell’s Iconoclastic Account of America’s Adventures in China. Edited by Theodore White. Shocken Books, 1948.

Taylor, Jay, The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the Struggle for Modern China. Harvard University Press, 2009.

Truman, Harry, Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1952. Doubleday & Co., 1956.

Tse-tung, Mao, “On Coalition Government,” 24 April 1945, Selected Works, Volume III. Foreign Languages Press, 1975.

Tse-tung, Mao, “On the Chungking Negotiations,” 17 October 1945, Selected Works, Volume IV. Foreign Languages Press, 1969.

Tse-tung, Mao, “Build Stable Base Areas in the Northeast,” 28 December 1945, Selected Works, Volume IV.

Tse-tung, Mao, “Smash Chiang-shek’s Offensive by a War of Self-Defense, 20 July 1946, Selected Works, Volume IV.

Tse-tung, Mao, “The Truth About U.S. ‘Mediation’ and the Future of the Civil War in China,” 29 September 1946, Selected Works, Volume IV.

Tse-tung Mao, “A Three Months Summary,” 1 October 1946, Selected Works, Volume IV.

Tse-tung Mao, “Greet the New High Tide of the Chinese Revolution,” 1 February 1947, Selected Works, Volume IV.

Tse-tung, Mao, “Speech at the Tenth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee,” 24 September 1962,

in Chairman Mao Talks to the People, Talks and Letters: 1956-1971, edited by Stuart Schram. Pantheon Books, 1974.

Tsou, Tang, America’s Failure in China, 1941-1950, Volumes 1 and 2. University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Tuchman, Barbara, Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-1945. Grove Press, 1970.

Tuchman, Barbara, “If Mao Had Come to Washington: An Essay in Alternatives,” Foreign Affairs, October 1972.

Wallace, Henry, “The Vice-President’s Discussion with President Chiang,” 23 June 1944 in The China White Paper.

Westad, Odd Arne, Cold War and Revolution: Soviet-American Rivalry and the Origins of the Chinese Civil War, 1944-1946. Columbia University Press, 1993.

Yu, Maochun, OSS in China: Prelude to Cold War. Naval Institute Press, 1996.

Yu, Maochun, The Dragon’s Tail: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937-1947. Naval Institute Press, 2006.

Zhang Shuguang and Jian, Chen, Chinese Communist Foreign Policy and the Cold War in Asia: New Documentary Evidence, 1944-1950. Imprint Publications, 1996.



[i] https://adst.org/2013/12/john-s-service-the-man-who-lost-china/

[ii] In the Sixties Service enrolled in the University of California at Berkeley, received a master’s degree and became library curator of its Center for Chinese Studies. He published several books on China, including a volume of his wartime dispatches, ”Last Chance in China”.

Esherick, Joseph W., ed. (1974) Lost Chance in China: The World War II Despatches of John S. Service New York: Random House, 409 pp.

[iii] ‘Report on China-Korea’, 1947, Appendix VI in Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports!, New York: Holt, 1958, p.464.

Chinese Nationalist soldiers