"Working With Chiang Kai Shek"

Former CIA Director Allen Dulles took secret and illegal actions in attempting a negotiated peace with the Axis in World War II, against Roosevelt's orders. This idea was also frequently presented by Conservatives in Britain to the House of Lords and FDR, always being rejected by him. But, for Dulles, such a negotiated peace represented an opportunity to sneak all of his wealth out of the Axis countries into third countries more safely. Japanese-occupied Manchuria, which he was trying already to use as a haven for his wealth, would remain untouched by Allied forces if a negotiated peace could be obtained.

To achieve such a settlement, Dulles went to great lengths to bring several warring factions and parties into agreement. He may also have gone to great lengths to show "good will" to the various parties via such demonstrations as illegal oil shipments to the Axis. One party he enlisted as an ally in his schemes was Chiang Kai Shek of China.

Chiang was paranoid that his fellow officers would coopt him in his dealings with the Americans. He clearly didn't trust America to keep him in power. In the first half of 1944, we are told by Xiaoyuan Liu (234), Chiang had attempted to pressure the Roosevelt administration to support him diplomatically against Russia by citing border incidents between Kuomintang troops and Soviet troops along the long Sino-Soviet border. But FDR was reluctant to promise him such support. America desperately needed to keep the USSR on board as an ally against the Axis for at least a few more months.

But Chiang apparently didn't see it that way. And in America Far Right supporters of 1944 Republican Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, including Dulles, undoubtedly saw this growing gap between Chiang and FDR as a political opportunity and tool in their efforts to negotiate with the Axis behind FDR's back.

Only a few days previous to James Forrestal's late July trips to Guam and Saipan, which are incidents that are reported by Tom Devine in Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident (CO: Renaissance, 1980), and referred to at length in my chapter "Disappearing Act: James Forrestal Under Surveillance", elsewhere on this Site and in my book Tim, George Bush and Me: The Undercurrents In All Our Lives), (go to Disappearing Act: James Forrestal Under Surveillance), Dulles and others at OSS and Standard Oil had learned, the OSS had airdropped some rounds of ammo to Mao tse-Tung, says R. Harris Smith (265). Mao had proven to be a tough opponent of the Japanese in China, much more successful against them than Chiang's forces--which, in fact, were shot through with Japanese spies and sympathizers. Not only this, Chiang's top general, Tai Li, greatly admired Heinrich Himmler, publicly admitting he was his role model (Smith 245).

For someone supposedly on our side, Tai Li was certainly back and forth about fighting the Japanese.(Smith 245-9). When the British, before the Japanese declaration of war on America, had sent a group of officers to advise him and clear his high command of Japanese spies and sympathizers, Tai Li had locked the British officers up, treating them like captured POW's. He didn't feed them well, and some died (Smith 247-8).

After America's war with Japan started, OSS attempted to work with Tai Li as well. However, some of Tai Li's troops began to frequently break off from skirmishes with the Japanese and attack Burmese villages instead, (as, indeed, they'd been doing since before America's counterattack campaign in Burma) plundering and stealing at gunpoint from the hapless villagers (Smith 265-6). The OSS then allowed a small group of its officers to fire on these clearly-defecting Chinese troops (Smith 265-6). Yet, instead of apologizing to America for his troops' treasonous and illegal acts, Chiang insisted that the U.S. apologize for firing on these creeps (Smith 265-6).

When FDR sent a State Department employee to do what the British officers had attempted to do before Pearl Harbor in cleaning out spies from Tai Li and Chiang's administration, she was killed in the streets by persons clearly traceable to Tai Li (Smith 268-9). Clearly, Tai Li felt he had something to hide and sympathized more than a little bit with Japan. He was reported by Stillwell to be much more interested in fighting Mao than the Japanese, with some of his forces even fighting alongside the Japanese or maneuvering in such a way as to assist the Japanese in occupying some areas so that they could fight Mao's forces (Smith 250-80). And at that point Stillwell suggested again that FDR press for a reform in Chiang's forces (Smith 248-50; 263-5).

But Chiang got wind of this, and, rather than making the suggested reforms, he insisted that FDR, instead, fire Stilwell (Smith 264-5). At first FDR resisted: after all, Stillwell was a hard worker and an able general. He had already worked wonders in the China-Burma-India theater on a shoestring budget. But Chiang dug in his heels. At some point, FDR caved in and actually fired Stillwell (Smith 265).

It is still not clear what kinds of pressure could have been applied to make FDR do so. But it could very well have been communicated to him by Standard Oil that it had reason to suspect that Chiang would start helping Japan if he didn't comply. And without revealing how they knew, they may also have informed FDR that a negotiated peace with Chiang was still of interest to Japan. Their source could have been that they had knowledge of a Japanese response to a secret courier mission that had communicated the terms of a negotiated peace to them. And one of the persons who had arranged this secret courier mission (a courier being used at that point to avoid FDR's by then known surveillance of Dulles) and its cover-up, and who had also seen that the results of that mission were communicated to FDR, was then-Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal.

Loftus and Aarons point out in numerous places how Forrestal was a leading anti-semite and a secret Dewey backer within the Democratic administration of FDR and Truman (176-8; 212). It is clear that he was in on the traitorous shenanigans of Allen Dulles in the latter months of 1944, as he sought to negotiate with the Axis behind FDR's back. If Forrestal would cover up for Dulles in Europe, why would he not also have done so in the Pacific?

In July, 1944, FDR airdropped the supplies to Mao (Smith 265). It is a certainty that Chiang threw a fit. And it would have been one in which he was encouraged by right-wingers at OSS and Standard Oil, including GOP operatives. Dulles, Forrestal and others with Standard Oil wanted to use Chiang's anger to their advantage. They would suggest that Chiang forego his war against Japan in return for its promise to help against Mao.

In the summer of 1944, Chiang betrayed FDR and his fellow Nationalists by negotiating with the Japanese during their Ichigo Offensive (Bagby 234). Chiang, in betraying his countrymen, allowed the Japanese to capture 17 major new American bomber bases in Northern China to have been used to bomb Japan and Japanese shipping.

It is an interesting coincidence that America's ability to bomb Japanese shipping was hampered at this precise point. Standard Oil had just succeeded in pressuring the Roosevelt Administration to allow it to ship oil to neutral but pro-Fascist countries in May 1944 (Higham 58-62 ).This had the effect of making it easier for Dulles to use Japan to help him transfer his wealth from Axis-occupied nations in Europe to Japanese-occupied Manchuria ahead of advancing Soviet troops (Loftus and Aarons 250-70). As a good will gesture to Japan, and as part of laying the groundwork for a negotiated peace with the Axis, Dulles seems to have promised a Standard Oil shipment out of Saudi Arabia through India to Thailand. Data later gained by CIA and State Department employees indicate that Allen Dulles had engaged in negotiations with the Thai government at that time (Loftus and Aarons 111).*

Forrestal was a "leader" in seeing the future problems with Mao's Communists in China (Loftus and Aarons 158). In the closing months of World War 2, he was also the leading critic of the bombing of Japan (Devine 50-1). He encouraged FDR to stop bombing Japan, ostensibly concerned with Japan's opinions about the U.S. in the postwar years, when their alliance with us against Russia and Mao would be needed.( Herbert L. Feis. Japan Subdued<.em>. New York: 1961. 4-11).

In reality, of course, Forrestal's positions vis a vis bombing Japan in those closing months had much more to do with his efforts to once again soften the Japanese to the idea of a negotiated peace (See also "TOJO OUT: The Mysterious Japanese Cabinet Shuffle of July, 1944" below.) Up to the very end, Dulles, Forrestal and the other partners at Standard Oil were behind FDR's back attempting to negotiate a "separate peace" with the Axis. While they may have felt they were acting in America's interests in the process, it seems clear that they were primarily acting in the intersts of their own pocketbooks.

Many of those we've just named as possibly being helpful could have been instrumental at this point as well: General Draper, Robert Lovett, Artemis Gates, Jesse Jones and Francis Biddle. In addition, MacArthur's Chief of Staff General Richard K. Sutherland, whose father was an associate of Bush's father's attorney, the now known to be traitorous Allen Dulles, might also have helped at this point. His own views included liking Franco and wanting MacArthur or someone as a right-wing dictator of the U.S (Manchester 202-3).

*{ Here, too, see Robert Lacey's book The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud (New York: Avon, 1983). He tells us that the king of Saudi Arabia, the Ibn Saud, was still hostile to the Allies (and, especially, to Jews) in late-1944, manipulating American and British oil companies to engage in machinations tocompete for his oil ( 256-69). One of those "machinations" by American oil seems to have been a diplomatic ploy to the Axis, which they could use to pressure FDR to not allow Britain to get too much influence with the Saudi king after the war, at their expense (Lacey 256-69). Further information on the difficulty of negotiating favorable trade agreements with the Arabs in competition with Britain is found in the subsequent chapters of Lacey's book and also in Summary of Middle East Developments by Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) (New York: ARAMCO, 1948), in The British Commonwealth: The Near East and Africa as compiled by the United States Department of State (Washington, DC: GPO, 1959), and ARAMCO, The United States and Saudi Arabia: A Study in the Dynamics of Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950 by Irvine H. Anderson (Princeton:UP, 1981). The fact that this activity could be used to arrange a possible negotiated truce with the Axis that might have the effect of helping Dewey's campaign of 1944 against FDR, was only icing on the cake. After all, if it could be arranged for Dewey to win that campaign, the prospect was that Standard Oil's top executives, including Nelson Rockefeller, might be spared prosecution for trading with the enemy. Like Spain, Thailand was only technically neutral. Just as Spain had helped Germany, Thailand helped Japan. And Standard, on May 2, 1944, had pressured FDR to allow them to reopen oil trade with neutral countries like Spain (Higham 58-62). This had to have included, as far as Standard was concerned, Thailand. And, once the oil got to Thailand, the Japanese would be able to access it. Best of all, from Standard's point of view, Japan would pay good money for this desperately-needed oil. On top of this, Standard could rationalize that the oil wasn't going to help an enemy, but a nation which would soon be an ally against Russia and Mao.}

Works Cited:

Anderson, Irvine H.ARAMCO, The United States and Saudi Arabia: A Study in the \tab Dynamics of Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950. Princeton: UP, 1981

Arabian American Oil Company. Summary of Middle East Developments.New York: \tab ARAMCO, 1948

Bagby, Wesley Marvin. The Eagle-Dragon Alliance: America's Relations With China In World War II. Cranbury, NJ: Associated UP, 1992

Blum, John M., ed.The Price of Vision: The Diaries of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-46. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1973.

Boller, Paul F. Presidential Campaigns. New York: Oxford UP, 1985

Feis, Herbert L. Japan Subdued. New York: 1961. 4-11.

Higham, Charles. Trading With The Enemy: An Exposť of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983

Lacey, Robert. The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Sa'ud. New York: Avon, 1983

Liu, Xiaoyuan. A Partnership For Disorder: China, The United States and Their Foreign Policies for the Postwar Disposition of the Japanese Empire, 1941-45. New York: Cambridge UP, 1996

Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994

Manchester, William. American Caesar. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978, 202-3.

Smith, R. Harris.M. OSS: The Secret History of America's First Intelligence Agency. Berkeley, CA: UP, 1988.

United States Department of State, Historical Division. The British Commonwealth: The Near East and Africa. Washington, DC: GPO, 1959.

If you find this list of sources inadequate--and some have indicated they did--I invite you to visit my Bibliography, Annotated Bibliography, and Updated Annotated Bibliography for additional and backup sources. I would like to note here, for the record, given the critiques I've received on this point, that there is a massive amount of data, not easily accessible, to be processed here. It has required more than one round of edits to my sources. The actual information you will find regarding this, is voluminous. The Annotated Bibliography alone, for example, will stretch over several web pages, as you will see when you visit it.

The fact is, regardless of whether the original book ad's claim was legitimate, it is clear there has ended up being something unusual about GHW Bush's records in WW2. This strongly indicates that Bush was not "regular military" but was, rather, in the OSS, fore-runner of the CIA. A series of things suggests this, including:

How did he get into the Navy as a pilot at 18, when regulations set a minimum age of 21 for pilots? On top of that, why was he made a reconnaisance pilot at the age of 19?

Why are the page numbers so "funny looking" regarding his flight of June, 1944, off Guam? Why was he taken aboard the USS Lexington after a seemingly innocuous water landing in the midst of the US fleet? How did Bush know where to locate rear-admiral Kauffman, even if it was only to deliver the wedding invite described by Stinnett?

What was going on at Palau, regarding reconnaisance photos Bush took? There seems to have been a reprimand issued, then apparently more or less withdrawn, regarding Bush's captioning of the recon. photos he took. Was there a discrepancy between OSS rules and Navy rules regarding such?

Why are dates missing from squadron commander records regarding his flight at Chi Chi Jima? Why, in fact, do they appear to have been removed? Why do official Marine flight records say there were "no carrier-based raids against Chi Chi Jima between July 4, 1944 and February, 1945," if Bush's squadron attacked Chi Chi Jima September 2, 1944? Why does the log of the USS Finnback, not have a mention of Bush until October 1944?

In 1959, while Allen Dulles was still CIA head, Bush's ship the "Barbara" was described in an FBI memo as "a CIA asset". The wording does not suggest this was a brand-new affiliation for the ship.

As you read through this Site, and these sources, you have to wonder: what are, and what is the nature of, the undercurrents in all our lives? In history? In politics? In the possibly metaphysical? What is Synchronicity? What is the Unconscious or subconscious? What "powers" does it have?

Gerald K. Haines, in his work on the CIA's investigation of UFOs, (cited elsewhere on the Site and in my sources), has been able to confirm that CIA personnel sometimes impersonated Air Force personnel in the 1940s, '50s and '60s. They did so, in these instances, by interviewing alleged UFO witnesses to try to determine if UFO sightings were related to the U-2 or other reconnaisance craft. These conversations fed into the ongoing books and articles at NICAP and elsewhere regarding "Air Force" visitors to UFO witnesses.

Since the CIA impersonated Air Force personnel, why should Navy personnel have been exempt from being also impersonated by its predecessor, the OSS?

You may want to "qualify" some of my statements in succeeding chapters, from "committed" to "may have committed" or "possibly". But after you weed through all the "may haves", "seemingly's" and "seem to have's" that could or should be added to this massive amount of material, you have to come back to grappling with what all of this suggests.

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website