Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, Japan, 1931–1941, Volume I

894.00/806

Memorandum by the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)

[Tokyo,] July 4, 1938.

Following our 399, June 22, noon, and the Department’s reply 212, June 25, 4 p.m.,⁵³ I called today on General Ugaki, Minister for Foreign Affairs, at his official residence, and made representations according to the precise statement appended hereto.⁵⁴ My presentation was prepared in this form in order to convenience the English interpreter, Mr. Tsuchiya, and to leave a precise although informal record of what was said. Mr. Tsuchiya held a copy of the document and rapidly interpreted each sentence as I read it to the Minister. There was no interruption during the entire reading and translation of this document.

The Minister after listening to my complete representations said that he wished to express appreciation of the manner of my approach. His actual words as translated by the interpreter were that the Minister wished to express “appreciation and gratitude for the sympathy and friendliness” of my representations. Frankly, the Minister’s reaction somewhat surprised me because I had spoken to him forcefully and emphatically and had set forth in no uncertain terms the highly unfavorable attitude of my Government and of the American public towards Japan’s conduct of the hostilities in China, and I had rather expected a far less favorable reception of my remarks. I think that the Minister’s reaction can only be explained by the comments which I advanced to him under the heading “Japanese-American Relations” and my observation under the heading “General Principles” that during the entire conflict of the past year my Government has endeavored to follow a course of strict impartiality and this attitude, we feel, entitles us to express our views without risk of misunderstanding.

The Minister then continued with the following further comments. He would take a further opportunity, he said, to discuss the points which I had raised. These points required most careful investigation, consideration and detailed examination but for the present he wished to make the following observations:

1. The Japanese Government is making wholehearted efforts to settle the conflict and to secure peace in East Asia at the earliest possible moment. The Minister hopes that we understand that desire.

2. The Japanese Government is giving most careful thought to Japanese-American relations. There must be frank discussion and we must understand each other on a basis of mutual fairness and justice.

3. The Open Door in China will be maintained. We may rest assured that the Japanese Government will maintain full respect for the principle of equal opportunity. In some cases there may be temporary difficulties during the period of hostilities not entirely satisfactory to the American Government. These are purely temporary.

4. Indiscriminate bombing is strictly prohibited by special instructions. In actuality a few Japanese aviators have not had long enough training and miss their marks which explains the damage of which I complained. Every effort is to be made to avert this kind of damage.

5. Full consideration is being given to the return of American citizens to their goods and property. The Minister hopes we will understand that ordinary Japanese people are not allowed to follow the army but only contractors and purveyors. He gave the illustration of sea gulls following a ship.

6. In Shanghai and Nanking there is now peace and order but while the Japanese are pushing their drive on Hankow those places are actually bases of military activity. The Minister hopes that we will take that fact into consideration.

Immediately at the commencement of the interview and prior to my own representations General Ugaki said that he desired to take up certain points with me and he thereupon read in Japanese a document which was interpreted into English by Mr. Tsuchiya. In reply to my inquiry the Minister said that this document would be sent me as soon as certain typographical corrections had been made. The points which he raised were as follows:

Protection of Lives and Property of American Nationals

Desiring to prevent accidental injuries to American nationals and their property in the area of hostilities in China the Imperial Government has suggested to the foreign ambassadors and ministers in Tokyo measures for the protection of their nationals. It is also stated in the above-mentioned note that in many cases (actual examples listed below) the Chinese have taken advantage of American property from a military standpoint. The Japanese forces must of course attack military objectives once they have been established by the Chinese. In spite of these facts the Imperial Government is giving the most careful thought and consideration to harmonizing this situation with actualities. In our note no. 972 we had informed the Japanese Government that even if there are Chinese military establishments near American property the American Government can exercise no control over this and therefore the fact that such military establishments exist in no way lessens the responsibility of Japan for losses which American nationals may sustain when such Chinese military establishments are attacked by Japanese military forces. Although the Japanese forces are endeavoring in every way to avoid damage to American property it is very difficult in the prosecution of hostilities to prevent inevitable loss of some extent, especially in instances in which the Chinese have clearly occupied American property. In view of this it is not at all logical that the responsibility should be borne by Japan. As the American Government is aware of the above realities the Japanese Government earnestly hopes that we will wish to endeavor to prevent the utilization of American property in a military sense by the Chinese. If without making the above endeavor the American Government speaks of responsibility on the part of Japan alone, the feeling of partiality cannot be removed.

I said to the Minister that I took note of his statement and that I would deal with it in my subsequent representations which could clearly indicate that most if not all of the American property damaged by such military operations had been widely separated from any Chinese military objective. Those representations clearly indicated that the American Government must hold the Japanese Government responsible for such losses and damages.

List of Examples

1. At Shunteh, Hopeh Province, on November 12 of last year, the American Presbyterian church being used as the staff headquarters of the Chinese army was bombed.

2. At the time of the attack on Fenyang, Shansi Province, on February 17 of this year the Chinese army occupied military emplacements which placed an American church at their back and forced severe obstacles on our forces in their selection of a method and an opportunity for attack. Finally this church also suffered bombardment.

3. There is information to the effect that on May 14 of this year during the hostilities in the neighborhood of Hsuchow, one part of the Chinese army established a wireless set in an American church building at Chunyin in Kiangsu Province and engaged in communications.

4. On May 25 of this year Sen Chih-ti, head of the Tsimo plainclothes anti-Japanese group and at the same time head of the military police, (said to have 1500 subordinates) was discovered inside Tsingtao. During the pursuit of this individual he was hidden in the Tsungteh middle school under the management of the Yanghsin Lu American Presbyterian church.

Articles in American Magazines Disrespectful to Japan

Recently there have appeared many articles disrespectful to the Japanese Imperial Household published in American magazines (examples listed below). Although by taking suitable measures the Japanese authorities are endeavoring to prevent exacerbation of the feelings of the people towards the United States, nevertheless if these articles were made known to the Japanese people the Minister fears that the incident concerning the Imperial Household would give rise to a serious problem. In view of the good relations between Japan and America the continued appearance of such publications is a source of concern to the Imperial Government. It would be gratifying if the American Government would take suitable measures in connection with this situation.

I said to the Minister that one of the fundamental principles of the American Constitution and Government was free speech and free press and that with the best will in the world my Government could exert no control over the press. When statements appeared in the American press of a nature to injure the feelings of foreign countries, especially comments regarding foreign royalty, the American Government deplored these utterances but it had been shown by experience that when protests were made they generally served only to draw greater public attention to the utterances in question and often resulted in throwing more fuel on the flames, whereas if allowed to pass without comment such press utterances generally died a natural death very quickly and were soon forgotten. It would therefore be highly inadvisable for my Government to take steps along the lines of the Minister’s request. I added that our own Chief of State and Government are continually subject to adverse criticism, sometimes rather vitriolic criticism, by the American press.

Names of magazines

1. Ken (April)

2. Life (April 14 and May 8)

3. Esquire (April)

4. Saturday Evening Post (May 7)

5. Time (April 18)

6. Liberty (February 19)

7. Focus (July)

Disadvantages of American Press Announcements Concerning Incidents in Process of Settlement

The Minister then said, with regard to the present incident, the Japanese authorities in the field (Foreign Office, army, navy) are all zealously working for a local settlement. However, the publication in the press by the American Government of incidents which are progressing towards a local settlement is a measure on the part of the American Government which not only does not contribute towards a settlement of the case but on the contrary, the Minister fears, delays the settlement. With regard to local settlements, because of the manner of treatment by the American Government as mentioned above, the authorities in the field receive the impression that the American Government believes that if it brings the problem to the attention of the central authorities it will be able to expedite the settlement. This has a tendency to stiffen the attitude of the authorities in the field. On the contrary when a matter is entrusted to local settlement, if we cite the example of the settlement of the recent question of the return of American missionaries to Suchow, the rapidity of the solution is clear. In this connection, in addition to our full understanding of the foregoing circumstances the Minister most earnestly hopes that for the solution of the problems of the present hostilities the most practical measures directly relative to actual conditions will be adopted. Furthermore, on the part of the Japanese, individuals from the concerned bureaus of the Foreign Office, army and navy, are now being called to Tokyo and the conditions minutely examined.

I promptly took issue with the Minister on his point that we should deal exclusively with the authorities in the field rather than with the central authorities and I pointed out that the Minister must realize that our proper principal channel for explaining American interests and for making representations if such interests were injured was the Foreign Office in Tokyo, not the army and navy, and that we must hold the Minister himself directly responsible for dealing with the foreign relations of Japan.

(The Minister’s meaning with regard to the publication by the American Government “of incidents which are progressing towards a local settlement” was not entirely clear but I suppose he had in mind various press releases of the Department of State from time to time concerning representations made to the Japanese Government and that the knowledge of these representations had tended to stiffen the attitude of the military and naval authorities in the field. Considerable publicity was given in Japan to an alleged statement by someone in the Department of State that our representations concerning the return of missionaries to Suchow had brought results with amazing and almost unprecedented rapidity. It was of course pure coincidence that the permits were given so soon after our representations but the nature of the publicity in Japan gave the impression that our Embassy possessed great influence with the Foreign Office through which it was able to get immediate results and this may well have angered the military and naval authorities.)

Recent Statement by the Japanese Spokesman in Shanghai Concerning Extraterritoriality

As a result of investigations made by the Imperial Government of the reports which were circulated concerning the statement by the spokesman of the Japanese Consulate General in Shanghai concerning extraterritoriality, it has been found that they were based upon a misunderstanding. It goes without saying that the Japanese Government has no intention of denying the right of extraterritoriality in China which America and other countries enjoy and of giving the present conditions in China as an excuse. This is considered to be entirely a problem between those various countries and China. However, the Imperial Government strongly maintains the view that it is only right, because of the present hostilities between Japan and China extending over a broad area, that the Japanese armed forces take whatever measures are necessary from a military standpoint. This is particularly justifiable when there is an attempt to endanger the safety of the forces or when an act is done or attempted which would injure the carrying out of Japanese military activities. In such cases the army will take necessary measures without questioning the nationality of the person. The above-mentioned statement by the Japanese spokesman in Shanghai was, after all, nothing more than an expression to the above purport. It may be said that the statement in question was entirely separate from the question of extraterritoriality. The Imperial Government sincerely desires to correct the misunderstanding on the part of the American Government and to obtain its understanding of the true motive of the Imperial Government.

I replied that I took note of the Minister’s statement but I wished to point out that the original statement of the Japanese spokesman in Shanghai had been officially published by Domei and it was therefore natural that we had taken it at its face value. (I noticed that both the Minister and the interpreter smiled broadly at this comment on my part.) The position of my Government with regard to this question had been fully recorded.

Embargo on Hides and Skins in North China

The Department’s telegram no. 229, July 2, 7 p.m., via Peiping,⁵⁵ was received at the Embassy on July 4, at 1:30 a.m., and although it was then too late to incorporate the subject in the typed record of my representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on that day, I did take up this subject with General Ugaki in accordance with the final paragraph of the Department’s instruction under reference, making emphatic representations along the lines of the Department’s telegram and requesting that the Japanese Government take steps to cause the removal of the unwarranted restrictions placed upon the American trade with North China.

The Minister appeared to search his memory with regard to the embargo mentioned and finally said that he knew nothing about the matter and would cause an immediate investigation to be made.

J[oseph] C. G[rew]

53. Neither printed.
54. Infra.
55. Not printed.