793.94/8326
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck) of a Conversation With the French Ambassador (Laboulaye)
The French Ambassador called and, referring to the conversations which he has had previously with Mr. Hamilton on this subject, said [Page 350] that he wished to inform me of developments so far as the French Government was concerned. He said that, in Paris, the Japanese Ambassador had called on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and had given an outline of Japan’s views and desiderata in regard to China: the Japanese Ambassador had referred to the violent acts against Japanese nationals and the necessity for Japan’s making an effort to put a stop to such things, had referred to the menace of communism and Japan’s desire to combat it, and had emphasized Japan’s wish to arrive at settlements of questions with the Chinese by amicable processes. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had replied that the French Government was always desirous that difficulties and disagreements between nations be settled by amicable processes and always wished to cooperate with other countries toward that end. He told the Japanese Ambassador of instructions which had been sent to the French Ambassador in Tokyo.
The French Ambassador here continued to the effect that the instructions to the French Ambassador in Tokyo had been along lines similar to those given by the American Government, as outlined to him (M. de Laboulaye) by Mr. Hamilton; they had been to the effect that the French Ambassador to Japan should consult with the American and the British Embassies and should use his discretion in proceeding on lines similar to those on which the other embassies were proceeding. The Ambassador had not yet been informed with regard to action taken by the French Ambassador in Tokyo, but if and when informed thereof he would give us information thereof. He wished us to know at this point that the French Government had taken action and given instructions similar to ours.
The Ambassador then inquired whether there had been any new developments so far as we were concerned. I referred to the information given him by Mr. Hamilton in their last conversation and I repeated the substance of what our Chargé in Tokyo had said to the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Ambassador asked what the Vice Minister had replied. I said that the Vice Minister had apparently had little to say on that occasion, having before that “spoken his piece.” I then inquired regarding the date on which the Japanese Ambassador in Paris had talked with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. M. de Laboulaye said first that it must have been on October 5th or 6th, and then he said that he was quite sure that it was the 6th.
The Ambassador said that when he had further information he would try promptly to inform us and that he hoped that we would tell him promptly of any new developments which came to our attention of which we might inform him. I said that we would be very glad to hear from him and very glad to keep him informed.
There followed some discussion, led by the Ambassador, of the situation in China, of the motivation of Japan’s action, etc, The Ambassador [Page 351] said that the account given in this morning’s New York Times of Japan’s demands seem to coincide substantially with what the Japanese Ambassador in Paris had told the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I pointed out that, whereas the reports hitherto have indicated that Japan was demanding that Japanese troops be permitted to cooperate with Chinese troops where the latter are fighting communism in China, the newspaper report of this morning to which the Ambassador referred made it appear that the demand was for military cooperation in fighting the “menace of communism from a third country.” The Ambassador said that this latest newspaper report on that point coincided with the representation of the Japanese objective which had been made by the Japanese Ambassador in Paris.
The Ambassador made certain observations with regard to what seemed to him to be similarities between the Chinese political psychology, with which he said he was not acquainted at first hand, and the Russian psychology, with which he had had first-hand experience and observation.
The conversation ended with reciprocal assurances with regard to exchanging of further information when and as received.