793.94/9711: Telegram
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Johnson) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 26—2:55 p.m.]
558. The Foreign Office states that no communiqué was issued last night, as has been erroneously reported in the press, following the talks between the Prime Minister,70 Eden and Halifax.71 Representatives of the press merely received oral guidance. The account of the meeting given this morning in the Times is confirmed by the Foreign Office as being substantially accurate and is as follows: The Conference was largely concerned with an exchange of information; broad outlines of British policy in the immediate situation in China were confirmed and the Government is persistent in its efforts to have hostilities removed from Shanghai. At the same time warning is renewed that both the Japanese and Chinese Governments will be held responsible for the loss of British lives and property and Japan is reminded that compensation will be for the occupation of premises and for any damage done during such occupation. The Prime Minister and his associates likewise welcomed the appeal made by the American Secretary of State for a cessation of hostilities. The Ministers “observed with satisfaction the close collaboration that has been maintained with other governments, especially the American and French. They regard it as most important that such collaboration should continue”.
The Times in a leading editorial today on the Far Eastern situation went out of its way to make the following statement:
“The situation is, of course, an impossibly difficult one; but when in the course of time the tide of war shall have ebbed from Shanghai, the prospects of salvage work by the foreign powers would probably have been improved by closer Anglo-American diplomatic cooperation at the outset”.
In a conversation this afternoon, I casually invited the attention of a Foreign Office official to this statement and said that I regretted that the Times should have expressed so useless and misleading an opinion. The Foreign Office official agreed and said that it was an example of “irresponsible journalism”.
There is no reason, in my opinion, to attach undue significance to the visit of the Prime Minister to London for one day. Mr. Chamberlain has been kept informed of every major development and his [Page 481] presence in London immediately prior to an announced visit to the King at Balmoral Castle perhaps indicates little more than a desire to coordinate information from his closest advisers with a view to making a report to the Sovereign and to affirm to the public his personal direction of British foreign policy.