793.94/12518: Telegram

The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

123. Tokyo’s 129, February 25[24] 1 a.m. [4 p.m.]. I have read back over my 33, December 13, 4 p.m.,72 and subsequent exchange of telegrams with Department, Embassy [at] Tokyo, and Consulate General [at] Shanghai, and I find that throughout we have refrained from any action which would imply obligation on our part to communicate Japanese assurances to Chinese authorities, thereby becoming responsible to one for the conduct of the other. Throughout I have endeavored to limit action to notifying Japanese military of foreign property, shippers and nationals, and asking for assurances against attack. Craigie’s point of view would appear to be based upon attitude set forth in British note to Japanese Ambassador, Shanghai, reported in Shanghai’s 1243 of December 28, 10 p.m.73 I at all times kept my colleagues here informed of my attitude, but British went beyond us in apparently promising to obtain an undertaking from the Chinese.

Consular body at Hankow under date of January 12 made representations to Chinese authorities locally stating that Japanese had given assurances not to attack such places as were not utilized by Chinese troops for military purposes, and requesting Chinese to remove from area any military works or any troops that might be stationed therein. Chinese replied stating that no anti-aircraft batteries had been placed within municipal area. It is obviously impossible for us to obtain from Chinese any undertaking upon which we can depend as to what situation may be should fighting actually occur in the vicinity of Hankow. Craigie’s note to Grew may arise from the fact that British are now trying to return to basis upon which my original proposal was made and to line which I have consistently followed, and from the feeling that original British communication does not permit this.

Repeated to Shanghai. Shanghai please repeat to Tokyo.

Johnson