894.00/6–1449
The Chargé in Japan (Huston) to the Secretary of State
confidential
No. 385
Tokyo, June 14, 1949.
[Received June 29.]
Sir: With reference to this Mission’s
airgram no. A–138 of June 4, 1949,1 concerning labor riots at the Tokyo Metropolitan
Assembly on May 30 and 31, 1949, during which one labor demonstrator
was killed, I have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter1 addressed to the
Supreme
[Page 772]
Commander on June
11, 1949, by Lieutenant General Kuzma N. Derevyanko, Soviet Member,
Allied Council for Japan, protesting strongly against alleged police
brutality in dealing with labor demonstrations. General Derevyanko’s
letter was released to the press at the time of its dispatch on June
11 by the Office of the Soviet Member, plainly indicating the
propaganda motive behind this action.
The Supreme Commander has not made formal reply to the Soviet
Member’s letter, but on June 13 released to the press an
exceptionally blunt comment on the Soviet Member’s communication. A
copy of General MacArthur’s statement is enclosed.
In view of the extraordinarily caustic character of the Supreme
Commander’s comment, there is a possibility that the Soviet
Government may make further issue of this matter, either in the Far
Eastern Commission or in the Allied Council for Japan. This Mission
has accordingly requested the G–2
Section of General Headquarters for full details of the May 30–31
riots.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
Press Release Issued by the Public Information
Office, Far East Command
immediate release
[Tokyo,] 13 June 1949.
General MacArthur’s Comment on General
Derevyanko’s Letter
“The Soviet letter, replete with inaccuracies and
misrepresentations of fact, could be disregarded as routine
Soviet propaganda did it not so completely unmask the Soviet
role as an incitor of disorder and violence in an otherwise
orderly Japanese society. The thorough duplicity of its apparent
championship of fundamental human rights on the one hand and the
Soviet callous indifference to the release for repatriation of
Japanese prisoners of war on the other—its talk of greater
liberality for Japanese workers and the Soviet practice of labor
exploitation, is a shocking demonstration of inconsistent
demagoguery. The purpose of the letter is obviously two-fold: to
incite irresponsible and unruly minority elements in Japan to
violence and disorderly resistance against the duly constituted
government of Japan and the lawful orders and processes thereof
with a view to creating confusion, unrest and bewilderment in
the ranks of the law-abiding Japanese masses, and to screen the
Soviet unconscionable failure to abide by the requirements of
International Law and specific Potsdam commitments in the return
of over four hundred thousand Japanese citizens, long held in
bondage, to their homeland. This failure to meet international
commitments and maintain normal standards of human decency in
the disposition of captives finds little parallel
[Page 773]
in the history of
modern civilization, and is calculated so to outrage moral
sensibilities that even the Japanese Communists have been moved
to register a bitter and indignant protest. The burdened effort
at this late date to challenge the number long publicly recorded
as held in Soviet hands by charging mathematical error is small
solace indeed to hundreds of thousands of Japanese homes from
whom no sophistry can conceal the fact that a family member in
Soviet custody has failed to return; and as to whom, contrary to
all international covenants respecting prisoners of war, no word
whatsoever has been received during the long period of
captivity.
“For the Soviet to speak in derogation of the status of labor in
Japan is hypocrisy compounded. His premise is based upon such
fantastic exaggerations as obviously to belie the truth. The
Japanese labor laws match the most progressive in their
liberality and advanced concepts, and the labor movement here,
despite its immaturity, has advanced more rapidly and with less
friction than has its counterpart in many of the democratic
countries of the world. Incidents of violence have been rare
indeed and no segment of Japanese society has made such
democratic gains as labor which enjoys rights and liberties and
safeguards largely unknown to the peoples of the Soviet Union,
which, following the totalitarian concept, holds under ruthless
suppression individual liberty and personal dignity.
“For the Soviet to speak of ‘Democratic rights’, ‘the suppression
of legal activities’, ‘arbitrariness and chastisement’, is
enough to challenge the late lamented Ripley at his
imagination’s best and leads one to conclude that now there must
really be nothing new under the sun.”
