861.01/171: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Morris) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 20, 7:53 a.m.]
I volunteer the following comment on recent telegrams from Harris, Smith and Macgowan: I think our representatives in Siberia must be extremely careful not to become involved in the political intrigues which will necessarily prevail while the final outcome of the Kolchak movement hangs in the balance. As long as the Kolchak government lasts we are bound, it seems to me, by the pledges of the Supreme Council in Paris, given to Kolchak last spring, to continue our moral support to his government. While I have never been able to share Harris’ optimism I have felt that his attitude of unwavering loyalty to Kolchak was the only creditable position for the representatives of our government to take after the Paris decision. I have realized, however, that such an attitude [Page 549] was easier to maintain in Omsk than in Eastern Siberia where Kolchak’s local representatives made cooperation or assistance almost impossible. This distinction must be kept in mind if one would understand the position of Graves and Smith on the one hand and Harris and, in somewhat less degree, Teusler on the other hand. Stevens and his colleagues with rare patience made a sincere effort to cooperate in railway operation with the Kolchak military representatives. The partial failure of this effort was in my judgment chiefly due to the concealed antagonism and intrigue of the Japanese military which placed Kolchak (who I believe earnestly desired cooperation) in an impossible position. The wonder is that under the circumstances Stevens kept the railway going at all.
I hope that our Government will not feel impelled to withdraw our activities from Siberia at this time. If ever the efforts of a people need a steadying influence it is now in Siberia. But I recognize that to remain will impose upon us the duty of undertaking some larger economic relief. All our representatives in Siberia are agreed on that and every consideration of humanity, the promises we have made, our future relation with Japan, our own trade in the Orient, our national interests—emphasize the wisdom of such an enterprise and I hope that some practicable means can be devised. I believe with Smith that Japan would be prepared better now than a year ago to cooperate with us.