861.00/4462: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Morris) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 8:08 p.m.]
Your May 3, noon [11 a.m.?], and May 6, 6 p.m. I am holding a series of informal conversations on the general question of closer military cooperation in Siberia with both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and General Tanaka and in this connection your May 6, 6 p.m. is preeminently helpful and timely. Tanaka holds rather tenaciously to his zone suggestion, but neither willing that it should be omitted from any statement of policy. General Graves, however, in a recent telegram, strongly opposes it as impolitic and impracticable even though it be treated by the military commanders simply as a method of enforcing an agreed policy.
I fear we may meet the usual hesitations and delays in reaching an understanding, but conditions here are somewhat less irritable and [Page 562] antagonistic since the settlement at Paris of the Shantung question, and there is an evident effort on the part of the general staff to assume a more sympathetic attitude.
The luncheon given by General Tanaka yesterday was attended by the Prime Minister and all the members of the Cabinet, together with Army and Navy chiefs and other representative men. The speech of General Tanaka, though exaggerated in wording, was, I believe, intended as a recognition of the necessity for a changed attitude among the military authorities. His reference to the Siberian situation was as follows:
“The fact is that America and Japan are the nations the most vitally concerned in Siberia. Consequently, in view of the fact that their expeditionary forces are the most numerous, the closest of cooperation between them is especially necessary. Although it is not impossible that differences of opinion may arise at all times, this is constantly the case among allied forces and should not be considered strange. What is essential is that there should be displayed a spirit of mutual cooperation. There exist, however, no causes and no reasons which can create fundamental differences of opinion on Siberian questions between the two armies. Therefore, when questions arise which cause differences of opinion they can be solved forthwith by frank exchanges of opinion. The most conspicuous examples of this can be seen in the conclusion of the agreement pertaining to the Siberian railways.”