500.A15a3/761: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Castle) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received March 18—9:05 a.m.]
48. Please repeat to London.82 There was published last night a statement alleged to have been made by the Japanese Navy Department which has undoubtedly been repeated to London. The statement gives fairly accurately the figures of the tentative agreement but it interprets them most unfairly and would appear to be intended to make difficult Japanese official consent. The final paragraph reads as follows:83
“The latest American proposal constitutes a concession in appearance but in contents it still adheres to its own contentions. Due to ignorance of this fact or due to propaganda for some ulterior purpose, reports are being circulated to the effect that the United States has recognized Japan’s demand. This gives the people of Japan exceedingly erroneous information. The Japanese Navy by no means accepts such a proposal.”
The Vice Minister of the Foreign Office, Yoshida, said that Shidehara immediately telephoned the Vice Minister of the Navy, who, it is stated, knows nothing of the statement and will issue a denial that it was of an official nature. The Vice Minister believes that some person in the “big navy” group gave out the statement. The papers are absolutely incorrect in alleging that the Premier passed on the statement. As the denials never have the effect of the original statement, the Foreign Office is very angry, for this makes its task more difficult. I told him that it utterly discouraged me when I saw it because it looked like a failure in London by which relations for years would be embittered. Without an agreement in London, I reminded Yoshida, the cruiser law presumably would be carried out as it stood. They knew this, he said, and Baron Shidehara was preparing a strong statement to be presented at the Friday meeting of the Cabinet. The necessity for prompt and favorable decision was again urged by me since the limit of concession has been reached by the United States. Anything further, I reminded him, would probably not in any case be acceptable to Great Britain since the question is by no means solely between the United States and Japan. Then he desired to know whether I believed England would sign a three-power treaty with the figures which the delegations have agreed to recommend to their Governments, if France persisted in the stand which it has taken. He was informed that I naturally [Page 67] could not interpret British views but that it appeared probable to me that Great Britain would accept either of them if a political clause calling for further discussion in case the French construction program became menacing, were added. I do not believe that the situation here is as bad as has been made out by the papers.