793.94/3904: Telegram
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cunningham) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 3—6:47 a.m.]
The Legation’s telegram of January 30, 5 p.m.,37a and further reference to the Department’s January 29, 6 p.m. and my reply of February 1, 11 a.m.
At the meeting on Sunday, referred to in my January 31, 4 p.m., and January 31, 11 p.m., the Japanese Consul General said that the Hongkew area “meaning doubtless the area in the tongue” had been occupied because there were a large number of Japanese residents there and the Japanese authorities had reliable information that the Chinese in that area intended to attack them. The Mayor replied that this was in Chinese territory and it was for the Chinese authorities to maintain peace and order there; that delegation of this duty to the Japanese Navy could not be justified. The Mayor asked whether this area was assigned to the Japanese defense forces by the International Defense Committee. Discussion followed concerning whether the Japanese occupation had been explicitly approved by the Defense Committee. The Japanese Consul General and Japanese Admiral stated that the Japanese forces were authorized by the Defense Committee to protect the north and east side of the Settlement and also break down area as was necessary for the protection of foreign nationals. The British Consul General stated that neither he nor the American Consul General could accept the foregoing opinion as a correct statement of the position; that there was vagueness in the defense scheme and it would not do to press the point; that the Defense Committee did not define exactly what military measures had to be taken and it was left to each force to decide what from a military point of view were the measures necessary in that particular situation. The Japanese Consul General stated that the Japanese were not ordered by the Defense Committee to occupy the area they did. The Japanese Consul General and Admiral emphasized that the responsibility for the occupation rested entirely with the Japanese authorities and they were not seeking to share responsibility with any one else not for “one hour as a temporary measure”. See also my telegram of February 3, 2 a.m. quoting first four paragraphs of protest of Defense Committee.
2. In the light of this information and in view of subsequent developments it is my opinion that the Japanese military act[ed] on the night of January 28 with intention to overawe the Chinese for the purpose of carrying out their private purpose and that the statement [Page 193] that their action was a part of the general defense scheme of the Settlement, while possibly technically correct, was in reality not their principal purpose.
Repeated to the Department and Nanking for information.