793.94/4307: Telegram
The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 19—10:15 a.m.]
76. Lord Hailsham’s statement in the House of Lords, reported in my telegram 75, February 19, 11 a.m., describes the decisions reached in the Cabinet meeting Wednesday morning68 adopting alternatives set forth in paragraph No. 3 of my 72, February 17, 1 p.m.69 I have reason to believe Sir John Simon personally did not desire to make this statement and let Hailsham (the apotheosis of die-hard Tory opinion which considers that since 1922 Great Britain’s influence in the Far East has declined to the low ebb of China’s threatened unilateral denunciation of extraterritoriality last year) set forth the decision of that Tory portion of the Cabinet committee debating the Far East situation with Prime Minister (see my telegram 70, February 16, 8 p.m.). I have reason to believe the immediate policy the British Government will follow is that outlined in paragraph No. 4 of my telegram 72, February 17, 1 p.m.
I understand from a usually well-informed source that the Cabinet deliberations envisage the situation may develop something as follows: In the next few days Japan’s armed strength will force the issue in Shanghai. Consequently for the immediate moment all British efforts must be concentrated towards the safeguarding of British life and property and it is for this purpose Sir John Simon made his statement in the House of Commons last night, set forth in my 75, February 19, 11 a.m., serving notice on both China and Japan. (Indeed my informant states that Sir Miles Lampson arguing for Chinese troop withdrawal the day before yesterday pointed out to Nanking Government if Chinese did not withdraw from the Shanghai area and attacked the Japanese forces, the obvious consequences of Chinese shell fire must be the destruction of international property, for which they would be held responsible.) This Shanghai situation will have more clearly resolved itself by early March when it is contemplated here the League Assembly may meet, at which time, if another even more serious situation has not arisen, according to views now expressed here, the ultimate verdict of the League will be no more than a formal pronouncement that no League member can recognize any advantages claimed by Japan brought about by the violation of existing contracts or treaties. I may add in this connection that in view of the treaty engagements of the United States, satisfaction is expressed here that [Page 392] the last League appeal specifically made reference to the Pact of Paris and the Nine-Power Treaty.
In view of the discretion granted me by you in our telephone conversation of yesterday I venture to suggest for your consideration you may wish to send for Sir Ronald Lindsay and ask if you correctly interpret the British Government’s policy as set forth by Hailsham and reported by me and delay any further instructions to me until you have received the British Ambassador’s reply.
I shall take no action in regard to the delivery of your amended draft (Department’s 70, February 18, 10 p.m.) until I have further instructions from you.