711.0012 Anti-War/1279: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 10—1:45 p.m.]
207. Yesterday a Foreign Office official informed the Japanese newspapermen (but not the foreign press correspondents) that the Foreign Office is indignant because it interprets a part of the Secretary’s speech before the Council on Foreign Relations20 as an accusation that Japan is the aggressor in the Manchurian affair. The complete speech was not cabled to Japan21 but from Debuchi’s cabled account as given out by the Foreign Office it appears that the Secretary referred to “affairs as they exist at present” and stated that “a declaration recognizing no result of aggression may be a comparatively unimportant matter to the aggressor.” The contention of the Foreign Office spokesman is that “affairs as they exist at present” obviously refers to the condition of Manchuria, which is under Japanese Army control. This refusal to recognize the Manchurian situation is therefore held to stigmatize Japan as the aggressor.
The Japanese newspapers refer to the speech as “malicious propaganda”, “highly improper”, “imprudent utterance”, “vile and provocative”, et cetera, and state that the Foreign Office has instructed Debuchi to investigate and protest if he deems it necessary.
This morning Shiratori told the foreign newspaper correspondents that the entire Japanese nation is aroused over the Secretary’s speech but that the Foreign Office regards it only as an election campaign effort. He referred to the publication of the 1918 notes regarding Siberia22 as another such campaign move, as tending to show that the Republican administration is no harsher toward Japan than was a Democratic administration. He criticized the Hoover doctrine in sarcastic phrases and stated that Japan has never accepted this [Page 199] interpretation of the Kellogg Pact and would not have signed if it had been known that such an interpretation would be given. He stated that the Foreign Office is trying to delay the recognition of Manchukuo but that steps taken by the United States and the League of Nations have the opposite effect to that intended and obstruct the efforts of the Foreign Office. He further stated that Debuchi, if he discharges his duty, has the right to seek further information regarding the Secretary’s meaning and to add thereto his comments and recommendations, but that the Foreign Office expects him to take any necessary action without instructions.
The original press despatches regarding Secretary’s speech contained nothing which could be interpreted as accusing Japan of aggression, the alleged accusation being derived from the interpretation of Debuchi’s version given out by the Foreign Office. In view of the fact that this interpretation was given first to the Japanese press it appears that it was intended primarily for domestic consumption.
Repeated to Peiping by mail.
- Delivered August 8; for text, see vol. i, p. 575.↩
- In telegram No. 212, August 12, 1932, 6 p.m., the Ambassador in Japan reported: “The receipt of the full text by the Foreign Office seems to have dispelled any misunderstanding in official circles here as to the character of the Secretary’s speech. I hope and believe that the incident may be regarded as closed.” (711.0012 Anti-War/1283)↩
- For correspondence on this subject, see Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, vol. ii, ch. I, pp. 1 ff.↩