500.A15A4/2320
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 4.]
Sir: The announcement of Germany’s intention to withdraw from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations caused as much surprise in Japan as it apparently did in other countries. Moreover it had a special significance for Japan in that it followed closely upon Japan’s withdrawal from the League.12 Japanese leaders and the press have found cause not only for rejoicing but also for [Page 293] regrets in Germany’s action and there is much speculation as to its effect upon Japan’s future policy.
Criticizing the League has been a popular pastime in Japan for several months. Much has been written and spoken regarding the “failure” of that organization as evidenced by its lack of approval of Japan’s Manchurian venture.13 However, there has always existed the fear, on the part of the League’s enemies in Japan, that it might continue to exist and to prosper in spite of Japan’s absence from its deliberations. It is only natural that certain sections of the Japanese should now derive some satisfaction from the rift between Germany and Geneva. It seems to them that the organization which did much to give Japan a bad name among the nations of the world has itself now been humbled.
Many Japanese observers think that Japan has other and more real causes for rejoicing at Germany’s withdrawal and the consequent apparent weakening of the League of Nations. They think of the help which that organization has extended and continues to extend to China and the encouragement which they consider that China derives from the League in its opposition to Japan. They believe that the collapse of the League will make it easier for Japan to have its own way with its continental neighbor. In recent months the Japanese have been much agitated over the appointment of Dr. Rajchmann and his committee14 to aid China. They hope that Germany’s action will hasten the downfall of the League and bring about the end of Dr. Rajchmann’s work and other manifestations of European sympathy for China.
Some Japanese have expressed the opinion that Germany’s action will force Soviet Russia to turn its face westward and to take its eyes away from Japan. This opinion has not been widely published as it does not accord with what the Japanese chauvinists would like the people to believe. In fact, it may be put to good use by the civilians in the Cabinet who are attacking the policies of the military elements. The Russians are continually represented by the Japanese military to be militant and aggressive in spite of the several occasions in which they have acceded to the Japanese viewpoint on disputed issues. Some members of the Japanese Cabinet have recently been making a serious attempt to restrict military expansion. Now, they have some grounds for minimizing fears of aggression by the Soviets.
On the other hand, if it does happen that Germany’s withdrawal from the League causes the Soviets to concentrate more on their troubles with their western neighbors and to ignore Japan and “Manchukuo”, [Page 294] the Japanese military will be able to push forward whatever plans they may have for development to the north. They will be in less danger of interference from the Soviets. Furthermore, the resulting uneasiness in Europe and the increasing tendency toward nationalism may be used by them as an argument for increasing their armaments. Consequently, Japan’s relations with the Soviets and her military defense plans might be affected either way by Germany’s separation from the League. It remains to be seen in which direction Japan will go.
On Monday, October 16, the day following Germany’s withdrawal, Premier Saito was quoted by the press to have said that it would have far-reaching influence on the foreign relations and defense policies of Japan. The War Minister, General Araki, declared that the withdrawal of Germany emphasizes the League’s loss of value but that Japan had her own problems and was not concerned with those of Europe. On the afternoon of October 16 there was a conference between the five Cabinet Ministers whose deliberations on Japan’s future policy are attracting much attention now. The press stated that the Foreign Minister then explained to his colleagues the probable effect upon Japan of Germany’s action. The next day there appeared in the newspapers a statement from the Foreign Office denying the “reports in the press” that Japan’s policy would be in any way affected. This statement was taken to mean that the Government had not yet come to any decision on the matter.
Although the Japanese apologists derive some satisfaction from difficulties encountered by the League they have appeared worried over the possibility that the world would confuse Japan and Germany in defining their respective attitudes toward the League. The Japan Times and Mail says that Japan’s withdrawal and that of Germany are similar in form but different in spirit and that Japan would feel “rather embarrassed if the world should lump the policies of the two nations together”. The Hochi says that “the face-saving principle was not involved in the Japanese withdrawal, which was in pursuance of a peace policy. Japan held that the establishment of Manchukuo was necessary for maintenance of the peace of the Far East”.
The Japanese Foreign Office described as “absurd” the rumors that Germany had a previous understanding with Japan with regard to withdrawal from the League. An unnamed official interviewed by a press correspondent said that, as the Hitler regime stands for pressure on different races, it is not probable that Japan and Germany will be concertedly active in international affairs at this moment. He did state later, however, that Germany’s political and military standpoints against Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union are very much the same as those of Japan against these powers.
[Page 295]Parenthetically, mention should be made here of a report published in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi of October 19 that the German Government has formally decided to treat the Japanese “on the same basis as other colored races”. The despatch went on to mention a number of cases in which the Japanese in Berlin have recently been insulted. This would seem to be another instance of German tactlessness and the unnecessary wounding of the feelings of foreign peoples, of which so many examples occurred during the course of the World War. The Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs15 has stated that this situation is causing the Japanese some concern.
The Japanese press unites in terming Germany’s withdrawal the death knell of the League of Nations. The Asahi points out that after Japan’s withdrawal the League had the appearance of a European organization but that with Germany’s withdrawal it has ceased to be European both in name and substance. The Asahi evidences a tone of regret in saying that “Germany’s withdrawal is a severe blow to efforts for international peace and conciliation”. Its editorial goes on to state that war is, however, not inevitable because Germany cannot count on the support of Italy or any other Great Power in Europe.
The Japanese press has made extensive comments upon the European situation and the effects of Germany’s action upon it. There follow below some of the statements made by the principal newspapers.
Hochi. “Germany’s move means the decline of the League and a tendency on the part of the nations of the world to form blocs. The United States and the Soviets will be forced to support the League in order to check Germany. Germany and Hungary will form another bloc.”
Asahi. “The refusal of the League to face facts cost the membership of Japan and has now cost that of Germany.”
Jiji. “Germany’s withdrawal has brought the Disarmament Conference to its inevitable crisis. It was the natural outcome of the attitude of the victorious powers. …,16 The Disarmament Conference aims only at securing the position of the Powers which already have large armaments. … Uncertainty in Europe depends on Franco-German relations.… Because the League showed no skill in handling the situation Germany was forced to quit, dealing a death blow to the peace organization of Europe.”
Nichi Nichi. “Germany’s withdrawal has shocked the world … the effects upon the world situation will be profound.… The questions are whether Germany will re-arm; if so, whether France will increase her armaments; and whether Britain and Italy will cooperate with France.”
Yomiuri. “The real cause for Germany’s decision was the Treaty of Versailles. The demand for arms equality was part of the plan [Page 296] for abrogation of that treaty. It is doubtful whether concessions on arms to Germany would have helped much.”
Chugai “Hitler was drastic enough in reforming internal affairs but he failed to be very spectacular in foreign policy. At last, though, he has taken the bull by the horns.
Relations between France and Germany are bound to become worse. Great Britain will follow its traditional policy of trying to maintain the balance of power in Europe, and in this it is likely to cooperate with the United States. Because its influence, especially in the economic sphere, has declined, however, it is problematical whether Britain will be able to accomplish much.
Whether the United States likes it or not, its economic interests will force it to play a role in European politics. It may now recognize the Soviet Union earlier than expected.”
Respectfully yours,
- March 27, 1933.↩
- For correspondence relating to the Far Eastern crisis, see vol. iii, pp. 1 ff.↩
- For further information concerning this Committee, see section entitled “Proposed International Collaboration for the Economic Reconstruction of China,” vol. iii, pp. 494 ff.↩
- Mamoru Shigemitsu.↩
- Omissions indicated in the original despatch.↩