793.94/5871
The Counselor of Embassy in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck)
[Received January 13.]
My Dear Stanley: There is unanimous opinion of regret here at the recent outbreak of hostilities between the Japanese and Chinese at Shanhaikwan. There is also unanimous agreement that Britain cannot afford to interfere by force of arms in the Far Eastern situation. Furthermore, there is unanimous opinion that the solution of the Far Eastern situation must be found in the League, and with cooperation or full knowledge of the United States. However, there is a distinct and increasing divergence of opinion as to the manner in which the Sino-Japanese controversy is being handled at Geneva. This recent incident has caused renewed criticism by opposition opinion of Sir John Simon and especially his Geneva speech of December 7,25 which was never very well received here and which is now generally deplored as having encouraged the Japanese viewpoint. The opposition point of view is well put forth in the editorials of the Daily Herald, News Chronicle and Manchester Guardian of January 3, which I attach hereto.26 Just before he departed for Geneva the Chinese Minister, Dr. Quo,27 issued a statement, a copy of which is also attached.26
It may be interesting to note that the Times (in contrast to other papers) has as yet published no editorial on this recent Shanhaikwan incident, but I am informed that the Foreign Office press department has stated in fact to correspondents that the incident is regrettable; however, there is nothing England can do outside the League, and it is therefore not well to antagonize Japan so that she will withdraw from the League, unless such a policy has the unanimous support of all League members and the United States. The Foreign Office lays stress on the need for cooperation with the United States, but nevertheless realizes that opinion here is more tolerant of Japan, as a Far Eastern stabilizing influence, than is American opinion.
The enclosed editorials from the Daily Mail of January 3, and the Daily Telegraph of January 428 give the extreme opposite view from that of the opposition press. I should say general public opinion one hears in ordinary table conversation was summed up by the last paragraph of the editorial from the Daily Telegraph: [Page 19]
“It is also a fair assumption that no report by the League which was calculated to wound Japan and compel her withdrawal from the League would find the requisite unanimity at Geneva. Japan, once outside the League, would be far less subject to restraint than she is within the Geneva Areopagus; and the threat of a Japanese march on Peking, with a real Sino-Japanese war to follow, would then take on a substance it does not possess at present. Britain, at any rate, has no reason to embroil herself with an old and proud friend and former ally, who is rightly regarded as the main bulwark against Bolshevism in the Far East.”
Sir John Simon is away in Southern France, and the Foreign Office claims to have incomplete reports as to the situation; consequently very little can be said there officially. I do, however, honestly believe there is a general desire here that the United States should be kept fully informed of all the League proceedings, and that the League proceedings should have the approval of the United States in order that there may be no divergence of action on the part of the two Governments in the matter.
Sincerely yours,