894.00/494
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received December 2.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 565 of October 31, 1933,22 transmitting part of a report entitled “The Trials of the Reactionaries Involved in the Incidents of 1932”, I have the honor to enclose the section of the report describing the courtmartial of ten naval sublieutenants22 involved in the terroristic acts of May 15, 1932 which included the assassination of Premier Inukai.
The trials have only recently been completed, the sentences having been announced on November 9. Two of the defendants were sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment without labor, one to thirteen years, three to ten years, three to two years, and one to one year imprisonment. The four men included in the last two groups were granted stays of execution which permit their enjoying their freedom on good behavior.
As the naval officers instigated the plans for the terroristic acts of May 15, 1932, and were the leaders in the affair special interest was attached to their trials, which commenced at the end of July. During the entire month of August and the first half of September the newspapers of Japan were full of the sensational statements made by them before the court. As news was very scarce it may be said that these trials furnished the public with its principal reading matter during that period.
The main topic discussed by the naval officers was the London Naval Treaty. They bitterly denounced the treaty and the Japanese officials who negotiated, signed, and ratified it. In fact, the statements of the defendants in the courtmartial started the recent nationwide discussion of the London treaty and the next naval conference which has been described in other despatches of this Embassy. One of the defendants stated that he and his associates were determined to take “direct action” in order to “bring the nation to its senses” before the next conference. The “outbursts” of the defendants fully [Page 712] prepared the public for the “warnings” of the jingoists and constituted military preparedness propaganda of the first order. The Army was provided with strong support for its theory of an approaching crisis in 1935–36.
As a result of the trials the general public links the present naval limitations with corruption in politics and other evils denounced by the defendants. In gauging Japanese opposition to continuance of the present naval ratios careful consideration must be given to this fact. It may prove possible for the representatives of western nations to win over some Japanese officials to their point of view but the latter are not apt to forget what happened to some of those responsible for the London Treaty. There are reactionary leaders who are ready to sacrifice their lives for what they consider to be the honor of Japan and they are supported by a public which has now been thoroughly imbued with their ideas.
On the other hand it must be recognized that the same apparent fearlessness exists in some of the Japanese liberals. There is a story now going the rounds of Tokyo that Baron Wakatsuki, the chief Japanese delegate to the London conference, when leaving his home recently to deliver a speech in defense of the naval treaty, summoned all the members of his family and bade them farewell, saying that he would probably not return alive. The story is probably true, though it cannot be verified. It has taken considerable courage for the former liberal premier to make several of his recent speeches, especially the one made at Nagoya where he tried to counteract some of the influence of the defendants in the courtmartial.
There are people in Tokyo who believe that the cause of the militarists will suffer a set back as a result of the sentences of fifteen years imprisonment which were the maximum imposed upon the army and navy men. The man who in 1930 fired the shots at Premier Hamaguchi which were adjudged to have caused his death six months later was recently sentenced to death. The fact that the slayers of Premier Inukai received punishment of so much milder a nature may convince the people that the military have gone too far in creating for themselves a privileged position. Japanese liberals, who are incensed at the verdict, hope that this will be the case. It is reported that several civilian members of the Cabinet have privately expressed their dissatisfaction with the light penalties inflicted upon the military and naval men and that it will strengthen their opposition to the budgetary demands of the armed services.
It is yet too soon to state whether the penalty imposed by the civil court will be generally considered by the public to be too severe or the sentences of the courtmartials too lenient. However, it is certain that in reducing the death penalties demanded by the [Page 713] naval procurator to fifteen years imprisonment the courtmartial averted serious trouble within the navy itself. The procurator’s demand evidenced an attempt to impose a more severe penalty but the outcry from the young naval officers was too strong.
Respectfully yours,