500.A15A5/289: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis)
39. Front page article in New York Herald Tribune from London reads as follows:
“While the Japanese were continuing to drag out naval talks with the British today, the American delegation was taking up consideration of a declaration which is expected to be made by the United States when Tokyo denounces the Washington limitation treaty …23 The American declaration although it probably will be officially addressed to the signatories of the treaty will in reality be meant for the ears of all countries and according to information tonight is regarded to be an indictment of Japan’s destruction of the peace fabric of the Pacific.”
The article continues that while we would prefer a joint declaration or identic declarations by the other signatories of the Washington Treaty, “it is considered highly probable at the moment that unless the other signatories would put out a plain-spoken pronouncement the United States will issue an independent declaration.”
I regret this type of publicity. I feel that what is needed at present is not talk of indictment or threats but such guidance to the press and public as is suggested in my 37,24 showing our position as an upholder of the theory of equality of security.
[Page 376]Senator Nye’s recent public espousal of the thesis that Japan is right in demanding equality of naval armament may tend toward crystallizing a considerable section of pacifist sentiment throughout the country. This sentiment is vocal only in reference to the 5–5–3 slogan and of course does not appreciate the larger issues involved. We realize, of course, that it is exceedingly difficult adequately to set forth our position in such terms as would convince these pacifist elements without impugning Japanese actions and motives in terms which would not ease the situation. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues at stake have been obscured during the talks of the last 6 weeks and the unceasing efforts of Japanese propagandists have made some headway, which may be one reason for Matsudaira’s desire to keep the conversations going and to prevent an actual breakdown with a clean break.
I suggest therefore that, with these considerations in mind, you give renewed guidance to the press of our position stressing that we as well as the Japanese favor reduction in tonnage, that equality of armaments between two countries, even of the same size, does not necessarily mean equality of security, that the equality of armaments or parity proposition can be so presented as to establish a reductio ad absurdum, et cetera. We think such guidance would be more effective as coming from London than from Washington and as a development of a thesis by the correspondents themselves, perhaps in the form of a review of the American position to date.
- Omission indicated in the original.↩
- November 26, 7 p.m., Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 266.↩