793.94/6991

The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State

No. 1289

Sir: I have the honor to report that for the past few weeks there has been apparently a slight falling off of interest on the part of the Japanese press in the reported negotiations looking toward a Sino-Japanese rapprochement. Although this fact cannot be taken as an indication that the efforts toward cooperation between the two countries are believed to have failed, there seems to be a general feeling that the conclusion of an eventual understanding will require more time than at first was expected. Furthermore, some of the newspapers have exhibited less credence than previously in China’s reported change of heart on the question of anti-Japanese agitation and boycott.

Upon his arrival in Tokyo on April 1 Major General Kenji Doihara, of the Mukden Special Service Department of the Kwantung Army, was reported by the Japan Times of that date to have stated that the Chinese leaders in Nanking and Canton hoped to obtain Japanese assistance for the subjugation of communist troops in China and that this fact might have been the major cause for China’s desire for the friendly cooperation of Japan. He was further said by this newspaper to have told press correspondents that there still remained the question as to how far the Japanese could believe China’s expressions of friendship and that under such conditions it would be best for Japan to watch developments calmly before deciding upon a definite policy. According to the Japan Chronicle of April 19, Major General Doihara expressed very much the same ideas in Osaka on April 17 on his way back to his post in the Kwantung Leased Territory. Mr. Ariyoshi, the Japanese Minister to China, another official who has recently made an inspection tour of China, expressed similar though somewhat more optimistic views on the Sino-Japanese situation, as reported by the press, upon his visit to Japan during the latter part of last month. The Japan Chronicle of April 23 attributed the following statements to Mr. Ariyoshi, said to have been made by him in Kobe on April 22: that it would be foolish to believe that the situation in China could be changed quickly; that the proper view to take was that the situation had improved to the extent that the [Page 164] Nanking authorities had thought fit to make a friendly gesture to Japan; that in his opinion it would be best to accept China’s profession of friendship and to utilize the present opportunity for the settlement of outstanding problems; and that there was no doubt that the Nanking Government was earnestly endeavoring to suppress anti-Japanese movements. The vernacular newspapers made various conjectures concerning the reports on the situation in China submitted to the Foreign Office by Mr. Ariyoshi after his arrival in Tokyo, although the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has issued no announcement concerning its conferences with that diplomat. For example, the Asahi of April 23 reported that the Minister to China had told Mr. Hirota that China’s most urgent need was an economic rapprochement with Japan, that Japan need not “necessarily” oppose international loans to China; that the sincerity of the Nanking Government in its attitude toward Japan should be recognized; and that his personal view was that relations in general had certainly become better.

The Hochi of April 10 interpreted the apparent lull in the Sino-Japanese situation as an indication of a coming improvement in the relations between Japan and China. On the other hand, the same newspaper admitted that there were certain obstacles that stood in the way of a Sino-Japanese rapprochement, one of them being the attitude taken by certain Japanese that China must recognize “Manchukuo” before there could be a rapprochement, another obstacle being the growth of an opinion in China in favor of the recovery of the four Eastern Provinces lost as a result of the Manchurian incident of 1931 and succeeding events. These statements of the Hochi may be taken as a typical illustration of the uncertainty prevailing in the Japanese press, and perhaps among the public generally, with regard to the much discussed rapprochement.

From all reports it would appear that the Japanese military persist in refusing to accept Nanking’s reported professions of friendship for Japan at their face value.* According to the Asahi of April 25, Mr. Ariyoshi’s alleged endorsement of the view that the Nanking Government is sincerely desirous of better relations with Japan has stirred military circles to point out that Chiang Kai-shek’s friendly expressions and promises can be explained by an “ingenious” scheme in the back of his mind. The military are reported to believe that the Chinese leader’s two main objectives are the unification of China and subsequent revenge on Japan; that he deems it politic to keep relations with Japan as quiet as possible pending the settlement of [Page 165] disturbed domestic conditions in China; that in his opinion the United States and Great Britain consider it prudent to withhold support from China until Sino-Japanese relations have improved; and that therefore he has made friendly gestures toward Japan and has succeeded in making it appear, at least on the surface, that Sino-Japanese relations have undergone a change for the better.

Recent rumors that the Japanese Government was seriously contemplating the raising of its Legation in China to the status of an Embassy proved to be well founded yesterday, when the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me of the decision of the Japanese Government to take this step within the next few weeks.

There has been noticeably less comment of late on reports of international assistance to China.§ The general attitude of the press appears to be that Great Britain’s proposed international loan to China has fallen through partly as a result of the alleged lukewarm attitude adopted toward the proposal by the United States.

According to the Japan Advertiser of April 6, on the preceding day the Foreign Office spokesman expressed suspicion of Great Britain’s policy toward China, stating that the reports of what the British were doing in regard to China were so conflicting that their real intentions could not be known; that there was no need for the British mediation between Japan and China which had been urged upon the House of Lords by Lord Peel on April 3rd; and that the best thing would be to let Japan and China alone. Mr. Wilfrid Fleisher of the Japan Advertiser informed a member of the Embassy’s staff that on this occasion Mr. Amau had been more than usually vigorous in his manner of expression. On April 6 the Asahi printed an editorial repudiating “British mediation” between Japan and China and alleged British attempts to interfere in the settlement of various pending problems in the Far East. The British Ambassador was instructed by his Government to protest emphatically to the Minister for Foreign Affairs against the statements made to press correspondents by the Foreign Office spokesman on April 5. Sir Robert Clive told me on April 11 that he was convinced that the Asahi article above-mentioned had been inspired directly by Mr. Hirota, a close friend of the editor of that newspaper.

Respectfully yours,

Joseph C. Grew
  1. Embassy’s despatch No. 1204, March 19, 1936. [Footnote in the original; despatch printed on p. 560.]
  2. Embassy’s Monthly Reports for March and April, 1935. [Footnote in the original; reports not printed.]
  3. Embassy’s telegram No. 101, May 9, 1935. [Footnote in the original; telegram printed on p. 508.]
  4. Embassy’s despatch No. 1204, March 19, 1935. [Footnote in the original; despatch printed on p. 560.]
  5. Embassy’s telegram No. 78, April 11, 1935. [Footnote in the original; telegram not printed.]