Office of the Historian

793.94/7068: Telegram

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

Tokyo, June 18, 1935—1 p.m.
[Received June 18—7:20 a.m.]

132. Department’s 93, June 15, 4 p.m.

1.
The British Ambassador called on Minister for Foreign Affairs this morning and prefaced his inquiries by stating that just as Ambassador Matsudaira had recently asked Sir John Simon about the general situation in Europe he, Sir Robert Clive, would be glad to learn from Hirota the present situation as reported in North China.
2.
Hirota in reply confirmed the statement made by the Chief of the East Asia Department to the Counselor of the British Embassy on June 15 (Embassy’s 130, June 15, 8 p.m., paragraph 2) and stated categorically: (a) that no demand had been made on the Chinese authorities that officials of North China should be appointed only with the approval of the Japanese military; (b) that Japanese troops could not move south of the Wall without imperial sanction; and (c) that no alteration of Japan’s policy in China is envisaged. The Minister went on to say that in replacing the Chinese officials to whom objection had been raised on account of their anti-Japanese attitude and activities it would of course be unfortunate if other officials with the same anti-Japanese proclivities should be appointed. Such action would doubtless result in further friction and would delay a satisfactory settlement of the situation. Otherwise the Minister felt optimistic that the situation would rapidly resolve itself in a satisfactory manner.
3.
The British Ambassador then inquired as to the truth of the report that the Japanese military had demanded the dissolution of the Kuomintang in North China. The Minister categorically denied this rumor also but said that agents of the Kuomintang had been responsible for the assassination of the pro-Japanese editors in Tientsin and that it was difficult to distinguish the various branches of the Kuomintang from the “Blue Shirts” and other societies which were closely interrelated. It might take some time to eliminate the various anti-Japanese elements of which complaint had been made.
4.
The Minister said that the Chahar situation was entirely separate and had no connection with the situation in North China. He understood that some of General Sung’s troops had threatened “Manchukuo” territory and that the Japanese military had merely requested Sung to draw back. In this respect, however, the Minister spoke in rather vague terms.
5.
The Ambassador did not mention or touch in any way upon the Nine-Power Treaty.
6.
I am of the opinion that the action described in paragraph 3 of your 93, June 15, 4 p.m., has adequately and admirably covered the situation up to the present and that no additional action is at present called for. While we ought not abstain from action merely in order to avoid irritating the Japanese military if constructive results can thereby be obtained, it does not at present appear that any good purpose would be served by invoking the Nine-Power Treaty especially if we are to take the assurances of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the British Ambassador at their face value. Clive is of the opinion that the Chinese Ambassador in London brought up the Nine-Power Treaty on his own initiative and not under instructions because no official indication has been received that a similar step was taken in the other capitals. I concur in the opinions expressed by Mr. Johnson in paragraph 2 of the Legation’s 288, June 17, 8 p.m. to the Department.

Repeated Peiping.

Grew