While Mr. Kurusu spoke so frankly principally through a feeling of
friendliness, he probably had in mind also the idea of conveying to his
listener the thought that it would be best to leave Japan alone to work
out her destiny in the Far East.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the First Secretary of Embassy in
Japan (Dickover)
[Tokyo,] December 23, 1935.
In the course of an extended conversation last evening, Mr. Kurusu
said that foreign countries were criticizing the Japanese people for
the part Japan was playing in China, but that foreign peoples did
not understand what it was all about. I objected to this and said
that, judging from the tone of newspaper and magazine articles
published in the United States, the American people were well
informed about the exhaustion of economic opportunity in Japan, the
active and progressive
[Page 501]
character of the Japanese people, and their desire to take control
of and develop the unexploited economic resources of China. I said
that they might not be in sympathy with the military measures
employed, but that they understood the background very well.
Kurusu said that what I had said was not the whole story. He said
that Japan was destined to be the leader of the Oriental
civilization and would in course of time be the “boss” of a group
comprising China, India, the Netherlands East Indies, etc. (Mr.
Kurusu did not say that Japan would conquer and rule these
countries, but that Japan would be the “boss”. When speaking
informally with friends, he uses very colloquial English.) He
proceeded to say that the United States will lead the Americas, both
North and South. Great Britain is leading the European countries,
but Great Britain is degenerating, while the rest of Europe is
decadent. Therefore it will end by the United States leading the
Occidental civilization, while Japan leads the Oriental
civilization.
I asked where Soviet Russia came into the picture. Mr. Kurusu said
that the Russians were dreamers and never would “amount to
anything”. Japan will in the future have its sphere in the Orient,
the United States in the Americas, and Great Britain in Europe,
Africa and Australia, but the two big nations, the real leaders,
will be Japan in the Orient and the United States in the
Occident.
I asked Mr. Kurusu how he reconciled this theory with the treaties
for collective security which Japan had signed. Mr. Kurusu said that
he had always been opposed to Japan’s hypocritical attitude toward
such things. He said that he had just recently made a speech before
a society for the study of international affairs, criticizing his
own country for signing agreements which could not be carried out if
Japan wanted to progress in this world.
Mr. Kurusu then went on to say that while Japan might lead the Orient
and the United States the Occident, they must not fight, as that
would be suicidal. They must find some means of getting together. I
asked him if he thought that the League of Nations might not be the
seed of some sort of future conciliatory medium. He said that it
might be, but that the League was too narrow, as it looked to
maintaining the status quo, whereas nations
are not static—they are born, grow up and gradually die. I quoted
from Wells’ “Outline of History” (first paragraph of Chapter 34) to
show that Wells had the same idea. Mr. Kurusu agreed with Wells
entirely, and said that he thought that the United States and Japan
could work out the solution themselves in time, as both countries
were much alike—active, progressive and sensible.
