761.9415 Amur River/15: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union ( Davies ) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:30 p.m.]
158. Referring to Amur islands incident, on July 6 Litvinov demanded an explanation from Japanese Ambassador for appearance on that day of Japanese-Manchurian military detachment on one of these islands—Bolshoi—according to communiqué issued July 9 from which it further appears that having received no reply Litvinov on July 8 lodged a vigorous protest with Japanese Ambassador to the effect that in spite of the agreement of July 2 to preserve status quo ante and in spite of evacuation of the islands by Soviet forces pursuant thereto these armed Japanese forces had entered upon the island involved. His position was that such action was a direct violation of the agreement of the parties and that the Soviet Government was “awaiting the immediate withdrawal from the island of the Japanese-Manchurian troops stationed there”. The Japanese Ambassador’s explanation based on ownership of the islands and the presence of Soviet cutters in the vicinity was reported as not being acceptable to Litvinov who asked the Ambassador to communicate his protest to the Japanese Government. Litvinov also asked Japanese Ambassador to call the attention of the Japanese Government to frequent instances where lately Japanese troops had crossed on to Soviet territory and Japanese airplanes had flown across the Soviet border et cetera and warned the Ambassador that the Soviet border troops had definite orders under no circumstances to permit the crossing of the border and “in the event of their appearance on Soviet territory to drive them back by all means”. Apparently each side alleges that the border is being violated by the other. It is significant that Litvinov practically served notice that the Soviets would enter waters south of the island claimed to be in Japanese jurisdiction in order to salvage the Soviet cutter which was sunk by artillery fire from [Page 928] the Manchurian bank. The Moscow press of July 7 and 8 gave accounts of border clashes between Soviet and Japanese forces in the Vinokurka mountain district resulting in fatalities on both sides; also between the Japanese and Chinese troops near Peiping.
Attention is called to July 5 issue of the London Times wherein Tokyo Times correspondent reports under date of July 4 that Soviet forces had evacuated the islands pursuant to the agreement of July 2 and states: “The incident, it is held here, has furnished a revelation of the Soviet’s weakness which cannot fail to affect future events. It has shown it is being said that Soviet diplomacy lacks diplomacy’s last weapon—confidence in the force behind it. Recently frontier questions have been governed by the belief on both sides in the superior strength of the Red Army. Every alleged Japanese encroachment evoked prompt retaliation, whereas Soviet trespasses were met with perfunctory protests. In the latest case the Soviets not only receded from their position but slurred over their loss of 37 men when a gunboat was sunk by Manchurian gunners.”
Informed circles here are concerned over whether military forces or civilian government in Tokyo will dominate this situation. Chinese Ambassador probably best informed on Eastern conditions considers the situation as fraught with grave danger. He advised me confidentially today that code cables to him from his Consulate in vicinity of the trouble have been received so badly garbled during last 6 days that they were undecipherable which is practically unique in his experience and significant to him of seriousness of the situation.