Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1938, The Far East, Volume III

793.94/12371a: Telegram

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

Washington, February 3, 1938—5 p.m.

34. Your 41, January 19, 8 p.m.⁹³ The Department has not observed any recent press reports of or editorial comment relating exclusively to incidents involving the mutilation of the flag. On January 25 the New York Times published an account of continued Japanese excesses at Nanking, referring to them as “indescribable”. Japanese lawlessness as described in this report and in our note of January 17 to the Japanese Government,⁹⁴ together with the assault on Allison,⁹⁵ the stiffening resistance of the Chinese forces, and the attitude of the Japanese Government toward rights of others in China have formed the chief subjects of recent editorial comment on the Far Eastern conflict, which continues to hold public interest.

Discussing the lawlessness in Nanking, the New York Times on January 26 stated “Now triumphant soldiers in occupied Nanking are enjoying the fruits of military victory by looting and ravaging of helpless Chinese. It is thus Japan is bringing order into China”. The Philadelphia Inquirer asserts “Although there may be grounds for charging the Nanking lawlessness to mutinous troops, the fact remains that Japan’s whole program of aggression in China has been such as to incite its soldiery to brutal acts”. The Baltimore Sun refers to the behavior of Japanese soldiery as “shocking”. The stiffening Chinese resistance is epitomized in such expressions as “Japan is in trouble up to her neck”, and “War Not Over Yet”, some even predicting Japan’s ultimate ruin. Skepticism of recent declarations in the Diet that foreign rights would be respected is expressed in such editorial titles as “Deceptive Diplomacy”, “Meaningless Words”, “Fair Words from Japan”, “Open Door But How Open?”.

There is considerable editorial sentiment in favor of depriving Japan of materials and resources with which to consolidate her aggression. On January 28 in Washington a league of women shoppers held a “Life Without Silk” fashion show to dramatize and encourage individual boycotting of Japanese silk. Evidently alarmed by actual and prospective boycotting, a delegation of hosiery workers on the same day held a parade in Washington to advertise the extent to which American labor would be penalized by a boycott of silk.

The President’s message to Congress on January 28 asking supplementary appropriations for national defense⁹⁶ was well received by Congress and public.

The press is showing a growing tendency to discount the sincerity of recent official Japanese apologies for disregard of American rights and for the Allison outrage, as well as of popular Japanese expressions of regret for injuries done to us. The Baltimore Sun asks how much weight can be attached to Japanese assurances if the Japanese Government is unable to control its soldiers. The Washington Times alluding to the Allison slapping advises its readers as follows: “Let’s keep our shirts on as we managed to do when the Panay was sunk” and explains that “the invading Japanese soldiers …⁹⁷ seem to be paying no more attention to the home authorities’ ideas on proper war conduct than a band of Iroquois raiders in the old days would have paid to the ideas of the medicine men mumbling among the tepees back home”. A Washington Star columnist facetiously remarks “Foreign Secretary Hirota has ordered his clerks to have an abundant supply of Form No. 2247 ‘Apologies to the United States’ so as to save time whenever the United States protests”, and the same idea is expressed in the New York Herald Tribunes leading cartoon of January 31.

You may consider it desirable when a suitable opportunity presents itself in conversations with officials of the Foreign Office to call their attention to the growing and widespread skepticism in the United States, as illustrated by the foregoing comments, as to the worth of Japanese official assurances.

Hull

93. Not printed.
94. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 565.
95. See press release issued by the Department of State, January 28, 1938, ibid., p. 570.
96. Congressional Record, vol. 83, pt. 2, p. 1187.
97. Omission indicated in the original telegram.