Office of the Historian

393.115/333: Telegram

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

Tokyo, June 16, 1938—6 p.m.
[Received June 16—11 a.m.]

385. Hankow’s 183 [283], June 10, 2 [3] p.m., received last night, return of Americans to Nanking.

1.
Yesterday morning we inquired at the Foreign Office when reply would be made to the note which I left with the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs67 (see our 338, May 31, 5 p.m.68). The official approached said that the committee sent to China to study the matter having rendered its report, consultations are now taking place between the concerned departments in connection with the draft reply, and that although certain points have still to be decided, the Japanese reply will be forthcoming shortly. He then spoke off the record at considerable length on conditions at Nanking. It is our opinion that his observations, which are summarized hereunder, indicate the nature of the reply which is to be made by the Foreign Office:
(a)
It is a fact that there are now in Nanking approximately 1,000 Japanese nationals. But those nationals are required to live within a specified area, where they can be conveniently protected, and are amenable to strict control and supervision by the Japanese authorities. As all available troops have been mobilized for the attack on Hankow, the garrison at Nanking is being depleted to the prejudice of the police [Page 360] protection which can be given the population. As foreigners would not tolerate the restrictions being imposed upon Japanese nationals, the presence in Nanking of a large number of foreigners would inevitably result in incidents arising from inadequate policing of the city. The possibility is being considered of withdrawing opposition to the return of foreigners on condition that each individual give a written undertaking to relieve the Japanese Government of all responsibility for incidents occurring through inadequate police protection. The question of course arises whether the governments of nationals involved in such incidents would not hold the Japanese Government responsible, notwithstanding such private undertakings.
(b)
Nanking is one of the principal bases for the attack on Hankow and there is no assurance that, if a large number of foreigners were in a position to observe the intensive military preparations, some of them of nationality other than American would not convey military information to the Chinese.
(c)
The Foreign Office appreciated the spirit which prompted the Department to make the comment reported in press despatches under Washington date line of June 269 to the effect that the Department in referring to certain instances which occurred at that time of action by the Japanese to remove conditions violative of American rights was gratified by the unprecedentedly prompt response to the representations made by me on May 31. Nevertheless the fact is that the military authorities as well as the Foreign Office had been working on these cases for some time and the action taken happened to coincide with the representations made by me on May 31. In continuation of efforts along these lines the military authorities had already approved along with the applications of missionaries the application to return to Nanking of Stanley Bishop of Wrick (spelling uncertain),70 an American business man, and had under consideration the applications of T. V. Pickering of the Standard Oil and T. S. Shield of the Texas Oil. The status of these applications were notified by Nanking to Tokyo by mail and it is possible that favorable action has subsequently been taken on the two applications pending.
(d)
There could be no question of the right of American nationals to return to Nanking. However, there is under consideration a possible approach through the Japanese Embassy at Washington to the American Government with a view to requesting that, in view of prospects of conditions improving at Nanking, the American Government not press at this time the return of an unlimited number of businessmen.
2.
We stated with all possible emphasis to the Foreign Office, as we have already stated on several previous occasions, that the patience of American businessmen waiting to return to Nanking is not inexhaustible and that unless favorable action were taken soon by the Japanese authorities, an acute situation would probably arise. We did not, of course, refer in any way to Allison’s recommendation.

Repeated to Shanghai for Hankow and Nanking.

Grew
  1. Dated May 31, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 764.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. See press release issued by the Department on June 3, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 768.↩
  4. See telegram No. 122, June 21, 3 p.m., from the Third Secretary of Embassy in China, p. 368.↩