740.00/2007: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Dooman)
Washington, August 4,
1939—3 p.m.
242. Your 384, August 3, 4 p.m.
- 1.
- With reference to your suggestion that the Prime Minister’s personal and confidential move merits a reply separate from the written reply to his written message, we feel that as his move was made orally you might, subsequent to the delivery of our written reply, indicate to him or to some appropriate official in his immediate entourage that, in view of the statement contained in your numbered paragraph 1 of your 242 of May 23, 11 p.m., we construed his proposal as an elaboration of his message and for this reason the written reply thus includes indication of the reaction to the Prime Minister’s confidential views.
- 2.
- We find it difficult to understand your statement that knowledge of the Prime Minister’s proposal is probably confined to the Prime Minister’s entourage in the light of the statement made to you by the Polish Ambassador as reported in your 265, June 8, 7 p.m.,76 that the Foreign Minister had informed the Polish Ambassador that the views of the American Government in regard to the possibility of Japan and the United States collaborating to bring about a détente in Europe were being explored. Also, the British Government some time ago approached the Department and stated that it had heard a report along this line and inquired as to the attitude of this Government.
- 3.
- It would appear from your comment that it is the reaction in Japan to the action of this Government in giving notice of intention [Page 204] to terminate the commercial treaty, rather than anything in the tone or contents of the proposed reply itself, which, if the reply should be delivered now, would in your opinion be likely to emphasize the impression that the United States has now initiated a definitely positive attitude toward Far Eastern problems. The reply was prepared a number of weeks ago and was addressed solely to the contents of the Prime Minister’s message as amplified by his subsequent comment. It is realized, however, that the reply, although it has no reference to the question of treaty termination, might, if delivered now, tend to cause the reactions you anticipate. In as much as it has not been and is not the Department’s intention that the reply be interpreted as related to the question of treaty termination the Department authorizes you to withhold its delivery for a short time if in your judgment such delay would be likely to render the reply less susceptible to such interpretation.
- 4.
- When delivering the reply please bear in mind the Department’s desire, as indicated in the last paragraph of the Department’s mail instruction No. 1767 of July 877 that the reply be regarded as strictly confidential.
Welles