893.102S/1794: Telegram
The Chargé in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State
[Received 1:40 p.m.]
319. 1. I called this morning on the Minister and the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the course of a general conversation the Minister made the following observations:
2. The Foreign Office intends to address further notes to the interested powers protesting against the proposal to limit the number of occasions on which the national flag may be displayed in the International Settlement and against a set of six restrictions issued to Chinese newspapers prescribing subjects that may not be dealt with in such publications. He had heard of no similar restrictions as applied to Japanese or their Chinese sympathizers there and he regarded the position as far from “neutral”. The Chinese population of the Settlement is loyal to the Chinese Government and has the right in the Settlement to express its loyalty; moreover, the Government does not want patriotic Chinese there to feel that it has abandoned them.
[Page 41]I observed that the Department had not authorized and much less directed me to discuss this subject with him but that since he had mentioned it I might say strictly as a private person that foreign governments were finding it difficult to maintain the property and some other rights of their own citizens at Shanghai and that the Chinese were not alone in suffering inconvenience from the military occupation by the Japanese of the area around that port. I thought that his remarks could not be questioned if applied to areas in foreign countries but that the situation in Shanghai was peculiar in the way described. Dr. Wang said that he recognized that the Municipal Council had a very difficult situation to handle but he still felt that it was acting with undue leaning toward the Japanese side. I assured him that all his representations on this subject were given very serious consideration by the Department.
3. The Minister said he understood the Secretary of State had testified before the Senate Committee in regard to neutrality legislation and inquired whether I knew the nature of his observations to which I replied in the negative. In a very serious tone he deplored the fact if, as he had read, the United States is supplying to Japan over 50% of the materials used in death-dealing raids on Chinese cities. I promised to report the gist of his observations to the Department but referred to our aid to China such as purchase of Chinese silver, commercial credit, et cetera. (If the protest authorized in the Department’s May 8, 7 p.m. to Tokyo45 is made,46 publicity in China would doubtless produce further desirable effect in counteracting what the Chinese regard as inconsistencies in our policy.)
4. Replying to questions the Minister said no important Government official had been killed in the recent raids and the Government was functioning as usual although many organs had moved to adjacent places. He commented that what the Japanese described as the “immutability” of their policy was based solely on free choice while China’s policy of resistance was founded not only on unalterable determination but also on circumstances that left no room for choice. He promised to send me information regarding nature of damages suffered in Chungking but desired that geographical situations be kept confidential since it seemed to be the Japanese intention to destroy all areas still intact. Some 3,000 casualties from the 2 days bombing have been ascertained with bodies still being discovered. In regard to the Diplomatic Missions here, he said that a crowd of more than 20 Chinese had been burned alive at the foot of the wall surrounding the German Embassy despite efforts to rescue them and the [Page 42] Embassy was surrounded by fire; several bombs fell on the British Embassy and the Japanese excuse of nearby anti-aircraft guns was untenable because so far as he could learn there were none in the bombed areas nor any less than 2 miles from the British Embassy.
Repeated to Peiping, Shanghai.
- Post, p. 325.↩
- For representations on May 11 by the Ambassador in Japan, see memorandum by the Ambassador, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 640.↩