Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1941, The Far East, Volume IV

711.94/2177½

Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck)

[Washington,] August 21, 1941.

Reference FE’s memorandum dated [August] 13 entitled “Retaliation Against Recent Japanese Acts”,³⁶ especially the summary on page 13.

American rights, interests, persons, et cetera in the Far East are being abused by Japanese authorities and/or agents; responsible Japanese officials are threatening to make, in certain eventualities, war upon the United States; responsible Japanese officials are intimating that a carrying-on of certain commerce between the United States and the Soviet Union may be regarded by Japan as a serious offense against Japan.

In practically every recommendation which comes out of FE in regard to suggested policy action, as distinguished from diplomatic protests, designed to protect or maintain American interests vis-à-vis Japan, FE takes the position that the action under consideration is one which, if taken, might arouse the ire of some Japanese or cause Japan to become more aggressive and that, therefore, the said action should not be taken; except that some recommendations come that action (usually in the nature of an attempt to persuade the Japanese Government by reason or by an agreement of some kind) should be taken in cases where the action under consideration is one which, if taken, might tend to please Japan.

Query: With due consideration of what is stated in the first substantive paragraph above, it would be interesting and valuable to know what are FE’s fundamental views regarding the following questions:

1. Should we indefinitely observe and tolerate abuse of American rights, interests, persons, et cetera, in the Far East by Japan without action on this country’s part beyond diplomatic protest et cetera and imposition of limited “economic sanctions”? Or,

2. Should we make a clean sweep of American rights, interests, and persons from the Far East, especially China and Japan: a procedure of withdrawal and abandonment?

3. If the answers to these questions are in the negative, what has FE proposed or what, if anything, does FE now propose as an alternative to non-action on the part of the United States or to reliance by the United States upon executory assurances and promises given by the Japanese: i. e., what does FE suggest (a) in general and (b) in particular toward protecting American rights, interests and persons and toward maintenance of this country’s position in the Far East (as distinguished from process of executory agreements and/or mere turning of the other cheek—with soft answers—and/or withdrawal and abandonment)?

36. Not printed, but see memorandum to the Japanese Embassy, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 908.