761.94/1275: Telegram

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

240. Continuing Embassy’s 239, February 16, 4 p.m. In so far as I am aware, however, there is no reason to believe the political negotiations have made any progress since the refusal of the Japanese [Page 910] Government even to consider the Soviet demand for the cession of southern Saghalien and certain unspecified islands of the Kurili group consequent [in return?] for the conclusion of a nonaggression pact. However, the negotiations for the settlement of specific questions are continuing and the general trend of Japanese-Soviet relations would appear to be more favorable than otherwise.

Of indirect but possibly important bearing on the general development of Japanese-Soviet relations may be mentioned the growing differences between Chiang Kai-shek12 and the Chinese Communists13 which have been greeted with unconcealed satisfaction by the Japanese press. If the reports appearing in the press here in regard to the demands presented to Chiang Kai-shek by the central organs of the Chinese Communist Party (inconceivable without prior approval from Moscow), publication of an article in Pravda on January 26 attacking Chiang Kai-shek for his attitude toward the Communists and the withdrawal of Soviet military advisers at Chungking are true, it would appear that the Soviet Government is giving full support to the Chinese Communists in their disputes with the Chiang Kai-shek Government.14 Since even the possibility of worsened relations between the Soviet Union and Chiang Kai-shek arising out of the latter’s differences with the Communists might have a direct effect on the progress of the current Soviet-Japanese negotiations, I would appreciate receiving any information which the Department may have on this subject from Moscow or elsewhere.15

Sent to the Department via Shanghai. Repeated to Moscow.

Grew
  1. President of the Chinese Executive Yuan (Premier) and Generalissimo.
  2. See vol. v, pp. 454 ff.
  3. See telegram No. 298, February 18, 1 p.m., infra.
  4. The Department in its telegram No. 138, February 27, 9 p.m., replied that it did not have any information which might helpfully be added to that contained in telegram No. 298, February 18, 1 p.m., from the Ambassador in the Soviet Union, infra.