Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941

VI Moscow Molds the Political Pattern in the Far East

a. Secretary Hull Overlooks a Diplomatic Opportunity

WHEN SECRETARY HULL rejected in June 1934 the proffer of a Japanese olive branch, he clearly indicated his strong disinclination to have it cultivated in the friendly soil of American good will so that it would bear the rich fruit of a permanent accord. But despite this lack of response from the Department of State, the Japanese Government still strove for an intimate understanding with the United States. Hirota remained as Foreign Secretary in the Okada Cabinet which took office on July 8, and Saionji, Makino, and other moderates were “clearly in the saddle.” An eminent Japanese liberal expressed to Ambassador Grew the opinion that “if the United States had had the privilege of choosing the Cabinet in its own interest, it could not have done better.”1

These favorable factors were entirely overlooked by Secretary Hull who at times liked to flavor the ointment of diplomacy with a dash of strong vinegar. This Hull formula finally grew so distasteful to Prime Minister Okada that he decided it was useless to continue to make friendly gestures in the direction of the United States. He might just as well surrender to the demands of a powerful pressure group in Japan that kept clamoring for naval parity with the United States and Great Britain.

b. Japan Denounces the Washington Naval Treaty

The Washington Naval Treaty of February 6, 1922, had never been popular with Japanese militarists who deeply resented the ratio of inferiority that had been imposed upon their naval establishment. Moreover, they realized that parity with the United States and Great Britain would greatly reduce the likelihood of armed intervention by either of these powers to block Japanese expansion in North China.

For a decade after the Washington Conference the situation in China had been a big question mark to the statesmen of the great powers. For a while it had appeared that Chiang Kai-shek might be able to bring some measure of peace to a country that had been in chaos since the last days of the empire. But the whirlwind of nationalism had been too strong for the successor of Sun Yat-sen to harness, and Americans at Nanking in 1927 and Russians along the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1929 had felt its destructive force. In 1931, Japan had decided to convert Manchuria into a glorified cyclone cellar that would be safe against any adverse wind from China or even from the steppes of Siberia. Stimson, however, was unduly suspicious of Japanese weather maps and he sharply protested against the precautions taken by the watchful men of Nippon. Japanese statesmen not only resented his repeated protests but regarded American naval maneuvers in Hawaiian waters as a covert threat to their position in the Far East. If naval parity were attained it might act as a gag upon American secretaries of state who talked of peace while walking down the road to war.

It is interesting to note that while Stimson was engaged in his favorite pastime of sending irritating notes to Japan, American naval construction was permitted to fall far below the limits permitted by the Washington Naval Treaty. On March 4, 1933, the American Navy was approximately at 65 per cent of treaty strength, while the navy of Japan had mounted to 95 per cent of treaty limits. If Japan, by denouncing the Washington Naval Treaty, could eliminate all limitations upon its naval armament, and if the United States continued its policy of indifference to naval construction, it would not be long before actual parity could be reached. In that event the Stimson policy would no longer be invoked by American statesmen.

But President Roosevelt defeated these hopes of Japanese navalists by allocating in June 1933 the large sum of $238,000,000 from the National Industrial Recovery Act appropriations for the construction of new warships. This action confronted Japanese admirals with a formidable dilemma: they now had the “unenviable task of deciding whether to abrogate the treaties next year [1934] and start a hopeless competition with far wealthier nations for naval supremacy, or else accept a continuance of the present ratios and face an outraged public.”2 The naval leaders in Japan felt that they could not “lose face” by continuing to accept the existing ratios. Their pressure upon Hirota grew so strong that on September 17, 1934, he informed Ambassador Grew that Japan had definitely decided “to give notice before December 31, 1934, to terminate the Washington Naval Treaty.”3

When preliminary conversations began in London in October 1934 relative to the renewal of the Naval Treaty of 1930, the Japanese delegates promptly introduced their demand for parity. Their arguments were based upon the grounds of “prestige and manifest destiny.” Manifest destiny had been a favorite American watchword during many decades of the nineteenth century, but Secretary Hull felt outraged when Japanese statesmen began to apply it to their expansion in Manchuria. He was certain that the real reason for Japanese parity demands was the desire to “obtain overwhelming supremacy in the Orient” and thus secure “preferential rights and privileges.”4 He did not share the “deep concern” of the British Foreign Office to arrive at some solution satisfactory to Japan, and he was cool to the suggestion of a tripartite nonaggression treaty to cover the situation in the Far East. It would be best for the American delegation at Geneva to give no encouragement to the Japanese to “expect any concessions or to expect the conclusion of a new treaty in substitution for the Washington Treaty.”5

Norman Davis discovered that the British were not in favor of the stand-and-deliver attitude of Secretary Hull. They were anxious to continue the “talks with the Japanese” even though there was no solution in sight. Hull reluctantly responded to this British pressure and agreed that the “conversations should not be broken off right away,” but he instructed Davis to “refrain from doing anything which would diminish the embarrassment of the Japanese as the time of the denunciation approaches.” Hull had developed an ardent dislike for the Japanese and was now conducting relations with them in a thoroughly feudist manner.6

In the face of this uncompromising attitude there was nothing left for the Japanese Foreign Office to do but inform Hull on December 29, 1934, of its decision to denounce the Washington Naval Treaty of February 6, 1922. The limitations imposed by that treaty would expire on the last day of December 1936. There was still a small chance that conversations at Geneva could lead to some path of accommodation and cause the Japanese Cabinet to reconsider its decision. British statesmen favored further attempts to discover some common denominator of agreement in the matter of naval ratios, but Hull believed that lessons of diplomacy to the Japanese should be taught to the tune of verbal spankings rather than by words of encouragement.7 It is to be regretted that President Roosevelt felt the same way.

In this regard his viewpoint differed fundamentally from that of his cousin, Theodore Roosevelt. In the winter of 1910, after a mature consideration of all the factors in the Far Eastern situation, Theodore Roosevelt gave President Taft some sound, realistic advice relative to the Japanese advance into Manchuria:

Our vital interest is to keep the Japanese out of our country and at the same time to preserve the good will of Japan. The vital interest of the Japanese, on the other hand, is in Manchuria and Korea. It is therefore peculiarly our interest not to take any steps as regards Manchuria which will give the Japanese cause to feel, with or without reason, that we are hostile to them, or a menace, in however slight a degree, to their interests.8

c. Japan Promotes Autonomy Movement in North China

It had been very clear to Theodore Roosevelt during his administration as President that Japan regarded Manchuria as a bulwark of defense and as the keystone in the economic structure of the empire. Japan could not retire from her position in that province and any attempt to force her withdrawal would lead to open warfare. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary Hull by adopting the Stimson formula of nonrecognition had opened a Pandora’s box of troubles in the Far East. When they applied the formula to Japan and remained silent concerning Russia’s absorption of Outer Mongolia, they emptied every evil in the box and led them to stalk along the Manchurian frontier stirring up discontent.

Chaos and communism are close companions and as Japan looked over the unsettled condition of affairs in North China, it was apparent that Russian agents were busily at work in fomenting discord. They would turn the peasants against the tottering regime of Chiang Kai-shek, and when the fires of revolution had destroyed the weak fabric of the Nationalist Government, communist armies under Mao Tse-tung or Chu Teh would quickly extinguish them under a heavy iron curtain. The formula was simple and very effective. If Japan remained inactive in North China, it would not be long before Manchuria and Korea would be closely besieged by great masses of fanatical Reds. Japan must either extend her frontiers in China or see her troops pushed into the sea.

Under the terms of the Tangku Truce, May 31, 1933, Chinese troops had been withdrawn from Northeast Hopeh Province which was converted into a “demilitarized zone” under the nominal control of China. Order in this area had been insufficiently maintained by organizations “under the control of Chinese” officials who were “not unsympathetic to the Japanese.”9 As conditions continued unsettled the Japanese decided to restore order by force and to extend the area under her control. In May 1935, Japanese armies moved into the demilitarized zone of Hopeh and some weeks later compelled Chinese officials to consent to a new truce. Under the terms of the Ho-Umedzu Agreement, July 6, 1935 (signed by General Umedzu, commander of the Japanese Army in North China and by General Ho Ying-chin, Chinese Minister of War), Chinese troops would be withdrawn from Hopeh Province and this would be followed by the “dissolution and suppression of certain Chinese organizations to which the Japanese objected.” Another important item provided for the prohibition “of all anti-foreign and anti-Japanese activities in China generally.”10

This important agreement was one expression of the policy stressed by Hirota in the late summer of 1935. After having removed one possibility of friction with Soviet Russia by the purchase of the Chinese Eastern Railway (March 23), Hirota concentrated his attention upon North China. In October he announced three basic principles of accommodation with China: (1) recognition of Manchukuo; (2) suppression of anti-Japanese activities; (3) collaboration in an anti-Communistic program. When the Nanking Government refused to give serious consideration to these proposals, Japan announced on November 24 the existence of a strong independence movement that aimed at the autonomy of the five northern provinces of Chahar, Hopeh, Shansi, Shantung, and Suiyuan. The consolidation of these five provinces into an autonomous unit was not accomplished, but the Japanese did organize the “East Hopeh Anti-Communistic Autonomous Government.” This was placed under the control of a Chinese named Yin Ju-keng who was sympathetic with Japanese aspirations. Next, the Hopeh-Chahar Political Council was established “under the nominal control of the Chinese Government.” The Japanese puppet in this case was General Sung Che-yuan. Finally, the Japanese erected in “Chahar Province north of the Great Wall (about nine-tenths of the Province) an ‘independent’ Mongolian regime under the nominal leadership of the Mongolian prince Teh Wang.”11 These political moves were apparently merely a prelude to the establishment of a real autonomous government in the five northern provinces.

d. America and Britain Protest against Japanese Policy

Britain viewed with evident alarm this sudden expansion of Japanese influence in North China. James L. Garvin, noted British political analyst, called attention to the fact that something “significant and sinister” had taken place in the Far East,12 while Sir Samuel Hoare, speaking for the Foreign Office, lamented that events had taken place “which, whatever the truth of the matter may be, lend color to the belief that Japanese influence is being exerted to shape Chinese internal political developments and administrative arrangements.”13

Secretary Hull went far beyond the cautious language of the British Foreign Secretary. On December 5 he issued a press release which indicated the attitude of the Department of State:

There is going on in and with regard to North China a political struggle which is unusual in character and which may have far-reaching effects. . . . Unusual developments in any part of China are rightfully and necessarily of concern not alone to the Government and people of China but to all of the many powers which have interests in China. . . . Political disturbances and pressures give rise to uncertainty and misgiving. . . . They make difficult the enjoyment of treaty rights and the fulfillment of treaty obligations. . . . In international relations there must be . . . faith in principles and pledges.14

e. American Purchases of Silver Adversely Affect China

While Secretary Hull was talking on this high plane with reference to help for China, the actions of United States Treasury officials under the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 were helping to undermine Chinese opposition to Japanese expansion in North China. American purchases of silver caused a large flow of that metal from China to the United States, thus leading to a serious depletion of bank reserves and a consequent decline in commodity prices. The Chinese Government countered with a tax on silver exports, but large quantities were smuggled out of the country and foreign trade was soon demoralized.15 After vainly waiting for an expected loan, China was finally compelled to issue on November 3 a decree nationalizing silver. All holders of that metal were ordered to exchange it for legal-tender notes issued by three government banks.

America’s silver policy had caused serious economic distress in large areas in China, had weakened her resistance to Japanese encroachments, and had made many of her “responsible business leaders to feel that their economic interests would perhaps be safer if entrusted to Japanese control than they would be if they were left to be played upon by the hocus-pocus of fourteen American Senators.”16 Instead of increasing American exports to China, the Silver Purchase Act led to a sharp drop in this current of trade.17

Secretary Hull admits that the operations of the Treasury Department led to a “disastrous flight of silver from China to the United States,” and he laments the fact that it was not until May 1936 that any real relief was afforded by Secretary Morgenthau.18 During these months of financial dislocation in China, Japan moved forward to a more secure control over large portions of North China.

f. Japan Again Asks for Naval Parity

Under the provisions of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 arrangements were outlined for a conference to meet in 1935 for the purpose of drafting a convention that would settle all questions relating to naval limitations. When this convention met in London, December 9, 1935, the Japanese delegates presented their usual plea for parity. This stressed the importance of establishing a “common upper limit” by reducing the existing ration of 5-5-3 to one of 3-3-3. This could be accomplished by destroying a large number of American and British warships.19

Admiral Nagano defended the Japanese position by asserting that the common upper limit desired did not “envisage giving Japan any opportunity for aggression; on the contrary, Japan wanted to make aggression by any power impossible.” Under the 5-5-3 ratio the American Navy, concentrated in Oriental waters, could “threaten Japanese security.” Norman Davis replied that he did not think that the Japanese proposals were “very fair.” After discussing the reasons for the establishment of the 5-5-3 ratio he then remarked that it was essential to find some modus vivendi which would “avoid both the common upper limit and the ratio.” Admiral Standley thought that a satisfactory temporary arrangement might be effected by taking the existing naval establishments with certain qualitative limitations and add a preamble stating that “an adequate navy was the sovereign right of everybody.” This suggestion was accepted by the Japanese delegates for further consideration.20

During the course of his remarks Norman Davis had expressed his gratification at the “improvement in Japanese-American relations in the past three years.“ He paid tribute to the Japanese people and to their urge for progress which the United States admired but which it desired to see “exercised in a peaceful manner.” Mr. Phillips also adverted to the “rapidly growing friendship” between the United States and Japan and spoke of his fears that “parity would certainly set us back and breed suspicion.”21

But the Japanese delegates continued to insist upon parity and refused to discuss the new building programs presented by France, Great Britain, and Italy. On January 15, 1936, when the other powers rejected the parity request, Japan formally withdrew from the conference.22 Collective security in the Pacific was crumbling even before Mussolini’s legions in Africa proved that it was hopelessly out of date.

g. President Roosevelt Delivers a Lecture to Wicked Dictators

As the system of collective security was rapidly breaking down in Africa and in China, it occurred to President Roosevelt that he might check this disintegration by some words of warning to dictators in Germany, Italy, and Japan. In 1936 the Nazi regime in Germany was distasteful to multitudes of Americans and Mussolini’s march into Ethiopia had given deep offense to a large and influential group of publicists and professors who believed that the frontiers of America had gradually been extended into every continent on the globe. The Japanese movement into North China had been particularly disturbing to these ardent one-worlders who conveniently forgot that Russia had really taken over Outer Mongolia and was rapidly infiltrating Sinkiang. The Department of State in 1935 had protested to Russia against communist propaganda in the United States, but it had evinced no interest in the advance of the Red tide over the plains of North China. Russia, with its vast reservoir of strength in limitless Siberia, was a far more serious threat to China than the armies of Japan that had to fight a desperate battle to be able to cling to the fringes of the continent of China. But President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull kept looking at the problems of eastern Asia through the myopic eyes of Henry L. Stimson who had bedeviled the situation in 1931-32 and who still muddled the minds of high officials who held the reins of authority.

On January 3, 1936, the President delivered an address to Congress in which he sounded a sharp challenge to wicked dictators who were engaged in aggressions that might lead to World War II. After congratulating his Administration upon the adoption of a “good neighbor policy,” he belabored other national leaders who had failed to “demonstrate that patience necessary to attain reasonable and legitimate objectives by peaceful negotiation or by an appeal to the finer instincts of world justice.” Fully aware that the injustices of Versailles could never be rectified through any agency of the League of Nations, the President must have pressed his tongue hard in his cheek when he uttered such sonorous nonsense. But he relished his role as lecturer to errant nations, and he hurried on to further words of castigation: “They [Germany, Italy, and Japan] have . . . impatiently reverted to the old belief in the law of the sword, or to the fantastic conception that they, and they alone, are chosen to fulfill a mission. . . . I recognize that these words which I have chosen with deliberation will not prove popular in any nation that chooses to fit this shoe to its foot.”23

In distant Tokyo, Ambassador Grew regarded these minatory words of the President as an exercise in “courageous statesmanship.” He realized that this pointed admonition would not stop the “Japanese push into China,” but he hoped that it might retard its progress.24 He was not honest enough to admit that it was another step in the direction of war with Japan.

Japanese reaction to the President’s address was given significant expression in a speech made by Hirota who deprecated the fact that American statesmen constantly talked as though they had a mandate from God: “It is to be regretted that there are abroad statesmen of repute who seemed determined to impose upon others their private convictions as to how the world should be ordered, and who are apt to denounce those who oppose their dictates as if they were disturbers of peace.”25

In New York, Ambassador Saito, speaking before the Japan Society, endeavored to justify Japanese policy in China by comparing it with the American Monroe Doctrine.26 This statement aroused the ready ire of Senator Pittman who vehemently denied the validity of such a comparison. “We are seeking to preserve the republics of Latin America, not to destroy them.”27

Although Ambassador Grew recognized that the much-quoted utterance of Pittman was “utterly jingoistic,” he did not regret it because he believed that “its net result will be helpful.” The Japanese Government should be made to realize that there has always been a limit to American patience. Indeed, if they looked into the history of the United States, they would discover that “the American people are among the most inflammable in the world.” Some little incident in the Far East might easily ignite the tinder of American resentment and thus produce a long and devastating war. Grew overlooked the fact that utterances like those of Senator Pittman greatly helped to prepare in Japanese minds a pile of ardent dislike that could be enkindled into flames of conflict by sparks of caustic criticism on the part of American officials.28

h. Chinese Nationalism Makes a Common Cause with Communism

While jingoists in the United States were denouncing Japanese policy in China, the Japanese Cabinet was doing its best to maintain friendly relations with the United States. In the first week in March 1936, Hirota was commanded by the Emperor to assume the post of Prime Minister. This selection pleased Grew who looked upon Hirota as a “strong and safe” man. In response to a series of questions from Grew, the new Prime Minister repeated the items in his policy towards China which he had announced during the preceding October: (1) Chinese recognition of Manchukuo; (2) suppression of anti-Japanese activities; (3) collaboration in an anti-communistic program. In its execution of this policy Japan would not “interfere with foreign rights and interests including the principle of the Open Door.” In conclusion, Hirota again emphasized his warm desire to make “good relations” with the United States the most important item in his program of peace.29

This same note of friendly feeling for the United States was echoed by Mr. Yoshida, the Japanese Ambassador to Britain who was visiting Washington. At the conclusion of his friendly remarks he expressed the hope that the American people would soon recognize the need of the “immense and rapidly growing population of Japan” for more territory.30 This land hunger could best be satisfied by a large slice of North China.

Secretary Hull reduced Yoshida’s fervor of expression by coolly remarking that the American people were getting the impression that Japan “sought absolute economic domination, first of eastern Asia, and then of other portions as she might see fit.” This would eventually mean “political as well as military domination,” and that the upshot of “the entire movement would be to exclude countries like the United States from trading with all of those portions of China thus brought under the domination . . . of Japan.” Hull then discoursed at length upon the beneficent aspects of his reciprocal trade program which aimed at breaking down tariff barriers and thus making it possible for “some 20 billions of dollars of international trade by degrees to be restored.” If the Japanese Government would abandon its selfish policy of imperialism in North China and follow American tutelage in the matter of reciprocal trade, it would soon be vastly benefited by the strong new currents of rich commerce.31

Japanese statesmen were well acquainted with all the items in the Hull program of reciprocal trade, and they had weighed with care most of the arguments in favor of unrestricted trade. But their problem in North China was primarily one of defense against Russia. The importance of Manchuria as a source of raw materials and as a market for Japanese manufactures was obvious. Less obvious was the importance of that province as a bulwark that would stem the Red tide that had already covered the entire province of Outer Mongolia. The Soviet Army in the Far East during the years 1936-38 increased to an imposing force of more than 300,000 seasoned troops.32 Not only could this army use Mongolia as a springboard for offensive action, but after 1935, Red forces could recruit further strength in the province of Sinkiang. According to Alexander Barmine, who was in charge of the supply of Soviet arms to military forces in that province, it was evident that all vestiges of Chinese control had vanished. In 1935, Sinkiang had become “a Soviet colony in all but name.”33

It is significant that the American Government never addressed a note to Soviet Russia protesting against the absorption of these provinces. American concern relative to the preservation of Chinese territorial integrity had its sole expression in acrid notes to Japan. Faith in Russia’s good intentions was an important item in the Far Eastern policy of the Roosevelt Administration.

Officials in the Department of State not only overlooked the rapid extension of Russian power through control over Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang, but they deliberately closed their eyes to the implications that lay behind the establishment of the Communist Army in the province of Shensi. After the communist debacle in 1927, Mao Tse-tung and Chu Teh retreated to convenient rural areas in Kiangsi and Kwan-tung provinces and carefully recruited new strength. In August 1931 a mandate was received from Moscow instructing Chinese Communists to create a full-fledged Soviet government: “In the shortest possible period, a central Soviet government must be formed in the most secure region.” In accordance with this directive the First Congress of Chinese Soviets assembled in Juichin, Kiangsi, in November 1931 and promulgated a constitution along Russian lines. Before closing its sessions this Congress elected a permanent Central Executive Committee which immediately chose a Cabinet that included such loyal communist leaders as Mao Tse-tung, Chu Teh, and Chou En-lai. This Cabinet was empowered to rule by decrees which were to have the force of law. The program formulated by the Congress had a definite communist inclination: the confiscation of the estates of landlords and the nationalization of all industries belonging to foreigners.34

By September 1932 the Communist Party in China proudly reported to the Comintern that it had organized a Red Army of twenty-six corps and fifteen local divisions. It had also introduced a “well-armed GPU detachment” in order to suppress any “counterrevolutionary movements.” In the following year the Chinese delegate, Wang Ming, stated that the Red military forces had grown to an army of 350,000 trained troops with an irregular force approximating 600,000. This military establishment had under its domination a total population of nearly sixty million people.35

But the Red Army in China felt insecure in the provinces of Kiangsi and Kwantung, so in October 1934 it began the Long March that finally took it into Kansu and Shensi.36 In northern Shensi a new Soviet area was rapidly organized in 1935. For Russia the new location for the Chinese Communist Army was of great importance. Bordering on Inner Mongolia, it would provide a bulwark against the projected Japanese advance in that region. Close to the territory of Soviet Russia, it could draw from that area much-needed supplies for warlike operations. As an instrument of Russian policy it was admirably located and was ready to strike upon orders from Moscow.

The Kremlin, however, was too canny to use the Chinese Red Army as an offensive force at that time. It would be better strategy to arrange a truce with the Nationalist armies of Chiang Kai-shek and then preach a crusade against the Japanese invaders. When they were turned back the truce could be conveniently broken and the armed forces of Chiang Kai-shek, war-weary and shattered, could be crushed. All China would then be inundated by the Red tide.

It would, therefore, be smart politics for the Chinese Communists to arrange a hurried understanding with the Nationalist Government and use Chiang Kai-shek as an unwitting tool to further their ends. The first move in this game of wits was to implement a motto forged by Mao Tse-tung: “All parties and classes unite to fight the Japanese and the traitors. . . . We are against civil war.”37 Other communist leaders echoed this clarion call of Mao Tse-tung, and when Chiang Kai-shek was taken prisoner at Sian in December 1936 by Chang Hsueh-liang, Moscow quickly intervened and secured his release.38 For the time being he was an important Soviet asset that had to be carefully exploited. When his usefulness was over he could be shot as a “fascist-militarist.”

i. Japan Draws Closer to Germany

In the face of this growing accord between Chiang Kai-shek and the communist leaders in China, Japan concluded the well-known anti-Comintern Pact of November 25, 1936. This was a consultative convention which bound the contracting parties to “keep each other informed concerning the activities of the Communistic International.”39 There was also a secret “additional agreement” which provided that in the event “one of the High Contracting Parties” should “become the object of an unprovoked attack or threat of attack by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” the other contracting party would “take no measures which would tend to ease the situation” of Soviet Russia. This secret treaty also made provision for consultations between the contracting parties to safeguard “common interests.”40

In a statement explaining the purpose of the anti-Comintern Agreement, the Japanese Foreign Office indicated the extent of communist propaganda and the efforts of communist agents to promote world-wide revolution in order to establish Red control over every part of the globe. Attention was called to the devious means by which the Russian Government had acquired a dominant influence in the Chinese provinces of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang. In order to meet this growing threat to Japanese security, it had been found necessary to enter into the anti-Comintern Pact with Germany. But this step was merely a preliminary move in the direction of attempting to prove to other powers the importance of becoming parties to a general anti-Comintern pact.41

During a conversation with the American chargé d’affaires, Mr. Dickover, Horinouchi, the Japanese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, gave an assurance that “no secret military . . . arrangement of any kind was included in the agreement.”42 The Russian Government, however, was confident that some kind of a military alliance had been arranged between Germany and Japan, and the Soviet Ambassador in Tokyo informed Ambassador Grew, “with considerable heat,” that this alliance was also directed against the rich British and Dutch colonial empires in the Far East. There was no real foundation for this statement, and Ambassador Grew himself discounted such talk.

j. Japan Seeks an Accommodation with China

Ambassador Grew was not disturbed by the ominous assurances of the Russian Ambassador that Japan and Germany had signed an agreement which aimed at eventual absorption of some of the choice British and Dutch possessions in the East Indies. He was happy that on New Year’s Day 1937 there were no “current controversies of prime importance” between Japan and the United States.43 A few weeks later Grew had a “long and intimate” conversation with Amau, the spokesman of the Foreign Office. The burden of their talk was the satisfactory state of Japanese-American relations.44 But Grew was afraid that the situation was too good to last. In Japan one felt a “little like living on a volcano, never knowing when an explosion is going to occur.”45

Grew believed that Prime Minister Hirota was largely responsible for this improvement in Japanese-American relations. He had made strenuous efforts to curb hostile comments in the Japanese press, and Amau had struggled valiantly to have the Japanese public see America in a more friendly light. But the most important factor in this uncertain equation of good relations was the status of North China. Faced with a rapidly growing communist menace, Japan had attempted to extend her influence in some areas of North China, and this had led to increased friction with the government of Chiang Kai-shek. The situation could easily develop into armed conflict unless some formula of accommodation could be found. For many months successive Japanese ministries endeavored to find this formula.

In the summer of 1936, Hirota made special efforts to conciliate China at a time when Chinese mobs were maltreating Japanese nationals. At Chengtu, on August 24, two Japanese newspaper reporters were murdered and two other Japanese nationals were “dragged from their hotel and brutally beaten.”46 It seemed evident to the Japanese Foreign Office that this mob action was the result of the “anti-Japanese agitation instigated by the Kuomintang and tolerated by the National Government.” The Chengtu Incident was soon followed by many other unfortunate occurrences of a similar nature. On September 17 at Swatow a hand grenade was thrown into a restaurant owned by a Japanese; at Hankow on September 18 a Manchukuo official “was molested on a train by a mob and some of his valuables were taken away.” On the same day at the same place a Japanese consular policeman was killed by some Chinese while he was “patrolling the border of the Japanese concession at Hankow.” A few days later (September 23) at Shanghai one Japanese bluejacket was killed and two were wounded by Chinese gunmen. As a result of these unprovoked attacks upon Japanese nationals, the Japanese Foreign Minister issued a statement (September 28) that negotiations with China “could not be left to drift.” China was “now at the cross-roads where it must decide whether or not to shake hands with Japan.”47

The Chinese Government responded to this statement by asking Secretary Hull to request Japan “to be moderate and conciliatory toward China,”48 and the British Government instructed its ambassador in Tokyo to present a similar request to Foreign Minister Arita.49 The Foreign Office endeavored to quiet the situation by announcing on October 2 the decision to send Mr. Kuwashima, director of the East Asiatic Bureau, to China for conferences with Ambassador Kawagoe. In explaining this step the Foreign Office spokesman remarked that it was important for Japan to convey to Chiang Kai-shek its “real intentions.”50

According to the Chinese ambassadors to France and Great Britain the real intentions of the Japanese Foreign Office were divulged in a series of “demands” or “requests” which were far-reaching in their scope. The Japanese Government attached special importance to the “demands” dealing with action against communism and with the autonomy movement in five northern provinces.51

On October 1 the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the British Ambassador that “Japan was determined to make North China safe for Manchukuo.”52 Two days later the Foreign Office advised the American Embassy in Tokyo that the “only demand upon which they will insist is the suppression of anti-Japanese propaganda and agitation because of the danger of further incidents.”53 But this agitation against the Japanese grew in intensity, fanned doubtless by Communists who wished to exclude any thought of compromise between Chiang Kai-shek and the Japanese Government. On October 30, David Berger wrote to Secretary Hull to impart stray bits of information he had gleaned from a “local Chinese official of the Nanking Ministry of Finance.” According to this official, in Nanking there was “now a desire to bring about what might be called a Soviet orientation in Chinese foreign affairs.”54

A Soviet orientation in Chinese foreign affairs meant a widening breach between China and Japan. On December 3, Mr. Suma, first secretary of the Japanese Embassy in Nanking, confided to Ambassador Johnson that during the last month he had noticed a “distinct change for the worse in the attitude of the Chinese toward the Japanese, and even the soldiers and officers of General Chiang’s own troops were now urging a more anti-Japanese attitude.”55

This belligerent attitude on the part of the Chinese gave deep concern to the British Foreign Office. Anthony Eden called on the Chinese Ambassador in London and requested him to “urge his Government not to overplay its hand.” If Nanking proved “completely recalcitrant to all overtures, the result will tend to solidify and unify Japanese public opinion in favor of stronger measures.” In Tokyo the Chinese Ambassador talked to Grew in such a boastful manner that he gave the impression that “China is at present ‘feeling its oats’ and is very likely to overplay its hand in resisting Japanese overtures.”56

k. Chiang Kai-shek Welcomes Communist Help against Japan

One of the main elements in producing this Chinese boastfulness was the union of the Nationalists and the Communists. This union contributed additional military strength to the Chinese position but the initiative would lie with the communist forces. They would fight only on their own terms and only for communist objectives. This fact was clearly perceived in Japan where the advancing Red tide was viewed with increasing alarm. According to Ambassador Grew the idea was taking root that the government required “but one principle in dealing with China: to oppose any movement in China which is definitely Communist and to assist any movement in China which is definitely anti-Communist. Increasingly, policy toward China appears as simply part of the larger question of the Russian and Communist menace.”57

This viewpoint was understood by Mr. Hornbeck who prepared many memoranda for the Division of Far Eastern Affairs. On January 16 he discussed the situation in Shensi Province and then remarked: “There is serious danger that the rebellious troops at Sian (and Kansu provincial troops) may join forces with the large Communist armies occupying nearby regions and create a formidable Communist front in Northwest China. Such a development would jeopardize internal peace in China and disturb Sino-Japanese relations.”58

There was little doubt that the Nationalists and the Communists had reached some satisfactory understanding about objectives and procedures. Although Chiang Kai-shek had demanded that the Communists meet his rigorous conditions for joint operations, there were “reliable indications” that a “reconciliation was proceeding along lines privately agreed upon.”59 This fact gave Japanese statesmen further fears of the communist menace.

l. Japan Tries to Conciliate China

The Japanese Diet had not been satisfied with the efforts of the Hirota Ministry to find some solution for the impasse in Japanese-Chinese relations. On January 23, 1937, the Hirota Government went out of office, and on February 2 General Hayashi assumed the duties of Prime Minister. In the Diet, Hayashi immediately gave assurances of a pacific policy towards China: “I have no faith in a pugnacious foreign policy.” In elaborating his viewpoint he further remarked: “It is greatly to be regretted if China makes the mistake of thinking Japan is wedded to a policy of aggression.”

There were indications that the Hayashi Ministry would not press the far-reaching “demands” of the preceding administration. New negotiations with China would stress only two points: (1) the reduction of the Chinese tariff, and (2) the establishment of an air service between China and Japan. This program of conciliation had the support of the Japanese press which insisted that the government had “no wish to infringe on the territorial integrity of China as an independent State. Thus the contrast between the present tone of the press and its former tone is patent.”60

When Mr. Grew went to talk with the new Japanese Foreign Minister (Naotake Sato) who took office on March 3, he was informed that a special effort would be made to bring about a “marked improvement” in Sino-Japanese relations. As far as America was concerned, Grew knew Sato “fairly well” and believed that relations “will be of the best.”61 One of the first expressions of this Japanese conciliatory policy towards China was the dispatch of an economic mission under the chairmanship of Kenji Kodama, former president of the Yokohama Specie Bank. Kodama was reputed to be an authority on Chinese affairs and also was popular in China. This Japanese mission spent two days in Nanking (March 16-17) and was received by Chiang Kai-shek who gave assurances that he desired “the friendly help and advice of Japan.” Chiang further stated that Chinese industrialists would “unquestionably” accept the advice of Japanese industrial experts and would “follow their footsteps so that China’s culture and economy may rise on the same plane with Japan for the stability of oriental peace and welfare.”62

But these friendly words had little meaning when the Japanese endeavored to have them translated into favorable action. On March 24, Ambassador Johnson reported that the Japanese economic mission had accomplished nothing because the “Chinese appear to have insisted that a readjustment of the political relations of the two countries is necessary before any concrete program of ‘economic cooperation’ can be agreed upon.”63 In April, Ambassador Johnson was frankly pessimistic about an improvement in Japanese-Chinese relations. The Chinese attitude towards Japan had distinctly “stiffened” in recent months, and the Foreign Office would insist upon a fundamental change in the Japanese political position in North China before conducting negotiations of an economic character.64

The Nationalist Government in China knew that Japan was in no position to abrogate the Tangku Truce of May 31, 1933, or to abolish the Hopeh-Chahar Political Council of 1935. These measures had been taken as a means of defense against the rapidly increasing influence of Soviet Russia in North China. To Japan it was significant that the Nationalist Government was not at all worried about Russian control of the provinces of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang. Why should Chinese nationalism bitterly oppose any Japanese expansion in North China while regarding with apparent indifference Russian imperialism in the same area? If Chiang Kai-shek had fallen under the domination of Russia, it would be highly dangerous for Japan to make any concessions to him.

But Prime Minister Hayashi still hoped for some satisfactory arrangement with China and he believed that economic adjustments might be the prelude to a political understanding. This friendly attitude, however, failed as bait for Chinese good will. As Ambassador Grew reported from Tokyo: “China’s attitude has stiffened as a result of Japan’s conciliatory gestures.”65 These gestures did not cease when China refused to reciprocate. On May 10, Foreign Minister Sato assured foreign newspaper correspondents in Tokyo that Japan “does not demand exclusive rights, and believes that it can live peacefully side by side [with China] in the economic world.”66

Ambassador Grew noted in May that the Japanese “conciliatory program met with setbacks during May and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the chief proponent of the policy, found it necessary to issue statements showing a firmer stand on the part of Japan. . . . There was a recurrence of anti-Japanese agitation in North China and there occurred several incidents which were said to have caused serious concern to the Japanese authorities.”67 These difficulties were magnified by General Sung Che-yuan’s non-co-operative attitude with reference to East Hopeh. In the early autumn of 1936 he had promised “the Japanese economic co-operation but has delayed signing a number of Japanese-prepared agreements for such co-operation. The Japanese desire certain preliminary economic developments such as railway construction, iron mining and cotton growing in order to pave the way for Japanese industrial establishments.” Chiang Kai-shek himself desired “to maintain the status quo in North China” and not challenge the Japanese position there, but the opposition of his “subordinates” was making his position “difficult.”68

In the last week in May 1937 the Hayashi Ministry went out of office with its program of economic adjustments with China unfulfilled. On June 4, Prince Konoye assumed the duties of Prime Minister and Hirota once more became Foreign Minister. During a conversation with Ambassador Grew on June 7, Hirota stated that his former three points of accommodation with China “were too abstract for present circumstances, and that he therefore proposed to find concrete solutions of the various problems outstanding between Japan and China.”69 Mr. Grew thought that China was in “the fortunate position of being able to refuse the granting of economic concessions which Japan urgently needs but for the attainment of which Japan is apparently not desirous of using armed forces.”70

m. Soviet Russia Promotes a War between China and Japan

It is apparent from the diplomatic correspondence that came to the Department of State from Nanking and Tokyo that in the summer of 1937 many Chinese officials were spoiling for a fight between Japan and China. In June 1937, Mr. Andrews, second secretary of the American Embassy in Tokyo, had a conversation with Dr. Mar who held a similar position in the Chinese Embassy. After Ambassador Grew read a report of this conversation he noted that Dr. Mar’s attitude was “one of truculence and undue optimism, thus reflecting the enhanced sense of security that has been developed in a section of Chinese officialdom as a consequence of the development of the past year.”71 China, and not Japan, was ready for the outbreak of hostilities.

In China the Japanese Ambassador kept speaking in a conciliatory vein which stressed the idea that “the time would come when there would be ‘understandings’ between China and Japan.” As a result of these pacific words Mr. Gauss, the American Consul-General at Shanghai, reported that in informed quarters it was believed that “the Japanese are unlikely to display a strong attitude or to take any aggressive measures in North China while the question of an Anglo-Japanese understanding is being explored.”72

It is evident that many foreign observers in June-July 1937 regarded an outbreak of war between China and Japan as quite improbable. The Konoye Ministry seemed intent upon carrying out the pacific policy of the preceding administrations. It was with distinct surprise, therefore, that the governments of the major powers heard that armed hostilities had taken place near Peiping. On the night of July 7, in the vicinity of the famous Marco Polo bridge, some Japanese troops became involved in a sharp fight with some units of the Chinese Twenty-ninth Army.73 A new drama that would end on a curtain line announcing Russian domination of the Far East, had opened with an ominous fanfare. The whole world became an interested audience with few of the spectators realizing that the progress of the play was pointed towards a Russian conclusion. Chinese, Japanese, and Americans would move across the Far Eastern stage in intricate patterns that finally proclaimed a definite Muscovite motif. The Moscow theater never staged a more effective puppet show.

• 1John H. Ferguson, American Diplomacy and the Boer War (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 208-9.
• 2February 10, 1904.
• 3February 10, 1904.
• 4February 11, 1904.
• 5Tatsuji Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (New York, 1936), pp. 155-57.
• 6Edward H. Zabriskie, American-Russian Rivalry in the Far East 1895-1914 (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 101-60.
• 7Ernest B. Price, The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907-1916 Concerning Manchuria and Mongolia (Baltimore, 1933), pp. 34-38.
• 8A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New York, 1938), pp. 129-34.
• 9Theodore Roosevelt to President William H. Taft, December 22, 1910. Knox MS, Library of Congress.
• 10John G. Reid, The Manchu Abdication and the Powers, 1908-1912 (Berkeley, 1935), chaps. 4-10.
• 11Charles Callan Tansill, Canadian-American Relations, 1875-1911 (New York, 1944), chaps. 1-4, 10-12.
• 12Merle E. Curti, “Bryan and World Peace,” Smith College Studies in History, XVI (Northampton, 1931).
• 13Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston, 1938), chaps. 2-6.
• 14Edwin Borchard and William P. Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, 1937), p. 183.
• 15Tansill, op. cit., pp. 459-60.
• 16Borchard and Lage, op. cit., p. 88. It is interesting to note that in the eventful days that just preceded America’s entry into the World War, President Wilson had so little regard for Secretary Lansing that he complained bitterly to Colonel House about his shortcomings: “I [House] was surprised to hear him [the President] say that Lansing was the most unsatisfactory Secretary in his Cabinet; . . . that he had no imagination, no constructive ability, and but little real ability of any kind. He was constantly afraid of him because he often undertook to launch policies himself which he, the President, had on several occasions rather brusquely reversed.” House Diary, March 28, 1917. House MS, Yale University Library.
• 17President Wilson did not have a clear idea of the actual meaning of the Fourteen Points. In his Diary, December 20, 1918, Secretary Lansing makes the following significant comments: “There are certain phrases in the President’s ‘Fourteen Points’ [Freedom of the Seas and Self-Determination] which I am sure will cause trouble in the future because their meaning and application have not been thought out. . . . These phrases will certainly come home to roost and cause much vexation. . . . He [the President] apparently never thought out in advance where they would lead or how they would be interpreted by others. In fact he does not seem to care just so his words sound well.” Lansing Papers, Library of Congress.
• 18Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the March (New York, 1941), p. 504.
• 19The correspondence dealing with the pre-Armistice agreement is printed in full in Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement, I, The World War, I (Washington, 1933), 337-38, 343, 357-58, 379-81, 382-83, 425, 468-69.
• 20Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York, 1941), pp. 35-36.
• 21David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, 1939), I, 306-9.
• 22Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking, 1919 (New York, 1939), p. 18.
• 23The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ed. Charles Seymour (Cambridge, 1928), IV, 343.
• 24Philip M. Burnett, Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1940), I, 63-64.
• 25Ibid., p. 69.
• 26Ibid., pp. 832-33.
• 27Birdsall, op. cit., p. 258.
• 28Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York, 1944), p. 240.
• 29Thorstein Veblen, The Nature of Peace (New York, 1917), p. 261. Secretary Lansing did not share the viewpoint that the Germans had forfeited their colonies through maladministration. In his Diary, January 10, 1918, he remarked: “This purpose of the retention of conquered territory is prima facie based upon conquest and is not in accord with the spirit of a peace based upon justice. . . . it is necessary for peace that the adjustment should be equitable.” Lansing Papers. Library of Congress.
• 30Edwyn Bevan, The Method in the Madness (London, 1917), pp. 305-6.
• 31Arthur P. Scott, “George Louis Beer,” in the Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography, ed. W. T. Hutchinson (Chicago, 1937), p. 315.
• 32Ibid., p. 319.
• 33George L. Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference, ed. L. H. Gray (New York, 1923), pp. 58-60.
• 34Bailey, op. cit., p. 163.
• 35Harry R. Rudin, Germany in the Cameroons, 1884-1914 (New Haven, 1938), pp. 11, 414, 419.
• 36Bailey, op. cit., p. 167.
• 37It is significant that most of Professor Lord’s colleagues on the Inquiry thought that his zeal for Poland was “excessive.” Birdsall, op. cit., p. 178. See also, Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (privately printed, 1928), I, 289.
• 38Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (Garden City, 1922), III, 37-38.
• 39Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-26.
• 40Seymour, op. cit., IV, 334-35.
• 41Lloyd George, op. cit., II, 637-42.
• 42René Martel, The Eastern Frontiers of Germany (London, 1930), pp. 49-50.
• 43William H. Dawson, Germany Under the Treaty (London, 1933), pp. 149-52.
• 44Diaries, Letters and Papers (London, 1935-37), II, 503.
• 45Documents on International Affairs, 1934, ed. John W. Wheeler-Bennett and Stephen Heald (New York), p. 424.
• 46Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-28; VI, 49-52.
• 47E. Alexander Powell, Thunder Over Europe (New York, 1931), p. 62.
• 48Dawson, op. cit., pp. 102-9. See also, I. F. D. Morrow and L. M. Sieveking, The Peace Settlement in the German Polish Borderlands (London, 1936).
• 49Powell, op. cit., p. 66.
• 50Baker, op. cit., pp. 482-84. Apparently, Henry White did much to give President Wilson the correct view of the situation in Upper Silesia. See Allan Nevins, Henry White (New York, 1930), p. 423.
• 51In the learned account written by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (London, 1942), p. 6, the vote is given as 707,605 for Germany; 479,359 for Poland.
• 52(London, 1930), pp. 79-88.
• 53Dawson, op. cit., pp. 206-9.
• 54Sir Robert Donald, The Polish Corridor and the Consequences (London, 1929), pp. 197-98. See also, Sarah Wambaugh, Plebiscites Since the World War (Washington, 1933); W. J. Rose, The Drama of Upper Silesia (Brattleboro, 1936); Colonel E. S. Hutchinson, Silesia Revisited—1929 (London, 1930).
• 55Seymour, op. cit., IV, 347, 349, 383.
• 56Articles 428-432 of the Treaty of Versailles, The Treaties of Peace, 1919-1923 (New York, 1924), I, 254-55.
• 57General Henry T. Allen to Secretary Hughes, December 22, 1921. 862T.01/346, MS, National Archives.
• 58Ambassador Wallace to Secretary Hughes, Paris, April 27, 1920. 862.00/921, MS, National Archives.
• 59Emil Sauer to Secretary Hughes, Cologne, February 16, 1923. 862.00/1215, MS, National Archives.
• 60Dawson, op. cit., p. 84.
• 61Nevins, op. cit., p. 372.
• 62G. E. R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic (London, 1930), pp. 29-31.
• 63Herbert Hoover, “Communism Erupts in Europe,” Collier’s, CXXVIII (September 8, 1951), pp. 26-27, 68-71.
• 64Alma Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1941), p. 124.
• 65Ibid., pp. 98-100.
• 66George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, May 22, 1933. 862.00/2985-86, MS, Department of State.
• 67George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 17, 1933. 862.00/3010, MS, Department of State.
• 68George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 23, 1933. 862.00/3017, MS, Department of State.
• 69George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3028-29, MS, Department of State.
• 70George S. Messersmith to Secretary Hull, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3033, MS, Department of State.
• 71The Final Act of the Lausanne Conference, July 9, 1932 (London, 1932), Cmd. 4126.
• 72The countries represented at this conference in Berlin were France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
• 73New York Times, June 3, 1933.