90 years ago today.... (9-18-31)

U.S. State Department (September 24, 1931)

793.94/1868c: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in China

Washington, September 24, 1931 — 4 p.m.

340.

Please communicate to the Minister for Foreign Affairs immediately as a note, the identical text of which will be communicated by the American Chargé to Japan to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following:

The Government and people of the United States have observed with regret and with great concern events of the past few days in Manchuria. In view of the sincere desire of the people of this country that principles and methods of peace shall prevail in international relations, and of the existence of treaties, to several of which the United States is a party, the provisions of which are intended to regulate the adjustment of controversies between nations without resort to use of force, the American Government feels warranted in expressing to the Chinese and the Japanese Governments its hope that they will cause their military forces to refrain from any further hostilities, will so dispose respectively of their armed forces as to satisfy the requirements of international law and international agreements, and will refrain from activities which may prejudice the attainment by amicable methods of an adjustment of their differences.

STIMSON


793.94/1868d: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan

Washington, September 24, 1931 — 4 p.m.

167.

Please deliver to the Minister for Foreign Affairs immediately as a note, the identical text of which will be communicated by the American Minister to China to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following:

The Government and people of the United States have observed with regret and with great concern events of the past few days in Manchuria. In view of the sincere desire of the people of this country that principles and methods of peace shall prevail in international relations, and of the existence of treaties, to several of which the United States is a party, the provisions of which are intended to regulate the adjustment of controversies between nations without resort to use of force, the American Government feels warranted in expressing to the Chinese and the Japanese Governments its hope that they will cause their military forces to refrain from any further hostilities, will so dispose respectively of their armed forces as to satisfy the requirements of international law and international agreements, and will refrain from activities which may prejudice the attainment by amicable methods of an adjustment of their differences.

STIMSON


793.94/1868e: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland, at Geneva

Washington, September 24, 1931 — 4 p.m.

126.

Department’s 123, September 23, 4 p.m. The following identic note has been telegraphed to the Embassy at Tokyo and to the Legation at Peiping for presentation to the Japanese and to the Chinese Governments respectively. The text has also been handed to the Japanese Ambassador and to the Chinese Chargé d’Affaires in Washington.

[Here follows text quoted in telegram No. 340, supra.]

You may so inform the President of the Council.

STIMSON

793.94/1860: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland, at Geneva

Washington, September 24, 1931 — 6 p.m.

127.

[Paraphrase]

Your 159, September 24, 1 p.m.

The day’s news seems to confirm the Department’s impression that the Government at Tokyo is honestly trying to extricate itself from a position which is impossible and that in this process it should not be pressed. My chief reason for fearing the suggested committee of investigation has been that it would obstruct the civil elements of the Tokyo Government and would play into the hands of the Japanese military element. To me these dangers appear to outweigh any good which such a committee’s appointment would do at the present moment, though later on it may be useful. The original idea of a committee to be imposed entirely by outside nations appeared to me as clearly impossible and dangerous. The proposal now is better. In my personal opinion, the form least objectionable to both Japan and China would be a commission which they themselves would appoint. Until some proposal has actually been accepted by both the Chinese and Japanese, I should prefer not deciding whether to permit American membership. I fear otherwise that American membership will be used by the League as a threat to Japan, and this would not, in my opinion, produce the results anticipated by the League but would do exactly the reverse and, furthermore, would destroy future American usefulness as a mediator should the League not succeed. Please inform Drummond confidentially that it is believed best here not to decide about American membership pending agreement by Japan and China to the proposal.

STIMSON


793.94/1876c: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in China

Washington, September 24, 1931 — 6 p.m.

341.

[Paraphrase]

For your personal information, I want to give you, with regard to your various telegrams concerning the trouble in Manchuria, a picture of the policy of the Department.

The Department, as already reported, is completely sympathetic with the action of sending identic notes to Japan and China already taken by the League of Nations. However, the idea of sending a military commission to Manchuria to establish the facts disturbed us. At the time of the dispute between Bulgaria and Greece this was done by the League with success. Entirely different, however, are the conditions in the Manchurian situation. The issue in the Bulgarian-Greek dispute was a line dividing the two countries. In Manchuria, since the Japanese troops are in that section of China under treaty provisions, no such issue arises. Moreover, even as a fact-finding body, the Department has felt very strongly that a commission sent to Manchuria could have little success without the consent of both the Chinese and Japanese. That the Japanese nationalistic element would be immensely strengthened and that it would unite Japan behind the military element, is our principal fear concerning such an imposed commission. The civilian arm of the Government in Japan, we believe, is opposed to the adventure in Manchuria, and the Department feels it is important in every way to support this element. It was our suggestion to Geneva, therefore, that there was a greater possibility of obtaining the consent of Japan if the composition of the commission to be appointed were to be along the lines of our suggestion of two years ago to China and Russia. In other words, the commission should be one appointed by both parties involved in the dispute. The League has adopted this suggestion and, if Japan accepts, at present intends to establish a commission consisting of two members appointed by Japan, two by China, and three by the League Council. This commission we understand would be purely fact finding and have very narrow terms of reference. However, if it can be brought about between the Japanese and Chinese, we believe there is a much greater chance of reaching a solution – in view of Oriental psychology – by direct consultation. The Department feels at the same time that inevitably the dispute is of interest to the world, and that it would make a travesty of the various treaties of which Japan and China are both signatories to allow Japan to consolidate the occupation of the Manchurian cities. Since in this matter the League has already taken action and since as members of the League both parties have agreed to submit to the action therein provided, this Government would be inclined to favor, in case direct conversations are unsuccessful between the two parties, action under article 11 and subsequent articles of the League Covenant signed by both Japan and China.

The treaties of 1922 and the Kellogg Pact still remain and might be invoked in case this action should be unsuccessful. The above is, in general, the line we intend to take. Any comments or further suggestions you wish to make would be welcomed.

Please repeat this telegram to Tokyo as No. 169.

STIMSON

793.94/1946

The Japanese Embassy to the Department of State

September 24, 1931

Statement issued after extraordinary Cabinet meeting

  1. The Japanese Government has constantly been exercising honest endeavors in pursuance of its settled policy to foster friendly relations between Japan and China and to promote the common prosperity and well-being of the two countries. Unfortunately, the conduct of officials and individuals of China, for some years past, has been such that our national sentiment has frequently been irritated. In particular, unpleasant incidents have taken place one after another in regions of Manchuria and Mongolia in which Japan is interested in especial degree until an impression has gained strength in the minds of the Japanese people that Japan’s fair and friendly attitude is not being reciprocated by China in like spirit. Amidst an atmosphere of perturbation and anxiety thus created a detachment of Chinese troops destroyed tracks of the South Manchurian Railway in the vicinity of Mukden and attacked our railway guards at midnight of September 18th. A clash between Japanese and Chinese troops then took place.

  2. The situation became critical as the number of Japanese guards stationed along the entire railway did not then exceed ten thousand four hundred while there were in juxtaposition some two hundred twenty thousand Chinese soldiers. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Japanese residents were placed in jeopardy. In order to forestall imminent disaster the Japanese army had to act swiftly. The Chinese soldiers, garrisoned in neighboring localities, were disarmed and the duty of maintaining peace and order was left in the hands of the local Chinese organizations under the supervision of the Japanese troops.

  3. These measures having been taken, our soldiers were mostly withdrawn within the railway zone. There still remain some detachments in Mukden and Kirin and small number of men in a few other places. But nowhere does a state of military occupation as such exist. Reports that Japanese authorities have seized customs or salt gabelle office at Yingkou or that they have taken control of Chinese railways between Supingkai and Chengchiatun or between Mukden and Sinmintun are entirely untrue, nor has the story of our troops having ever been sent north of Changchun or into Chientao any foundation in fact.

  4. The Japanese Government at a special cabinet meeting September 19th took decision that all possible efforts should be made to prevent aggravation of the situation and instructions to that effect were given to the commander of the Manchurian garrison. It is true that a detachment was dispatched from Changchun to Kirin September 21st, but it was not with a view to military occupation but only for the purpose of removing the menace to the South Manchuria Railway on flank. As soon as that object has been attained the bulk of our detachment will be withdrawn. It may be added that while a mixed brigade of four thousand men was sent from Korea to join the Manchurian garrison the total number of men in the garrison at present still remains within the limit set by the treaty and that fact cannot therefore be regarded as having in any way added to the seriousness of the international situation.

  5. It may be superfluous to repeat that the Japanese Government harbors no territorial designs in Manchuria. What we desire is that Japanese subjects shall be enabled to safely engage in various peaceful pursuits and be given an opportunity for participating in the development of that land by means of capital and labor. It is the proper duty of a government to protect the rights and interests legitimately enjoyed by the nation or individuals. The endeavors of the Japanese Government to guard the South Manchurian Railway against wanton attacks would be viewed in no other light. The Japanese Government, true to established policy, is prepared to cooperate with the Chinese Government in order to prevent the present incident from developing into a disastrous situation between the two countries and to work out such constructive plans as will once for all eradicate causes for future friction. The Japanese Government would be more than gratified if the present difficulty could be brought to a solution which will give a new turn to mutual relations of the two countries.

U.S. State Department (September 25, 1931)

793.94/1890

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a conversation with the British Chargé, September 24, 1931

Washington, September 25, 1931.

Mr. Osborne came to the Department at my request so that I could tell him our attitude toward the Manchurian situation. He told me that he had been instructed by his Government to call and ask about it in any case.

I told him that, of course, we wanted to be of any possible assistance to the League of Nations and certainly did not want to interfere with anything they were doing. I pointed out, however, that it was possible that Lord Robert Cecil, who seemed to be representing Great Britain, being a man who was always in favor of international action, might have neglected to consider oriental psychology in his proposal of a commission of investigation. I told him that we felt that such a commission might be of great importance at the proper time, but that we were very much opposed to any move which might inflame the nationalistic spirit of Japan and unite the people of the country behind the militaristic element rather than the civilian element. I told him that I thought we ought all of us to support Baron Shidehara to the limit. Mr. Osborne said that he quite understood this and that it seemed to him that our attitude was entirely wise. I told him also that we felt, knowing the attitude of the Japanese and Chinese, that if there could be direct conversations this would be undoubtedly the wisest method of settlement, but if this were not possible or if these conversations amounted to nothing we should hope that the matter might be arranged under the terms of Article Eleven and later articles of the Covenant of the League since both Japan and China, in signing the Covenant, had agreed to accept the jurisdiction implied. I told Mr. Osborne that we also felt that the matter should be continued by the League since the League had begun already, but that even if this were not successful there remained the specific treaties of 1923 [1922] and the Kellogg Pact. I told him, however, that we hoped and believed that the Japanese were already trying to get themselves out of an uncomfortable position.

W[ILLIAM] R. C[ASTLE,] JR.

793.94/1938

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a conversation with the Japanese Ambassador, September 24, 1931

Washington, September 25, 1931.

The Japanese Ambassador called to say that he had had a talk with the Secretary about the Manchurian situation and wanted to have a really long talk with me about it the next day. He said that there was naturally a great deal of misunderstanding, which I admitted, but we did not go into any full discussion of the matter. He said that, although it was true that the military authorities in Mukden had appointed a Japanese as mayor, the Japanese Government had promptly disavowed this action. He said also that Japanese troops had gone to Kirin, but that they had immediately been withdrawn.

W[ILLIAM] R. C[ASTLE,] JR.

793.94/1872: Telegram

The Consul General at Nanking to the Secretary of State

Nanking, September 25, 1931 — 10 a.m.
[Received September 25 — 3:30 a.m.]

68.

A responsible official of the Chinese Foreign Office has inquired whether I have any confirmation of Associated Press dispatch to the effect that the Secretary of State has told the Japanese Ambassador that, in the light of the information received by the State Department, serious responsibility must rest with Japan for the present developments in Manchuria. Please telegraph any details I may be authorized to communicate to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Legation informed.

PECK

793.94/1884: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva to the Secretary of State

Geneva, September 25, 1931 — 3 p.m.
[Received September 25 — 2 p.m.]

140.

Consulate’s 127, September 22, 9 p.m.

The following is the translation of a letter dated September 24 addressed to [by] the Japanese representative on the Council to the President of the Council:

By order of my Government I have the honor to bring to the knowledge of Your Excellency my Government’s reply to the telegram of September 22 which Your Excellency was good enough to send to it.

  1. In regard to the first point mentioned in the message, Japanese troops, since the beginning of the present events have taken care to act only within the limits necessary to insure their own security, the protection of the railway and the security of Japanese nationals. The Government of Japan has firmly pursued the aim of preventing the extension of the incident and the aggravation of the situation; it is profoundly anxious to settle this affair by pacific means, through negotiations between the two countries, as rapidly as possible and it has the definite intention of not abandoning this line of conduct.

  2. As to the second point of the message the Government of Japan wishes to declare that it has withdrawn most of its forces into the railway zone and that they are concentrated [there]. Outside of the said zone some few troops only remain quartered as a measure of precaution in the city of Mukden as well as at Kirin and a small number of soldiers have been stationed at certain points, these measures not constituting military occupation. The withdrawal of its forces is being carried out to the greatest extent which the maintenance of the security of Japanese nationals and the protection of the railway at present permit. The Government of Japan in proposing to withdraw its troops into the railway zone in proportion as the situation ameliorates, confidently hopes that the Council will trust in the sincerity of its attitude in this matter.

GILBERT

793.94/1881: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland to the Secretary of State

Geneva, September 25, 1931 — 4 p.m.
[Received September 25 — 11:45 a.m.]

165.

[Paraphrase]

The Chinese Minister in Great Britain this afternoon called to ask what I could tell him concerning your attitude on Manchuria. I replied to Sze that if the Japanese representative asked me the same question I should be obliged to reply likewise, namely, that any attempt by me to interpret the views of the Secretary of State to either the Chinese or the Japanese might, I feared, create confusion, and I was discussing the Manchurian matter only with Drummond and not even with any Council member.

I feel that, with the conflicting and confused reports in Geneva, any other attitude of mine would be dangerous. I shall hold to this course unless you entertain contrary views.

WILSON

793.94/1874: Telegram

The Chargé in Japan to the Secretary of State

Tokyo, September 25, 1931 — 7 p.m.
[Received September 25 — 9:35 a.m.]

161.

Department’s 167, September 24, 4 p.m.

I delivered the note to the Minister for Foreign Affairs this afternoon. He read it and said that he supposed it was sent in support of the action of the Council of the League of Nations. I replied that presumably it was, judging from prior instructions which I had received. He then asked me if it had been published to which I replied that I did not know. He said that he would much prefer not to have it published as a certain section of the public might misunderstand. He said that he appreciated the very considerate and friendly attitude of the Secretary of State.

He then referred to the statement issued after the extraordinary Cabinet meeting of September 24, which he told me had been sent to the Japanese Embassy in Washington and which the Department probably has received. He said that this statement summarized the situation and that he had nothing to add.

He said that he had replied to the League communication stating that Japan was refraining from any act which would tend to aggravate the situation or prejudice the peaceful settlement of it and that Japan was prepared to collaborate with the Chinese to seek adequate means whereby troops might be withdrawn. He said that there had been proposals for an independent commission to investigate the situation but that he did not see any need for it as he thought that Japan and China could settle amicably matters at issue between them.

I spoke to the British and the French Ambassadors today, the former stated that he had received instructions to support the League resolutions and that he would leave a memorandum to that effect with the Foreign Minister. The French Ambassador stated that he had received no special instructions to press the Japanese Government to abide by the League resolutions but that he was seeing the Foreign Minister and would “talk about them” by which I understood him to mean support them, as he was sure they were in accord with his Government’s views.

I asked him whether the Chinese had approached him with any proposals. He said that they had not made any concrete proposal for settling the questions at issue; that the Soong proposal had been withdrawn before it would [could?] be formally made, and that as China had appealed to the League he was simply awaiting further developments.

I then asked him whether the Soviets had manifested any uneasiness in connection with the matter. He said that they had not, except to inquire about the Chinese Eastern Railway. He said that the telegraph service to Moscow was very bad and that telegrams sometimes took 48 hours. The Japanese Ambassador had been asked whether it was true that the Japanese had seized the southern terminus of the Chinese Eastern and were about to occupy Harbin. He had assured the Soviet authorities that the Japanese had no intention of doing either. The Commissar of Foreign Affairs had then said that he had no interest in the matter as it seemed that the situation resembled the Russo-Chinese situation of 1929, when Japan had maintained a strictly neutral attitude.

NEVILLE

793.94/2113

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State

Washington, September 25, 1931.

The Japanese Ambassador told me that he had just received a communication from his Government as to the latest developments in Manchuria. He said that the Japanese were trying to draw in their lines, in order to liquidate the present unfortunate situation; that it was also obvious that the Premier and Baron Shidehara had now got control of the situation, at least to a very large extent. He said that it was the feeling of the Japanese Government that the Chinese were consciously making a great deal out of the situation and were enormously exaggerating. This they believe to be due largely to political conditions, Chiang Kai Shek being himself in a very dangerous position and wishing to consolidate Chinese opinion back of them by taking a very belligerent attitude. The Ambassador said that it is very curious that violent anti-Japanese feeling seems to be centered in Nanking, that it is much less violent in Canton and least violent of all in the territories controlled by Marshal Chang Hsueh Liang.

Mr. Debuchi told me that since the lines of communication with Tokyo seemed now to be better established, owing to the fact, in his opinion, that the civilian elements in the Government have taken charge, he will be able to keep the Department much more closely informed as to the march of events than he has been able to do in the past. He said that the Japanese Government had received the request of the League of Nations for a commission of investigation to go into Manchuria, but that the Government had felt itself unable to accept the suggestion. He said that on this point Baron Shidehara and Baron Yoshizawa were perfectly definite. They feel that such a commission would retard rather than increase the speed with which something approaching a status quo ante can be reached, in that the commission would be exceedingly irritating to the military elements. He does not deny that some kind of a commission might later be necessary if Japan does not fulfill its obligations by withdrawing from an untenable position. On the other hand, he thinks strongly that at the present moment the situation is improving and the very best method of settling the whole matter would be through direct conversations with the Chinese. The Ambassador says that his Government is very grateful to this Government for its sympathetic attitude in the whole matter and hopes that we shall be content to let matters rest for the time being until Japan can prove by actions their good intentions. I told the Ambassador that this was very important, that, so far as we could see, there had been a violation of treaties, possibly without intention, and that neither this Government nor the rest of the world could sit quietly by in a situation as tense as the present, although I personally was only too glad to give the Japanese an opportunity to prove the good faith which I know they have. I pointed out to the Ambassador that the world had for years suspected Japanese intentions in Manchuria and that this made the world attitude more critical than it perhaps would be. For this reason I told him it was clear that the Japanese Government should act as quickly and as openly as possible in the restoration of legal treaty conditions. The Ambassador said that he was sure that his Government fully appreciated this and would so act. He spoke of the dispatch of British troops to Shanghai some years ago and our own so-called bombardment of Nanking, but admitted that this was a different situation than the present in that at that time the question was international and that there could be no claim that we were seeking selfish advantages.

The Ambassador said that now that Baron Shidehara and Baron Wakatsuki were in control of the situation, he felt that things would improve perhaps more rapidly than we believe possible, but that it remained very important not to complicate matters by the imposition of some outside body for investigation or anything else. I pointed out to him that possibly another reason for prompt action might be that it was necessary within the range of possibilities – if not probabilities – that the Russians might take the attitude that they were friends of China and would help put out the Japanese; that, if anything of the sort happened, it would infinitely complicate the situation. The Ambassador said that his Government was fully aware of this possibility, but that he thought the evident determination of the Japanese to withdraw its forces from advanced positions had already shown the Russians that there was no intention of annexation of South Manchuria or of interference with Chinese control. I told him that I hoped most sincerely that his belief as to the facts would prove true and that we might see a steady amelioration in the present dangerous situation.

W. R. CASTLE, JR.

793.94/1903

The Secretary of State to the Chinese Chargé

Washington, September 25, 1931.

Sir: The receipt is acknowledged of your note of September 21, 1931, in regard to events of the past few days in Manchuria.

You have been informed of the steps already taken by this Government in this matter and I assure you that this subject is continuing to receive most careful consideration.

Accept [etc.]

For the Secretary of State:
W. R. CASTLE, JR.

The Pittsburgh Press (September 25, 1931)

Japan spurns League offer

Attempt to mediate in Far East fails; Nipponese troops push north
By Frederick Kuh, United Press staff writer

Geneva, Switzerland –
Efforts of the League of Nations to settle the Manchurian dispute between Japan and China were dealt a severe blow today when Japan rejected the council’s offer of mediation.

Kenkichi Yoshizawa, Japanese delegate, delivered a note to the council announcing Japan had firmly decided to settle the conflict only by direct negotiations with China.

The Chinese undoubtedly will again refuse such negotiations since China worked for three years to become a member of the council for the primary purpose of using its membership and authority to settle disputes with Japan.

Stimson attempts to end dispute

Washington (UP) –
The forces of public opinion and moral persuasion were exerted on Japan and China today by Secretary of State Stimson in an effort to adjust peaceably their Manchurian quarrel.

Stimson sent identic notes to both powers. He urged the two Oriental countries to cease hostilities and settle their dispute, which he said the American government views with “regret and concern.”

Although there had been talk of invoking the Kellogg Pact or the Nine-Power Pacific Treaty, Stimson mentioned neither by name. He did, however, call attention to treaties designed to:

…regulate the adjustment of controversies by nations without resort to use of force.

Mobs of Chinese attack Japanese

Shanghai, China –
Chinese mobs attacked Japanese shops today at Hong Kong and kept police squads responding to continuous riot calls.

Pedestrians were warned to keep off the streets.

Disturbances followed appearance pf placards urging Chinese to attack Japanese on sight. Two Britishers who went to the aid of a Japanese Marine officer were badly hurt.

Hong Kong is a British crown colony and a base of military and naval units. The population is largely Chinese.

U.S. State Department (September 25, 1931)

793.94/1872: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Consul General at Nanking

Washington, September 25, 1931 — 7 p.m.

79.

Your 68, September 25, 10 a.m.

What the Secretary said, on the afternoon of September 22, to the Japanese Ambassador in this connection was:

It would seem that the responsibility for determining the course of events with regard to the liquidating of this situation rests largely upon Japan, for the simple reason that Japanese armed forces have seized and are exercising de facto control in South Manchuria.

You may discreetly inform the inquirer by oral paraphrase.

STIMSON

793.94/2356

Press release issued by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Nanking, September 25, 1931.

Unofficial [Translation]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal communiqué yesterday stating:

The other day, when the Japanese Minister of War interviewed press reporters, he stated that according to the provisions of Sino-Japanese treaties, Japan may send 15 soldiers to each kilometer of the South Manchuria Railway. The total number of soldiers Japan may send would therefore be 16, 500 for the whole railway. In fact, only 15,000 Japanese soldiers have been dispatched to that railway. Judging from this, Japan intends to misrepresent facts which other nations have not been fully aware of.

The strength of Japanese troops now in Manchuria has exceeded 50,000 and the Japanese parliament has appropriated 2,200 Yen per month for these troops, excluding emergency expenditures. Considering how many Chinese citizens have been killed, how vast an area has been occupied, how many cities have been taken and how much property seized, can there be any reason to support the statement that the activities of Japanese troops are in accordance with the provisions of existing treaties?

What the Japanese Minister of War said might be based on Article 1 of the supplementary treaty of the Russo-Japanese Treaty of 1905. However, none of the Sino-Japanese treaties has ever recognized such a provision. Article 2 of the Supplementary Treaty signed during 1905 concerning Manchuria provides that ‘Japanese Government promises to take the same action if Russia promises to withdraw troops which have been stationed to protect the railway.’ Russian troops on the Chinese Eastern Railway had been withdrawn long ago. At present the Railway is protected by Chinese troops only. The stationing of Japanese troops on the South Manchuria Railway has absolutely no foundation in treaties. Whatever excuse Japan may have in the matter, there is no reason why her troops should occupy our territory, kill our people and seize our properties.

U.S. State Department (September 26, 1931)

793.94/1901: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva to the Secretary of State

Geneva, September 26, 1931 — 9 a.m.
[Received 4:50 p.m.]

141.

The following are certain aspects of the picture respecting the Sino-Japanese question which may be of interest in evaluating the situation in Geneva.

  1. In line with a traditional Geneva attitude there is a strong feeling on the part of the small states that this question is a test of League efficacy in dealing with a great power and that a failure in this instance would be setting a precedent which would substantially weaken the League’s influence in the future and discredit conciliatory and security measures in general with a concomitant effect on disarmament. This is responsible for much of the agitation in Geneva that “something be done”. To prevent a discussion in the Assembly which would have had this sentiment as a background, recourse was had to a restriction of Assembly action as reported in Consulate’s 138, September 24, 7 p.m. The possibility still remains however that it might be brought into the Assembly under article 11, paragraph 2 of the Covenant or under paragraph 9 of article 15 although the legal status of such action is not entirely clear.

  2. While in the Council proceedings discussion for obvious reasons concerns itself with happenings in Manchuria, in the background and in corridor conversations the core of the problem is seen as lying in Tokyo. As to the situation in Tokyo there are two theses both evidently without a basis of definite information:

a ) That Japanese action in Manchuria is the result of considered Japanese policy modified only perhaps by the military party precipitating the issue, and that thus a failure to bring Japan to terms as stated above endangers all future international conciliatory action.

b ) That this is a military coup to which the Japanese Foreign Office is opposed [Paraphrase] (this being a contention put forward here privately by the Japanese) [End paraphrase] and that to bring too much pressure on Japan at this juncture might only serve to increase the power of the military party with perhaps disastrous results.

  1. It is obvious that in the formal proceedings no opinion on these points can be brought forward by any power in Geneva, if indeed there is sufficient information at the disposal of any power to give an opinion. Thus the present treatment of the problem here is felt by many to be fundamentally unsatisfactory.

  2. Of the great powers on the Council only Italy is at the present moment represented by a Minister of State, which results in a hesitancy on the part of most representatives to take a position.

  3. [Paraphrase] It is being privately intimated by the Japanese that the American position is based upon paragraph 2 (b) above; as much has been said to me by one of them.

  4. The action of the Chinese is tacitly based upon 2 (a) above. However, the Chinese are beginning to show their concern over whether, should general action be based tacitly upon 2 (b) or if Japan is being favored for reasons of policy, the Chinese may not be drifting into a position of isolation. When I met Sze in the Secretariat corridor, he also intimated the foregoing to me directly. [End paraphrase]

  5. Should pressure be put on Japan and should she prove recalcitrant, the question is gravely discussed as to what the powers could do impressed by the present world situation. It is felt that military pressure is out of the question and that there would be great reluctance to exert economic pressure which would further dislocate world trade. This anxiety appears also to influence action here.

GILBERT

793.94/1900: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva to the Secretary of State

Geneva, September 26, 1931 — 10 a.m.
[Received 3:50 p.m.]

142.

In the Council yesterday afternoon the Chinese and Japanese submitted the replies from their respective Governments to the Council’s telegram of September 22 and their representatives made certain additional assertions.

These were characterized by conflicting statements regarding recent happenings in Manchuria bearing on responsibility for the origin of the conflict and on the present location of troops, many of these being repetitions of previous statements.

The Japanese assertions respecting the position of their troops were substantially those reported in Department’s [Consulate’s] telegram 133, September 23, 8 p.m. and 140, September 25, 3 p.m. with the following additions. Japanese soldiers have now been mostly withdrawn within the railway zone. There still remain some detachments in Mukden and Kirin and “small number of men in a few other places”, but it is denied that Japanese troops have been sent north of Changchun or into Chientao or have taken control of Chinese railways between Mukden and Hsinmin or between Ssupingkai and Chengchiatun. Troops will be withdrawn from Kirin as soon as the menace to the South Manchuria Railway is removed.

The Chinese assertions were principally that Japanese forces now occupied important points in Manchuria, that Japanese soldiers examine travelers on Peking-Mukden trains and that press correspondents are subject to interference. Sze also asked the Japanese representative to explain exactly what was meant by a “small number of men in a few other places.”

With respect to policy Japanese position was reported that Japan has had no territorial designs in Manchuria but wishes to protect its rights and interests and the measures that have been taken are only to that end. The general commanding the troops has received orders not to extend operations and the number of soldiers now in Manchuria is not in excess of treaty stipulations. It is the intention of the Japanese Government to withdraw the troops as calm is restored and as promptly as possible [to] do so without danger to its nationals. Japan reiterated a desire to find a pacific settlement by direct negotiations between the two Governments. In view of the present amelioration the Japanese Government considers that this plan of direct negotiations shall be taken up again and it believes that the Council should not risk a premature intervention, but having initiated a pacific settlement should respect the wishes of one of the parties as to the method.

With respect to policy the Chinese position was: China denied the Japanese statement that a Chinese Minister of State had suggested direct negotiations and read a telegram in support of this contention stating that the Chinese Minister in question, T. V. Soong, had replied to the Japanese Consul General on September 22nd that the invasion of Chinese territory “made absolutely impossible any direct negotiations.” The Chinese representative insisted this position is maintained. He declared that China places herself without reserve in the hands of the Council, will follow its recommendations and is ready to assume full responsibility for the protection of life and property in the territory now occupied by Japanese troops. China renewed her request for the appointment of a commission composed of neutrals designated by the Council to report upon the withdrawal of the troops to the Council; China suggests that the Council should inform the Japanese Government that unless it proceeds immediately to this withdrawal it will violate obligations contracted under paragraph 1 article 11 of the Covenant. The possibility of invoking article 15 of the Covenant was also mentioned.

When the Chinese and Japanese representatives had concluded Cecil spoke in substance as follows: So far the Council has taken up the matter under article 11 under which the Council is directed to take measures to safeguard peace. The settlement of the question or judgment upon the action of either party is under article 11 not the duty of the Council. The Japanese have declared that the troops are being withdrawn and the Chinese representative has not questioned their declaration. This withdrawal as soon as possible is an indispensable provision for preserving peace. The primary duty of the Council was to preserve peace and it has done it.

The President of the Council then read a statement declaring in substance that in view of the withdrawal of Japanese troops and if efforts are continued to effect an appeasement the Council can hope for a satisfactory settlement. Meanwhile the Council counts upon the firm willingness of both parties not to aggravate the situation and appeals to the Japanese Government to withdraw as rapidly as possible the troops to within the railroad zone. It notes the assurance of China regarding the protection of Japanese life and property. The Council desires to be kept informed of the measures taken by both parties responsive to this appeal which has just been addressed to them.

GILBERT

793.94/1896: Telegram

The Minister in China to the Secretary of State

Peiping, September 26, 1931 — 4 p.m.
[Received September 26 — 10:35 a.m.]

668.

J. D. Thomson, manager and chief accountant of the Peiping-Mukden Railway, reports that he and his family and two foreign women, one Italian and one German, left Huangkutung on Thursday morning of the 24th and that a few kilometers west of Huangkutung saw a Japanese aeroplane overhead and heard rattling which he did not associate with aeroplane at the time. At the next station two passengers were reported dead, one of whom he saw. Marks of bullets on train show that they had been fired from above, presumably from Japanese aeroplane. Train was unarmed and filled with passengers and refugees at the time.

JOHNSON

793.94/2217

The Consul General at Mukden to the Minister in China

Mukden, September 26, 1931.

No. 449

Sir: Referring to this Consulate General’s dispatch No. 446, of September 20, 1931, in regard to the Japanese occupation of Mukden and to subsequent telegrams reporting the extension of this occupation to all centers along the South Manchuria Railway and to other places along the Chinese lines built with Japanese loans, I have the honor to submit further information on this subject. Mukden and Antung were occupied during the night of September 18th and during the next few days all cities along the South Manchuria Railway lines including Newchwang and Changchun were also occupied. Japanese troops subsequently seized Kirin and Tunhua, the eastern terminus of the Kirin-Tunhua Railway, Liaoyuan (Chengchiatun), Tungliao and Taonan, terminal points on the Ssupingkai-Taonan and Taonan-Angangchi Railways. It was learned yesterday (September 25th) that the Japanese battalion at Tunhua had been withdrawn to Kirin and that the occupation of Tungliao has also terminated. A report of the imminent evacuation of Kirin has also been heard. Indications are that the occupation of further territory is not contemplated under existing conditions. It is evident, too, that reinforcements would be required were the occupied area to be extended. Official information is to the effect that the Japanese troops in Manchuria number 15,000, which number is within the quota of railway guards permitted by treaty (15 men per kilometer). Reservists who were called to the colors, it is claimed, have been released from duty. In the opinion of some observers, the above figure is small.

The pretext for this occupation, as given out by the Japanese, was the blowing up by Chinese soldiers of the South Manchuria Railway tracks near the North Barracks (Peitaying). Consul Vincent visited the scene of the explosion yesterday and his memorandum on the incident is enclosed. The Chinese have denied that their troops blew up the railway tracks and state that the Japanese troops attacked without cause. Like the numerous other incidents which have occurred in recent years in Manchuria, the Japanese and Chinese versions are totally different and contradictory. In this connection it may be added that there is good reason to believe that the Chinese troops were ordered to offer no resistance and according to information believed trustworthy orders to this effect were received over the telephone from Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang shortly after 11:30 p.m. on September 18th. The Japanese losses in the attack on Peitaying of two killed and about 20 wounded after four hours of “furious fighting” is sufficient testimony of the absence of any directed resistance on the part of the Chinese.

The immediate pretext, after all, is relatively unimportant. That the Japanese have been preparing for such an eventuality is plain from the rapidity with which the occupation was effected. Since the killing of Marshal Chang Tso-lin, the Japanese have built concrete turrets or blockhouses at every bridgehead and tunnel on the South Manchuria Railway lines. Prior to that time trenches, reinforced in some cases with railway ties, were only to be seen. Barracks, too, in several places were enlarged in the past few years and it had been reported that the transfer of the headquarters of the Kwantung army from Port Arthur to Mukden or Liaoyang was planned. During several weeks just prior to the occupation, the local Japanese troops held manoeuvres almost every night in the railway settlement and on one or more occasions staged a sham fight to the accompaniment of rifle and machine gun fire. It seems possible, therefore, that the alleged pretext was a signal for action, following, as it did, so closely upon the Japanese Cabinet crisis over the Nakamura case. The present is no doubt an opportune time for effecting a solution of the outstanding questions between China and Japan over Manchuria and the recent announcement of the Japanese Government indicates that this is intended. The Japanese view that Manchuria is vital to the safety and welfare of Japan, a view which is widely or universally held in that country, will probably have to be recognized by the Chinese. Needless to say the situation is charged with possibilities.

The Japanese Government has stated that it regards this occupation as a local issue, one obviously to be negotiated with Mukden rather than with Nanking. The Japanese authorities here are anxious, it is understood, to secure the return of some of the high officials of the Mukden Government who are now at Peiping or elsewhere. Overtures to that end have been made, it is reported, both to Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang and General Chang Tso-hsiang who is now in mourning at Chin Hsien, his home. It is not thought that the latter could be induced to accept the responsibility of forming a government and of handling these negotiations. Marshal Chang, on the other hand, seems to be the logical person for this difficult and thankless task. Unless he accepts it his position both in Manchuria and China is bound eventually to be impaired.

Chinese officials disappeared as rapidly as the occupation was effected and consequently Chinese administration in the occupied territory ceased to exist. However, in interior districts it is believed that it still functions. The efforts of the Japanese thus far to secure Chinese willing to cooperate with them in carrying on the primary functions of government have met with little success. A municipal bureau, with a Japanese mayor, has been formed at Mukden. It has organized a Chinese Police force with an ex-magistrate (Feng Ching-yi) as head, which so far has not been provided with arms but due to the spread of robbery further steps for the maintenance of peace and order will have to be taken. The latest step in this direction was the formation yesterday of a commission comprising nine Chinese ex-officials, among whom Yuan Chin-k’ai, Yü Ch’ung-han, Li Yu-lan and K’an Shao-hsi are the most prominent.

Respectfully yours,
M. S. MYERS


[Enclosure]

Memorandum by the Consul at Mukden

Mukden, September 26, 1931.

On September 25th, the writer was invited by the Japanese authorities to visit the scene of the explosion on the South Manchuria Railway which occurred the night of September 18th, and of the clash between Chinese and Japanese armed forces which ensued. The members of the party making the visit were Major General Miake, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Kuantung Army; Mr. Hayashi, Japanese Consul General in Mukden; the British Military Attaché and Aide from Peiping; and the writer. Lieutenant Colonel Shimamoto, who commanded the Japanese troops attacking the Chinese military camp on the night of September 18–19, was in charge of the party and acted as our informant. Major Watari, a retired army officer in the employ of the South Manchuria Railway, acted as interpreter.

The day before, September 24th, Lieutenant Colonel Shimamoto had taken a group of newspaper correspondents and Captain Mayer and Lieutenant Brown of the Legation, and Lieutenant Cranford of the Embassy at Tokyo, to make an inspection of the same nature. As the two officers from the Legation are making reports to their respective offices which will be available to the Legation, the writer will not attempt to give a detailed account of the occurrences from the military standpoint.

Upon our arrival at the site of the explosion, about five miles north of Mukden on the South Manchuria Railway, Lieutenant Colonel Shimamoto began his lecture by giving a summary of the violation of Japan’s treaty rights in South Manchuria and irritating incidents in general which have occurred during the past half year. Most of the incidents enumerated have been reported to the Legation in this Consulate General’s dispatches. They included such occurrences as minor clashes between Japanese and Chinese soldiers and police, attempts at damage to South Manchuria Railway trains by placing rocks on the track and throwing missiles at passing trains, insults to Japanese women, et cetera. It is interesting to note that no mention was made of the Nakamura case or of the Wanpaoshan incident although the enumeration was not confined to incidents directly affecting the South Manchuria Railway.

On the night of September 18th, six Japanese soldiers commanded by a lieutenant were holding patrol exercises along the railway. They were proceeding in a southerly direction away from their barracks which were about a mile and a half distant. They had just passed by the site of the explosion when they were startled by the detonation and running back saw several Chinese in uniform fleeing down the embankment. The Lieutenant ordered his men to open fire. We were subsequently shown the badly decomposed bodies of two Chinese in uniform near the site of the explosion. Blood stains along the side of the track were also pointed out to us. Shimamoto stated that for humane reasons the bodies should have been buried but that they had kept them there to prove that it was Chinese soldiers who were responsible for the explosion. Visual evidence spoke louder than words, he added.

Two new rails had been put in to replace the ones damaged by the explosion. Our attention was invited to these but in answer to the writer’s inquiry we were told that the rails which had been damaged had been removed. (The day before a section of the damaged rail was shown to the visitors and Lieutenant Brown gave it as his opinion that it did not appear to be a rail which had seen much use)

The lieutenant in charge of the patrol party sent one of his men back to the company barracks (a distance of one mile and a half) to notify the company commander while he, with the remaining five men exchanged rifle fire with Chinese who were hiding in a nearby field of kaoliang. The company was able to arrive on the scene in twenty minutes because they were drilling at the time. (The day before the visitors were not informed that the company were in readiness when the news was received, an oversight which excited comment because of the time element involved) Lieutenant Colonel Shimamoto, who was out on a party, was also informed and brought up the other two companies of his battalion from near Mukden, arriving about midnight. He also sent to Fushun for the remaining company of his command which arrived some time later in the night.

Shimamoto then described the engagement which resulted in the capture of Pei Ta Ying, the Chinese military camp. The camp is located about a quarter of a mile from the site of the explosion, to the north. It is about an eighth of a mile to the east of the railway and is adjacent to and north of the kaoliang field. We were not taken to the camp, the description of the encounter being given to us from a vantage point on the railway embankment.

Shimamoto thought at the time he ordered the attack upon Pei Ta Ying, but was not certain, that there were ten thousand Chinese soldiers in the camp. He had something over four hundred men in his command at the time. Later when the Fushun company arrived he had a total of about six hundred and fifty men. The writer inquired whether at the beginning or at any subsequent time the Chinese soldiers in the barracks took the offensive, to which Shimamoto replied in the negative. The writer then asked Major General Miake, who spoke English very well, whether he did not think it rash for so small a body of men to start an offensive against such overwhelming odds, and whether or not reinforcements were not readily available in Mukden. The Major General stated that at this juncture an offense was the best defence and that the number of troops in Mukden was not sufficient to permit the dispatch of reinforcements. (At approximately the same time (midnight) that the attack was started on Pei Ta Ying, the investment by Japanese troops in Mukden of the Mukden Commercial Settlement, the Chinese walled city, and the arsenal and aviation field, was commenced)

One corner of the camp was occupied by the Japanese after a prolonged and sharp exchange of rifle fire. When the Fushun company arrived, a general attack on the barracks was begun which ended in the complete occupation of the camp by 5:30 a.m. The Lieutenant Colonel stated that although there were reports to the effect that the Chinese troops had been instructed to offer no resistance, he could testify that they had defended themselves furiously. He stated that fortunately he had found a loaded trench mortar inside the camp and that it was only by firing it as [at?] a passage way which the Chinese were defending that he was able to advance to the interior barracks. From the time the attack was commenced until the camp was completely occupied a period of approximately five hours had elapsed. Lieutenant Colonel Shimamoto then (5:30 a.m.) personally led an attack on the kaoliang field and cleared it of Chinese soldiers. The writer asked Shimamoto why, since the Japanese had been originally attacked from the field by what they estimated as being three hundred soldiers, he had not attempted to clear it sooner. He replied that most of the Chinese therein had fled when the attack on Pei Ta Ying had started.

Shimamoto stated that about three hundred Chinese had been killed and an equal number captured. The writer asked how many Japanese casualties there were and received the reply that there were two killed and twenty odd wounded.

The party then returned to Mukden. The inquiries made by other members of the party were concerned with the military details of the engagement and have therefore not been included in this report.

Although there is strong suspicion that the Japanese account of the explosion and engagement are not authentic, it will be seen from the above that matters might have been as described above. It is not a convincing account and the carefulness with which evidence is displayed and the story is told tends more to arouse than to allay suspicion. Discrepancies have been found in various Japanese accounts of the incidents but they are of minor importance and might have occurred in any similar circumstances. What actually happened on the night of September 18-19 will probably never be known, unless, of course, one is prepared to accept the Japanese as the true version, which the writer is not.

The events of the week preceding the explosion, and the feeling and desire of the Japanese Army have no bearing on the events as related by the Japanese, but they are particularly pertinent to the unbiased observer. Without trying to place the responsibility for the explosion, the fact is that it was decidedly desirable from the Japanese Army standpoint and quite as undesirable from the Chinese viewpoint. The Japanese Army wanted, openly and anxiously, action in Manchuria. For a while it appeared that the Nakamura case and the Chinese attitude thereto would provide the desired provocation for action. However, on September 16th and 17th a settlement of the case which would have satisfied the Japanese demands seemed to be forthcoming at an early date. (Consul General Hayashi has stated, subsequent to the occurrences of Friday, the 18th, that he could have reached a settlement of the Nakamura case through negotiation within a short time if the explosion had not occurred.) The Japanese Army saw, in the probable settlement of the Nakamura case through negotiation, its opportunity for action vanishing. Therefore regardless of the responsibility for the explosion, its occurrence at the time was most desirable and opportune for the fulfillment of the wishes of the Japanese Army.

It, of course, should not be overlooked that the threat of military occupation was probably responsible in a large degree for Consul General Hayashi’s success in handling the Nakamura case. Furthermore, the Japanese, from their point of view, have had good reason for being irritated with the attitude and actions of the Chinese in Manchuria during the past year. However, while one may sympathize with the Japanese in their difficulties in Manchuria, one cannot condone the creation of a pretext for military action by the Army which, to the writer, seems to be the true explanation of the explosion and engagement which occurred on Friday night, September 18-19.

JOHN CARTER VINCENT