762.94/110: Telegram The Counselor of Embassy in China (Lockhart) to the Secretary of State PEIPING, December 1, 1936-4 p. m. [Received 5:05 p. m.] 521. 1. According to press despatch from Loyang, Chiang Kai Shek declared yesterday in a speech to the Loyang branch Military Academy that in his opinion the new Japanese-German agreement does not affect the general situation in the Far East. He is said to have expressed the view that the agreement contains no secret clauses, and that there still remained remnants of the Communist armies in China which would be exterminated at all costs, and that this is a domestic problem which "brooks no foreign interference". The Generalissimo is also reported to have said that the capture of Pailingmiao has not only roused the spirit of the people and the army but has strengthened the conviction of the people that if they unite and act together there should be no loss of national territory. He described the capture of Pailingmiao as the turning point of national independence. 2. The Chinese press generally has been warm in its praise of Fu Tso Yi and the defenders of Suiyuan and the view is expressed that China has now come to the point where it may be expected that further foreign aggression will be opposed by a united military front. The Embassy believes that it is too early to evaluate the Pailingmiao victory, but that victory has at least demonstrated that the Chinese are now more definitely unified and have a new determination and that the malcontents who have been aided and abetted by intriguers within and without the country may expect a more difficult time henceforth. 3. It seems probable that Chinese officialdom will be much more concerned over the Japanese-Italian agreement regarding Abyssinia and "Manchukuo" (if concluded) than over the Japanese-German agreement. Any agreement which would actually or by implication sanction Japanese action in Manchuria in 1931 and since that time is certain not to be well received. Such an agreement strikes directly at sovereign rights which China does not admit have been surrendered, whereas the Japanese-German agreement is an instrument which might or might not have any direct bearing on China. In any event the popular view is that the latter is directed solely against Russia. The Hua Pei Jih Pao in an editorial today states that Germany, Italy and Japan have many things in common and that "they have trampled under foot international agreements and have been pursuing a very aggressive policy in foreign affairs" and on the point of recognition it states that the "de facto or de jure recognition of the illegal gains of the two countries" is a serious matter and most deplorable from the standpoint of international morality and righteousness. Concluding, the editorial states: "For her (Italy) to accord moral support to a group of rebels at this juncture betrays not only a wanton disregard of Chinese sovereignty but also means that she sets no store by Chinese friendship". By mail to Tokyo. LOCKHART 762.94/111: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, December 2, 1936-11 a. m. [Received December 2-10: 15 a. m.] 337. My 335, November 30, noon. 1. Responsible official of the Foreign Office stated today to Peck that neither the German nor Italian Ambassador could return informative replies to questions asked by the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the German and Italian agreements with Japan but promised to submit the questions to their Governments. 2. Informant stated that the Chinese Government understands that the arrangement with Japan was negotiated by Ribbentrop as confidential representative of Hitler with the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin and that even the German Foreign Office was not kept informed of the nature of the negotiations. Informant said that the Chinese Government is uneasy over article 2 of the published text of the agreement which carries the implication, especially in the Japanese text, that Germany and Japan will take measures against Communists who, in their opinion, threaten them even outside the limits of their respective countries. The Government is apprehensive also regarding the possibility of a secret military rider and questioned the German Ambassador concerning both of these points. 3. Informant said that the Italian Ambassador asserted that so far as he knew the Italian understanding with Japan was concluded orally and provided only for the substitution of a Japanese consular office in Addis Ababa for a legation and for the setting up of an Italian consular office in Mukden and that specifically it did not involve recognition of "Manchukuo". The Minister for Foreign Affairs inquired why, if the understanding included only these measures, Italy wished to bring Japan into the German-Italian Fascist bloc and the Italian Ambassador replied that he inferred that this bloc felt the necessity of obtaining the support of a large navy. 4. Responsible official of the Executive Yuan yesterday informed an officer of the Embassy that while the Chinese Government is still ignorant of the precise contents and significance of the German and Ital ian agreements with Japan these agreements had again impressed the Chinese Government and people with the fact that for protection from aggression China cannot rely on effective help from any other nation or exterior agency but must depend entirely on its own exertions. Informant said that he thought the Chinese would not forget this lesson and he evidently intended this observation as a guide to understanding of China's policies in the future. 5. Sent to the Department and Peiping. JOHNSON 793.94/8405: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, December 2, 1936-noon. [Received December 2-7: 42 a. m.] 338. Nanking's telegram November 26, 10 a. m. 1. Responsible Foreign Office official stated to the Embassy today that the Chinese Government is convinced of Japanese instigation of the attacks on Suiyuan by irregular forces and has made several oral protests to the Japanese Embassy. The Government believes that forces are massing in Chahar to attempt recapture of Pailingmiao in northern Suiyuan and is convinced that it can repel such invasion but has not decided whether the Chinese Government troops, if successful, shall continue eastward into Chahar Province. Informant referred to the alleged Doihara-Sung Che Yuan agreement of December last but said the Chinese Government knows of no such agreement and in any event is absolved from obligation to respect it by the official announcement made following the Mukden incident denying recognition to any agreement not concluded under sanction of the National Government. 2. Sent to the Department and Peiping. JOHNSON 865d.01/213: Telegram The Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) to the Secretary of State ROME, December 2, 1936-2 p. m. [Received December 2-10 a. m.] 504. My 497, November 28, 5 p. m.75 The following official communiqué has just been issued: "Count Ciano received the Japanese Ambassador who communicated to him the decision of his Government to transform the Legation in Addis Ababa into a Consulate General asking the exequatur therefor of the Government of His Majesty the King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia. TS Not printed. Count Ciano after having assured him that the Japanese interests in Ethiopia will be the object of particular attention on the part of the Italian authorities expressed to His Excellency Sugimura his pleasure at the decision of the Imperial Government at Tokyo." It is understood that a communiqué affecting Italian relations with Manchukuo will be issued in Tokyo and subsequently published here. The explanation given in Italian official circles for the delay in issuing this communiqué is to the effect that owing to the world wide reaction to the German-Japanese anti-Communist agreement the Italian Government felt that if the Italo-Japanese undertakings affecting Ethiopia and Manchukuo should be published at the time of the publication of the German-Japanese agreement it might be construed that these two accords were closely connected and consequently erroneous inferences might be drawn as to the intentions of the governments concerned. PHILLIPS 793.94/8409: Telegram The Counselor of Embassy in China (Lockhart) to the Secretary of State PEIPING, December 3, 1936-3 p. m. [Received December 3-7 a. m.] 583. Following telegram has been received from Tsingtau: "December 3, 11 a. m. Japanese merchant marine landed 800 armed sailors during night to protect 9 Japanese cotton mills which declared lockout yesterday. The City Hall was surrounded by Japanese sailors who withdrew from this one place this morning. The Japanese landing party arrested and are still questioning nine Chinese among whom are local officials, Tangpu officers and newspapermen. Situation on all streets normal. Labor situation did not appear to outside observers so serious as to warrant lockout." Repeated to Nanking and Tokyo. LOCKHART 793.94/8412: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, December 4, 1936-noon. [Received 6:50 p. m.] 341. Tsingtau's December 3, 11 a. m. to Peiping.76 1. The Foreign Office has released a statement that the Minister for Foreign Affairs invited the Japanese Ambassador to the Foreign Office at 7:30 December 3 and orally and strongly protested landing of sailors at Tsingtau, demanding withdrawal of sailors, release of persons illegally arrested and return of documents illegally seized. Another Foreign Office press release states that the oral protest was confirmed by note to the Japanese Embassy dated December 3 charging the Japanese naval authorities with flagrant violation of Chinese sovereign rights; accusing the Japanese of aggravating the labor trouble by declaring a lockout and landing sailors; and reserving the right of the Chinese Government to make such demands as are relevant to the situation. 2. The Japanese Ambassador regarded the request for him to call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs as reply to his standing request for another interview concerning settlement of outstanding issues, and following the discussion about the Tsingtao incident of December 3, presented to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a long aide-mémoire recapitulating the previous seven discussions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs seems to have glanced at this document and found portions unsatisfactory whereupon he returned it to the Ambassador. In fact, the authorized release from the Foreign Office states that the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the situation in Suiyuan and said he was not prepared to discuss any Sino-Japanese question that had been under negotiation. However, the Ambassador insisted upon leaving the aide-mémoire with Minister for Foreign Affairs. 3. An American news representative states that the Japanese Embassy informed him this morning that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs returned the aide-mémoire by messenger to the Japanese Embassy December 4, 4 a. m., but that the Embassy has again sent it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The informant reports Japanese Embassy officials as asserting that the reason why the Minister for Foreign Affairs was unwilling to receive the aide-mémoire was because it recorded statements which he actually made, but now regrets, and not because its contents "were quite at variance with the facts" as asserted in the press release from the Foreign Office. Japanese Embassy officials reported that return of the aide-mémoire by the Foreign Office to the Embassy was insulting and that the proper course would have been to point out in a written reply any features to which objection was taken. 4. Sent to the Department, by mail to Peiping. 919456-54-32 JOHNSON |