(Part 3 of 3)

e. When we come to the question of non-discrimination in economic activities in China, I want you to make it clear to them so that they will not entertain any misgivings that this principle should not apply merely between Japan and China but also to third countries. Advise them, furthermore, that the principle that neighbors naturally have intimate relations is practiced throughout the whole world and is by no means a new theory.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

5. The clause concerning commerce between the two countries in my #595[a] coincides in meaning with the American proposal. Only in the meantime the freezing order has taken place and subsequent developments have modified the situation. We only hope that conditions will soon be ameliorated. Once they eliminate this order we will have no objection to their proposal on this subject.

6. a. Concerning the stipulations about the political stability of the Pacific, the stipulations in the American proposal are pet principles of Secretary HULL and the United States sets great store by them. They are merely general stipulations, therefore, we will not be loathe to reconsider them.

b. I transferred the matters concerning the military evacuation of French Indo-China and the settlement of the Chinese incident to the clause concerning the establishment of peace in the Pacific. This will make the clause more harmonious and expand its significance. That is all I meant by this action. If they don't like it, however, we will put it back like it was.

If the Americans present you with an aide memoire today, without any delay wire it on to me. I am ready and eager to make a translation of it. If possible, before you send it, send me a brief summary.

[a] See III, 213 in which Tokyo wires Washington the text of a proposed agreement between Japan and the United States.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Trans. 9-30-41

[A-125]

(Part 1 of 2)[a].

Last Monday after a long time I went to call on Admiral STARK. In the middle of our conversation Rear Admiral TURNER joined us. The Admiral said that after all the question of troops stationed in China would do most damage to the negotiations and that unless the China Incident is settled an understanding between Tokyo and Washington will be impossible. TURNER said that he doubted if we would agree to evacuate China, but if no agreement were reached in the preparatory talks any conversations between the leaders of the two countries might be dangerous.

While we were talking about the Tripartite Alliance, the Admiral stated that the United States does not intend to go ahead and strike at Japan, adding that if the United States fights a two ocean war after all she will have to defend herself in the Pacific.

[a] Part 2 not available.

Trans. 10-2-41

(In 4 parts—complete)

To Chief of Bureau Terasaki from Iguti.

I realize, of course, that I am being presumptious, but the following are my opinions of the negotiations to adjust U.S.-Japanese relations:

(1) In view of such incidents as were described in our message #866[a], we believe that it would be well if we did not deliver those papers here which have already been delivered in Tokyo to Ambassador Grew. Duplications in this manner are apt to create misunderstandings through, transmission errors and through differences in translations.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  This is particularly true of some vague passages which cannot be made clear without lengthy explanations. (Please see our message #865[b], and others for points which are in doubt.) Under these circumstances, we are unable to make explanations when we are requested to do so by the United States. The Ambassador himself is placed in an exceedingly awkward position. We, therefore, would prefer to put most of our efforts in trying to sound the U.S. attitude.

(Part 2)

(2) We have already said that we have said all that is to be said. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US To keep submitting notes after notes, thereafter, which do not always run in sequence with the previous note, is not good, for it causes confusion and further delays.

As a matter of fact we were told in confidence that the United States is of the opinion that the scene of the negotiations was shifted to Tokyo by us so as to bring about delays. They think that we are watching developments of the German-Soviet war, and that we shall launch a northward move if indications seem to favor it.

[A-126]

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

(Part 3)

(3)-----advises us that a friend of his in Tokyo reports that Japanese governmental circles feel that there is absolutely no reason why the United States should not accept the most recent proposals. The fact that she has not done so, must be due to interference from some Washington source.

For the past six months, we have been holding talks here during which the attitude and stand of the United States has been set down clearly. We feel confident that you are aware, through our various reports on the subject that is exceedingly unlikely that the United States las any intention of backing down from those established stands.

We feel that there must be a tendency in Tokyo to view the United States statements too optimistically. It is imaginable to us that there are those who approach the Premier with a little too much "wishful thinking".

(Part 4)

(4) It is admittedly true that impatience in this matter must be avoided. We realize, of course, that circumstances have made it unavoidable to a certain extent, but even so, it seems to us that we have been urging the United States to reply quite frequently of late. This apparently is giving the impression to the United States that we are overly anxious.

On the other hand, the United States applied the "freezing" order on us, affecting our entire economic structure. Since then, they have been sitting tight, awaiting and watching subsequent developments. The United States does not suffer greatly from that measure; hence they are in no rush.

Under such circumstances, we do not feel that it is to our advantage to show signs of over-anxiety all by ourselves.

[a] See III, 214—Grew's report of our terms of peace with China differs from what you sent me. Please check.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
[b] See III, 219—Long report from Nomura giving his views of current state of U.S.-Jap negotiations.

Trans. 10-4-41

(In 5 parts—complete)

(Part 1)

To Counselor Iguti from Terasaki.

Re your #870[a].

1. Please refer to our message #613[b] with regard to the matter contained in your #866[c].

2. I feel that you are justified to a certain extent when you complain that after we have stated that we have put all of our cards on the table, we continue to send you note after note, etc. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US Our note of 4 September was so designed to contain our views of the three subjects which have been discussed hitherto in a very broad light. It was not drawn up with any intention of

[A-127]

"slowing down" the procedure in the sense voiced by Hull. We were of the opinion that there were some points of the preliminary talks which needed clearing up. Thinking that it would facilitate matters if we drew up our proposals in the form that the U.S. proposal of 21 June was put in (my message #595[d]). We further sent you message #590[e], dealing with Japanese-Chinese peace terms and my message #59l[f] pertaining to the garrisoning of troops, in the hope that they would supplement and explain our note of 4 September. They were forwarded to your office by the Foreign Minister, as reference material to be used by the Ambassador in explaining our position to the United States. They were sent at the request of the Premier and the military.

Part 2

Putting it bluntly, we were quite unaware of the fact that the Ambassador in the United States had allegedly submitted, for the purpose of further consideration by this office, certain changes in our note of 4 September, (the 1st, 4th—including the supplements—6th and 7th paragraphs were unchanged; paragraph 2 was unchanged with the exception of that part referring to the exchanging of official notes; paragraph 3 was identical to the Japanese note of 15 June; and to paragraph 5 was added the words: "For the production and procurement of national resources" to the U.S. proposal of 21 June), until we were questioned about it by the U.S. Ambassador in Tokyo. This allegation came as a great surprise and the Foreign Minister replied that the note of 14 July must have been the one implied. The Minister added that if the Embassy in Tokyo was in immediate need of the English text of that message, he could no doubt obtain it from the State Department, and that we could supply him with the Japanese text immediately.

It was then that that part which appears in parentheses in the preceding paragraph came to light. At the same time, the fact that the Japanese Ambassador had said that the "draft was not official" to the State Department was also brought to light.

Part 3

These conditions have further complicated the already exceedingly complicated negotiations and for that reason, it is indeed very regrettable.

3. It is regrettable that in spite of the fact that the Ambassador in Washington and yourself are putting forth your best efforts and in spite of the fact that we are facing the problems with the utmost sincerity, the United States does not reciprocate our statesmanship. However, there are none here who are underrating the United States or who are looking upon the developments with undue optimism.

4. We fear that possibly you are not completely familiar with the exceedingly critical situation at home. It is only through the clear thinking of the military and the superhuman work on the part of all those officials concerned with domestic matters that we have been able to avert the breaking out of any unfortunate incident subsequent to the 27th[g]. The utmost caution shall have to be exercised in the future to preserve this condition. Will you please obtain from Minister Wakasugi at first hand a description of the situation in Japan. This is, of course, for your and the Ambassador's information only.

Your explanation to the United States should be made along the following lines: "Apparently there are those in the United States who misunderstand the political situation in Japan. These persons seem to be of the opinion that the Konoye cabinets position is not strong. Therefore, any agreement entered into with that government is in danger of being disregarded by the military or some other strong organization. This is not a correct analysis of the situation in Japan. It is true that there are those who express opposition to the present cabinet but these elements can be easily overruled.

[A-128]

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

Part 4

"Of course there have been public utterances such as Colonel Mabuchi's broadcast and Nakano's speech, who expressed, judging from the reports, opinions opposed to those contained in the Premier's message. Anyone, however, who knows the characteristics of the Japanese and who are familiar with conditions in Japan, should be able to understand the true meaning of those speeches.  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  Mabuchi placed the most emphasis on encouraging the people while Nakano, pursuing his usual line, need not be looked upon with any importance.

"Unfortunately, however, foreign newsmen stationed in Japan, attached much importance to these speeches. British and American newspapers which place the most importance on 'journalistic interest' played up minor points in an exaggerated manner.

"Those, of course, are causing misunderstandings. We are confident, however, that the people who have spent any time at all in Japan can see the true picture, etc."

We believe that if the situation were explained to them in that manner, they will more readily understand matters. Moreover, it is the truth.

Not only the Foreign Minister but all concerned are as one in this matter, and are willing to meet any without fear. You can readily see, in view of domestic circumstances and in view of external relations, that we are all eager to have the "leaders' conference" take place. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US This is but a natural development, and if they insist on construing it to be impatience on our part, I guess it can't be helped.

That we intend Washington to be the central locale of these negotiations is as you stated in your recent message and should have been further clarified by the telephone communication between the Foreign Office and the Embassy. Because of some peculiar circumstances, the occasion may arise where some talks are conducted in Tokyo first. That would be done only under unavoidable circumstances. Any who believe that any idea of stalling was behind such a move, thoroughly misunderstands the Foreign Minister's motives.

Time is now the utmost important element. Whether this matter materializes or not has a direct and important bearing on peace on the Pacific and even of the world. The seriousness of the situation must be thoroughly recognized. Please exercise very bit of power available to bring about a favorable conclusion of this matter.

Paragraph 2 of my message #614[h] was meant to point out that we have no objections to using the contents of my message #595[d] as a basis of negotiations if so desired by the United States.

Although there is that matter contained in my message #617[i], we make the above statement anew.

[a] See III, 225.
[b] Not available.
[c] See III, 214—Grew's report of our terms of peace with China differs from what you sent me. Please check.
[d] See III, 213—Tokyo sends what appears to be nearly their final effort to get the U.S. to agree to a "leader's conference".  http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US
[e] See III, 191—Outline of Japan's terms for peace with China.
[f] See III, 200—Japan presents a long explanation of the necessity for her maintaining troops in certain parts of China even after peace with Japan is restored.
[g] First Anniversary of the Tripartite Pact.
[h] See III, 221-223—I agree that we should avoid any more written suggestions to the U.S. until they give us some reply.
[i] Tokyo instructed Washington: "i" as used in "the 'i' of my message #595" in the sentence reading". ... if the U.S. so desires it, it shall be used as the basis", at the end of paragraph 2, is the "i" of "imi".  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

[A-129]

Trans. 10-4-41

Special intelligence #330 from New York states that an A. P. dispatch declares that the Japanese-American negotiations warrant a pessimistic outlook and that the KONOYE Cabinet will face a crisis in about two weeks, whereupon it will be inevitable that the Cabinet undergo a revision. It seems that this rumor is going around in Washington, but in any case, it is absolutely false and untrue. The situation here in Japan as described in my #618[a] should be known to you and, whenever necessary, will you please enlighten the Americans. Too, Secretary HULL appears to be gravely concerned over public opinion here in Japan. I think that he has questioned you twice on this subject. Well, let me tell you that public opinion is very calm here and we intend to take advantage of the situation. We are merely awaiting their memorandum, and the Government entertains the view that we had better issue a statement on these Japanese-American negotiations at the earliest opportunity. This opinion is growing.

Naturally the substance of this statement will be confined to our side. We can merely refer briefly to matters on the American side. In any case, we will discuss all this with the Americans.

It seems that there have been a number of rumors concerning a statement by the Government, lately. Among them there are many mistaken ones.

[a] See III, 226.

Trans. 10-2-41

Urgent

(Part 1 of 12)

To be handled in Government code. Separate wire.

Reference is made to the proposals of the Japanese Government communicated on September 6, 1941, by the Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State, and to statement relating thereto subsequently communicated to this Government by the Japanese Government. Thoughtful study has been given to the communications to which reference is made, and in connection with that study careful review has been made of other communications previously received from the Japanese Government on the same subject. On the basis of this study observations are offered as follows:

[A-130]

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

1. The Government of the United States welcomed, as affording a possible opportunity for furthering the broad-gauge objectives and principles of a program of peace, the Japanese Government's suggestions made through its Ambassador here in the early part of August that there be held a meeting of the responsible heads of the Japanese Government and of the Government of the United States to discuss means for bringing about an adjustment of relations between the United States and Japan and that there be resumed the informal conversations which had been in progress between the two countries to ascertain whether there existed a basis for negotiations relative to a peaceful settlement covering the entire Pacific situation.

Trans. 10-6-41

(Part 2 of 12)

To be handled in Government code.

Accordingly, in the reply made by the President on August 17, 1941 to the Japanese Ambassador the view was expressed that such informal conversations would naturally envisage the working out of a progressive program attainable by peaceful means—that sort of program would involve the application in the entire Pacific area of the principle of equality of commercial opportunity and treatment, thus making possible access by all countries to to raw materials and to all other essential commodities, and there were described the advantages which would flow to all countries, including Japan, from the adoption of such a program.

In conclusion, it was stated that if the Japanese Government were in a position to embark upon a peaceful program for the Pacific along the lines of the program and principles to which the United States is committed, this Government would be prepared to consider resumption of the informal exploratory discussion and would be glad to endeavor to arrange a suitable time and place to exchange views.

Trans. 10-6-41