In commenting upon the report of the conversation between Secretary Hull, Ambassador Nomura and Minister Wakasugi, the Japanese Foreign Office reminded its representatives in Washington that Japan was interested in Secretary Hull's Chinese peace proposal only insofar as it could simplify the settlement of that Pacific problem. The Japanese government had no desire to carry on prolonged conversations related to it. In regard to the possible materialization of Secretary Hull's peace plan, Tokyo reminded Minister Wakasugi in particular that it would be opposed to a conference conducted by the consular representatives of Japan, the United States and China. [183]

55. Japanese‑American Conversations (November 13, 1941)

a. State Department's Report [184]

At his own request Minister Wakasugi called to see Mr. Ballantine on November 13, 1941. Recalling President Roosevelt's desire to see Mr. Kurusu upon his arrival, Minister Wakasugi informed the American representative that Ambassador Kurusu would arrive in Washington on Saturday afternoon, November 15, 1941.

Minister Wakasugi then turned the conversation to the United States' misunderstanding of a statement he had made to Under Secretary of State Welles on October 13, 1941. The United States had referred to Minister Wakasugi's remark in the oral statement handed Ambassador Nomura on November 12, 1941. Attempting to clear up completely this misunderstanding, Minister Wakasugi said that he had declared to Mr. Welles, that "there may have been some unfortunate phraseology in the English translation of our instructions, as we are not very sure of our English. If there are such phrases the wording might be adjusted." When making this remark Minister Wakasugi said that he had been referring to the Japanese document of September 25, 1941, and not to that delivered on August 28, 1941.

[181] Ibid.

[182] IV, 106.

[183] IV, 107.

[184] "Memorandum of a Conversation"‑Initialed by Joseph W. Ballantine‑November 13, 1941, S.D. II, 729‑731.

42

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

Impressing upon Mr. Ballantine the desperate situation current in Japan, Minister Wakasugi urged that some concrete understanding be reached between the two governments before the Japanese Parliament convened on Saturday, November 15, 1941. It was Minister Wakasugi's understanding that the United States government would give a reply to the Japanese proposals of November 7 and November 10, 1941, on the following day. In correcting Minister Wakasugi, Mr. Ballantine pointed out that Secretary Hull had said he only hoped that some statement might be forthcoming on that day. Re‑emphasizing that the Japanese government wanted to avoid any further interchange of comment on the proposals submitted, Minister Wakasugi said that he hoped Secretary Hull would have a clear‑cut answer to the Japanese proposals of November 7 and November 10, 1941, and that the United States would say definitely whether its proposal of June 21, 1941, was to be the final one handed to the Japanese government. Mr. Ballantine pointed out the need for a further clarification of these latest Japanese proposals, however, since Secretary Hull had already stated that he did not understand Japan's attitude on the commercial policy. Attempting to clear up this point, Minister Wakasugi declared that the Japanese government desired that the principle of non‑discrimination, as applied to China, be applied by the United States and Japan to commercial dealings with the rest of the world. Mr. Ballantine felt that this point was important enough to be brought out clearly and authoritatively.

Minister Wakasugi next brought up the problem of arriving at formal negotiations. Throughout all the United States' documents it had been noted that America believed the two governments were still in the stage of exploratory discussions. Since the Japanese government had given the United States its latest proposals through Ambassador Nomura it believed that it had entered into formal negotiations. However, Mr. Ballantine insisted that until the United States government discussed the problems with China and the other governments concerned, no formal state of negotiations could be reached with the Japanese. Not washing to argue any of these points with Mr. Ballantine, Mr. Wakasugi merely asked that they be referred to Secretary Hull. [185]

b. Minister Wakasugi's Report [186]

At a meeting with Mr. Ballantine on November 13, 1941, Minister Wakasugi began the conversation by pointing out that the previous day's discussions leading to no settlement had fallen short of Japanese expectations. In view of the tense situation existing within Japan itself the Japanese public was viewing the Japanese‑American negotiations with impatience. Reminding Mr. Ballantine that the session of the Japanese Diet would convene in Tokyo on the following day, Minister Wakasugi warned that some satisfactory understanding must be reached without any further delay. Any discussions of general attitudes on the possible outlook must be dropped from further conversations in order to eliminate all hindrance to a satisfactory agreement. At the present time, Mr. Wakasugi stated, the Japanese government wished definite answers regarding certain points. He requested that the United States make it known that it intended to accept the Japanese proposal of September 25, 1941, as clarified by the further Japanese proposals of November 7 and November 10, 1941. If these proposals were not accepted the Japanese government would like an American counter proposal clearly indicating the revisions desired. Minister Wakasugi pointed out that many factions in Japan believed that the United States, in refusing to make any changes in its proposal of June 21, 1941, was merely stalling for time. In reply to these remarks Mr. Ballantine pointed out that the United States, aware of the critical condition, had called a meeting of American representatives to discuss the Japanese proposals of November 11, 1941, in spite of the fact that it was the Armistice holiday. Not wishing to quibble over mere details, however, Mr. Ballantine

[185] Ibid.

[186] IV, 108.

43

brought up several points with regard to the Japanese proposals that the United States wished clarified. First of all, Mr. Ballantine stated, Japan, in accepting the plan of commercial nondiscrimination in the Pacific, had requested that the same treatment be applied to the entire world. The United States wished to know if this sweeping proposal was to include those nations now at war. Stating that this and other terms in the Japanese proposals were designed to bring about an agreement between Japan and the United States, Minister Wakasugi pointed out that the agreement was not designed for every country in the world. Therefore, it appeared obvious that Japan only wished that its present government and that of the United States apply the basic principle of non‑discriminatory treatment to its own commercial dealings with other countries. [186]

Minister Wakasugi then discussed the difference of opinion regarding the stage of present conversations. On the one hand, the Japanese Minister pointed out, the United States regarded the discussions as merely exploratory, while Japan considered them to be actual negotiations. In reply Mr. Ballantine referred to a statement made by Secretary Hull in which he said that once the conversations reached the stage of negotiations Great Britain and the Netherlands would be asked to participate. Disregarding Mr. Ballantine's explanation Minister Wakasugi insisted that talks between the duly recognized ambassador of one country and the President and Secretary of State of another had always constituted a diplomatic negotiation. Therefore, Mr. Wakasugi requested that Secretary Hull be informed that Japan was treating the present proceedings as part of final negotiations.

Minister Wakasugi's report to Tokyo on November 13, 1941, contained an explanation of Ambassador Nomura's interview with President Roosevelt. The Japanese Minister stated that the primary purpose of the interview was to submit the latest Japanese proposals; therefore, a discussion of Japan's obligations under the Tripartite Pact did not take place. Other than a remark by Minister Wakasugi expressing the hope that the United States would not insist upon enlarging the scope of the right of self‑defense, neither representative discussed the problem further. Minister Wakasugi insisted that Secretary Hull had never requested a "concrete statement" concerning Japan's relations with the Axis powers. In fact, Minister Wakasugi had even asked Mr. Ballantine if there were any other points to be discussed and Mr. Ballantine had replied there were none. If Secretary Hull's report showed that he had asked this question regarding the Tripartite Pact, Mr. Ballantine was certain that some mistake had been made. Naturally, however, Mr. Wakasugi pointed out, the United States was attempting to get some assurance from Japan regarding its duties under the terms of the pact. [186b]

56. Foreign Minister Togo Requests Summaries of the Conversations

In order to receive an immediate report of any conversations taking place between the American and Japanese representatives Foreign Minister Togo requested that Ambassador Nomura wire the Foreign Office brief summaries without any delay. More complete details could then be wired later at the convenience of the Japanese Ambassador. [187]

57. Ambassador Nomura Warns of America's Preparedness for War

On November 14, 1941, Ambassador Nomura wired the Japanese Foreign Office a complete resume of America's attitude toward a war with Japan. Although Ambassador Nomura was convinced that in the end the negotiations would be concluded successfully, he warned his government that the United States intended to stop any further Japanese moves in the Pacific whether they be northward or southward. [188] Already using every economic weapon to curtail

[186a] Ibid.

[186b] Ibid.

[187] IV, 109.

[188] IV, 110.

44

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

Japanese aggression, Ambassador Nomura felt that the United States was now preparing for actual war. Rather than yield its fundamental political policy regarding the Pacific area the United States, Ambassador Nomura felt, would join up with the other countries interested in the Far East. The United States government had no intention of repeating the failure of the Munich conference. Since the German victories were decreasing as Russian resistance persisted, Ambassador Nomura felt that the possibility of a separate peace between Germany and England was small, and that this would have a bad effect upon Japanese‑American relations. Furthermore, Ambassador Nomura pointed to the increase in American aid to China. If the Chinese problem continued to remain the stumbling block in Japanese‑American negotiations, Ambassador Nomura felt that the United States might well take advantage of the situation to declare war on Japan. [188a]

Another primary factor influencing the attitude of the United States toward Japan was the Tripartite Pact. Recently the American newspapers had pointed to the close alliance between Japan and the Axis, warning that Japan would be willing at any time to stab the United States in the back. If Japan then, continued its aggression in the south Pacific, even though that aggression be necessary for the maintenance of Japan's national life, Ambassador Nomura felt that England, the United States and Russia would attack. The countries of Central and South America, dependent upon the United States for their economic existence, would also join sides against Japan. Recognizing the fact that Japan believed America's forces to be concentrated in the Atlantic, Ambassador Nomura stated that its activities there were confined to convoy duty and that at any moment the United States could transfer the main strength of its fleet to the Pacific. [189]

Previously Ambassador Nomura had felt that once the United States entered an ocean war in the Atlantic it would be ready for a compromise in the Pacific. Lately, however, when Great Britain had transferred its forces to the Indian Ocean the United States had changed its attitude so that at the present time it was ready to participate in a naval war in the Pacific. Recognizing the critical situation existing within Japan, Ambassador Nomura, nevertheless, asked that the Japanese government and people be more patient toward the negotiations with the United States. He felt that it was necessary for Japan to view the entire world situation rather than its own internal conditions. [190]

58. China Seeks Increased Aid from the United States

Mr. Iguchi learned that the Chinese Ambassador to the United States had submitted a plea for intensive aid to China in the event Japan attacked the Burma Road. According to this report the United States government rejected China's request. However, Mr. T. V. Soong, refusing to let the matter rest, at the present time was attempting to interest Secretary Hull and President Roosevelt in the plan for increased aid in China's war against Japan. [191]

59. Japanese Government Considers Negotiations in Final Stage

For a number of months the Japanese government had been instructing Ambassador Nomura to conduct his conversations with the representatives of the American government along the lines of final negotiations. Nevertheless, the American State Department had continued to speak of these meetings between leaders of both governments as merely preliminary discussions.

On November 15, 1941, Tokyo instructed Ambassador Nomura to continue his attempts to impress upon the United States the fact that Japan was considering these negotiations as

[188a] Ibid.

[189] IV, 111.

[190] IV, 112.

[191] IV, 113.

45

final. Although Foreign Minister Togo admitted that the former Japanese Cabinet had considered the conversations merely preliminary and was working toward a meeting of the Japanese Prime Minister and President Roosevelt, the present government desired to terminate satisfactorily the talks by an official agreement. Foreign Minister Togo realized that the United States officials might claim that Japan had never mentioned the changed status of the conversations; however, he felt that the United States government must nevertheless recognize the fact that the negotiations were in their final stage and that some conclusion must be reached before the Japanese Diet met on November 15, 1941. [192]

60. Ambassador Nomura Speculates on Results of Possible Diplomatic Breach

In the event that these negotiations could not be terminated in the manner desired by the Japanese government, Ambassador Nomura stated on November 15, 1941, that Japanese-American relations would break down completely. To be prepared for the inevitable effects of such a breach Ambassador Nomura, in a message to his government, offered certain suggestions for the disposition of the consular offices and the evacuation of Japanese officials. Even if diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States were not entirely severed a situation similar to that now existing between Germany and the United States would arise. Under these circumstances it would be necessary to close the Japanese Consulates   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire   and recall the Japanese Ambassador. [193]

Since Embassy duties would be limited only to a few pressing matters, the staff would necessarily be greatly reduced. One of two secretaries, Foreign Service Attaches Fujiyama and Inagawa and one clerk would be sent back to Japan. However, members of the intelligence staff, such as Secretary Terasaki and Clerk Yamamoto, would be transferred to South America together with certain so‑called student attachés. After employees who had been engaged locally were dismissed, other Japanese officials would either be sent to South America or returned to Japan in evacuee ships. [194]

Since the disposition of the various Japanese officials and nationals in the United States was of the utmost importance, Ambassador Nomura offered certain suggestions concerning their possible evacuation. As was the case when United States‑German relations were severed, personnel of the Japanese and American consulates would probably be evacuated by mutual consent. While this evacuation was taking place Ambassador Nomura foresaw numerous requests from businessmen and other Japanese nationals to return home. In consideration of this Ambassador Nomura urged that a sufficient number of ships be sent to take care of the large number of requests for permission to return to Japan. If American diplomatic relations broke off completely another plan for evacuating Japanese officials would have to be evolved. Ambassador Nomura believed that Japan and the United States would be willing to guarantee the safe passage of Embassy and Consulate members. Arrangements would be made regarding the costs of the evacuation vessels, the type of markers to be used and the methods of communication to be employed. For example, the two countries might agree to send the other officials to some halfway point such as Hawaii, the Aleutian Islands or French Tahiti aboard ships of his own nation. At the assigned meeting place an exchange of consulate officials could then be effected. Some arrangements might be attempted regarding an exchange of Japanese nationals residing in the United States for Americans at present in Japan. However, in view of the difference in numbers, Ambassador Nomura did not believe that such a plan would meet with the approval of the United States. There was little doubt that Japanese residents of military age would be retained in the United States. Before the complete evacuation

[192] IV, 114.

[193] IV, 115.

[194] IV, 116.

46

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

of its officials Japan would have to decide on a neutral nation entrusted with protecting Japanese national property and Japanese national rights in the United States. Negotiations with the country decided upon would probably be completed in Tokyo with the diplomatic representatives of that country at the same time that plans were being made by the Japanese Ambassador or Minister with the capital of the neutral country concerned. Ambassador Nomura apparently did not place too much confidence in neutral nations, however, since he warned Tokyo that it would be extremely precarious to depend upon neutral ships in evacuating Japanese nationals should war between Japan and the United States be declared. The now neutral countries right take sides. [195]

61. Tokyo Instructs Ambassador Kurusu in New Duties

Since Ambassador Kurusu was arriving in Washington on November 15, 1941, Foreign Minister Togo sent him a message expressing the gratitude of the entire Japanese government for the work which he was about to undertake. Recognizing the fact that Ambassador Kurusu had a difficult position, [196] Foreign Minister Togo told the representative that the success or failure of his mission might determine the fate of the entire Japanese nation. After first arriving at some understanding with Ambassador Nomura, Foreign Minister Togo said, Ambassador Kurusu should cooperate in bringing the present negotiations to an immediate settlement. In view of the fact that a crisis was approaching largely because of the many delays caused by the laxity of the United States government, Foreign Minister Togo urged that Ambassador Kurusu allow no subsidiary problems to further complicate Japanese‑American relations.

Foreign Minister Togo explained to Ambassador Kurusu that Ambassador Nomura had not yet presented proposal B to the United States. If the present condition was not alleviated within a short time, however, Foreign Minister Togo instructed Ambassador Nomura to submit this alternate proposal to American representatives. [197]

62. Hull‑Nomura Conversation (November 15, 1941)

a. State Department's Report [198]

By an appointment made at his own request Ambassador Nomura with Minister Wakasugi called at Secretary Hull's apartment on November 15, 1941. Immediately upon the Japanese Ambassador's arrival, Secretary Hull spoke of the Japanese proposal regarding commercial policy which had been presented on November 7 and November 10, 1941. [199]

Secretary Hull then handed Ambassador Nomura an oral statement regarding America's views on this economic policy. [200] This oral statement referred to the Japanese government's proposal in which it was stated that Japan "recognizes the principle of non‑discrimination in internal commercial relations to be applied to all the Pacific areas, inclusive of China, on the understanding that the principle in question is to be applied uniformly to the rest of the entire world as well." The United States government assumed that Japan did not expect America to be responsible for discriminatory practices in areas outside of its jurisdiction, for such an arrangement could be fulfilled only with the consent of all the other governments of the world. In those areas in which the United States government was economically concerned, however,

[195] IV, 115.

[196] Apparently this move by the Japanese government was considered a possible change of the diplomatic staff in Washington, but, when interviewed, Mr. Kurusu denied that he was going to succeed Mr. Nomura as Ambassador to the United States. (New York Times, November 15, 1941, 5:1.)

[197] IV, 117.

[198] "Memorandum of a Conversation"‑November 15, 1941. S.D. II, 731‑734.

[199] Ibid.

[200] "Oral statement handed by the Japanese Ambassador (Nomura) to the Secretary of State on November 15, 1941", S.D. II, 734‑736. See IV, 121‑126 for text as sent to Tokyo by Ambassador Nomura on November 15, 1941.

47

the principle of unconditional and non‑discriminatory treatment had been the cornerstone of commercial policy. Since World War I the United States had embodied this non‑discriminatory principle in every commercial treaty which it had concluded. In the twenty‑two agreements made since 1934 the United States government had reduced duties on more than a thousand classifications of American tariff in order to achieve an extensive program of fair commercial agreements. Only in two cases had the United States withheld trade agreement concessions and this was in an effort to induce the countries concerned to abandon discriminatory practices. Furthermore, on every appropriate occasion the United States had sought the progressive elimination of preferences and discriminations by other countries of the world. Not only did the United States conclude non‑discriminatory agreements for its own benefit but had sought similar concessions for other countries. As a part of its general policy of commercial fairness in international trade the United States had insisted upon the extension of concessions to all countries concerned in any trade agreement which the United States made. By the reduction of trade barriers the United States hoped to make its national contribution to a world trade in which all nations would benefit.

If Japan were to cooperate in favoring the policy of non‑discrimination as the United States had, then it would achieve its goal in the commercial field. The United States did not see any need of Japan's incorporating the phrase "on the understanding that the principle in question is to be applied uniformly to the rest of the entire world as well" in its commercial proposal. The United States asked that this proviso be omitted.

In order to manifest a tentative commercial agreement applying the principle of non‑discrimination to both Japanese and American international relations, the United States had drawn up a declaration of economic policy. Before entering into any negotiations based on this policy, however, the United States wished to make it clear that the points involved would have to be discussed with the British and other interested governments. [200a] In this joint declaration by the United States and Japan on economic practices, under the term "general policy", both governments were to agree to cooperate in reducing trade barriers and eliminating from international commercial relations all forms of discrimination. [201] By acquiring commodities necessary for the safety and development of their economies through peaceful trade processes, both countries would create secure conditions of international trade and investment. In order to make an appropriate contribution toward the creation of such an ideal trade setup, the United States and Japan should seek the establishment of non‑discriminatory economic relations in the Pacific area.

With regard to "the United States‑Japanese relationship", both governments should agree to negotiate for a reciprocal trade agreement aimed at restoring commercial, financial and economic relations to a normal basis. While both governments should permit the export of commodities to the other for the purpose of security or self‑defense, it was understood that any restrictions imposed would be in the spirit of friendly relations. By way of applying this "policy in the Pacific area" the governments of the United States and Japan should guarantee equal commercial treatment to the Chinese under conditions no less favorable than the treatment accorded to any third country. In order that economic, financial and monetary affairs be restored to China, the United States and Japan were to suggest that the Chinese government inaugurate a comprehensive program of economic development, using any foreign assistance that might be deemed necessary. Any relations between the United States and Japan and other countries of the Pacific area were to be governed by the same basic principles of commercial fair play and equal opportunity. [201a]

[200a] Ibid.

[201] "Draft document handed by the Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador (Nomura)" November 15, 1941. S.D. II, 736‑737. See IV, 127‑130 for text assent to Tokyo by Ambassador Nomura on November 15, 1941.

[201a] Ibid.

48

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

After handing both of these documents to Ambassador Nomura, Secretary Hull emphasized once more the advantages that Japan would gain from participating in the peaceful program envisaged by the United States government. [202] Without first referring it to his government Ambassador Nomura did not feel authorized to make any comment. However, Minister Wakasugi asked if this proposal constituted America's answer to Japan's proposal regarding nondiscrimination in international commercial relations, and Secretary Hull replied in the affirmative.

Minister Wakasugi then asked for America's stand regarding Japan's relations in the Tri partite Pact and the question of stationing Japanese troops in China.

Ambassador Nomura then pointed out that the Japanese government considered that the present conversations were not merely exploratory but were designed to arrive at formal negotiations. Requesting that Minister Wakasugi take accurate notes on what he was about to say, Secretary Hull replied that the United States government could not go beyond exploratory conversations until it had determined the attitude of Great Britain, China and the Netherlands. Furthermore, until some satisfactory conclusions resulted from the informal conversations, the United States government could not speak with those countries. Ambassador Nomura made no comment. Notwithstanding the fact that he and Ambassador Nomura had reached some settlement as a result of the American proposals of June 21, 1941, Secretary Hull continued, the answering Japanese proposals of September 25, 1941, had narrowed down the agreement. When Ambassador Nomura insisted that the question of peace in the entire Pacific are was covered in the preamble of the draft of the Japanese proposals of September 25, 1941, Secretary Hull pointed out that the concessions must be contained in the body of the document rather than in the preamble.

Then Secretary Hull, referring to Foreign Minister Togo's conversation with Ambassador Grew on November 10, 1941, during which the Japanese Foreign Minister indicated that Japan was anxious to conclude a simultaneous agreement with the British, pointed out the inconsistency between those instructions and the ones which Ambassador Nomura was being asked to carry out in Washington. In view of these inconsistencies Secretary Hull felt that the United States could not answer Japan's proposals without first determining whether it intended to adopt with sincerity a peaceful course. After Ambassador Nomura had insisted that Japan desired peace in the Pacific and that it would interpret its obligations under any alliance independently, Secretary Hull asked whether the Japanese government would automatically abandon the Tripartite Pact if it entered into an agreement with the United States. Minister Wakasugi asked if the United States wanted Japan to denounce the Tripartite Pact. Ambassador Nomura understood, however, that the Secretary meant the Tripartite Pact to become a dead letter. Agreeing with Ambassador Nomura's interpretation of his remark, Secretary Hull pointed out how inconsistent it would be for Japan to enter into a peace agreement with the United States while adhering to a fighting alliance with Germany. Not only would it be difficult to explain Japan's actions to the British and Dutch people but the American public would reject such an agreement. Although Ambassador Nomura felt that the American public would accept the agreement simply because Secretary Hull recommended it, the Secretary of State said plainly that it would cause so much turmoil throughout the country that he might well be lynched.

By way of emphasizing his statements, Secretary Hull commented on the large Japanese armies in Manchuria facing Russian armies in Siberia in spite of the existing neutrality pact between Russia and Japan. What the United States desired, Secretary Hull continued, was a clear‑cut, unequivocal agreement which would promote mutual trust by denouncing military expansion. In the event that the United States should be forced to go to war with Germany as a measure of self‑defense, Secretary Hull felt that Japan would not continue its professed

[202] S.D. II, 731‑734.

49

peaceful course, nor would Secretary Hull believe that Japan's connection with the Tripartite Pact would disappear if an agreement were reached between Japan and the United States. Only after Japan had given the United States a specific guarantee that the Tripartite Pact would be considered a dead letter could Secretary Hull begin formal peace negotiations with Japan.

Ambassador Nomura insisted that the policies of the present Japanese government differed in no way from those of the previous Japanese government in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister was a military man. Secretary Hull then stated that the United States did not feel it should receive ultimatums from Japan since the United States had been pursuing A peaceful course throughout the conversations, while the Japanese government had been the one to resort to aggression.

In concluding the conference Secretary Hull said that when the problem of non‑discrimination and that of Japan's place in the Tripartite Pact were settled Japanese and American representatives could sit down like brothers and find some solution to the question of stationing Japanese troops in China. [202a]

b. Ambassador Nomura's Report

Although originally scheduled for November 14, 1941, Ambassador Kurusu's interview with Secretary Hull was postponed until 9:00 a.m. on November 15, 1941, at the request of the American State Department. [203]

At the scheduled time Ambassador Nomura and Mr. Wakasugi met with Secretary Hull and Mr. Ballantine for an interview lasting about an hour and a half. [204] Secretary Hull opened the conversation by presenting Ambassador Nomura with two American proposals dealing with the commercial problem. [205] Attempting to impress Ambassador Nomura with America's desire to see non‑discrimination in trade throughout the world Secretary Hull stated that by its trade agreements with twenty‑two nations tariffs had been reduced on approximately 1,200 articles. At the time of the economic conference in London Secretary Hull had urged that the policy of non‑discrimination in commerce be adopted, but Germany and other countries were so strongly opposed to it that the measure was never carried into effect. While desiring to see this policy put into effect throughout the world the United States government wished to call to Japan's attention the fact that it could not guarantee the effectiveness of this policy out of the sphere of its own jurisdiction. Therefore, Secretary Hull stated, the American government wished Japan to modify its condition which stated that Japan would apply the practice of non‑discrimination in commerce to the Pacific area only if it were applied to the rest of the world.

At this point in the conversation Secretary Hull handed Ambassador Nomura the second of the United States' written proposals. Mr. Wakasugi then asked Secretary Hull if this should be considered the American counter‑proposal to the Japanese proposals dealing with the three major problems in the discussion. After Secretary Hull replied that the American proposals could be applied to a much wider range, Ambassador Nomura stated that Japan would give it careful consideration. [205a]

Following the instructions of his government Ambassador Nomura then brought up the problem connected with the interpretation of the present conferences. Ambassador Nomura stated that in view of the fact that official proposals had been handed to Japan by both President Roosevelt and the Secretary of State, the Japanese government considered these talks in the

[202a] Ibid.

[203] IV, 118.

[204] IV, 119.

[205] 119‑120.

[205a] Ibid.

50

THE "MAGIC" BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

realm of actual negotiations. Reminding Ambassador Nomura that Foreign Minister Togo himself had told Ambassador Grew that Japan desired to have Great Britain, the Netherlands, and other countries participate in the final negotiations, Secretary Hull stated that until the time when all those countries engaged in the negotiations they would be considered by the United States as merely preliminary and exploratory. Only after the Japanese and American representatives had found a basis for a suitable agreement, Secretary Hull continued, could Great Britain and the Netherlands be asked to participate in the final and actual treaty with Japan. Speaking from a practical viewpoint as well, Secretary Hull said the open and frank exchange of opinions between American and Japanese representatives would be hindered if the present talks were considered strictly official. [205b]

Leaving that question for the present Secretary Hull then discussed the political stabilization of the Pacific area. In the United States' proposal of June 21, 1941, Secretary Hull stated that it was made known that America intended to enforce the application of any Pacific principles to all the areas of the Far East. However, Japan apparently intended to apply those principles only to the territories of the southwest Pacific. Not only by the nature of its statements concerning the application of these Pacific peace principles, but also by its connections with the Axis countries under the Tripartite Pact had Japan caused the United States to doubt the sincerity of its peace proposals. Therefore, Secretary Hull asked that the present Japanese government state its approval of the peaceful policy contained in the former Japanese statement of August 28, 1941. Ambassador Nomura replied that the latest Japanese proposal had set forth Japan's desire for peace, and therefore no further explanation was necessary in this respect. Furthermore, although the words "southwestern Pacific" appeared in the main text of the Japanese proposal of September 25, 1941, the Japanese government in the preface to this proposal had clearly stated its desire to establish and maintain peace throughout the entire Pacific area. Secretary Hull insisted that the statement must appear in the main body of the text and not merely in the preface.

In repeating his doubts regarding Japanese sincerity Secretary Hull stated that Japan could never uphold a military alliance with Germany and a peaceful understanding with the United States at the same time. In fact, if the United States were to conclude an agreement with Japan while Japan retained its allegiance to the Axis powers the American public would "howl with laughter." Although Secretary Hull attempted to point out the incongruity of a military alliance with Germany and a peaceful alliance with the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands, Ambassador Nomura continued to insist that the Tripartite Alliance would not conflict with that drawn up between Japan and the United States since both agreements would have peace for their main objective.

Pointing to the Japanese‑Russian Neutrality Pact as an example of armed peace, Secretary Hull reminded Ambassador Nomura that Japanese and Russian troops still faced one another across their national boundaries. The American Secretary of State did not desire to sign a similarly ineffective peace agreement with Japan.

After listening to Secretary Hull's statements, Minister Wakasugi asked if the United States expected Japan to withdraw from the Tripartite Alliance. Secretary Hull answered that the United States expected the Tripartite Pact to become a "dead letter" if an understanding were signed between Japan and the United States. Minister Wakasugi then asked if these latest American proposals were a reply to Japan's proposal regarding the rights of self-defense. In answering this question directly Secretary Hull stated that the United States wished definite assurance that the present Japanese government desired to follow a peaceful policy throughout the entire Pacific area and wished a reply to the United States' proposal regarding a joint statement of a Japanese‑American economic policy.

[205b] Ibid.

51

In concluding the interview Ambassador Nomura stated that the Japanese government would be very disappointed with Secretary Hull's attitude. Arrangements were made for another conference on the following day.

Summarizing the day's conversation Ambassador Nomura stated that the United States had clarified its attitude toward the trade question; however, the two countries still differed on the interpretations given to other principles. Not only did the United States doubt Japan's sincerity but it viewed Japan's attitude toward the Chinese situation with suspicion. [205c]

63. Tokyo Instructs Ambassador Nomura in Interpretation of Japanese Proposals

Since certain phrases in the various Japanese proposals had been viewed with suspicion by American statesmen, Tokyo wished to clarify their meaning to the satisfaction of the United States government. On November 16, 1941, in instructions to Ambassador Nomura the Japanese government emphasized that any so‑called modifications of its concessions were only those which any independent country might be forced to make under similar circumstances, and that they were in no way intended to limit the extent or establishment of peace in the Pacific. [206]

Such expressions as "without provocation" and, in relation to the Russian question, the statement "as long as the Soviet Union remains faithful to the Russian‑Japanese Neutrality Treaty", both appearing in the Japanese proposal of August 28, 1941, were to be interpreted literally. In using the term "without justifiable reason" in the proposal of September 6, 1941, the Japanese government had wished to protect itself in view of the threatening results of the Russo‑German war. When pointing out these facts to the American State Department, the Japanese Foreign Office requested Ambassador Nomura to include an assurance that the present Japanese Cabinet would uphold the concessions made in the former Cabinet's proposals of August 28 and September 25, 1941. [206a] In fact, the present government was even willing to delete the word "southwestern" from Article Six of the September 25, 1941, proposals in an endeavor to prove to the United States that Japan wished to apply the principles of peace to the entire Pacific area. [207]   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

However, Tokyo insisted that Ambassador Nomura impress upon the United States the fact that Japan would not consider itself bound by any of these concessions unless the present Japanese‑American negotiations ended in agreement. [208]