Archive for January, 2009

What you say about Mr. MATSUOKA in your wire is quite correct. 9.mat.991 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

January 19, 2009

No. 3

FROM: Washington (UAWRK)
May 7, 1941

TO: Tokyo (PRINTEMPS) (Chief of Staff)
#98.

Parts 1, 2, and 3 of 5-parts.

Part 1:

I should like to bring to your attention the following further details on the plan for a Japanese-American Understanding.

A wire from the Foreign Minister informed the Ambassador that several more days would elapse before the formal text of the proposed Understanding could be sent, and directed him to call on HULL and make an oral statement addressed directly to HULL, and through HULL, to the President, in order to keep the situation in hand during the interval. These instructions the Ambassador carried out this morning. The main points of the statement were an apology for the long time being taken to consider the proposal for a Japanese-American Understanding, (Part 2) some explanation of the intentions of the German and Italian leaders, the statement that American participation in the war would mean the destruction of civilization, and an indication of the absolute necessity of German and Italian friendship to Japan’s position. In the same wire the Ambassador was directed to sound out the possibility of a Japanese-American Neutrality Pact (of the same tenor as the Japanese-Russian Agreement). (For details consult the Diplomatic Wire.) Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

What you say about Mr. MATSUOKA in your wire is quite correct. His recent journalistic attacks on the President and HULL were most unfortunately timed, serving to augment the current feeling here that we are trying to put something over on the U.S.  http://LOUIS2J2SHEEHAN.US

Part 3:

The Ambassador’s mention of the intentions of the German and Italian Leaders during his interview with HULL, and especially in his verbal statement, was really extraneous to the matter in hand and may have undesirable results. (The Ambassador was afraid that his conference with the Secretary of State might end in failure, and, therefore, made some preliminary inside moves on the 6th as a result of which he was only barely able to keep from going beyond the point indicated in his wire.)

The trend of today’s conference as well as the atmosphere in America during the last few days convinces me that at this time trickery and bluff will serve no purpose between Japan and America. Unless some instructions on the proposal for an understanding are sent immediately and negotiations begun, a solution of the difficulties in Japanese-American relations—–[b]

[a] Parts 4 and 5 not available.
[b] Sentence concluded in next part.

Trans. 8-29-45

[9]



No. 4

FROM: Washington (UAWRK)
May 13, 1941

TO: Tokyo (PRINTEMPS) (Chief of Staff)
#105.

If, at the commencement of these talks on Japanese-American relations, in which we’re trying to settle by agreement such thorny problems as the oil question, we become involved in questions of phraseology and suchlike trivialities, we’ll succeed only in preventing the conference making any progress. I think it of supreme importance at present that we adopt as wide an outlook as possible as the basis of our policy, in order to facilitate the Ambassador’s activities, so that we can reach a perfectly satisfactory settlement and obtain all those real benefits which will accompany such a settlement. I fervently hope that the Government will take such action as will best achieve these goals.

Trans. 6-4-45



No. 5

FROM: Washington (UAWRK)
May 11, 1941

TO: Tokyo (RIKUGUN DAIJIN-War Minister)
#101.

Parts 1, 2, and 3 complete.

Part 1.

As I have previously reported, America’s attitude on the European war has recently become very much stiffer. In a Cabinet meeting the day before yesterday, i.e., on the 8th, it was decided to put the Convoy plan and similar measures into operation; and it is almost certain that the President will make an announcement to that effect in his speech on next Wednesday, the 14th. I fear that should the situation actually develop in this fashion, America would probably not agree, and the Empire would find herself in a difficult position, to take up the question of a Japanese-American understanding. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire   Therefore, I have been trying to gauge, through reliable channels, the opinions of American leaders on the relationship between the matter of giving aid to England and the question of a Japanese-American understanding, —and have learned the following:

Part 2.

1. The execution of the Convoy plan and related measures was, I learn, secretly decided on about a month ago, but was postponed, by Presidential decision, in consideration of this matter of a Japanese-American understanding.

2. Present circumstances make it impossible to delay the Convoy plan indefinitely for the sake of a Japanese-American understanding, when no one can tell when such an understanding may be reached. This fact, and pressure from STIMSON and his fellow supporters of “a strong stand” resulted in the Cabinet meeting which took place the day before yesterday, i.e., on the 8th.

3. It is quite possible that, if the talks on Japanese-American relations were under way, they would be given some consideration in the drafting of the President’s speech which is to be spoken on the 14th. (They are waiting for an answer from Japan before forming a final decision. HULL and his associates are standing by right now, i.e., the evening of the 10th.)

Part 3:

4. I am told that if the negotiations are not started before the draft of the President’s speech has been given its definitive form, it will become next to impossible to bring up the subject of a Japanese-American understanding, unless American public opinion undergoes some absolutely miraculous change, (and I think this statement is more than an empty threat). http://LOUIS2J2SHEEHAN.US

[10]

THE “MAGIC” BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

The situation being as I have described it, if we receive the instructions on Monday at the latest (I am taking into consideration the time which will be allotted for last minute changes in the draft of the speech, and for printing and distributing it) we will be able to get in under the dead-line, but if they come any later than that we shall have lost all opportunity of improving Japanese-American relations at this time. As a matter of fact these relations will very probably become much worse, America will go on taking a harder and harder attitude, and we shall have become unable to effect a change in the situation.

Trans. 6-7-45

b. Japanese Diplomatic Activities Throughout the World.



No. 6

FROM: Tokyo (TIXNS) (Head, General Affairs Department)
April 4, 1941

TO: Washington (RIKUGUN)
#310.

Please report on the following by about April 20th.

1. Subsequent to our invasion of French Indo-China, the effect produced upon commerce of third powers and —1G— movements, by the landing operations recently carried out on the South China coast.

2. Change in the attitude of third powers toward China subsequent to the enforcement of our blockage of China.

From the Chief of the General Affairs Dept.

Addressed to England, America, India, Siam, Batavia, French Indo-China, Burma.

Trans. 3-14-45



No. 7

FROM: Washington (UAWRK)
July 24, 1941

TO: Tokyo (Summer (Vice-Chief, Gen. Staff))
#140.

Parts 1-4 complete.

(Secret.)

1. We intend to hold out in the United States to the very end, and we do everything in our power, no matter what the difficulties, to effect the transfer of attaches and subordinates (in) Mexico and Central and South America. However, this last may well prove impossible. For as Japanese-American relations near a crisis, this sort of transfer becomes increasingly difficult. When the crisis has really come, such transfers will probably be prohibited except in special cases such as exchanges of personnel. This is certainly indicated by the measures taken in the recent evacuation of German and Italian consulate personnel etc.

Part 2.

Step by step with the increasing momentum of the European, especially the German-Russian, war, American-German relations have become more critical, and at present it is very possible that the two nations may fall into a state of actual warfare (without a declaration of war) or something closely resembling it. At the same time Japanese-American relations are growing steadily worse. In view of all this and of the real problems which face and will face us in the matter of transfers, I am certain that this is the time to put our intelligence network on a completely war-time footing. http://LOUIS2J2SHEEHAN.US

[11]

Part 3.

2. At this time, when the Imperial Navy is sending home all of its Resident Personnel and most of its Resident Supervisory Personnel because of suspicions of espionage and the great decrease in purchasing functions, the Army could not keep on sending in additional personnel without running a great risk of rousing the suspicions of American officials, especially those of the Army and Navy, and eventually of having the activities of our personnel severely restricted. Therefore, I think it would be more advisable to keep the number of our personnel resident in America down to the minimum and to utilize this personnel to fill out and strengthen our intelligence network.

Part 4.

3. The personnel I should like to have remain in the United States to the end are:
The Attache, Col. IWAKURO,

2 Aides (These in Washington)
1 Technical Resident Official,

1 Technical Resident Supervisor and Col. SHINJO. (These in New York.)

I have in previous wires stated my views on the matter of appointing those of the above who do not enjoy diplomatic privileges to the position of Local Aides. Until this is done, it will be next to impossible to ensure their personal security.

Trans. 8-28-45  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

oshima 2.1 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

January 12, 2009

119. Diplomatic Protection of Japanese Funds in Mexico.

Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

The possibility of returning to Japan a 10,000,000 yen investment in a Mexican oil company had been discussed on July 14, 1941. Replying to Tokyo’s suggestion that $350,000, said to be the capital of the Pacific Petroleum Company in Mexico, be credited to the Japanese Legation, so that it could not be seized, Minister Miura mentioned two objections: That if the money were turned back to Japan, all investment made so far would have in vain; and that not only would the status of the company be uncertain in case of an emergency, but it was impossible to predict whether, with only $300,000 left for research, it would be possible to discover an oil vein. [482]

With little hesitation, Foreign Minister Toyoda instructed that the $300,000 be turned over to the company at once, but that it be kept at the Legation to prevent the money from being frozen or seized. In the event that additional funds were needed, the matter would have to be given further consideration. When the United States froze Japanese funds on July 25, 1941, the Pacific Petroleum Company directed Mr. Okumura to turn their Mexican funds over to the Japanese Legation. Mr. Okumura informed the Japanese company that he would comply with these instructions, and that three of its employees were being sent home. Since the use of code telegrams had been prohibited since July 22, 1941, all telegrams pertaining to the business of the company were to be sent through the Japanese Legation. [483]

PART C—JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

(c) Japanese-South American Relations.

120. Japan Acquires Intelligence Concerning the United States.

Much intelligence regarding the activities of the United States was sent from South America to Tokyo. From Rio de Janeiro it was alleged on June 4, 1941 that should the Suez-Near East situation develop unfavorably for Britain, America’s Pacific policy would prevent Japan from attacking England in the Far East. Asserting that America’s attitude toward Japan was becoming stronger and more “warlike”, Ambassador Itaro Ishii pointed out that the United States was increasing the number of its bombers in the Pacific, was planning to ship essential military products to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and would soon direct an embargo against Japan. Since Germany would possibly bring pressure upon Spain and Portugal after the harvest season, it was rumored that the United States would prevent German seizure of the Atlantic islands of these two countries as well as of Dakar. [484]



[481] II, 443.

[482] II, 444-445.

[483] II, 446-448.

[484] II, 449.

106

THE “MAGIC” BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

The Japanese Ambassador in Brazil predicted that the American patrols, which had been proposed in place of the convoy system, would inevitably clash with German submarines or planes. Further illustrating the impossibility of the United States’ staying out of war, Mr. Ishii declared that revisions to the Neutrality Act would undoubtedly be passed by Congress; that after American ships had been sunk, the United States government expected American public opinion to insist upon defense of its shipping; that such an expression as “the freedom of the seas” was but an excuse for maintaining control of the seas; and that the maintenance of American “non-belligerency” was but a stop-gap while preparations for war would be made until an incident occurred, or until American public opinion was swayed to the point where participation was possible. [485]

121. Alleged American Economic and Political Pressure in South America.

In an attempt to reassure South American countries which had instituted, or were about to institute, an export license system and other measures to limit exports to Japan, Tokyo advised its ambassadors to combat the belief that such products were being re-exported from Japan to Germany. They were to give assurance that Japan was importing but sixty per cent of her needs from Central and South America, and was in no position to re-export these products to any third country. Such restrictive measures were believed by the Japanese to be the result of machinations on the part of the United States. [486]

Meanwhile, an extensive shifting of the Japanese diplomatic staff took place in South America during July. Many of the changes involved the Naval and Military Attaches. [487] Japanese officials in South American countries were alarmed not only about the safety of their nationals, but also about their loyalty, as influenced by propaganda. A pamphlet, entitled Americanism, published by the Central Japanese Society in Los Angeles, was the subject of an inquiry from Mr. Ishii in Brazil. He was especially concerned with the comments made on these pamphlets by first-generation Japanese. [488]

(a) Brazil.

According to Mr. Ishii, Brazil, as one of the ABC powers of South America, was most vulnerable to the pressure applied to her by the United States. Commenting on the corruption which appeared to be in certain Brazilian circles, he advised that the United States was using large sums of money to infiltrate quite deeply, and, as a result, many Brazilians were saying that their President’s power was wasting away. Mr. Ishii regretted that the Axis was not using counter-measures against American influence. [489]

In connection with the setting up of Japanese youth training centers in Brazil, Foreign Minister Toyoda warned that in order to forestall suspicion on the part of Brazilian authorities, it would be necessary to exercise caution. If the budget and actual operation of these centers were placed in the hands of Japanese diplomats in Brazil, it was feared that such activities might jeopardize their whole policy in that country. Rather than subsidize the Japanese training centers, Foreign Minister Toyoda felt that the functioning of such organizations should depend upon the instructor’s personal merits. [490]



[485] II, 450.

[486] II, 451.

[487] II, 452, 460.

[488] II, 461.

[489] II, 462.

[490] II, 463.

107

Since caution was desirable in dealing with Brazil, Mr. Ishii had burned all secret papers of the Japanese Embassy in Rio de Janeiro which were dated up to 1934, and had taken precautions so that the other papers could be burned at any time. Arrangements were also made to transfer the Emperor’s portrait back to Japan. [491]

(b) Chile.

A report to Tokyo from Santiago on June 2, 1941 announced that a member of the Chilean Military Commission had confidentially informed the German Ambassador that a request by the United States for the use of the Straits of Magellan had been refused in view of the Chilean peace policy. [492] However, members of the Chilean Congress revealed on June 6, 1941 that because the United States had begun to prevent the export of essential materials, Chile would do likewise.

Chile’s Foreign Minister had predicted on June 6, 1941 that although there would hardly be a total embargo placed on exports to Japan, the license system would probably be instituted to reserve material needed by Chile. In addition, the re-exportation of war materials would probably be prohibited. Consul Ichiro Kawasaki, after secretly perusing a newly proposed Chilean bill, found that it dealt principally with re-exportation of materials and the export license system, and reported that there was strong support for its passage. [493]

Meanwhile, the terms of a Japanese-Chilean mineral contract with the “Cobaltera”, an organization in Chile responsible for the handling of the entire annual output of ore for Japan, were being negotiated. Upon the conclusion of the contract, a loan of one million pesos was to be made to the company by the Japanese on the condition that it be used directly in the development of mines. [494]

According to Consul Kawasaki, the Communist Party and the pro-American wing of the Socialist Party had been creating dissension in Chile since the beginning of the German-Soviet conflict. The Chilean Communists had forgotten their age-old war against British and American capitalism, and were taking a strong anti-German stand. In accordance with this feeling, street demonstrations had been planned, but had been dispersed by the Chilean government’s strict control. Moreover, anti-German moving pictures had been banned, and two influential newspapers were predicting the ultimate defeat of Russia. [495]

(c) Argentina.

In Argentina, a recent presidential decree had no unfavorable effect on Japanese trade, although the Japanese believed that the United States had tried to exert its influence. [496] Argentina, nevertheless, had placed no restrictions on Japanese shipping. Difficulty with Japanese telegraphic officials was now encountered in Argentina since the number of request messages between Japanese firms and their home offices was increasing. For this reason, Minister Shui Tomii asked that a designator be assigned for this particular type of message so as to assure priority for more urgent matters. [497]



[491] II, 464.

[492] II, 465.

[493] II, 466-468.

[494] II, 469.

[495] II, 470.

[496] II, 471.

[497] II, 472.

108

THE “MAGIC” BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

(d) Ecuador—Peru.http://LOUIS2J2SHEEHAN.US

Reporting from Ecuador, Japanese Minister Iungo Yanai wired that the United States, taking advantage of the strained relationship between Peru and Ecuador, had established headquarters in Guayaquil, a commercial city in Ecuador, and was spreading fantastic stories “as were never heard of in heaven or earth”. According to this source, the people of Ecuador, who entertained the most profound hatred for the Peruvians, expected to be attacked at any moment, [498] and were looking to Washington for assistance. [499] An interview of the Japanese Minister with the Foreign Minister of Ecuador on June 14, 1941, revealed that the border situation was becoming more and more “grave”, and that Peru was preparing for war. [500]

By July 18, 1941, however, Tokyo learned that since Ecuador had agreed to apologize for an attack on the Peruvian consulate in Guayaquil, Peru had announced to the mediating powers, the United States, Brazil and Argentina, that she was in accord with their solution to the affair. [501] Tokyo was also informed that to maintain neutrality, Peru had issued, on June 27, 1941, a presidential decree prohibiting the entrance of submarines of belligerent powers into Peruvian waters and harbors. [502]

(e) Colombia.

In contrast with her relations with Peru, Colombia’s relations with Ecuador were very friendly, and according to Japanese Minister Yanai, both flags were floating jointly everywhere, except on government buildings. For this reason Mr. Yanai, who had been assigned to serve in both Peru and Colombia, preferred to represent his country in Ecuador and Colombia, and had requested the permission of the Ecuadorian government to do so. [503] German activities in Colombia, he reported, were not succeeding, since powerful officials, such as the Colombian president, were beginning to favor England and the United States. [504]

(f) Venezuela.

A rumor, spread by the wives of influential men in Venezuela, to the effect that the United States had suggested that all Central and South American countries apply pressure on Japanese residents and had indicated methods whereby these Japanese would be forced to leave, was relayed to Tokyo. Mr. Goscoe Ohgimi, the Japanese Minister to Venezuela, said that every effort was being made to ascertain if the rumor had any basis. [505]



[498] II, 473.

[499] II, 474.

[500] II, 475.

[501] II, 476.

[502] II, 477.

[503] II, 475.

[504] II, 474.

[505] II, 478.

109

PART C—JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

(d) Japanese-British Relations.

122. Japanese Security Precautions.

At the end of May 1941 Japan realized the need for greater security in its diplomatic code. At the same time that radical changes in the Japanese codes were effected in London, the special system used solely between Berlin and Tokyo was also to be revised. [506] Because of the continued inadequacy of Japanese courier service, new diplomatic codes had to be devised by Mr. Kawamoto at the London Embassy. They were then relayed to the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin who distributed the new systems to representatives of his government throughout Europe. [507] Copies of the regulations governing the use of this new system were forwarded to Japanese offices in America, Europe, and Japanese-controlled cities throughout China. [508]

In view of Great Britain’s strict censorship of messages transmitted to and from Portugal, Japanese agents in Capetown were forced to send espionage reports concerning shipping movements through Tokyo, instead of through Portugal, to the Japanese Ambassador in Germany. [509]

123. Minor Incidents Disrupt Japanese-British Relations.

During the period from May to June 1941 British-Japanese relations were somewhat disturbed by several incidents of varying significance. On March 5, 1941 the Egyptian government had forbidden the use of any language but English and French in ordinary communications, and the use of code messages was entirely denied to the Japanese consulate in Alexandria. In May 1941 other restrictive measures were set in motion against the Japanese in Egypt, [510] and, according to Tokyo, Australia exhibited her faithfulness to England by growing more hostile in her dealings with Japan.

The Japanese saw the possibility of an ally in India, however, where the Punjab troops had refused to obey England, and where many favored Italy. Meanwhile the Sikhs and the Mohammedans were creating internal strife. [511]

The four year’s detention of Mr. Davis, an English minister, who had been arrested in North China, caused a British protest to Tokyo on May 20, 1941. It was suggested that the Japanese find some grounds for releasing him. [512] In the meantime, the Japanese had been disturbed because the British consulate in Los Angeles had placed eleven seamen from the whaler Tonan Maru on a blacklist for unknown reasons. [513] When in June 1941 it was reported that England had discriminated against the Japanese in granting visas to travel throughout its Empire, Tokyo enacted retaliatory measures. All British applications for Japanese passports were thereafter referred to a special office before they were granted. [514]

On the other hand, though German claims to owning and operating factories in Shanghai and its vicinity were denied by the Japanese, demands made in June 1941 by the Sin Chang



[506] II, 479.

[507] II, 480.

[508] II, 481.

[509] II, 482.

[510] II, 483.

[511] II, 484.

[512] II, 485.

[513] II, 486.

[514] II, 487.

110

Company, a British firm, were readily granted. [515] On another occasion, when British firms in the Hunan Province were being discriminated against by the Japanese, Tokyo warned its representatives on June 10, 1941 that this type of treatment would not benefit Japan in view of the general political situation; and since such a misunderstanding would be extremely dangerous, it was requested that the discrimination be stopped immediately. [516]

However, such incidents as the flights over southern Thailand on May 10 and 22, 1941 by British planes, and the arresting and imprisonment of two British officers who had crossed the border, intensified the delicate situation between the two nations. From Bangkok, the capitol of Thailand, on June 12, 1941 came the report that large and systematic movements of the British along the borders constituted an imposing threat to Thailand. [517]

124. Japan Recalls Ambassador Shigemitsu from London.

In May 1941 the Japanese Ambassador in London was ordered home, ostensibly for conferences with the Japanese Foreign Minister. For the benefit of Sir Robert Craigie, the British Ambassador, and his government, this recall was explained as being merely a routine return to report on certain matters, but the Japanese Ambassador knew that he would never return to his post. [518] His efforts to restrain Japan from collaboration with the Axis had evidently displeased Mr. Matsuoka. Ambassador Mamoru Shigemitsu planned to go from Lisbon to New York, [519] and then to San Francisco where he was scheduled for passage aboard the Yawata Maru about the middle of July, 1941. [520] While in the United States he was to meet Ambassador Nomura in New York or Washington. [521]  http://LOUIS2J2SHEEHAN.US

125. Japanese Interest in British-German Peace Talk.

In June 1941 the Axis powers were convinced that the outcome of the European war was already decided. A Japanese report of the views of a British Foreign Office official stated that if the British government or one of its great statesmen such as Lloyd George were to present a peace proposal, the people would accept it. Winston Churchill’s influence was believed to be declining, but Ernest Bevin did not intend to supplant him. [522] From United States sources it appeared that America was certain Japan would not enter the war, and for that reason was exhibiting little anxiety over the break-up of Japanese negotiations with the Dutch East Indies. [523]

Though rumors of a British-German peace were astir in the United States, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop assured Japanese Ambassador Oshima that the only reason such talk had been invented was to divorce Japan from the Tripartite Pact. On the other hand, Mr. Oshima himself believed that these rumors concerning England and Germany proved that London and Washington were cooperating on propaganda since they were anxious to weaken the Tripartite Pact and to sever relations between Berlin and Vichy. Furthermore, according to Ambassador Oshima, London was using the United States for its own aims in restraining Japan. [524]



[516] II, 488.

[517] II, 489.

[518] II, 491.

[519] II, 492.

[520] II, 493

[521] II, 493.

[522] II, 494.

[523] II, Ibid.

[524] II, 495

111

126. Japanese Reports on British Shipping.

Tokyo was closely observing England’s activities throughout the world, for during June 1941 many intelligence reports concerning British shipping movements were obtained. British shipping at this time was extremely heavy, and because of Italy’s declaration of war, there was a tremendous increase of shipping via South Africa.

From Capetown on June 11, 1941 came detailed information concerning allied ships, unprotected by convoy escorts, which were transporting thousands of British troops to Egypt. French and Netherlands ships, commandeered by the British since the beginning of the war, also left the port of Durban on June 10, 1941 carrying 10,000 South African troops. Another ship carrying native Belgian Congo troops left Durban at approximately the same time. [525]

Aware of Japanese agents, Britain increased the secrecy surrounding these movements, [526] and access to any of the dock areas in Capetown and Durban was strictly forbidden. [527] Nevertheless, the Japanese attempted to discover the nationality, numbers and routes of the many ships in those harbors. The Japanese also learned that in clear weather shipping from North Eastern India put in at the Portuguese port of Laurenco Marques to escape Axis submarines. [528]

127. Japan Protests British Aid to China.

In spite of Japanese protests on June 4, 1941 against England’s granting of aid to China, Foreign Minister Anthony Eden himself made it clear that England had little concern about offending the Tripartite powers. However, the Japanese Ambassador believed that Britain was giving greater consideration to the Japanese question. [529]

Nevertheless, two months later, on August 2, 1941 a report from Shanghai was evidence that Britain was still maintaining close collaboration with China, especially with the military authorities. [530]

128. Japan’s Anxiety Concerning British-Russian Relations.

In early June 1941 the British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Stafford Cripps, returned to England; and since relations between Germany and Russia were now at the breaking point, the Japanese felt that any Russo-British collaboration would endanger the interests of the Axis. [531] China was also interested in any agreement that the British might contract with Russia, since they hoped that it would also cover the Far Eastern situation and would provoke a British-Japanese collision. [532]

Tokyo was informed that on June 21, 1941, the day before war began between Germany and Russia, the British Ambassador in Rome had conferred with the Russian Ambassador. Speaking under instructions from London, the British Ambassador had stated that Britain was anxious to see the threat on the eastern border of Russian eliminated and the safety of the British colonies in the Pacific assured. He believed that one possible solution lay in effecting a compromise between China and Japan, based on the condition that Japan would withdraw from the Axis.



[525] II, 496-497.

[526] II, 482.

[527] II, 498

[528] II, Ibid.

[529] II, 499.

[530] II, 500.

[531] II, 501

[532] II, 502.

112

Since Russia did not feel that Japan would drop her affiliations with either Germany or Italy the Russian Ambassador replied that until Japan’s attitude was more definite, his country did not wish to take any positive step regarding questions in the Far East. Furthermore, the Japanese-Chinese war was an important factor in preventing Japan from extending aid to the other Axis powers. [533]

129. Britain Inquires About Japanese Attitude Toward the German-Russian War.

Japan was interested in British reactions to the impending German-Russian situation, and England at the same time was anxious to know Japan’s position. To British Ambassador Craigie’s inquiries on July 4, 1941 regarding this matter, the Japanese Foreign Minister pointed out that the national policy of Japan was built on the Tripartite Pact. Nevertheless, the terms of this agreement in no way obligated Japan to declare war on Russia, nor had Germany requested the assistance of its allies. [534]

130. Japan Fears British Seizure of Its Ships (July 25, 1941).

With an eye toward the further establishment of its own military and economic independence, Japan greatly increased its shipping during the month of June. In accordance with this plan, the Japanese army desired to take over four ships which were anchored near Formosa, in spite of the fact that this action would violate customs regulations. The British were not expected to oppose this move. [535]

On July 4, 1941 Tokyo, anticipating difficulty with the British government in regard to nickel allotments which Japan was particularly anxious to acquire, instructed its Ambassador in London to approach Mr. Eden with the request that Japanese ships be allowed to proceed unmolested in the loading of another nickel allotment. [536] After July 25, 1941, however, when the freezing order had been put into effect, Japan, fearing that England and the United States would seize its ships, secretly instructed the captains of all ships at anchor to leave port immediately, and ships at sea were ordered to stand by. [537]

By the end of July 1941 Japan’s anxiety concerning the possible detention of its ships had lessened, and the Foreign Minister permitted Japanese vessels to return to the foreign ports from which they had been recalled. With regard to the unloading of cargo, however, numerous difficulties still presented themselves; though it was hoped by Japan that after the cargo had been unloaded, payment could be applied to exports for the Japanese. [538]

131. Japan Protests British Reconnaissance in Far East.

Although keeping close check on British activities, Japan resented Britain’s attempts to watch Japanese maneuvers. Tokyo protested, on July 24, 1941, that English aviators, flying over areas where Japanese forces had been operating, had openly reconnoitered troop and ship movements. In another instance, on July 16, 1941, a British warship had approached a Japanese submarine, and, after shooting three shells close to its bow, had sailed off in the direction of Hong-



[533] II, 503.

[534] II, 504.

[535] II, 505.

[536] II, 506.

[537] II, 507-508.

[538] II, 509.

113

kong. Reporting these occurrences to the British Consul General, the Japanese government warned that military action, for which Britain would be solely responsible, would be initiated if these happenings continued, since they not only interfered with the maneuvers of Japanese warships, but also constituted a mark of disrespect toward the Japanese government. [539]

132. Ambassador Craigie Unsuccessfully Urges Japan to Uphold Far Eastern Peace.

In attempting to adjust the estranged conditions existing with Japan, Ambassador Craigie had pointed out in June 1941 that of all the countries of the world, Japan alone was in an excellent position to maintain neutrality since Great Britain and Germany would fight a war to the finish, and the United States and Russia would eventually become involved in this struggle. Peace could be maintained in the Far East, however, and in order to prevent the war in Europe from spreading throughout the world, Japan must change her attitude of aggression.

England appreciated that the Japanese had a need for the rubber and tin which the Netherlands East Indies could provide, but it could not condone Japan’s obtaining them by force. The Netherlands’ officials, fearing the transshipment of these articles to Germany, had refused to send them to Japan, despite all the assurances from Tokyo that the material was for Japanese consumption. [540]

In the latter part of July 1941, Japan announced its intentions of stationing its troops in French Indo-China. The act was considered by the United States and England as a threat to the entire Southwest Pacific, despite Admiral Teijiro Toyoda’s insistence that the mutual agreement between Japan and France for the joint defense of French Indo-China had been necessary because of alarming reports regarding the safety of that area, and in order to prevent any enveloping movement against Japan.

Emphatically denying that there had been any foundation for the alarming Japanese reports, the British Ambassador to Tokyo had declared on July 25, 1941 that Japan’s action constituted a threat to English territorial rights and interests in Asia. While he thought that some compromise could be reached with Great Britain, he made it clear the fulfillment of the Japanese plan would have serious consequences. Foreign Minister Toyoda declined to postpone the sending of troops to French Indo-China but assured England of Japan’s peaceful purpose in this movement. [541]

133. Canada Terminates Existing Commercial Treaty With Japan.

After Japanese aggression in French Indo-China had forced the enactment of an order on July 25, 1941 freezing Japanese assets in Great Britain and the United States, the Canadian government felt that it was necessary to terminate the existing Canadian-Japanese commercial treaty. [542]

On July 26, 1941 Ambassador Yoshizawa called on the Prime Minister of Canada and once again insisted that Japan was entering French Indo-China only in order to forestall any anti-Japanese moves in the Pacific by other nations. While admitting that Great Britain might feel in imminent peril because of such a step, the Japanese Ambassador did not see any direct connection between the French Indo-China situation and the safety of Canada.



[539] II, 510-511.

[540] II, 512.

[541] II, 513.

[542] II, 514-515.

114

Ambassador Yoshizawa drew a parallel between Japanese occupation of French Indo-China and the seizure of Greenland and Iceland by the United States. To this comparison the Canadian Prime Minister replied that the United States would have faced a very grave danger if the Nazis had gained a foothold in that area, and, consequently, had been able to strike at the Western Hemisphere. The Japanese, however, had faced no such threat from the Allies in the Pacific.

Nevertheless, the Japanese representative referred to Anglo-American aid to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek as a thwarting of Japanese efforts to settle the Chinese question. [543] Furthermore, the deGaullists were actively opposing the Japanese in French Indo-China. With England and the United States establishing a joint blockade preparatory to applying unendurable economic pressure against them, the Japanese felt that there was little doubt of the unfriendly and dangerous attitude of other nations. [544]

PART C—JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

(e) Japanese-Axis Relations.

134. Germany and Italy Explain the Hess Flight.

German and Italian officials took every opportunity to explain to Japanese representatives the reasons for Rudolph Hess’ flight to Scotland. In Rome, Ambassador Hiroshi Oshima was received on May 13, 1941 by Foreign Minister Ciano, who represented the Hess incident as an inconsequential matter, and stressed that the whole affair would soon be forgotten even though British and American propagandists had attempted to emphasize it. At the same time, Foreign Minister Ciano stressed his belief that the Tripartite Pact was the most desirable foundation for Japanese diplomacy, and that German-Russian relations were deteriorating. [545]

On the next day, May 14, 1941, Ambassador Oshima talked with Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop who had come to Rome to discuss the Hess incident, among other things, with Premier Mussolini and Foreign Minister Ciano. At this meeting the German Foreign Minister explained to Ambassador Oshima that Herr Hess, while occupying a position of prominence in the Nazi party, had no knowledge of current political policy in Germany, and in addition was mentally and physically ill. The reason for his flight was an idealistic belief that an early peace could be attained by working upon the Fascist element of Great Britain to overthrow Prime Minister Churchill. His good intentions in this regard were not questioned by German authorities who stated that his mind was not normal. [546]

135. Japan Suspects a Move for British-German Peace.

Japanese diplomats were devoting much attention to the question of British-German peace. From another authoritative German source it was learned on May 14, 1941 that the German people were amazed and greatly affected by Hess’ flight because of his important position in



[543] II, 516.

[544] II, Ibid.

[545] II, 517.

[546] II, 518.

115

the Reich and his great friendship with Chancellor Hitler. They found the event hard to explain because if he were mentally sick, as claimed, they could not understand why he had been given so much authority, and how it was possible for him to fly a plane to his exact destination in England.

There seemed to be no logical answer, according to this German source, except to say that Herr Hess was strongly pro-British and mentally sick. Since he did not always agree with Chancellor Hitler, particularly in regard to war against England, Herr Hess might have been anxious to leave Germany. It was also known that he possessed a great dislike for Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop. [547]

Ambassador Oshima was informed that the Hess flight had dealt a tremendous blow to the Nazi party, but he was reassured that Chancellor Hitler and Marshal Goering were still of one mind, and that because of the solidarity of the German government and its people the incident would not change German foreign policy. [548]

On May 16, 1941 Tokyo received a doubtful report from the Japanese Ambassador in Rome that Herr Hess had effected a meeting with Mr. Duff Cooper, who had then consulted with Prime Minister Winston Churchill. However, despite the intentions of Herr Hess and the belief of Chancellor Hitler that the war would be over in 1941, preparations for a long war appeared to be under way as Germany completed plans for attacking Russia. Ambassador Horikiri believed that the Hess flight could be regarded as part of Germany’s grand scheme for a “peace offense” against the English. [549]

On May 18, 1941 Ambassador Oshima related other prevailing rumors regarding the Hess incident. He believed that a secret understanding might have existed between Chancellor Hitler and Herr Hess concerning a compromise between London and Berlin, especially in view of the delicate German and Russian relations and the growing possibility of the United States’ entrance into the war. [550]

Another German authority divulged that Herr Hess had probably made the flight in good faith, but that since such an act constituted insubordination, he would be shot most assuredly. [551] Nevertheless, according to the Japanese Ambassador to Rome, on June 4, 1941, Italian official circles were of the opinion that Herr Hess must have been sent to England as a result of instructions from Marshal Goering. [552]

According to a report from Vienna on June 4, 1941, Herr Hess had informed Lord Hamilton in England that Chancellor Hitler still considered Russia and the Comintern to be the real enemies of the whole world. Accordingly, the Russian Ambassador to London had remarked that if Russia yielded to German demands concerning the Near East and cooperated with the Reich, the fate of the British Empire would be most gravely threatened. It was also reported that the British government and the King were seriously considering making peace with Germany. [553]



[547] II, 519.

[548] II, 520.

[549] II, 521.

[550] II, 522-523.

[551] II, 522

[552] II, 524.

[553] II, 525.

116

THE “MAGIC” BACKGROUND OF PEARL HARBOR

136. Ambassador Oshima Analyzes Germany’s Plans.

Ambassador Oshima also informed his Foreign Minister of his own opinions on May 18, 1941. In view of Germany’s many peace offers he believed that when the aims of Mein Kampf were realized, reconciliation between England and Germany could be attained since England’s influence had been eliminated from the continent, and would eventually be destroyed in Africa. However, he also believed that because of Germany’s current hold on the continent,

(a) Germany was no longer interested merely in removing England’s political influence from the European continent;

(b) Germany must incorporate within the Axis Africa (including the Mediterranean area) and the Near East;

(c) Germany having developed to that point, will consolidate; then prepare for the great struggle of the future between Germany and the United States. [554]

Ambassador Oshima also thought that Germany was considering the taking over of the British fleet, since in bringing about reconciliation it would not be necessary for Germany voluntarily to take a backward step.

Germany expected Japan to restrain the United States in the Pacific, and to keep the American fleet out of the Atlantic. If the Japanese-American negotiations permitted the United States to send its warships into the Atlantic, Germany could still lighten its terms and achieve a peace. If the German-Russian war materialized, this would be another reason for Germany’s offering peace to England. Ambassador Oshima believed, however, that England would not submit to these terms since they would amount to nothing less than unconditional surrender. [555]

A Japanese report of June 27, 1941 declared that Herr Hess had brought a peace offer to England, based on the premise that Chancellor Hitler’s real objective was to crush Russia and stamp out Communism. [556]

137. Ambassador Oshima Rebukes Foreign Minister Matsuoka.

In answer to a query of May 15, 1941 from the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin concerning the basis for rumors of an approaching Japanese-American agreement, Mr. Matsuoka replied on May 17, 1941 that information in regard to the negotiations had not been sent to Germany because of the need for secrecy. In the United States, only the President, the Secretary of State, and one other Cabinet official were cognizant of the negotiations, and even the United States Ambassador in Japan had not been informed. Mr. Matsuoka reassured Ambassador Oshima that his silence in this affair did not imply a lack of trust in the Ambassador, and informed him that he would be advised of the entire matter when things had developed to a certain stage. [557]

Ambassador Oshima speedily dispatched several long messages to Mr. Matsuoka in which he discussed the bad effect a Japanese-American agreement might have on the Tripartite Pact. The Japanese Ambassador also expressed his wonder at Mr. Matsuoka’s apparent disinterest in obtaining reports on the official attitudes of Italy and Germany to such an agreement. [558]



[554] II, 526-527.

[555] II, 527.

[556] II, 528.

[557] II, 529.

[558] II, 530-532.

117

138. Germany Attempts to Offset Japanese-American Negotiations.

In a long and important report of May 19, 1941 Ambassador Oshima informed Mr. Matsuoka that on May 3, 1941, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop had learned of the Japanese-American negotiations from Ambassador Ott in Tokyo, and had immediately asked Ambassador Oshima to call on him. Ambassador Ott had reported the main points of the four articles of the agreement proposed to Japan by the United States on April 16, 1941, and Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop informed Ambassador Oshima of his inability to understand the motives of the Japanese government. The Japanese Ambassador insisted that Japan would do nothing inconsistent with the Tripartite Pact. [559]

On May 9, 1941 Ambassador Oshima was again called to the German Foreign Office where the Foreign Minister told him of Japan’s provisional reply to the American proposal. Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out that the Japanese had originally proposed the negotiations; Japan had become deeply involved by this time; a certain group in Japan was influential enough to force Mr. Matsuoka into the negotiations; and, furthermore, the Japanese Foreign Minister had changed his mind about attacking Singapore.

The German Foreign Minister expressed his doubts as to the sincerity of President Roosevelt, and also commented on the possibility that Japan was seeking a loophole to escape its obligation to fight in accordance with the Tripartite Pact. These negotiations, which were weakening the Tripartite Pact, might also cause Japan to lose the opportunity of gaining supremacy in East Asia. As to Japan’s course of action concerning the pending agreement, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop favored the first of two German proposals that (a) Japan should reject the United States’ proposal, or (b) Japan should consent to an agreement only on the condition that the United States would abandon its plan for convoy and patrol services, and would maintain absolute neutrality. [560]

Ambassador Oshima stated that his government would prefer the second proposal since this would make Britain fight Germany single-handedly and, thus, would hasten the end of the war. He also hoped that President Roosevelt might seize the opportunity to stop giving aid to Great Britain because this policy had proved to be ineffective. Ambassador Oshima realized that this was a remote possibility, but felt that in any event the second proposal would test President Roosevelt’s sincerity in regard to aid to England, and at the same time it would convince certain Japanese of the impossibility of Japanese-American cooperation.Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Herr von Ribbentrop disagreed with the Japanese Ambassador by pointing out that the negotiations gave the United States an opportunity to draw Japan away from Germany, and also might be used to silence American groups advocating peace since a Japanese-American understanding would give the United States a free hand in the Atlantic. However, the German Foreign Minister promised to send Ambassador Oshima’s opinion, together with the two proposals, to Chancellor Hitler, who was living outside of Berlin at that time. As soon as Chancellor Hitler approved the plans, Germany would take up direct negotiations with Italy concerning the Japanese-American negotiations. [561].  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

budget 5.bud.111 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

January 10, 2009

Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire .  State and federal governments spent $1.4 billion on programs in 2004 to conserve 1,260 of the nation’s threatened and endangered species. One-third of those funds went to protecting fish, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analysis, released last month. http://www.soulcast.com/Louis3J3Sheehan

The 219-page report states that nearly $800 million went for programs to conserve individual species. Nine of the top 10 expenditures—or $273.8 million—went for fish, including four Chinook salmon populations and two steelhead trout communities. Other animals in the top 10 species-by-species expenditures were the Steller sea lion, coho salmon, bull trout, sockeye salmon, red-cockaded woodpecker, pallid sturgeon, chum salmon, and right whale.

At $474.8 million, fish expenditures were roughly four times as great as the amount spent to protect birds or mammals and many more times as large as the amount spent for groups such as flowering species, insects, and the nation’s vanishing amphibians. http://www.soulcast.com/Louis3J3Sheehan

Almost $560 million went for support services, such as law enforcement and coordination of conservation programs. Another $60 million paid for new land acquisitions critical to preserving the habitat of endangered species.

exhibited 5.exh.000300 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

January 5, 2009

Serious psychiatric disorders now plague many of the more than 100,000 people who in the past decade have fled government persecution in the Asian nation of Bhutan. Refugees who had been tortured have fared particularly poorly, according to a new study of this displaced population.

The only previous mental-health investigation among non-Western refugees, published in 1993, found high levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among Cambodians who fled to Thailand.

The Bhutanese refugees, who fled to camps in neighboring Nepal, did no better overall. In the May Archives of General Psychiatry, Mark Van Ommeren of the Center for Victims of Torture in Kathmandu, Nepal, and his colleagues report a survey of 418 tortured and 392 nontortured Bhutanese refugees, ages 21 to 85. Trained interviewers probed for psychiatric symptoms, and physicians conducted medical exams.

Five of every six refugees who survived torture in Bhutan reported having mental ailments at some time, in most cases after becoming refugees. Most of them cited at least one disorder in the year before the 1997 survey.

Nearly half of the nontortured refugees had suffered from a mental disorder, usually after leaving Nepal.

�The results indicate the need for increased attention to the mental health of refugees,� Van Ommeren remarks. This is a massive problem, he adds. The United Nations tallied more than 12 million refugees worldwide last year.

The Cambodian and Bhutanese data indicate that stress responses vary from one region to another, Van Ommeren proposes. For instance, tortured Bhutanese refugees exhibited particularly high rates of several psychiatric disorders. Only one of these, PTSD, commonly affected the Cambodian refugees. It consists of symptoms that result from intense fear, helplessness, and physiological arousal after extreme traumas.

Tortured Bhutanese refugees also reported high rates of persistent physical pain with no apparent medical cause, as well as certain dissociative disorders. The latter conditions include amnesia about personal history and trances with wild bodily contortions.

Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire .  Overall, Bhutanese refugees exhibited less depression and anxiety than do Cambodian refugees and Western survivors of rape and other traumas.

Although a larger proportion of men than women had been tortured, women reported higher rates of all the psychiatric disorders than men did.http://Louis-J-Sheehan.biz

The new study could help counter international health organizations� longstanding resistance to confronting refugees� mental-health problems, comments psychiatrist Joseph J. Westermeyer of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis. These organizations have worried that a focus on psychological ills would stigmatize refugee groups and discourage host countries from letting them in, says Westermeyer, who treats refugees living in the Minneapolis area.

�The tide now seems to be turning in favor of addressing mental-health issues among refugees,� he notes.http://Louis-J-Sheehan.biz

Effective treatment hinges on whether refugees remain in crowded, dangerous camps or relocate to safe locales, Westermeyer contends. Symptoms of PTSD, depression, and dissociation often help people cope with the hazards of their lives as refugees. http://Louis-J-Sheehan.biz   After leaving those hazards behind, however, these coping mechanisms become liabilities that often require treatment.Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire