MEDWEST SENTIMENT IN THE MANCHURIAN CRESIS OF 593% -32 JOHN N100LA$ JOZSA. JR. This is to certify that the thesis entitled MIDWEST serlfier IN THE Y1§CHURIAN F‘TCT CRISIS OF 1931-32 presented by John Ficolas Jessa, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master magma mm 921% M Major prhfessor 7“ ~ I ")Y' “\‘r‘ fi hf, Date 45C L1 )5an 1‘, l ‘ 1 Q-169 MIDWEST SENTMNT IN THE MANCHURIAN CRISIS 0F 1951-32 By John Nicolas Jozsa, Jr. .A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of History 1951 .5 "'HESLB ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my deep gratitude to Professor Madison Kuhn for his guidance in the writing of this thesis, and to the other members of the Department of History for their encouragement and advice. I would also like to acknowledge the encouragement and inspiration offered by my devoted wife for the many hours she ‘spent in typing this thesis. John N. Jossa 268384 TABIE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNO‘MEDGWENTooooooooo.ooooooooe FORWARD e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. Conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. Co-operation With The League . . . . . . . . 12 IV. The Interim.Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 V. The Chamberlain Incident . . . . . . . . . . 27 VI. Hoover Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition . 50 VII. The Shanghai Incident . . . . . . . . . . . 55 VIII. The Questions Of An Economic Boycott . . . . L5 IX. Stimson's Letter Tb Borah . . . . . . . . . 51 X. Manchukuoan Recognition . . . . . . . . . . 55 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6h CALENDAR OF EVENTS 1931-33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 FORWARD The United States owed much of the material progress and well being of its first hundred and twenty-five years to a traditional policy of isolation which allowed the country to grow in stature, wisdom.and wealth. The coming of the twentieth century with its new facilities for communication and transportation plus the rapid in- dustrialization with its need for raw'materials and markets inextri- cably tied all nations tOgether. The world, now at our doorstep, created a major problem in American foreign relations; the American peOple, long isolationist, were now faced from time to time with the problem of deciding what should be done when little wars begin in re- mote parts of the world. The American people tried hard to remain out of the conflict started at Sarajevo in l91h.but 1918 saw our forces fighting on EuroPean soil. The Manchurian Crisis of l95l can be said to have been America's first point of decision since the de- feat of the League of Nations in the early 1920's. Many people in- cluding, Henry L. Stimson, our Secretary of State at the time, believed that if the United States had acted differently in the early 30's toward Japan's aggressive action in Asia, Pearl Harbor and World War II could have been averted. These same people also claimed that the failure of the United States to act in restraining the Japanese was due to the strong isolationist sentiment present in the country. The midwestern part of our nation, and particularly the Great Lakes region, has been labeled the "heart of isolationimn," and I believed that research, on a critical international situation along the lines of public Opinion, would not only show to what degree isolationist sentiment was present in the Great Lakes area but also as to what influence it had on our foreign policy. The Great Lakes area is a decisive part of the Midwest because it repre- sents the thickly populated section of the area and also has within it heterOgeneous economic groups, such as industrial, dairying, agri- cultural, commercial, mining and Oil. I carried on my study in the area newspapers not only because of the scarcity of personal correspondence and documents and the availability of newspapers, but because they are the most useful barometer of public Opinion in the period. The press, despite the growth of the radio, was still the major organ for the dissemination of news in 1951 and consequently an important agent in the formulation of public Opinion. The man on the street relied on the newSpapers for much of the information which he used to arrive at an Opinion. Furthermore, newspapers do represent the views of some of the peOple in the area. The owner who makes the policy and the editor who writes it come into contact with business men, social groups, the farmer and the man on the street. The paper feels the pulse of the region and expresses the ideas of many through the pens of a few. The newspapers are also important in a study of public opinion because they do influence many other writers, such as the people who write to the editor, well known personages who express themselves on the stand taken by the paper and editors of smaller and lesser known papers who obtain many of their ideas from the larger newspapers. I ran across many instances of the latter in my study where certain argwments and even identical phrases appeared in many small town newspapers after the original editorial had appeared in a much larger paper. 5 The administration in Washington likewise recognized the power of the press not only to reflect public opinion but also to mould it. The published works of Henry L. Stimson, and the State Papers of Herbert Hoover give evidence of this. The Manchurian Crisis contained quite a few instances where the administration in Washington was forced to revise or modify foreign policy because of danger signs from the press. The following questions provided a guide for my research: 1. Was the press opinion of the Midwest such as to en- courage vigorous action against Japan for her actions in Manchuria? 2. Were the makers of our foreign policy conscious of public Opinion on the Manchurian Crisis and did it influence our foreign policy? 3. How did the response of the Great Lakes press compare with other sections of the United States? My research was carried on at the Michigan State Library at Lansing; the Indiana State Library at Indianapolis; the University of Hichigan Library at Ann Arbor; the Detroit Public Library; the Alma College Library at Alma, Michigan and the Michigan State College Library at East Lansing. The twenty or more newspapers used represent a rather adequate sampling of how the Great Lakes newspapers felt concerning the Crisis. My research showed that the area newspapers, except for minor exceptions, did respond actively and for the most part did maintain an isolationist stand during the Crisis, and also that public opinion did influence our foreign policy in the Manclmrian Crisis. I did find a response in other parts of the country but it appears that the Great Lakes press took a more active interest because of their stand for isolation. h. The response of the press was rather meager in the initial stages but it increased as Japan proceeded with her actions in lanchuria de- spite the censures of the League, the United States and world public opinion, and reached its heights during the Shanghai ”incident”. My thesis will trace this response and point out the arguments utilised for or against isolation. John H. Jessa CHAPTER I Background ”Storm center of Far Eastern diplomacy, politics and finance...Manchuria has become to the watchers on the fire towers of the Far East what Constantinople was to Eur0pe for half a century, and for much the same rea- son. It is a great Opportunity, geographically placed, where three nations meet and such an oyster has seldom been Opened without war." (1) New York Times Editorial The time was 10:30 p.m., September 18, 1931. The place was a section of railroad track at the small village of Luitaiokou Just outside Mukden, Hanchuria. The action consisted of a muffled ex- plosion that chewed up a few feet of track belonging to the South Manchurian Railway. The result was an undeclared war between Japan and China but what has been referred to by the western world as the Manchurian Crisis. It was a crisis in that the action taken by Japan as a result of the explosion eventually created a diplomatic crisis that had world wide implications and repercussions. The civilised world would not have become unduly concerned over Japan's Operations in Manchnria if Japan had confined herself to more police action in the area, but the continued conduct of the Japanese military in Manchuria, their defiance of world Opinion and the ul- timate conquest of the region in violation of recent treaties shocked the peace-loving nations of the world. Japanese military action in September of 1931, by which she aggressively occupied Hanchuria, was apparently a military coup carried out without the sanction of the Government. The action was but the culmination of a set of historical events and circumstances which determined the one course open to the military group of Japan, 1 New York Times, July 7, 1929, Part III, p. 6 6 that of taking over political, military and economic control of Man- churia. Thus, if Japan could take over Manchuria she could dispense wdth China's clahm to sovereignty, solidify the Japanese position as a bulwark against possible Russian expansion and at the same tdme guarantee her power in Korea and furnish adequate protection to her interests in Manchuria. Japan had varied reasons for considering that she had the right to act in the region. Her immediate interests in the area consisted of investments valued at more than a billion dollars. In addition to her economic investments, Japan also believed it was her duty to leak out for the well being of Korean immigrants that she had en- couraged to settle in the area after the Sino-Japanese war of 189h. The Japanese claimed legal rights obtained in 1895 as a result of the Sine-Jap war of 189h. These rights were short-lived as a EurOpean political consortium.persuaded Japan to give up her gains in Manchuria. Japan eventually regained these concessions in the Treaty of Portsmouth after her war with Russia. The Japanese action in 1951 was also aimed at forestalling the Chinese Nationalists ‘with their strong determination to end if possible foreign domdna- tion of portions of Chinese territory. The Chinese desired to end economic control as well as political control and had built railroad lines that would compete with the Japanese owned South Manchurian Railway, and in addition had begun the construction of a railway terminal and an improved deep water dock at fiulutao to compete with the Japanese ports of Dairen and Port Arthur. Though Japan had acted primarily because of Chinese influence in Manchuria, the threat of Russia was also a contributing factor in the course that 7 Japan followed in Manchuria. China had attempted unsuccessfully in 1929 to force Russia out of her position in the Chinese Easteranail- way. This presence of a powerful EurOpean nation so precariously close to her own interests in Asia was a great influencing factor on Jhpan's decisions following the railroad explosion at.Mukden. Japan believed that she must act to forestall any move that the Russian 'bear' might make in the future. The.military group, always a powerful factor in the government of Japan, had always advocated a strong, "positive” policy toward Manchuria‘while the opposing conservative group had always been content to carry on a.moderate program. The military had been stirred up in 1951 by the Nakamura affair, in which a Captain Nakamura and three companions had disappeared in western Manchuria. The Japanese claimed that Nakamura and his companions had been arrested, shot and cremated by Chinese soldiers. The militarists in Japan seised upon this incident and clamored for reprisals and even inferred that the military would be forced to take things into its own hands if the government failed to take appropriate action. ‘While the foreign office sought a diplomatic solution, the military sought a military settlement. It is very obvious that the explosion of a section of track near Mukden was not the cause but only the event seised by the military of Japan in 1931 to conquer Manchuria and to bring about what has been labeled by the world as the "Manchurian Crisis". CHAPTER II Conciliation "The difficulties between China and Japan have given us great concern, not alone for the maintenance of the spirit of the Kellogg Briand Pact, but for the maintenance of the spirit of the treaties to which we are a party as- suring the territorial integrity of China. It is our pur- pose to assist in finding sglutions sustaining the full spirit of those treaties.” Herbert Hoover The United States Department of State and the Great Lakes press both viewed the actions of Japan in Manchuria with alarm. Both tended to maintain a conciliatory attitude. Secretary Stimson called Japan's attention to its sacred obligations under the Kellogg- Briand Peace Pact but refrained from.more vigorous action because he believed that the conquest of Manchuria had been carried out by the military groups in the government of Japan, contrary to the known and expressed wishes of the liberals led by Baron Shidehara. Our Secretary of State held that: The evidence in our hands pointed to the wisdom.of giving Shidehara and the Foreign Office an Opportunity, free from anything approaching a threat or even public criticism, to get control of the situation. This must be done with- out any surrender of American treaty rights or any ap- proval of the use of force. My problem is to let the Japanese know that we are watching them and at the same time to do it in a way which will help Shidehara who is on the right side and not play into the hands of any nationalist agitators. 3 Whereas Stimson's conciliatory policy was based on giving the Japanese liberals an Opportunity to bring the situation under control the Midwest press approved conciliation but their reasoning was 2William Starr Myers, The State Papers and Other Writingg of Herbert Hoover (Garden City, New York, oubleday Doran and Co., Ihc., I935] s P0 3 Henry L. Stimson, 93 Active Service in Peace And War (New York, Harper c Bros., 19h7), p. 225 9 isolationist in its approach. For example, the Grand Rapids £132 presented a rather timid front when it went so far as to take the Chinese to task for their dependence on our traditional concern, in seeking help from the United States and that in this instance the Chinese were assuming wrongly if they thought we would play "big brother again: they must negotiate or accept dismemberment. They shouldn't count on foreign intervention this time." )4 The Detroit mm, after the first series of notes, did not be- lieve that it was our duty to concern ourselves with what was tran- spiring in remote corners of the world and that Americans ”are under no obligation to pull China‘s chestnuts out of the fire. The State Depariment," it continued, ”seems to have well nigh exhausted it's friendly offices. There it should step, otherwise it will risk putting this country in the position of having its bluff called." 5 his Lansing .8212 Journal, in a similar view, took objection to the conciliatory actions of our country. It held: that, ”if the world powers would mind their own business, the end intended by fate for Hanchuria will doubtless be better served...neighbors should keep their advice to themselves." 6 Other newspapers argued that Man- churia was a long way off and whatever occurred there should not concern us or our government: the South Bend M’l’i‘lflf. stated that ”the ordinary American (as a result of the distance, strange names, hard to pronounce and still harder to remember) is beginning to get tired of hearing about it all, and is wondering why he or his 14- Sept. 214.. 1931, p. 6 5 Oct. 13, 1951, p. 6 6 Oct. 11;, 1931, p. 6 10 government should worry about it.” 7 lbs Chicago 'h‘ibune was a little more down to earth in its comments than the previously mentioned dailies. It held, for instance, that the Manchurian trouble would be worked out by the usual diplomatic relations but that this should be a stern warn- ing to the United States not to place her safety in treaties but in ‘ military and financial strength.8 he moderation of editorial Opinion may be partially explained by the Stunn-inspired moderation in Washington correspondence. Stimcon, following a policy of conciliation in order to encourage the Japanese liberal element, asked Washington correspondents to exercise patience and self-control in their publication of the war news from the Orient. Thereby, Stimson haped to carry on his dealings with the moderate Japanese Government group led by Baron Shidehara without interference from an emotionally upset public. The Secretary writing in retrospect, said the correspondents ”had as a whole kept the press from becoming inflamed and had endeavored to protect me from having my elbow Joggled during the ticklish times through which we were paeeing.‘I 9 Some of the newspapers possibly contributed to the growth of iso- lationist sentiment in their attempt to acquaint their readers with the background of the Manchurian Crisis with educative and informative editorials. These informational pieces, like one in the Detroit {‘12: £23.... for instance entitled ”The Manchurian Melee ," gave the back- ground of the trouble but, after reading about the complicated and involved issues behind the Crisis, the average reader was very apt to throw up his hands and cry out that, ”east is east and west is 7 Oct. 22, 1931, p. 6 ' 8 Sept. 23, 1931, p. 12 9 Henry L. Stimson, The Far Eastern Crisis, p. 72 11 west and never the twain shall meet," or easier still, reaffirm his pledge for Imerica's traditional isolation. 10 he papers in the area curiously failed to criticise Stimson's conciliatory policy as such, which leads one to believe that in general they approved it, but in not criticising it the press let the adminie‘lration know that more vigorous action would have lost the support of the Midwest. 10 me "Manchurian Melee” editorial of Sept. 21, 1931, p. 6 told how Japan had been squeezed out of Manchuria in 1895 and her actions in the area since that time. 12 CHAPTER III Cooperation With The League "You are authorised to participate in the discus— sions of the Council when they relate to the possible application of the Kellogg Briand Pact, to which the United States is a party. You are expected to report the result of such discussions to the Departnent for its determination as to possible action. If you are present at the discussion of any other aspect of the Chinese-Japanese disputi1 it met be only as an observer and auditor. Sec. of State Stimson's Instructions to Prentiss Gilbert The first phase of the Crisis was a period of conciliation by both the League of Nations and the United States, both parties work- ing individually and independently of each other. The second phase from October 13 to October 214 was similar in that both these agents were attempting conciliation, but now they were working together. The Japanese Government had been defiantly ignoring the Western powers, and Secretary Stimson, worried over Japan's stiffening attitude felt that the time was ripe for reminding the two powers of their obligations under the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. He let the League Secretary-General, Mr. Eric Drummond, know that if the Council sought to discuss the invoking of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United States consul at Geneva, Prentiss Gilbert would Join, if invited, in the discussion of anything relative to the afore- mentioned pact. The League accepted Stineon'e suggestion and opened discussions on the possibility of invoking the Peace Pact, with a representation of the United States in attendance. The decision of Secretary Sunson to work with the League was generally applauded by the papers of the area who saw in the State 11 Russell M. COOpcr, Arnerican Consultation _i__n W_3___rld Affairs (New York, HacMillan C... 19310 p. 211 """"“" 15 Departments action a wise move. The Gary Post Tribune lashed out at the newspapers that were preaching isolation using the anti-League argument and in retaliation brought up the argument that the United States had acted before to settle such disputes and that co-cperation was not a new thing. The Gary paper, which opposed war but with interventionist leanings, didn't believe that our country favored war in spite of all the noise of the anti-Leaguers, that they were putting more of their strength into kicking the League than stop- ping the war. The paper then went on to defend its views: Yet it has always been the practice of our government to use its influence to prevent war and to settle war... We have always interfered just as all other governments have interfered but heretofore we have interfered alone. We have done what we could but it was not much because the moral force of one nation against war between China and Japan is very great. Indeed, it is so great that Japan has done fiverything it could to prevent that joint action. 1 Other papers in the area believed that world peace would be best served by the continued presence at the League of our consul from Geneva. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a Democratic paper, held that the presence of our representative at those discussions would "be accepted as a symbol of this country's growing inclination to take its place among the powers pledged to peace. The old pretense of aloofness is worn threadbare by its contact with the realities of a world distraught.” 1'3 The Fort Wayne Journal also took the stand that Stimson's action was for peace only. It also took issue with the 'irreconcialables" and ”bitter enders' who held that we should remain aloof from the business of settling the trouble between Japan and China. The Fort Wayne paper believed that the prevention of 12 Oct. 17, 1951, p. 6 13 Oct. 17, 1931, p. 12 1h war ought not be shocking to anybody's spirit of isolationism.and that our presence at Geneva was all right that "we take no hazard, incur no risk, stake nothing to lose by lending our unofficial but sympathetic and helpful endeavors to the efforts of the League in averting a conflict that will be shocking to every humane sense of all mankind.” lh’ A Detroit weekly was glad that "instead of pur- suing a course of independent intervention as it had done frequently, the United States is co-0perating with the League." 15 The Indianapolis Egzzpwas in agreement with the administration's stand of having a repre- sentative at the League during the period and that there was no reason as far as it could see why our government "as a nondmember of the organization should not cooPerate with the League of Nations when they are traveling toward the same objective." 16 The.Minneapolis Journal also was in complete accord with League co-Operation believe ing that it was fair notice that "the peace of the Orient is a world concern and not a matter to be settled by Japan and China alone." 17 It was obvious that the newspapers which applauded the presence of our representative at the League Council table appeared to base their stand on a desire for peace, while the papers that did not approve of cooperation with the League saw only trouble in our dealings with the international organization. The Chicago Herald and Examiner, a Hearst paper, attacked the co-operation with the following parody on 11‘“Oct. 19, 1951, p.1h 15 Detroit Saturday Eitg, Oct. 17, 1931, p. 2 16 Oct. 13, 1931, p. 6 17 Oct. 16, 1931, p. 18 15 one of our well known children rhymes: There was an old lady who never stayed home, A kindly old soul who delighted to roam Advising the neighbors in all their affairs And lecturing them on their troubles and cares At home there were children who clamored for bread And cried for a mother to tuck them in bed But she was so busy she left them alone And never had time to take care of her own. Moral When statesmen assume foreign troubles and caigs They haven't much time for domestic affairs. Many newspapers had argued against the United States joining the League of Nations ever since Wilson's ”brain child' had come into being. These same papers now used as their argument the fact that the American people had already expressed their apposition to our participation in the League and therefore, 'Sthson's Folly", the name they had tabbed on Secretary Stimson's new action, is "unfair to American citizens and entirely uncalled for, that it is directly contrary to the wishes of the American voters, overwhelmingly ex- pressed at the polls repeatedly...Without any mandate from the American peOple, in fact against their registered wishes he has notified the League." 19 The Chicago Tribune also utilised the anti-League argumentin a sarcastically worded editorial "Mr. Stimson Joins the League” in which the paper stated that *Uncle Sam at last has decided without any authority from home to take a seat in the Council when it is more than ordinarily discrediting all its pretentious." 20 The Chicago m 95.9. Examiner considered the presence of our country in League deliberations I'an affront to the American electorate which has no precedent...TheKAmerican people cry halt on this betrayal." 21 This same paper, on the day 13 Oct. 22, 1931, p. 8 ' 19 Chicago Herald 5 Examiner Oct. 11., 1931, p. 8 o OOte 13, 1951, P. 12 21 Oct. 16, 1931, p. s . . . _ . . I I I I , . .. . i . . I r h , nee . p . . . . A .. o - . . __ - \ Iv ' .l \ ‘ . i I I ‘ . j , , e g ‘ _ . . 16 following the previous quotation, compared our participation to a person being most cordially welcomed and given a ringside seat at a boxing match not to be a spectator but in reality to act in the squared circle as referee. The article went on to advise that: If they (the silk hatted gentlemen in Geneva) can get him into a front seat, he may have to take a hand to save his own skin. The innocent spectator enters at his own risk. Can nobody persuade Uncle Sam that he can eg the fight well enough from where he is stand- ing? The Lansing State Journal also took issue with our presence at Geneva and spoke of it as ”Sam's voice on a watch chain” because ”out of the League we are a powerful and respected. In the League we would be merely a member of a society. Can Uncle Sam afford to trade his voice for a new charm on his watch chain?" 25 About this time, while the papers were arguing. the merits of our cooperation with the League, disorders occurred in parts of the United States between American representatives of Japan and China. The Detroit £12m seised this opportunity to give a bit of ad- vice to the Japanese and Chinese in our country and also to express its views regarding our lack of interest on the explosive happenings in the Far East; ”Chinese and Japanese are free to displaytheir dislike for each other as long as they do not disturb the peace or make this country a base for hostile activities...The row in Man- churia is not our row and we do not want it brought to our shores.‘ 21" The shift of a paper in its views during the League .co-operation phase is interestingly portrayed by the Detroit m m, though 22 Oct. 17, 1931, p. 8 25 Oct. 15, 1931, p. 1. 2'4 Oct. 17, 1931, p. 6 17 the Detroit paper was by no means the only paper to do so. The 153.12.13.22 on October 15 believed that by recognizing the juris- diction of the League, which we did by joining in the discussion, we would not or were less liable to elbow our way into the siti- ation alone. 25 The paper was all too willing to have our represent- ative at Geneva if it meant only discussion. However, by November the League was considering sanctions and possibly even intervention. The last possibility shocked the £13; 1332 into a drastic change of policy. It then came out against co-operation and believed that we could do more for the cause of world peace 'as an independent laborer in the vineyard of peace in Asia, the United States can plow a lone furrow undaunted by the recollection of past aggres- sions and undiverted by present political ambitions that it doesn't share.” 26 This same paper in November viciously attacked the pres- - once of our observer at Geneva while discussions were being carried on regarding Hanchuria. The Detroit paper unequivocally stated that United States troops were in China solely for protecting American lives and property and "they cannot be commandeered by the League of Nations. Others can send troops, the United States is under no obligation to do so." 27 The cocoperation of the United States with the League while it did secure support from some papers resulted in such vehement at- tacks frcai others using the anti-League argument that Prentiss Gilbert, our representative at the League, had to be recalled. 25 Oct. 15, 1931, p. 6 26 Nov. 25, 1931, p. 6 27 Nov. 11, 1931, p. 6 18 W. Stimon expressed his fears in a trans-atlantic telephone call with Lord Reading, British representative on the League Council, that if Gilbert did not withdraw, the anti-League press in America would inflame public cpinion further, inciting alarm on the thought that we were going further than was warranted by our treaties. 28 Thus the midwest press with its anti-league arguments could be said to have aided in part in the formulation of foreign policy. 28 Based on material presented by Paul H. Clyde in "The D1Plumsey of Playing No Favorites: Secretary Stimson and Manchuria", W Valley Historical Review, Vol. XXV, sept. 19148, p. 197. 19 CHAPTER IV The Interim Period - Nov. 1, 1951 - Jan. 1, 1952 I'Vlith the repeated acts of defiance of world opinion on the part of the Japanese army and the failure of the Japanese Government to make good its assurances, pOpular criticism throughout the country had been rising. Through the press the growth of this American feeling became very manifest here at the Department. It was clear that the American people were following the proceedings both here and at Geneva with great interest. It was also clear that they were growing pussled and angry at the silence of their own government in the face of the defiant at- titide of the Japanese Army." 29 Secretary Stineon The November and December period of the Manchurian Crisis in 1951 was relatively quiet, but nevertheless an important one when viewed in the light of future events. The time between our with- drawal from the League discussions and the promulgation of the doctrine of non-recognition in January saw Japan proceed unabated with her program of conquest in Manchuria while popular criticism in the United States grew over the Crisis. These two months were important in that the Great Lakes press was forced by rising public opinion to express itself on such issues as: rcarmament, the boycott, and the perennial question of isolation. This sixty day period also saw the mid-west press accept the failure of the League, justify the action of Japan in the light of our own history and even ration- alise that China was as much to blame as Japan for the trouble in the Orient. The last two months of 1951, therefore, saw the Great Lakes press lay the groundwork for issues which reach maturity later in th. Crisis. The question of a boycott, though not a major issue in the United States until the Shanghai incident, had its beginnings in 29 Stimson, Far Eastern Crisis, p. 92-3 20 this period. The league of Nations found itself faced with the ticklish problem of considering economic sanctions against Japan. The Great Lakes press generally opposed the use of a boycott, especially if the United States were involved. Some papers be- lieved that President Hoover should invoke a boycott against the aggressor nation, Japan. The Detroit News was one of the papers to favor an American boycott and viewed it as ”the one effective weapon." The papers in opposition to the use of the boycott opposed it on the ground that it would lead us into war, and injure us commercially and industrially. The Chicago M g Examiner took the stand that our cooperation with the League was bad enough "but the fatuity of our diplomacy cannot carry us to the extreme folly of participating in the League boycott of Japan's commerce." 31 The Minneapolis Journal believed that the big drawback was that "the boycotter stands to suffer like the boycotted.” 32 Isolationist sentiment was obviously strong in the Great Lakes area during this period. The Chicago M and Examiner asked all peace—loving people to write to Congress if war should come to the United States over the Far Eastern trouble because "anybody that tried to start Americans marching to war will have his lands full and fail.” 33 This same paper reminded its readers that the Hearst papers had repeatedly warned the country that all that the impov- erished nations overseas want of us is our money, the United States 30 Quoted in the Literary m, Dec. 5, 1951, p. 5 31 nov. 11, 1931, p. a A 32 not. 20, 1931 33 Nov. 1, 1931, Part III, p. 1 5O 21 to pull their chestnuts out of the fire; and "Hanohurie is aflmme, the whole Far East smolders, Sam will be wise if he minds his own business and stays out." 31‘ The Detroit £31 £111: also maintained that our country desired isolation. It did not consider that our State Department was expressing the wishes of the people in its notes and "whatever officialdom and a few specially interested per- some may say, the people of the United States as a whole do not care three straws what Japan does or doesn't do in Asia as long as it doesn't drag us into the mess.“ 35 The Minneapolis Journal made a study of the Armistice Day addresses delivered by speakers in various parts of the country and the paper told its readers that the speeches showed unanimity for peace, I'for peace at almost any price short of abject surrender to some foeman bent on America's dosh-ec- tion or degradation." 36 The same paper also took the occasion now to indulge in a little anti-League argument, that "pulling League chestnuts out of the fire-- saving face for the League instead of for the Orientals who put most faith in face-saving-- is no job for Uncle Sam.“ 37 The Great Lakes press, however, was not unanimously isolationist at this time. The Cleveland £1113 M seemed to be in doubt as to where it stood but asked a very pertinent question nevertheless: ”Generally speaking a policy which keeps the United States out of trouble is acceptable to the American citizenry. But what are we going to do if trouble becomes inescapable? It is tine to know.” 58 5h Nov. 18, 1931, p. 8 ' ' 55 Dec. 21, 1951, p. 6 36 Nov. 12, 1931, p. 20 37 Nov. 211, 1951, p. 18 38 Nov. 10, 1931, p. s 22 This same paper had arrived at an evaluation of Japan by November 25, 1951. It spoke of the Japanese as being so grimly determined that ”They have even risked war with Russia by invading the Russian zone and taking Tsitsihar. Men who are thus desperately reckless and who have defied with equal arrOgance their own government, the opinion of the world, and the power of Soviet Russia are manifestly beyond the reach of reason." 39 This Ohio paper, a Democratic paper, was consistently more internationalist than most papers. While some papers expressed a touch of indecision on the question of isolation the South Bend M’M did not. It believed that ”nations cannot wholly isolate themselves. Civilization with its resultant inventions and improvements has made that impossible. Only through understanding can this world be made safe for itself." [*0 This Indiana paper also criticized a speech by former ambassador to Germany, Gerard, who advocated that the United States maintain an army of 500,000 men, an adequate navy plus a resolution to sit tight and mind our own business. The Eggs-Mg agreed that this formula was easy to understand but the trouble came when one tried to define what was our business. The paper held that ”it has be- come more and more evident in recent years that the nation cannot shut its eyes to events in Europe and Asia. Whether it likes it or not, the United States has a very direct concern in international affairs. Banker and exporter to half the world - how is the old gentleman going to ignore the doings of his neighbors?” ’41 39 Nov. 23, 1931, p. 10 5 1+0 Nov. 20, 1951, p. 6 141 Nov. 19, 1951, p. 6 23 Though most of the papers were pro-Chinese at this stage of the Crisis, there were some , who, though they might not have been pro- Japanese, did rationalise and place some of the blame for the trouble on the Chinese nation. ’42 The Minneapolis Journal attacked China because it had sought to renounce treaty obligations such as extra- territoriality. The Minneapolis paper held that "in this particular (the renunciation of extra-territoriality) the issue between Japan and China is an issue of other governments as well. We may not like Japan's militarism but neither can we countenance China's sabotage of treaties." ’43 The Lansing M Journal took the stand that China's incompetency to manage Manchuria properly warranted Japanese occupation and seizure and that Japan's actions in Manchuria were justified because "international relations abhor a vacuum as much as nature. If China cannot serve as promised in Manchuria, then Japan must." “4' The Detroit £533 £1115 had on December Li, 1951 also gone along with the argument that order in Hanchuria was the most important thing and Japan would be in a mesh better position to bring this order about. The paper rationalised that Japan did have valuable interests in Menclmria and that the Chinese were un- able to suppress the hordes of bandits in the area and as long as Japan already had the right by treaty to police the South Manchurian Railway it was much better for her to maintain order in the region. has editorial even brought in a touch of humanitarianism when it remarked that "Japan has taken up the yellow man's burden, whatever we may think of Japan's procedure, abstractly we must admit that 12 Nov. 28, 1931, p. 8 1‘5 Nov. 27, 1931, p. 12 “4 Nov. 15, 1951, p. 6 2h concretely, if the United States were forced into a similar situation we should do much the same thing in our hemisphere.” b5 Another curious thing occurred during this period. Certain papers even went so far as to justify the action of Japan in the light of our own country's history and compared the actions of our early settlers with the Indians to the actions of Japan in.Nanchuria. The Lansing S3223 Journal contended that Japan was actuated in‘ Manchuria: In about the same way the people of the United States have been actuated in putting down Indian uprisings. That is to say, we have so desired peace that we were willing to fight for it. The Japanese desire and must have stability in Manchuria...When the American people came into America and drove the Indians before them, the whites were invaders. Invaders also are aggressors. In these days, the aggressor in any6 conflict, comes in for seemingly bad standing. The Detroit News raised the question of what would happen if Manchuria revolted from China at a future date, and embarked on a course simi- lar to that of Texas in 1856: Fbr suppose a few-months or years hence, Manchuria revolts from.China, sets up a government which Japan chooses to recognize, insists on self-determination -- and then annexes itself to Japan. It is merely a repetition of the story of Texas. What would any other nation or combination of nations have to say about that? h7 Even though the protests and attempts by the League of Nations to end the trouble had apparently failed, newspapers in the Midwest area were, nevertheless, divided in their esthmation of the worth and work of the League. The Evansville Courier referred to the Tmiserable failure of the League of Nations to act in the 145 p, 6 “'6 DOOe 17, 1951, Po 6 I 1*7 Nov. 30, 1931, p. 16 25 Manchurian Crisis." LB The Detroit 2:22_§:ggg told its readers in December of 1951 that the League had been rebuffed again and pro- ceeded to sarcastically speak of the body as having "no power or cohesiveness, or economic sanctions or boycott...All the League's horses and all the League's men cannot put China together again." LS While some papers were ridiculing the League because of its actions on the Crisis there were papers which gave credit to the League. The Detroit Saturday Elite, a weekly, for instance, held that the situation in the Far East was not really a fair test for the League and the paper proceeded to justify its stand by using the words of Great Britain's great wartime minister, Lord Grey, who had pointed out that the League could function ”only among nations each of which is master in its own house. China is ob- viously not that." 50 The St. Paul Pioneer £2333_similarly ap- plauded the Geneva body for its work in the Manchurian Crisis and believed that the ”outcome can only be regarded as an impressive victory for the League of Nations.” 51 Secretary'Stimson in writing of this stage of the Crisis points out that President Herbert Hoover was a profoundly peaceable man who, while outraged by Japanese aggression was opposed in every fiber of his being, to any action which.night lead to American participation in the struggle of the Far East. In this view, ’45 Dec. 11, 1951, p. 10 “9 Dec. 31, 1951, p. 6 5° Dec. 5, 1951, p. 1 51 Quoted in Literary Digest Dec. 26, 1951, p. 6 26 writes Stimson, "he had the support of the American people." 52 An analysis of the Great Lakes press indicates that many papers thought Stimson wes too vigorous and few or none demanded he take a deter- mined stand at this time. Thus, it appears that Stimson was taking the most vigorous action permitted by press opinion. CHAPTER V The Chamberlain Incident "knericanism Making abject apology when an officer's speech offends Mussolini; asking no compensation when Jap soldiers scar an Amsrican consul for life." 55 Detroit Free Press The next phase of the Manchurian Crisis, was the "Chamberlain incident." Early in January of 1932, three Japanese soldiers beat up an herican consul in Hukden, Manchuria. Culver B. Chamberlain, our consul involved, suffered abrasions on his forehead, and his nose plus a badly bruised face from the fists of three Japanese soldiers. The car, a Mukden consulate auto that Chamberlain had been riding in, had displayed an American flag in addition to a coat of arms. In many other periods of our national history, such brasen treatment of an American official would have meant drastic action by the government and vicious condemnation by the press. Our government in this case did send diplomatic notes of protest but the press of the Great Lakes region did not consider it impor- tant enough to get excited about. Papers referred to it as a ”grave affair”, and a ”regrettable incident" but explained it would not be- come a threatening matter between this country and Japan. The papers reasoned that the Far East was a reckless part of the world and that these amenities were commonplace east of Sues, especially as sol- diers had to live the type of life they do in the barracks of the Far East. For instance, the Detroit {'52 25:11 called the 53 Detroit Free Press, Jan. 27, 1932, The columnist is referring to an incident where a high ranking officer of our military supposedly made derogatory remarks about Mussolini's driving. me Italian Goverment protested strongly and the United States diplomatically apologised for the actions of the general. 28 Chamberlain incident "regrettable" but that ”Japan undoubtedly will do the proper diplomatic thing, which is to disown and apologize for the irresponsible act of men wearing its uniform...Soldiers in uni- form.do not speak for their countries; if they did, all nations would be in hot water all the time." 5h The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette likewise made little of the incident and excused Japan on the basis that the soldiers were probably acting on their own and the three would probably be dealt with in a fashion that the United States ‘would consider satisfactory. The papers stated that: An incident of this sort might occur anywhere under like circumstances, for not all soldier men are diplomats or acquainted with procedures in delicate matters...The two nations are not going to war over a piece of blundering stupidity, though there was a time when were were kindled from fainter sparks than that. 55 The Grand Rapids 2:251, at this time, held that the people's apathy over the mauling of an American consul in Mukden was because the Amer- ican people had progressed far in their search for peace and that ”if the consul had been a subject of some other nation, his abuse, very likely would have stirred up intense feeling. The fact it actually caused so little concern in America is evidence that the United States has progressed far in education toward pacific intent." 56 Thus it appeared that the Great Lakes press played down the Chamber- lain incident. The area newspapers did not consider the beating up of .en.American consular official reason enough to become entangled in a conflict thousands of miles from.our shores. The papers, with very few exceptions, held that the trouble in the Orient was not and should 5!". Jan. 59 19529 P0 6 55 J”. 59 19529 P0 ’4 56 Jane 6, 1932, Fe 6 29 not become our concern. It almost seemed as if the papers were afraid that such an incident would arouse public cpinion and subse- quently lead to vigorous action. 30 CHAPTER VI Hoover Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition ”The American Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Government of the Chinese Republic and the Imperial Japanese Government that it cannot admit the legality of aw situation de facto nor does it intend to recognise any treaty or ageement entered into betwoen these governments, or agents thereof, which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citisens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty, the independence or the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China, or to the international policy relative to China, com- monly known as the open door policy: and that it does not intend to recognise any situation, treaty or agree- ment which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenants and obligations of the pact of Paris of August 27, 1928, to which treaty both China and Japan as well as the United States are parties.” 57 Secretary Stimson Japan's continued defiance of world opinion led President Hoover and Secretary Stimson to announce in the transmission of identic notes to China and Japan on January 7, 1932 their doctrine of non-recognitions that the United States would not recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the cove- nants and obligations of the Pact of Paris, also known as the Kellogg- Briand Pact. Harry Paxton Howard, in his book America's 531; In A231, insists that "press criticism at this time finally forced the Depart- ment of Stateto make a gesture of apposition to Japan.“ 58 Secretary Stimson in his book $53313 Service verified this statement. Stin- son explained that the new move was the result of public cpinion and that the doctrine of I'non--recognition was designed to give expression to the deep and genuine feeling of the herican people, and their 57 Stimson, 92m Service, p. 255 58 Harry Paxton Howard, Anerica's Role in Asia (New York, Howell Soskin.Ino., 194.3) Pe 214-7 'inl lens...v A . 31 Government, that what the Japanese were doing in Manchuria was terri- bly wrong." 59 Very few middle western newspapers expressed themselves at length on the Government's new approach to the Crisis. A non-commital atti- tude was noticeably prevalent throughout the entire area. Some papers apparent lack of concern and interest was probably due to the fact that they considered it another diplomatic maneuver and thus far be- yond the understanding of a typical herican. The Fort Wayne Journal Gasette explained at this time that "diplomacy and its ingenious trick- eries do not much interest the common run of us.” 60 There were elements of the Midwest press that believed it was not only a masterful move but a wise ending to our letter writing. The Cleveland Plain 22.13;, for instance, congratulated the government for definitely committing itself and assured the United States govern- ment that it was assured of popular approval, because it was a "state- ment of fact definitely worded, shorn of all fringe and feathers and superfluous verbiage." 61 The Indianapolis £92 praised the ”compre- hensiveness" of the Anerican Statement, observing that the basis on which it rested made ”it a noteworthy document. " 62 The Stinmon Doctrine was not criticised too strongly by the Great Lakes press because the doctrine held within it sentiment favorable to both the isolationist and internationalist camps. Some members of the area press, of course, criticised it on the pounds that it was still a part of the obnoxious I'noto system" that tended to irri- tate the sensitive Japanese. A Chicago Tribune editorial entitled, 59 Stimson, 2mm Service, p. 235 60 Jan. 10, 1932, p. h 61 Jan. 9. 1932.1» 6 62 Jlne 9, 1932, Fe 6 32 "Mr. Stimson Astonishes Everybody", complained: The Secretary has made the Japanese mad, irritated the Frenchand drawn the fire of the British...Mr. Stimson has said his piece...If the State Department will let it rest with that (the principle of non-recognition) and cease sticking pins into Japan the United States may recover some of the advantages it lost when it was beguiled into the sham maneuvers of the League. 63 The Chicago Daily News likewise cpposed the "note system" of bring- ing about peace in Manchuria and suggested that the ultimate inter- ests of China would be better served by a policy of overlooking Japan's inconsistencies and allowing it to restore order to fianchuria in the manner she saw fit rather than by sending pinprick notes that "irri- tats the sensitive and proud Japanese and stiffen the attitude of the dominant military clique." 6’4 Bailey's The Man 92 The Street gives an excellent interpretation of the Hoover—Stimson Doctrine, and after one reads Bailey's evalu- ation one can see why it was nationally acclaimed and accepted by the isolationists, the unconcerned, and the internationalists as well. It was cheap, because it cost us nothing more than note paper: it was moral, because it put us on record as dis- approving things which we did not have the power to stop; it was safe because it presumably would not provoke a war; it was theoritically effective because nations which wanted loans and other favors from us would do well not to flout our desires. But the record does not reveal that the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine stepped the Japanese for as much as five minutes in Manchuria. 65 The Midwest area did not wax too enthusiastic over the Hoover- Stimson Doctrine, sentiment was such in the area that even so mild a thing as a note won little real support. 63 Jan. 10, 1952, p. 10 6’4 Quoted in the Literary Digest. Jan. 23, 1932, p. 6 65 Thomas A. Bailey, The Man In The Street (New York, Macfiillan 35 CHAPTER VII The Shanghai Incident ”The dominant desire of the President was to pro- tect the lives of the American citizens in China. He regarded such protection as a primary and fundamental obligation of a government towards its own nationals. It was an obligation which struck home to him, for, as a young man, he had gone through an uprising in China. The military Operations he had ordered were devoted solely, absolutely and singly to that end. Another action he forwarded, and entirely separate from.the military operations was to use the good of- fices of this country to bring about a settlement if possible, of the questions at issue between Japan and China. He did this, I may say, in respogge to definite requests by both Japan and China." Theodore Goldsmith Joslin The Japanese attack on Shanghai was the high point of popular interest in the Manchurian Crisis, for Japan's action against that Chinese port changed the entire complexion of the Sino-Japanese af- fair because it now threatened American lives and property as well as the sacred documents of Hay and Kellogg. As a result of Japan's immigration policy in Manchuria, riots had occurred between Koreans and Chinese in Korea in June of 1931.‘ The supposed failure of Japan to make pr0per redress over these anti-Chinese riots in July, led to the formation, by the Chinese, of an anti-Japanese Council which set up an economic boycott against the Japanese. This boycott was great- ly strengthened and enlarged after Japan's aggression in Manchuria and it.proved very effective. One Chinese newspaper claimed that up to the end of 1951, the boycott had cost Japan $1h5,ooo,ooo. 67 This show of passive resistance by the Chinese Nation seriously affected 66 Beaver or: The Record (New York, Doubleday Doran and Co., 193u) p- 177 67 Quoted in the Literary Digest, Jan. 30, 1952, p. 16 5L1 Japanese industry, whose spokesmen clamored for their government to take some kind of punitive action. In addition, the presence of large numbers of Japanese nationals in Shanghai, most of them en- gaged in some aspect of commerce likewise contributed to the tense situation. The Japanese in Shanghai seised upon the beating of five Japanese Buddhist monks in January 18, 1932 as justification for militaryintervention in Shanghai. The Japanese nationals in Shanghai on January 20, 1932, burned a Chinese factory and held mass meetings to protest the attacks on the priests plus the uncomplimentary attacks on the Emperor by the Chinese press. A resolution was adOpted, as a result of these mass meetings, which asked their home government to send vessels and mili- tary units to help suppress the anti-Japanese movement. The Japanese Consul-General on the same day, January 20, presented to the Mayor of Shanghai an ultimatum, which included in it the suppression of the anti-Japanese organisations and all anti-Japanese activities, especially the boycott. The city officials of Shanghai had no al- ternative but to meet these demands as a threatening Japanese force of £1,000 marines and 23 warships stood by. The bombardment of Shanghai began in spite of the Mayor's acceptance of all the demands. Japanese marines landed while their artillery bombarded the unfor- tified and densely populated metropolitan district of Chapei. The Chinese army gave valiant Opposition to the invaders and in the fol- lowing weeks thousands of Chinese, soldiers and non-combatants, men, women and children were killed by the artillery and aerial missiles of the Nipponese. The Chinese were finally driven out and on May 5, 1932, the Japanese and Chinese signed an armistice, and on May 31, the Japanese officially withdrew. 35 The Shanghai incident was the culmination or high point of the Manchurian Crisis as far as the papers of the Great Lakes area were concerned: the response of the press reached its crescendo in this period. The action of Japan in the city constituted a delicate inter- national situation because of the presence there of the International Settlement, where the representatives of various foreign powers were in residence. There was no doubt that the American people were now sufficiently interested in what was happening at Shanghai; glaring headlines and atrocity stories made it difficult for them.to ignore the new ”hot spot” in the Far East. The papers in the Great Lakes area gave the latest Japanese aggression good coverage. The news from.China took first place in the public interest and even displaced the tiresome talk of the depression. The Detroit E333 remarked that as a result of the new aggression "talk of the depression and of the painful task of recovery has sunk to an all but inaudible'whisper.' 68 Some papers now'were fearful that this heightened interest:might lead people to draw hasty conclusions or cause the public to rely on in- formation which had been colored for propaganda purposes, and there- fore, cautioned the public concerning possible danger. The Grand Rapids £Z=:=_exhorted its readers to keep a clear head and not to pass on any exaggerated tales or wild rumors because “war is born of hysteria not cahm judement." 69 The Grand Rapids Herald's editorial, 'A.Ccnflagration Threatens,“ probably best summarises the attitude of a large element of the Great Lakes press in the early days of the trouble at Shanghai; "it is a spark flying toward a tinder box, igni- tion of which conceivably may produce a conflagration comparable only 63 Feb. 2, 1952, p. 18 69 Feb. 1, 1952, p. h 36 with that which followed the murder of an Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo in 19111." 7° While many of the Great Lakes papers were advising caution they did recognise the threat to American lives and prOperty in Shanghai. The Detroit Ewan January 30, for instance, advised cautious forbearance on the part of the United States and that ”as far as the United States is concerned the moment is one for careful watchful waiting and the exercise of shrewd judgement in an endeavor to keep as clear of the mess as may be possible." It went on to say that although it was a delicate situation,"American lives in the troubled area of China should be safeguarded and that a sufficient American force should be sent to Shanghai and other threatened ports to handle any contingency that may arise in which American lives and rights are involved." 71 The Indianapolis 2122 likewise advised its readers not to jump at conclusions but at the same time stated that the I'United States cannot afford to see its prestige flaunted, its citisens en- dangered, its trade interrupted and its diplomatic representations ignored as merely academic." 72 Many papers put forth the argument, in the early days of Japan's aggression in Shanghai, that our country did not want war. The Gary Post Tribune explained: "President Hoover knows, as well as any man alive what a frightful thing war is. He can be depended on to chart a course to lead the nation away from it.” 73 The Detroit 333.3. £52.52. also preached for peace and remarked that‘although no nation can 70 Jan. 29, 1952, p. h ' 71 Jan. 50, 1952, p. 6 72 Feb. 2, 1952, p. 6 75 Feb. 5, 1952, p. 111 37 tread with impunity on American rights, we do not want war with Japan and every honorable means should be taken to avoid it...There will be no world conflagration unless Japan lights it.” 71* The Evening M at Sault Ste. Marie, likewise held that ”America does not want and should long hesitate to countenance military warfare against Japan."75 The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette recognised that even though we had become known as the chief guardian of the "Open Door" in China, our governent had no purpose ”to exceed the peaceful offices of a neu- tral or do more than assert the true and Just status of our own na- tional interest in China." 76 Without a doubt the area papers were cognizant of the fact that Shanghai had within it the seed for world conflict and that our government had cause to be cautious. The Chicago £22.19. £13 Examiner explained to its readers that the Shanghai inci- dent could rouse the sleeping monster world conflict from its slumbers and that: Tact, extreme tact is required to handle the situation with the necessary firmness and still avoid embarrassing inter- national complications. Coolness and caution should govern the action of the commanders of the forces dispatched to the International Settlement by the various powers. It is no place, nor time for hotheads. 77 he Shanghai incident saw many of the newspapers utilise the ”Keep America Strong' theme in their arguments for isolation. They desired an increase in our military but only for the purposes of de- fense. For example, the Chicago M and Examiner "blossomed” out Th Feb. 1, 1932, p. 6 75 Jan. 29. 1952. P )4 76 Feb. 1, 1932, p. 14. 77 Feb. 5, 1952, p. 10 58 with a reprint of a Saturday Evening Post editorial which emphatically argued that: We must lose no time in looking to our own defensive po- sition by increasing the strength of the navy by build- ing submarines and last but by no means least important, by launching a fleet 0g airplanes that will have no su- perior in the world. 7 The Chicago kibune used one of its reader's letters on the editorial page to express its views. The letter had the heading that ”Might is Rights” Recent develcpments in China are further conclusive proof that night is right and the absurdity of relying on treaties for protection. Treaties like Jap promises are made to be broken. The bully fares the best and the meek inherit the earth to the tune of a funeral march. Napoleons remark is still the classic of the a s. ”The Lord is on the side of the heaviest artillery". 7 The Detroit Times and the Chicago Herald and Examiner bemoaned our weak defense set-up and claimed that it was the result of the admin- istration in Washington. The Chicago paper for instance believed that 'the nations defense should not be suffered to remain in the palsied group of the Hoover Administration with its murky thinking, inert will and dull perception.” 80 The Detroit 1132 stated: We have a dangerous man in the White House. He insists upon getting into complications with foreign nations, and at the same time, reducing our army and navy to a point of impotence. His interference in affairs foreign to our interests may involve us in war, in which case the impotence of our defense may expose the United States to very damaging if not disastrous attack. Fools rush in where angels fear to ‘lread and appag- ently there are no angels in the administration. 1 The Detroit £5.12 £1.13}. also maintained that we should keep ourselves 73 Feb. 8, 1932, p. 8 79 Feb. 114. 1952, p. 11. 3° Feb. 8, 1952, p. s 31 Feb. 5, 1952, p. at 39 defensively strong and ”to keep the 'Big Stick' so obviously in work# ing order that soft speech will be listened to as though it were thun- der from.Thor.' 82 The Chicago Tribune joined in with the ”keep Amer- ica strong. theme and stated that the Shanghai incident was a ”votive offering" to the disarmament conference that was in session at Geneva. It continued: we are to trust our peace to a diminishing navy, to the decisions of Dr. Mary Woolly and the woman pacifists who flocked with the American delegate to Geneva, and to the notes of Mr. Stimson. We are to make enemies, obstruct :tiitizybpezple,tandtrziiion theiofigvethrggch. We'll per 8 a ng pun s on . The crisis at Shanghai gave many papers the opportunity to camp paign for traditional isolation. An Indiana paper, the Decatur £2951; Democrat believed that it would take more than the sinking of one or more of our battleships to get the American people into a frame of mind to fight another war as, "most of us don't like them while they are on and we are sure few enjoy the aftermath." 8h. The isolation argument also appealed to the Grand Rapids 23322. On January 30, it ran an editorial entitled, "A war we Don't'Want', in which it stated that there had never before been a war situation in which the American people were less interested and partial and that ”fighting for the rights of the Chinese nation, whatever that may be, in bandit-ridden Hanchuria or to protect Chinese associations in boycotting Japanese goods is about as inspiring an idea to the average American as fight- ing for somebody on a canal in Mars.” 85 ”Will there be war?" This was the question posed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The daily then 32 Feb. 1, 1952, p. 6 33 Jan. 50, 1952, p. 8 314 Jan. 50, 1952, p. h 35 Jan. 30. 1932. p. h he went on to say that wherever this question was asked, it was answered in ”a profound and earnest negative; for the moment any serious talk of war can be inspired only by rancorous jingoism or by selfishly interested individuals in the United States.' 86 The argument of "disillusion over the last'war" was seen in the newspapers of the area at this time. For instance, 'the Detroit 3133:, utilising this argument, stated that ”as participants, we no more be- long in that cauldron of boiling blood than we belonged in EurOpe's suicidal abandonment to four years of threat cutting." 87 The Ohio State Journal similarly believed we should let the World War and its consequence be a lesson to America, that "until Japan deliberately and maliciously encroaohes upon our rights, our place is at home where President Hoover and Secretary Stimson and Congress have kept us so faithfully." 88 Even while the Japanese warships were belching shells into Chinese forts, while our 31st Infantry stood entrenched behind its barricades in the International Settlement, while American investments were threatened and our citisens were being subjected to unbelievable in- sults in the Shanghai sector, papers expressed their ideas that the American people had no desire for war. The Detroit Free Press admit- ted that the makings of a war were present in Shanghai but that if we really wanted war we would have to ”roll our own", that apart from a few sensational newspapers working to boost street sales, and the usual quota of addlepated jingoes we have always with us, there is no one in this ecuntry that wants anything of the sort." 89 A 36 Jan. 29, 1952, p. 8 37 Feb. 5, 1952, p. 20 88 Quoted in the Literary 11532: Feb. 15, 1952, p. 7 89 Feb. 5, 1932, p. 6 hl conservative weekly in Detroit answered the critics as to whether the United States would get into this undeclared war in China: Public opinion is determined that the United States shall not get into it. The sons of America vow that they would not cross the Pacific to fight for either China or Japan or any other Oriental race, and the fathers have obvi- ously made up their minds that they shall not be asked to go. The 'Open door' in China is a traditional Amer- ican policy, which the American government is trying to back up with moral suasion in the form of notes, but the 'Open Door' in China is not worth a single drop of American blood. Some members of the press even criticised our government's policy of keeping troops and warships on the scene to protect American lives and preperty. These papers believed that the proximity of our mili- tary representatives and our citisens to the battle zone might lead to an incident and, therefore, the only solution appeared to be to get our trOOps and nationals away from the danger sone, quickly. The Sault Ste. Marie Evening News admitted that our ships and troops were there ostensibly to protect American citisens and prOperty but that ”there is considerable reason to believe that American citisens and preperw, as a whole would be better off if every American fighting unit were withdrawn." 91 This idea that we should withdraw and leave China to her fate was expressed also by the Cleveland £9.32 _D_e_a_l£r_ which posed the question: "Should we step in it at Shanghai and set things right?” It answered in a unanimous and vociferous negative. “China left to herself must work out some kind of a solution.” 92 Many papers at this time harped continually on the idea that we should mind our own business. A reader's letter, printed in the Chicago Tribune, believed, for instance, that we should practice a little of 9° Detroit Saturday M, Feb. 6, 1952, p. l 91 Feb. 29, 1952, p. h . 92 Feb. 9, 1952, p. 8 Washington's advice: It isthe rule of the plains never to draw a gun unless you are prepared to take all the consequences of its in- stant use...Let us keep our fleets and troops at home... Let us calm ourselves by the library lamp with the let- ters and messages of George Washington wherein are set forth the advantages of minding our own business and of not trying on the "Civis Romanus Sum" stuff until we have cash in the bank to pay for it. 93 Following the lead of the Chicago Tribune, the Houghton Mining Gazette agreed that our warships were in Chinese waters to protect our citi- sens and our $200,000,000 investment but insisted that we did not de- sire war and that the best way to avoid war would be to get away from the scene of war. "If we really want to protect our own countrymen -- shove out the old gangplank -- get them aboard even if they have to be driven aboard -- bring them home -- where they are safe and than mind our own business -- which will keep us pretty well occupied.” 94 There were some newspapers, however, who used a more analytical approach; they agreed that we should mind our own business but could not decide what constihited our own business. The Fort Wayne Journal, for instance, told its readers: Our trade is with the world and upon that world trade our prosperity depends in large portion...” a great commercial nation our own business clearly'seems to be anywhere on this wheeling ball to which our trade points, provided we respect the sovereign rights there established. We have no quarrel with Japan as to her proper trade relations with China, but we have very deep concern for our own proper rights in the same place. Our own business does seem to take us into the Orient to mind it. 95 The diplomatic maneuverings that evolved out of the Shanghai in- cident also received quite a bit of attention from the Midwest press. 95 Feb. 26, 1952, p. 12 d; The Sault Ste. Marie Evening News reprinted this editorial of the Houghton Mining Gazette on Feb. 29, 1932, p. h 95 Feb. 6, 1932, p. h 1+5 The United States and the European powers, because of their economic interests in China, sent vigorous notes of protests as soon as the troops of Japan moved into the Shanghai area. The Chicago Tribune acclaimed the move and was glad to see the United States join in this transmittal and thus revert to the old fashioned type of diplomacy, that of basing your stand not only on the ground of common interest but of joining in with Great Britain, France and Italy to make the protest to Japan. The Chicago paper reasoned along these lines: Behind this united front there is as much security as can be expected. The United States has allies to secure all that it is called upon to obtain. Can it be heped that all the world shall be arrayed against it before it seeks the largest measure of trouble. Although the United States did protest vigorously to Japan over the action of that nation in China, it also attempted to bring about a peaceful solution of the undeclared war by offering its 'good of- fices" to the parties in conflict. The Detroit £21m, acclaimed this move by our State Department and went on to explain that we had acted in the past in such a capacity and that as a result "China has come to lean heavily on the 'good offices' of the United States and Americans have become accustomed to their government exercising that recognised diplomatic function." 97 Isolationists apparently will overlook a lot to preach their doctrine. An example of this appeared in the Detroit gig-3:31:32 on Kay 12, 1932. It seemed that while Japanese marines and Yankee doughboys had glowered at each other over Soochow Creek in Shanghai, a delegation of Japanese Boy Scouts had planted three cherry and two cedar trees on the grounds of the Anerican Embassy in Tokyo as 96 Feb. 5, 1952, p. 12 97 Feb. 11, 1952, p. 12 hh "living symbols of the fundamental friendship between the two countries. The §£==_£Eggg comment on the gesture was that it was ”one of those things in the contacts of nations which show where the heart of a people really is." 98 The Shanghai phase of the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931-32 received more press response of an isolationist nature from.the Great Lakes newspapers and the objectives were generally the same; keep America strong, away and apart from the troubles of Europe and.Asia. 95 May 12, 1952,p. 6 145 CHAPTER VIII The Questions Of An Economic Boycott "we do not propose always to pull foreign chestnuts out of the fire for every nation. We have no mandate to preserve the peace of the world. we have been Santa Claus long enough for all the foreign nations and we have no mandate to preserve the lives of missionaries who do not come out of the battle sone. we have no mandate to preserve the peace of the world by sending American soldiers to Manchuria. The surest way to become involved in a war anywhere in the world is to ship munitions of war. That is the first step to- ward wer because it causes the hatred of the country that does not get the munitions.” 99 Hamilton Fish The events in Manchuria and later in Shanghai proved that the protests of the various governments and the public Opinion of the world was not sufficient to restrain Japan. China insisted that it was the covenanted duty of the League of Nations to take action a- gainst Japan with the use of economic sanctions, and thus prevent all economic intercourse with that country. Members of the League were bound as members to sever commercial relations with Japan if sanctions were agreed on. However, the body at Geneva realised that the United States, not being a member, was not bound or com- mitted to follow the actions of the League. The discussions at Geneva over the possibility of sanctions caused a great deal of con- cern in the United States even though there was already present a strong sentiment for such action. The American public had been brought slowly up to the boiling point by Japan's action in Man- churia and they continued to boil furiously in the initial stages 99 Speech by Mr. Hamilton Fish before the Senate in reply to the Lowell Round-Robin Boycott Petition. Congressional Record, ”01. 7h, Part he P0 14-694 he of the Shanghai incident. The ruthlessness and unmerciful attitude of the Japanese troops in the Shanghai fighting and, moreso the in- discriminate bombings of Chapei with the resultant loss of civilian lives, was the stage at which the Mericans were worked up sufficiently to want to do something about it. haditional isolation did not coun- tenance the use of acmal force but there was a method cpen to us and to the world, the use of economic sanctions or boycotting of one, or both of the warring nations. A few midwestern papers urged boycott, arguing, as did the Detroit £231, that it was very obvious that Japan was intent on a pregram of war and therefore, ”it is quite clear that only some drastic measures will stOp this and only a boycott or war seems drastic enough to do it. Of these, the boycott is eminently to be preferred.” 100 The Milwaukee Journal urged that peace was "more desirable than silk stockings." 101 President Lowell of Harvard agitated for an economic boycott and even went so far as to present to the United States Senate a round robin letter calling for a boycott. Many prominent Americans and educators had affixed their signatures and the petition received a great deal of publicity. The Cleveland M Dealer praised the action 102 but the overwhelming majority of the newspapers in the States of the Great Lakes area cpposed the United States using a boycott lost it lead to war. The Chicago Herald Examiner causti- cally rebuked the petitioners: 100 Nov. 23, 1951, p. 18 101 Quoted in Literary Digest March 5, 1932, p. 7 102 Ibid b? When such a blundering policy is invoked by men of age and public experience such as Newton D. baker and a group of college presidents headed by Dr. Lowell of Harvard, it deserves rebuke. They should know better than to advo- cate a line of action by this country, which history has shown is often the precursor of war to which it invari- ably tends. 10 Senator Borah of Idaho, always a champion of isolation, took up the fight against a boycott. He warned the American peeple that boycotts and ambargoes were warlike measures and if any country employed than she must expect retaliation. He predicted that boycotts might lead to incidents, then rising anger, an exchange of increasingly heated notes and finally war. The Chicago Tribune agreed wholeheartedly with Sen. Borah: It is not and never was the business of the United States to police the world and to take sides in every quarrel between nations, no matter how great may be the wrong which one nation has suffered at the hands of another. It‘would be ironic indeed if in the year in which all America is paying homage to the memory of its greatest oitisen, the advice of'Washington on the cafiduct of our foreign relations should be flouted. 1 The Chicago Herald and Examiner likewise believed that careful steer- ing would keep us out of trouble in the Far East but that it was nec- essary to rule out the use of the boycott because ”we cannot boycott either Jhpan or China in their conflict, first because we do not actually know which is right and second because such a hostile act would amount to taking sides in the war and would be virtually an act of war." 105 The Evansville Courier held that we should confine our activities in China to the protection of American lives and preperty only: 103 Feb. 27, 1932, p. 8 1°“ F». 2, 1932, p. 12 105 Nov. 12, 1931, p. 8 LB There is enough dynamite in the situation. Those who are clamoring for an economic boycott would bring down war upon us immediately if their wishes were followed...In this commercially inter-dependent world, declaration of an economic boycott can mean only one thing -- war. "Next to an act of war itself, the boycott is the most serious affront to a nation," was the comment of the Indianapolis News. 107 The Detroit Free Press cautioned that our country could think as it pleased about who was right or wrong in the "China puzzle" but that as a neutral it did not have the "right to translate its private feelings and judge- ment into terms of action. By doing that it would immediately be- come a participant in the struggle and place itself cpen to retalia- tion from the injured party." 108 The argument against economic coercion, that the boycotter stands to suffer like the boycotted, was also taken up and used by the papers in the Great Lakes section. They pointed out what a harmful effect a boycott would have on certain industries in the United States espe- cially those industries that are dependent on their imports from Japan. The Minneapolis Tribune, as early as December, had emphasised the boomerang effect of a boycott which it spoke of as "a two edged instrument which.cuts in more than one direction." 109 The Minneapolis Journal, explained that American cotton growers would suffer because they were dependent on Japan to purchase millions of dollars of cotton every year. Amsricans would lose Japan as a market for their timber, and even Hollywood would be affected and in addition we would lose our ability to buy silk, tea, soy sauces, crockery, chinaware and 106 Feb. 2, 1952, p. 6 107 Feb. 25, 1932, p. 6 108 March 1, 1952, p. 6 109 Quoted in Literary Digest Dec. 5, 1931, p. 6 h9 pottery. The Minneapolis Journal also pointed out that a boycott would not only affect our home industry but our profitable commercial dealings with Japan. For instance, it pointed out that we took near- ly half of her silk output. Thus a curtailment of the trade would deprive our American silk textile workers of jobs. Japan also took each year a million to a million and a half bales of cotton and large quantities of iron and steel and railway supplies. The editorial con- cluded by saying that the ”boycott is a powerful weapon but it would have consequences at home;" then it asked the signers of the Lowell Petition, "Are the petitioners prepared to offer a way to stabilise the American industries that depend in no small degree on business with the Japanese?" 110 One paper, the Chicago 59.33.122.39. Examiner, reported that our imports from Japan amounted to $375,000,000 yearly while she took exports from us, for the same period, of $300,000,000." 111 The argument that it was not our job to do Europe's work was also used by some papers in regards to the boycott. For example, the Detroit 32323:: believed that Great Britain was the most logical nation to take the lead in placing an embargo or boycott on commerce to the Far Eastern war theater "because it is the foremost power of the League of Nations, because it is the chief naval state of the world and be- cause it has greater interests at stake in the Orient than any other nation has." 112 The same paper cemented on a speech made by an Englishman concerning the boycott. The speaker had made the state- ment that the United States was not going to pull England's chestnuts 11° Feb. 21., 1932, p. 1h 111 Nov. 11, 1951,p. 8 112 March 1, 1932, p. 6 50 out of the fire and the £222.25221 agreed affirmingly; "America will not pull other peeples' chestnuts out of the fire if it keeps its head squarely on its shoulders as Great Britain, France, Italy and other EurOpean countries are keeping their's.” 1'13 ‘H. can therefore see that nearly all of the Great Lakes papers decried and cpposed the possible use of an economic boycott by the United States against the parties in the Far Eastern conflict. The opponents to the boycott, an overwhelming majority in this section, based their arguments on the risk of war, and injury to the American economy, while the advocates for the boycott, very few in number, justified the boycott as a preferable alternative to war. 113 Feb. 29, 1932, p. 6 51 CHAPTER IX Stimson's Letter To Borah "The Borah letter had many causes. The first was the state of American opinion. In February and March Stimson was backed by a public sentiment against Ja— pan sironger than anything he had behind him before or after. American admiration of China was strongly reinforced by the exploits of the Nineteenth Route Army...As he considered the feeling of his country- men, Stimson became more convinced of his duty to give official expression to the historic policy and present cpinion of his nation...A second reason for clear public protest was the importance of remain- ing loyal to traditional American policy in China. During early February there were intimations from Tokyo that the Japanese no longer considered the Nine-Power Treaty applicable and that China should now be permanently dismembered and her major com- mercial areas controlled by foreigners. Both Ja- pan and China must be shown how far this or any similar suggestion was from American policy. Third, and perhaps most important, it seemed time for a new move in the continuing campaign to mobilise world cpinion.” 1 I Henry Stimson In an examination of the diplomatic correspondence relating to the Shanghai Crisis one can see how unsuccessful our government had been in its note writing and how inconsiderate and delaying Japan was in the answering of the correspondence. After months of protest through the diplomatic channels, our Secretary of State sought a ‘ay in which he could express the real interest of the American peo- ple who had, in the meantime, become exasperated by Japan's actions and stirred up by the unmerciful bombings at Chapei. Stimson also believed it was an Opportune spot for stating our true policy in re- gards to the conflict in the Orient. He decided to express himself in a letter to Senator Borah. By this letter to Borah, he took a 111!- Stimson, 2‘; Active Service, p. 2146-? 52 page from Theodore Roosevelt, who, whenever he desired to put out an announcement of major policy which he didn't wish to be contradicted or discussed, wrote a letter to a friend by the name of William Dudley Foulke. Stimson later wrote that the letter "was intended for the perusal of at least five unnamed addresses. It was designed to en- courage China, enlighten the Aalerioan public, exhort the League, stir up the British and warn Japan." 115 The letter explained that by the Nine-Power Treaty signatory nations were to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China and to allow China to develop and maintain for herself an ef- fective and stable government. Stimson went on to state that the United States in spite of Japanese action was not considering the abandonment of the principles present in the Nine-Power and the KelIOgg-Briand Peace Pact. {the letter, in summary then, let the world know that. we believed in a strong and independent China and that strict adherence by the signatories of the Nine-Power and Kellogg-Briand Pacts could bring this about. The newspapers in the area bordering the Great Lakes, with but a few exceptions, applauded the action of our Secretary of State. They were all glad to see the end of our policy of uncertainty and note writing. The Evansville Courier was pleased that there would be ”no more note writing to Japan.” 116 The Detroit Saturday Eight, said, ”it was just as well he (Stimson) stopped writing notes when he did. They were at least provocative to a nation that thinks rightly or wrongly that it has stood provocation enough from a 115 Stimson, 29.59.21! Service, p. 2149 116 March 2, 1932, p. 8 55 close neighbor." 117 The Indianapolis News applauded the letter as being of ”penetrating analysis, done in a temperate mood despite its " 118 The Minneapolis incisiveness, and is salutary and inspiring. Journal merely chorused what the majority of other papers had said and spoke of Mr. Stimson's notice as "being served opportunely." 119 This same paper also replied to Japan's answer which based its rebuff to the ”letter” on some insignificant point as to which treaty super- ceded the other. The Journal still maintained that "Secretary Stimson's . 120 case was well made. .Although Stimson's letter to Senator Borah achieved great pOpu- larity with the area press, there were some voices of opposition to it. The Opposition attacked the letter chiefly because it called at- tention to, and.mentioned the possibility of, the United States in- voking the Nine Power Treaty. The Detroit Free Press, for example, believed that the United States did not owe it to humanity or our own interests in China to take to uphold the Nine Power Treaty; that Great Britain, France and Italy also signed the treaty but none of themuwere expressing themselves so boldly over the loss of their trade; They are only too glad to stand back and let Uncle Sam put his shoulder under the whole “whitezman's burden". The spectacle of the State Departnent drawing this country into the position of wet nurse to h00,000,000 people in Asia who are old enough to take care of themp selves,'will not set well with posterity, which may have to foot the bill for the folly of 1952. The Chicago Tribune, always cpposed to treaties, applauded this letter to Senator Borah on the ground that it:might bring about the 117 March 5, 1932, p. l 118 Feb. 25, 1932, p. 6 119 Feb. 25, 1952, p. 10 12° Feb. 26, 1932, p. 22 121 Feb. 26, 1932, p. 6 5h demise of our treaties that had to deal with the Far East. The daily remarked that the "inference from the letter is that if the Nine Power Pact fails, the United States will abrogate the naval treaty3” at which the Tribune remarked; "Let it be hoped." 122 The St. Paul Baily E32 approved Stimson's move but believed that stronger action could have been taken as the letter was "only a slap on the wrist.” 1'23 122 Feb. 26, 1932, p. 12 123 Quoted in Liberal?! Digest, March 12. 19539 P' 12 55 CHAPTER x Manchukuoan Re co gni ti on "Signed with the listless ceremony at a plain oak desk in a room floored with yellow linoleum, a new scrap of paper gives the world a chill of apprehension... The state of Manchukuo, youngest of the worlds common- wealths and born of the successful military campaigns of the Jap army in Mancgiria last fall, is recOgnized officially by Japan.” _ Literary Digest The Shanghai incident was the climax of the Far Eastern Crisis as far as the press response of the Midwest was concerned. Every- thing, relating to the crisis, that followed Shanghai received little attention when viewed in contrast to the response to the Shanghai in- cident. Public interest in the oriental war theater largely subsided after the hectic days of February. This tapering off of public cpin- ion became obvious in the newspaper treatment given the question of Manchukuoan recognition. The Midwest press was content to merely cement on the recognition issue but did not feel sufficiently com- pelled to approve or criticize the policy of the administration in Washington regarding Manchukuoan recognition. While hostilities had been going on at Shanghai, a new republic had been born in Asia. The Japanese action in Manchuria during the waning months of 1951 had brought about a complete cessation of govt- ernmental administration in the area. This political vacuum was soon filled, however, by the appearance on the scene of qualified adminis- trative personnel who proceeded to form self-governmental committees. These qualified persons ”just" happened to be Japanese businessmen, consular officials and resident officials of the South Manchurian 12h Oct. 1, 1932, p. 12 56 Railway. Representatives of these self-governmental committees met on February 18, 1932 and established the republic of Manchulmo with Mr. Pu-Yi, the heir apparent to the throne of the Manchus, formally installed as regent of the new state. Some members of the Midwest press were inclined to accept Man- chukuo as a 'fait accompli". They saw the "Made in Japan" trademark on the new republic, but the excitement brought on by theShanghai crisis had died down and there was not public opinion to warrant the papers support of the State Department's policy of strong and vehement protest. Some papers did, however, express their concern.over the threat to the 'Open Door' in the new republic. The papers were oognisant of the fact that the new Manchukuon Government contained an exces- sive number of Japanese advisers and undersecretaries. The Indianapolis News commented on the "puppet show in Manchuria...The actors wear Chi- nese costumes and have Chinese voices but they are automatons moving and speaking only as directed from backstage. The strings are pulled by Japanese and the author of the sketch is the home government at Tokyo.” 125 While some papers wrote editorials on the ”puppet-like quality” of the new state, others, the Evansville Courier, merely com- mented that Manchuria had gone republican and that "there is to be a constitution with five fundamental principles in it. They are pOpu- lar sovereignty, state autonomy, racial equality, racial co-operation and the maintenance of the 'Open Door". 126 Perhaps articles such as the above were written for the express purpose of squashing fears 125 Feb. 19, 1932, p. 6 126 Feb. 20, 1952, p. 6 57 that were already evident over the continuance of the "Open Door" in Msnchukuo. For instance, the Detroit News, even as far back as Jan- uary, 1932, wrote about Japan's possible method of closing the "Open Door"; "She merely seizes everything anybody might want and stands at the door armed to the teeth while Japanese scramble through in hordes. There are so many Japanese in the doorway that others have little chance of crowding through." 127 In September, after Japan had officially accepted its own handiwork by extending diplomatic recognition to Manchukuo many papers seised upon this action to talk about isolation. The Detroit Saturday Night believed that without a doubt our government would refuse to recognize Nanchukuo and that as a result nothing drastic would happen. The Detroit paper then went on to say: We shall wait to see whether the Japanese kick the door shut on our fingers. As for war, you couldn't get ten percent of the American peOple to vote for it now, even if the Japanese should cpenly say she would not permit us to trade in Manchuria. At any rate you won't see the American people raising up as one man on this asiatic issue unless the Japanese in their mad folly d2 game- thing comparable to the sinking of the Maine. 2 The Detroit Free Press, which had already defended Japan's case in Manchuria in an editorial on April 20,. 1932, in September now in- sisted that we must be realistic about Manohnkuon recognition. The Free Press thought that the United States should adapt a more real- istic policy toward Manchukuo because of our interests in Japan: A realist today would remember that the United States has invested in Japan nearly three times as much money as in the whole of China and that Am9rican trade with 127 Jem- 3. 1952. po 6 128 Sept. 31: 1932: P. 1 58 China while American interests in the new state of Manchukuo are almost negligible. Japan on the other hand believes the resources of Manchukuo necessary to her national existence, and to keep control of them.is willing to discard her membership in the League and risk her popularity with the United States. One can conclude from.the treatment given Manchukuon Recognition by Midwestern papers that people in the Midwest could become excited over actual threats to American lives and property in Shanghai but not over theoretic ones in Manchuria. 129 Sept. 19, 1952, De 6 59 Conclusion ”There are in addition certain general conclusions looking towards the future, lessons we must learn if the present tragedy is not to be repeated. We must recognize that the only time to stop a war is before it begins, before a nation or a group of nations be- comes so involved that it cannot draw back without humiliating loss of face. Japan.might have been st0pped in September when the blame and the disgrace could still have been laid on a few hot headed junior officers of the Manchurian army, but not after the prestige of the entire army, to say nothing of the nation itself, was at stake. we must recognise also that there is no chance of success in a major crisis involving one or more of the great powers so long as any great power remains outside the international organisation." 1 0 Sarah.3mith The League of Nations in 1931 had appointed a Manchurian investi- gating body, known as the Lytton Commission, to make an I'on the spot" inquiry of the Manchurian Crisis. The Lytton Commission reported to the League in February, 1953, that the Japanese nation was guilty of aggression in Manchuria, that the new Manchukuo Government was not supported by the Manchukuo people and recommended that all Japanese forces should be withdrawn and the area should be autonomous under Chinese sovereignty but with Japanese interests recognised in the area. The League of Nations approved on February 2h, the report of the Committee of Nineteen which had considered and agreed with the recommendations of the Lytton Commission. The approval of the Lytton Report obligated League members not to extend recognition to the new puppet state of Manchukuo. The acceptance of the Lytton Report was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as Japan was concerned. She had notified the League on a previous occasion that she was 130 Smith, Manchurian Crisis, p. 261 60 seriously considering leaving the League, and on February 28, 1933, the Japanese Government advised its delegation to attend no more Council meetings. Thus, as a direct result of the Manchurian Crisis, Japan ceased to be a member of the League of Nations. Moreover, it can be considered the Opening phase of the second world war, for the Manchurian Crisis showed the whole world that the League of Nations was an impotent body whose members would do little to preserve order in another part of the world. Hitler and Mussolini saw in world apathy and League impotence a go ahead signal for their grandiose plans. Because the Manchurian Crisis ended as it did, the world saw the Ethiopian turmoil, the Spanish Civil War, the phenomenal rise of the European dictators, their hell-bent rearmament race and the war with the atomic climax; World War II. A Chinese writer has said that the “Manchurian Crisis, the EurOpean turmoil, the African tangle and-the Armament race are all as intricably related to each other as are different branches of the same tree." 131 If that is so, does the United Nations action going on now in Korea presage a new era? Does it mean that when world opinion acts against troubles in remote corners of the globe, future peace and security is better served! We have in 1951, through a study of the past and a costly war, decided that the things that occur in the distant parts of the world are important and do have a bearing on our future. Events of the 30's and the hO's proved that the majority of the Midwest press were wrong during the Manchurian Crisis in their preaching of isolation. Isolation in our modern world is not only impracticable but impossible. 151 Park, Retreat 93 The West, p. 28 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Best account of the diplomatic aspects of the Manchurian Crisis appears in Henry L. Stimson's Far Eastern Crisis (Harper Bros., New York, 1936). Stimson, our Secretary of State at the time of the Crisis, writes with a knowledge of the area in conflict and, in ad- dition, was in an advantageous position in the administration. The revealing recollections of Stimson in his book 23m Service _In 32335513.: (Harper Bros., New York, 191.7) also has in 11: a chapter on the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931. In this book, because of the pas- sage of time and events, the author looking back through the years, places the Manchurian Crisis as one of the initial phases of World War II. Much of the reasoning behind the steps taken by our Govern- ment in regard to Japan's action in Manchuria are best explained in William Starr Myers, _T_k_l_e_ Foreign Policies 9}; Herbert Hoover (Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 19M) and The State Papers And Other Public Writings 2}: Herbert Hoover (Doubleday Doran and Co., New York, 19514). A brief but, nevertheless, a'worthwhile article on American diplomacy in the Crisis is Paul H. Clyde's "The Diplomacy 0f Playing No Favor- ites” in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, DOW (September, 191m) pp. 187-202. This work, valuable in that it has been written from diplomatic correspondence made public in 19146, follows our Secretary of State through his course of action which he based on the idea that peace could be preserved by direct negotiation and conciliation encoupled with the moral sanctity of treaties. By far the latest and undoubtedly the best work to appear on the Crisis is Sarah Smith's The Manchurian Crisis (Columbia University Press, New York, 1914-5). The book is well written, and is a veritable storehouse 62 of facts and interestingly documented with much primary source material. She also holds that the trouble in Manchuria was the first step toward the world conflagration, World War II. To better understand Japan's position in the Orient and her economic interest in Manchuria, see Edith Ware's Business And Politics _I_n_ The Far East (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1932). Chapter III is excellent on the influence of Manchuria on the determination of Japanese international policy. Chapters VI and VII good on the Crisis and the evaluation of it. 1‘. A. Bisson has in his Anerican Policy _I_n_ The Far East (Mac Millan Co., New York, 19).;0) a very good sumary on the Crisis in Chapter 11. Harry Paxton Howard's America's Role In Asia (Howell Soskin Pub- lishers, New York, 1915), in Chapters x11, XIII and XIV, has a pleasant narrative type discussion on the Crisis. An aid to under- standing Japan's place in the Far East is George H. Blakerslee's Conflicts 21; M _I_x_l_ The fan M, which shows how the national policies of China, Japan and Soviet Russia have been in conflict in the Far East. Chapter III and IV are good summaries on Japan's role in Manchuria and the Crisis of 1931. The position and stake of the United States in the Manchurian area is covered very well in Whitney Griswold's The Far Eastern Policy 9f The United States. (Harcourt Brace.and Co., New York, 1938). The works which cover the Crisis from the viewpoint of the Chinese are No Yong Park's Retreat 2532.?111‘.‘ (Hale, Cushman and Flint, Inc., Boston a New York, 1937) and the Chinese Information Committees Work, Japanese Incident (Hankow, China). 0n the Japanese side of the League we 63 have the National League of Japanese University Professors work, The Tokyo, 1937), which presents the Japanese opinion of the Crisis. Two good works for the background, history of the area and the Crisis it- self are George E. Sokolsky'e Tinder Box 21: Asia (Doubleday Doran and Co., New York, 1933) and G. Nye Steiger's _A_ History 9_f_ The Far East (Ginn and Co., Boston, 1936). The role of public cpinion on foreign policy mentioned in the paper is more fully covered in a work @233 flinion 523‘. Foreign £31191 (Harper Bros., New York, 19147) by Lester Markel. Thomas A. Bailey also has a work on the part of the public Co., New York, 19148). References very useful to better understand how the herican peo- ple felt about the role of our country in international affairs dur- ing this period appear in Walter Lippman's Interpretations (Mac Millan Co., New York, 1952); Edwin c. Hills knerican m (Witmark Educational Publications, New York, 1933 )3 Louis M. Hacker's American Problems 2;; 3.21 (F. s. Crofts and Co., New York, 1938); F. s. Allen's _S_i_._l_13_e_ Yesterday (Harper Bros., New York a: London, 19140); Karl Schriftgiesser's £23.32... Normalcy (Little, Brown 6: Co., Boston, 19148) p. 232 having a good reference on isolation; Dixon Wector's Eh; Ag: 9}; The M Depression (Mac Millan Co., New York, 19148); Harvey Wish's Contemporary America (Harper Bros., New York and London, 1945). PERIODICALS Two good articles on Midwest isolation are William G. Carlton's "Isolation and the Midwest", Mississippi Valley Historical Review (Vbl. 33, 19h6-7) pp. 377-390, and Ray A. Billington's "Origins of Midwest Isolation", Political Science Quarterly (Vbl. 60, 19h5) pp. LI-éh. NEWSPAPERS The Chicago Tribune maintained an isolationist stand during the Crisis and was especially expressive during the period of our co- operation with the League and the "Shanghai gesture". The paper during these times played up the ”Keep America Strong" idea and utilised the anti-League argument. The Chicago Herald and Examiner and the Detroit 22233, members of the Hearst chain, likewise were isolationist regarding the trouble in Manchuria. The Grand Rapids .25222.and the Grand Rapids EEEEAQ; were similarly in the isolationist camp. These Michigan papers were not lonely as they had plenty of company in the Detroit Free Press, the Sault Ste. Marie Evening News, the Houghton.Mining Gazette and the Lansing State Journal. The Detroit Saturday Night, a weekly, listed as a ”Conservative paper for discriminating readers", maintained a rather cautious stand and deviated only after a long consideration of public cpinion. The Detroit News was one of the few papers in Michigan which did not campaign too seriously for any stand. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a Democratic paper, was one of the notable opponents of isolation. It's approaches to the Crisis were cautious, realistic, and the 65 events of the late 1930's proved the wisdom of the Cleveland paper's stand in 1931. The Indianapolis News and the Indianapolis Tangwere lukewarm in their comments about the Manchurian Crisis. None of these papers took a forceful stand one way or the other but leaned precari- ously at time toward isolation. While the above Hoosier state papers were straddling the fence, the Evansville Courier, the South Bend N311— Times and the Gary Post Tribune were acting more outspoken on the Crisis. One would expect the Minneapolis papers, because of their geographic location to be rather unconcerned over international hap- penings but contrary to expectation, they did not believe that iso- lation was the best move. They argued on the economic basis for internationalism. Too few copies of such papers as the Milwaukee Journal, the Muskegon Chronicle and the Toledo £1333 were available to make any generalizations regarding the Manchurian Crisis. 1931 CALENDAR OF EVENTS 1931-33 September 18 September 18 September 21 September 21. October 5 October 11 October 1h October 18 October 19 October 23 November 12 November 23 Explosion on South Manchurian Railway near Mukden leads to seizure of city by Japanese trooPs. Japanese trOOps occupy leading towns and cities in southeastern Manchuria. Chinese delegate to the League requests body to take action under Article.XI of the Covenant. Secretary of stats Stimson directs an appeal to China and Japan to put an end to hostilities. Nanking Government accepts Japanese pledge to League that she would withdraw troops by October 1h. Stimson notifies League that United States would act independ- ently through its diplomatic representa- tives and endeavor to reinforce what the League does. United States agrees to attend League Conferences but will act independently Of League e League Council meets and Japan attempts to block the presence of the United States at the meeting. League Council in private session votes 13-1 to invite United States to partic- pate in the discussion of the Council. Japan denounces the admission of United States to Council and damands that a date be set for the legal decision of the Han- churian question. League Council adopts resolution asking evacuation of Manchuria by November 16. Ambassador Dawes ordered to Paris to be available for consultative purposes by the League Council. League Council members draw up draft of resolution which provides for a commis- sion of inquiry. 1931 1932 December 10 December 12 December 18 January 7 January 18 January 20 January 21 January 214 January 28 January 29 January 30 February 17 67 League Council unanimously passes reso— lution which provides for the immediate appointnent of an inquiry commission of five to study the Manchurian controversy. Japanese Conservative Cabinet falls. Fall considered to strengthen the status of the military in Manchuria. Senate, on a move by Senator Johnson, asks Stimson for correspondence relative to the Manchurian Crisis. Stimson transmits identic notes to China and Japan; known as the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine of non-recognition. Japan replies to Stimson note and pledges "Open door" policy. Japanese mass meeting to protest the at- tacks on their citizens. Meeting adOpts resolution asking home government for suppression of the anti-Japanese movement. Ultimatum presented to officials of Shanghai, which demands end of boycott. Major-General McCloy of the United States accepts the appointnent to the League Investigating Commission for Manchuria. Japanese marines land at Shanghai. Hoover submits to Senate the diplomatic correspondence relative to the trouble in China. Four American destroyers sent from Phil- lipine Islands. Great Britain states it will help the United States safeguard _ international rights in the International Settlement. W. W. Yen of China asks League Council to invoke Article X and XVI of the League Covenant. Japan threatens to withdraw from the League. ‘ League Council sends note to Japan remind- ing her of her obligations under the League Covenant. 68 1933 January 17 League Committee of Nineteen decides to give Japan 1+8 hours for submission of new proposals for settlement of dispute or stronger action will be taken by the League. February 20 Japanese Cabinet decides to secede from the League if the Assembly ad0pts the Report of the Committee of Nineteen. February 214 Assembly of the League adapts the Re- port of the Committee of Nineteen. February 25 United States officially gives approval and support to the Report of the Com- mittee of Nineteen. February 28 Japanese Government notifies League delegation to attend no more Council meetings. MICHIG STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES I I! ll llllllilIl 1193 03142 3951 III 3