¹ Grew, Joseph C., Ten Years in Japan (London: Hammond, Hammond, 1944), p. 73.Google Scholar

² Katsumi, Usui, ‘The Role of the Foreign Ministry’, in Borg, D. and Okamoto, S. (eds), Pearl Harbor as History: Japanese—American Relations 1931–1941 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973), pp. 133–4;Google ScholarNish, Ian, Japanese Foreign Policy 1869–1942: Kasumigaseki to Miyakezaka (London, Henley and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), P. 190.Google Scholar

³ Usui, , ‘Foreign Ministry’, esp. p. 148.Google Scholar

⁴ Yoshimi, Uchikawa (ed.), Gendaishi shiryo, Vol. 40: Masumedia tosei (Tokyo: Misuzu shobo, 1973), pp. 217–20.Google Scholar

⁵ Sadako, Ogata, ‘Gaiko to yoron: Renmei dattai o meguru ichikosatsu’, Kokusai seiji, I (1969), p. 46. For an example of propaganda emanating from another government department, see the long letter from T. Toyoda of the Navy Ministry to the US Ambassador in Tokyo, dated 28 February 1932: Papers of W. Cameron Forbes, Journal 1904–46 (hereafter cited as Journal), Vol. 9, Houghton Library, Harvard College.Google Scholar

⁶ On Shiratori, see Usui, , ‘Foreign Ministry’.Google Scholar

⁷ There are many general descriptions of the Manchurian Incident and subsequent events. In English, see, for example, Ogata, Sadako N., Defiance in Manchuria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964);Google ScholarYoshihashi, Takehiko, Conspiracy at Mukden (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1963);Google ScholarCrowley, James B., Japan's Quest for Autonomy (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1966);Google ScholarThome, Christopher, The Limits of Foreign Policy: The West, the League and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931–1933 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1972).Google ScholarIn this paper, ‘Manchurian Incident’ is used to mean the events near Mukden on 18 September 1931; ‘Manchurian crisis’ denotes the events between that date and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations in February—March 1933 or alternatively, the truce of Tangku of May 1933.Google Scholar

⁸ Junji, Banno, ‘“Kenseitodo” to “kyoryoku naikaku”‘, Kindai Nihon kenkyu (1984), pp. 194–5;Google ScholarPeattie, Mark R., Ishiwara Kanji and Japan's Confrontation with the West (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 114–15;Google ScholarOgata, , ‘Gaiko’, p. 44. The government's policy of trying to settle the conflict outside the League led to its insistence on direct negotiations between Japan and China without mediation by a third party. Even after the League began to discuss the Sino-Japanese conflict, the Japanese government persisted in this stance.Google Scholar Prime Minister Wakatsuki Reijiro's memoirs contain an account of the Manchurian crisis. See Meiji, Taisho, Showa seikai hishi: kofuan kaikoroku (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1983), pp. 327–45.Google Scholar On Wakatsuki's awareness that escalation of the Manchurian Incident would make Japan unpopular with other countries, see p. 335.

⁹ ‘Matsuoka Yosuke: The Diplomacy of Bluff and Gesture’, in Diplomats in Crisis: United States—Chinese—Japanese Relations, 1919–1941, ed. Burns, Richard Dean and Bennett, Edward M. (Santa Barbara, California and Oxford: ABC-Clio, 1974), p. 284.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wakasugi Kaname to Foreign Minister, 23 April 1932, Manshu jihen. Yoron narabi shinbun roncho. Yoron keihatsu kankei, Vol. 5, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Foreign Ministry papers, Gaiko shiryokan, Tokyo (hereafter cited as A. I.I.0.21–4–2, with volume number).Google Scholar

¹¹ Uchiyama Kiyoshi to Foreign Minister, 17 April 1932, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 5.Google Scholar

¹² ‘Japan's Rights and Interests in Manchuria’, address at luncheon of Transportation Club, Seattle, 30 November 1931; address at luncheon of Chamber of Commerce, Seattle, 4 December 1931, both in A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 2.Google Scholar

¹³ Reports of the activities of Uchiyama and his staff are contained in A. I.I.0.21–4–2, vols 2, 5, 9. In particular, see Uchiyama to Foreign Minister, 17 April 1932 (Vol. 5); Uchiyama to Foreign Minister, 26 April 1932, and attached lecture schedule (Vol. 5).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See ‘Manchukuo, the New-Born State’, speech by Saito Hiroshi at Columbia University on 11 October 1932, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 7; Speech at American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, 28 November 1932, Vol. 8; ‘Future Prospects of Manchukuo’, speech at University of Kentucky, 9 December 1932.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Yuki, Sato, address to the Far Eastern Society of Atlanta, January 1933 and to Lions Club, Biloxi and Gulfport, 2 March 1933, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, vol. 9; Horinouchi Kensuke, address to Government Club, 6 March 1933, A.I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Yuzo, Ota, ‘“Taiheiyo no hashi” toshite no Nitobe Inazo’, Part 5, Misuzu, 295 (05 1985), p. 46.Google Scholar On Nitobe, Tsurumi and others, see my article, ‘The Manchurian Crisis and Moderate Japanese Intellectuals: The Japan Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations’, Modern Asian Studies, 26, 3 (1992), pp. 507–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Ota, , ‘“Taiheiyo no hashi‘“, Part 5, p. 46;Google ScholarShigeharu, Matsumoto, Shanhai jidai: janarisuto no kaizo, Vol. I (Tokyo: Chuo koronsha, 1974), p. 64;Google ScholarUchikawa, E., Nitobe Inazo: the Twilight Years, trans. Newton, Michael R. (Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan, 1985), pp. 132–4.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Debuchi to Foreign Minister, 15 March 1933, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Report on Matsuoka's visit to New York, Horinouchi Kensuke to Foreign Minister, 6 May 1933, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 10. Matsuoka addressed, for example, the Japan Chamber of Commerce, 28 March 1933; the University of Oregon (of which he was a graduate), 7 April 1933. Matsuoka travelled from New York to Boston to Washington, visiting Yale and Harvard Universities amongst other places. He also spoke at Chicago and San Francisco before leaving for Japan on 12 April 1933. See also Lu, David J., ‘Matsuoka Yosuke—Kokusai renmei to no ketsubetsu’, Kokusai seiji, 2 (1976), pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

²⁰ One speech by Ozaki is reported in the Foreign Ministry records: an address to 400 American and foreign dignitaries at the Eighth Conference of Major Industries in New York on 21 October 1931. See A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 1. The text of Ozaki's speech is also in the New York Times on 25 October 1931 (‘A Japanese Plea for World Cooperation’, Section 9, p. I).Google Scholar

²¹ See Report of Suzuki Bunji's tour, Sawada Setsuzo (head of the Japanese Secretariat at the League of Nations) to Foreign Minister, 3 February 1933, A. I. I.0.21–4–, vol. 9.Google Scholar

²² A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 5. A list of the organizations addressed by Holden, together with attendance numbers, is appended to this report. On Holden, see Doenecke, Justus D., When the Wicked Rise: American Opinion-Makers and the Manchurian Crisis of 1931–1933 (Lewisburg, London and Toronto: Bucknell University Press, Associated University Presses, 1984), p. 39.Google Scholar

²³ Yonemura, , radio broadcast on 23 November 1931;Google ScholarNakazawa, , speeches on 15 December 1931 and 1 April 1932. All in A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 2.Google Scholar

²⁴ A. I. I. 0.21–4–2, Vol. 11.

²⁵ A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 10.

²⁶ Debuchi to Foreign Minister, 15 April 1933, A. I.I.0.21–4–2, Vol. 9.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Ota, , Part 4, Misuzu 294 (04 1985), esp. pp. 40–6;Google ScholarUshioda, Sharlie C., ‘Man of Two Worlds: An Inquiry into the Value System of Inazo Nitobe (1862–1933)’ in East Across the Pacific: Historical and Sociological Studies of Japanese Immigration and Assimilation, ed. Conroy, Hilary and Miyakawa, T. Scott (Santa Barbara, California and Oxford: ABC-Clio, 1972), pp. 199–200.Google Scholar

²⁸ Burkman, Thomas W., ‘Nitobe Inazo: From World Order to Regional Order’, in Rimer, J. Thomas (ed.), Culture and Identity: Japanese Intellectuals During the Interwar Years (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 206.Google Scholar

²⁹ Report on Matsuoka's visit to New York, Horinouchi to Foreign Minister, 6 May 1933 A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 10.Google Scholar

³⁰ Teters, , ‘Matsuoka Yosuke’, p. 284.Google Scholar

³¹ Lu, , ‘Matsuoka Yosuke’, pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

³² Report of Suzuki Bunji's tour, Sawada Setsuzo to Foreign Minister, 3 February 1933, A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 9.Google Scholar

³³ See, for example, A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, vols 4, 9, 10. For instance, one large pamphlet (379 pages, undated) by A. R. Tullie was produced in French. It was entitled ‘La Manchourie et le Conflit Sino-Japonais devant la Société des Nations’ (See Vol. 10).Google Scholar

³⁴ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 8; ‘Japanese Attacks Policies of United States in Pamphlets Broadcast in Latin America’, New York Times, 23 November 1932, p. 1. There is a slight difference in wording in the passage cited between the New York Times original and the report in the Japanese Foreign Ministry records. Arai declared that ‘[t]he Japanese people do not harbor the slightest rancor against’ Spanish and Latin-American delegates at the League, despite their attacks on Japan. This was because ‘[f]rom the beginning it has been considered that such attacks were addressed indirectly at the United States as a reproach for her conduct respecting the countries in this hemisphere, for otherwise the attitude of those delegates cannot be understood’.Google Scholar

³⁵ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, vols 2, 4, 5, 6; Wakasugi to Foreign Minister, 30 April 1932, Vol. 5.Google Scholar

³⁶ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 10. A further sixty addresses in the USA are given in Vol. 11.Google Scholar

³⁷ Kawakami, K. K., Manchoukuo: Child of Conflict (New York: Macmillan, 1933), v–vi.Google Scholar A Kawakami article, ‘Manchuria Again’, was also reprinted from The Nineteenth Century and After. Three thousand copies of the resulting pamphlet were amongst the materials distributed by Wakasugi in California (see above). Kawakami, had previously published Japan Speaks on the Sino-Japanese Crisis (Macmillan, 1932).Google Scholar

³⁸ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, vols 5, 6.

³⁹ Rea, George Bronson, The Case for Manchoukuo (New York and London: D. Appleton-Century, 1935), vii–viii.Google Scholar On Rea's career, see Hoyt, Frederick B., ‘George Bronson Rea: From Old China Hand to Apologist for Japan’, Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 69 (04 1978), pp. 61–70. Despite an earlier pro-Chinese and anti-Japanese stance, Rea became, according to Hoyt, ‘Japan's most eloquent defender and the leading spokesman for American Japanese cooperation in Asia’ (p. 66). He was believed by other journalists to have been ‘bought’ by the Japanese side. See, for example, the Diaries of Captain Malcolm Duncan Kennedy, Vol. 23, 14 November 1931, Sheffield University Library. Rea died in 1936.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ A pamphlet consisting of a selection of Woodhead's articles was distributed in Seattle, Alaska and elsewhere by the South Manchurian Railway Company. See also ‘Pregnant Points in the Manchurian Imbroglio’, by Mabel Ohgimi Jones, an English woman who was an interpreter at the Japanese Embassy in Madrid. A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, vols 6, 9. Vol. 9 also contains details of materials written by non-Japanese about Manchuria and other issues which were received by the Foreign Ministry and distributed within Japan. See also ‘Woodhead Debates Stimson's Doctrine’, University of Tokyo, Amerika kenkyu shiryo sentaa, Komaba. Papers of Takagi Yasaka, File 61.Google Scholar

⁴¹ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 6. See Vol. 4 for a list of names and addresses, mostly in Britain but also elsewhere in Europe, to which 480 copies of one publication were sent. See Vol. 9 for a list of influential people in Bangkok.Google Scholar

⁴² An established Japanese club called the ‘Thursday Club’ had co-operated in he formation of the Committee on Pacific Information and had been engaged in distributing pamphlets to Americans and in replying to anti-Japanese articles. Uchiyama also reported that an informal weekly meeting to discuss current problems had been started between Japanese and Americans. Report on Activities Relating to the Sino-Japanese Problem, Uchiyama to Foreign Minister, 26 May 1932, A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 5.Google Scholar

⁴³ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 5. Matsuzawa's report includes a list of activities in China and a list of the more important of their Chinese contacts. The international YMCA, through its headquarters in Geneva, had appealed to all Christian churches and organizations throughout the world to support demands for the withdrawal of Japanese troops from China. It also advocated a boycott of Japanese goods.

⁴⁴ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 10.

⁴⁵ Lindley to Simon, 30 August 1932, FO 410/94, Foreign Office Papers, Public Record Office (PRO), London. On Lindley's views, see also Louis, William Roger, British Strategy in the Far East 1919–1939 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1971), ch. 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Lindley, to Dawson, (editor of The Times), 2 09 1931,Google Scholar Geoffrey Dawson Papers, no. 76, fols 30–1, Bodleian Library, Oxford;Lindley to Dawson, 30 September 1931, no. 76, fols 46–9. See also Lindley to Dawson, 14 November 1931, no. 76, fols 59–71;Lindley to Dawson, 22 December 1931, no. 76, fols 77–81.

⁴⁷ Lindley to Simon, 30 August 1932, p. 15, FO 410/94, PRO. See also Malcolm Kennedy's comments on Lindley's attitude: for example, the Kennedy Diaries, Vol. 26, 21 February 1933. Lindley's predecessor, Sir John Tilley, held very similar views of Japan and accepted Manchuria's importance for Japan, as did other British consular officials. Britain's representatives at Peking and Geneva, however, disagreed with Lindley: see Louis, British Strategy, pp. 175, 182–3. See also ‘The Banff Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations: an English Impression’ [Report by Archibald Rose to Chatham House?], Takagi Papers, File 75.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘Notes of a Talk with Simon at the F.O. on 14th March, 1932’, Dawson Papers, no. 76, fols 134–7, Bodleian Library. Quotations from the Dawson Papers are by permission of Mr and Mrs William Bell.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Journal, Forbes Papers, Vol. 8, 3 December 1931 (pp. 510–20), Houghton Library;Bates College Commencement Address, 13 June 1932 (p. 4), Speeches and Articles, Forbes Papers, Box 4. Quotations by permission of the Houghton Library. Forbes also believed that Japanese army officers were probably responsible for the explosion of 18 September 1931: see Journal, 3 December 1931 (p. 521); 10 January 1932 (pp. 540–1). He accepted that Manchuria and the rest of China were ‘banditridden’, but was aware that the ‘bandits’ were often soldiers or ex-soldiers who might have no other means of livelihood than ‘banditry’. See Journal, 10 January 1932 (pp. 539–40). On Forbes, see also Lensen, George Alexander, ‘Japan and Manchuria: Ambassador Forbes' Appraisal of American Policy Toward Japan in 1931–32’, Monumenta Nipponica, 23, 1 (01 1968), pp. 66–89;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoss, Gary, ‘W. Cameron Forbes: the Diplomacy of a Darwinist’, in Burns, and Bennett, (eds), Diplomats in Crisis, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ This paragraph is based on Kitaoka Shin'ichi, ‘Washinton taisei to “kokusai kyocho” no seishin: Makumari memorandamu (1935nen) ni yosete’, Rikkyo hogaku, no. 23 (1984), esp. pp. 101–10. On MacMurray and his memorandum, see also Buckley, Thomas, ‘John Van Antwerp MacMurray: the Diplomacy of an American Mandarin’, in Burns, and Bennett, (eds), Diplomats in Crisis, pp. 27–48.Google ScholarIn Kitaoka's judgement, MacMurray could not be considered pro-Japanese in a personal sense. He preferred China and the Chinese and felt uncomfortable when living in Japan between 1917 and 1919. However, in policy terms he favoured Japan (see pp. 104ff.). Stanley K. Hornbeck, one of MacMurray's successors as Chief of Far Eastern Affairs and the State Department's foremost expert in East Asian affairs in the 1920s and 1930s, wrote a memorandum during the First World War which was very favourable to the idea of Japanese expansion into Manchuria, partly because ‘If we compel a strict interpretation of the “open door” in Manchuria may not doors be rudely burst open elsewhere which now are closed to Japanese; say in California?’Google Scholar(In Doenecke, Justus D., comp., The Diplomacy of Frustration: The Manchurian Crisis of 1931–1933 as Revealed in the Papers of Stanley K. Hornbeck (Stanford University: Hoover Institution Press, 1981), pp. 55–61.)Google Scholar

⁵¹ A. 1.1.0.21–4–2, Vol. 5.

⁵² Cohen, Warren I., The Chinese Connection: Roger S. Greene, Thomas W. Lamont, George E. Sokolsky and American-East Asian Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), p. 190.Google Scholar Ferdinand Mayer of the American Legation in China had argued in November 1927 that on ethical grounds the USA could not oppose Japanese plans in Manchuria ‘in view of measures we have taken in our correspondingly vital zone—the Caribbean’ (Ibid., p. 151.)

⁵³ Ibid., p. 278.

⁵⁴ Ibid., pp. 43, 278, 149, 280,176.

⁵⁵ On US public opinion, see Thorne, , Limits of Foreign Policy;Google ScholarDoenecke, , When the Wicked Rise;Google ScholarRappaport, Armin, Henry L. Stimson and Japan, 1931–33 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1963);Google ScholarMay, Ernest R., ‘US Press Coverage of Japan, 1931–1941’ in Borg, and Okamoto, (eds), Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 511–17.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Byas, Hugh, ‘Japan and China in Manchuria’, radio broadcast, 2 December 1931. Text in Herald Press (ed.), Sino-Japanese Entanglements 1931–1932 (A Military Record) (Tokyo: Herald Press, 1932), pp. 293–302. This volume contains a preface by Zumoto Motosada, founder of the Japan Times.Google ScholarByas, , ‘What Japan Thinks of America’, New York Times Magazine, 22 January 1933, in Takagi Papers, File 61. Byas seems to have changed emphasis slightly by 1942.Google ScholarIn The Japanese Enemy: His Power and his Vulnerability (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1942), he wrote: ‘… the picture of Japan as a nation deprived of living-room is not a description of an actual situation, but a highly coloured anticipation of imaginary future troubles. The structure of propaganda that has been crystallised in the phrase “haves” and “have-nots” proves on examination to be a house of cards.’ (p. 65). On Byas, see May, ‘US Press Coverage of Japan’, p. 514.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Abbot, Willis J., ‘The Manchurian Situation’, Christian Science Monitor, 5 December 1931, in Takagi Papers, File 47. According to Thorne, the Christian Science Monitor in general terms openly supported Japan: Limits of Foreign Policy, p. 176.Google ScholarOn Abbot, see Doenecke, , When the Wicked Rise, pp. 38–9.Google ScholarAxling, William, ‘Be Just To Japan’, Christian Century (13 April 1932), included in Takagi Papers, File 61.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Rappaport, , Stimson and Japan, p. 21.Google Scholar See Ibid., pp. 18–21, 62–3 on British and French reactions; also Louis, British Strategy, ch. 6; Thorne, , Limits of Foreign Policy, pp. 174–5;Google ScholarMartin, Kingsley, ‘British Opinion and the Proposed Boycott of Japan’, in Japan's Aggression and Public Opinion, comp. and publ. National Southwest Associated University Library, Kunming, China (1938), p. 473.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Rappaport, , Stimson and Japan, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Diaries, Kennedy, Vol. 26, 25 April 1933. For an outline of Kennedy's career and of the first part of the diaries,Google Scholarsee Pardoe, Jon, ‘The Diaries of Captain Malcolm Duncan Kennedy (1895–1984)’, Proceedings of the British Association for Japanese Studies, 11, ed. Chapman, John and Steeds, David (Centre for Japanese Studies, University of Sheffield, 1988), pp. 1–9. Kennedy produced several books. For a sympathetic treatment of Japan's problems, see especially The Problem of Japan, ch. 1. In this volume Kennedy emphasized the point that ‘irresistible economic pressure’ plus the necessity for Japan to safeguard itself against ‘the Soviet menace’ led to the Manchurian Incident (pp. 111–12).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Rappaport, Stimson and Japan, pp. 200–1.

⁶² Cited in Louis, British Strategy, p. 200.

⁶³ Rappaport, Stimson and Japan, pp. 78, 124.

⁶⁴ Attitudes to Japan's actions expressed by the smaller states belonging to the League of Nations are beyond the scope of this paper. However, it should be noted that they were often much more critical of Japan. See, for example, Thorne, , Limits of Foreign Policy, pp. 213, 332–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ McWilliams, Margaret, ‘Discussion of China's Foreign Relations is Signal for Explosion’, article for Winnipeg Free Press, 3 October 1931, in Takagi Papers, File 60 (pp. 12–14 of this version).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Henry Lewis Stimson Papers, Reel 82, 14 December 1931, Yale University Library (copy in University Library, Cambridge, England). See also Henry Lewis Stimson Diaries, 25 February 1932, where Stimson expresses some sympathy with Japan's economic ‘rights’ in Manchuria.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Grew, , Ten Years, p. 14.Google Scholar On Grew, see also Bennett, Edward M., ‘Joseph C. Grew: the Diplomacy of Pacification’, in Burns, and Bennett, (eds), Diplomats in Crisis, pp. 65–89;Google ScholarHeinrichs, Waldo H. Jr, American Ambassador: Joseph Grew and the Development of the United States Diplomatic Tradition (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1966).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Bates College Commencement Address, 13 June 1932, Forbes Papers, Journal, Vol. 8; 10 January 1932, Vol. 8 (p. 539). On this point see also Journal, Vol. 9, footnote added in 1943 to p. 8; Letter from Forbes to C. S. Shank, Seattle, 12 January 1932, Appendix 19, Vol. 9, p. 489.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Letters, 1909–45, Papers of Joseph Clark Grew (also containing diaries and some speeches and records of conversations; hereafter cited as Letters), Vol. 58, Diary, 27 August 1932 et seq., Houghton Library, Harvard College. Quotations from the Grew Papers are by permission of the Houghton Library. It should be noted that Grew's ‘diary’ was somewhat public even before some of it was published as Ten Years in Japan. He sent it regularly to a number of people, including colleagues and family members. (The distinction was not always clear: he had three children who survived to adulthood; all were daughters and all married diplomats.) For evidence of this, see, for example, letters to William and Margaret Castle, Mrs Robert English, Randolph Grew, Mrs J. Pierrepont Moflatt, in Letters, vols 55 and 56. For comments on Grew's intentions in writing and later publishing his diaries, see Introduction and Chapter 4 of Nakamura Masanori, The Japanese Monarchy: Ambassador Joseph Grew and the Making of the ‘Symbol Emperor System’, 1931–1991 (transl. Bix, Herbert P., Baker-Bates, Jonathan and Bowen, Derek; New York and London: M. E. Sharpe, 1992). On the nature of the diaries see also Heinrichs, American Ambassador, viii.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ 14–18 May 1932, p. 3, Diary (Letters, Vol. 57); Hoover, Herbert, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency, 1920–1933 (London: Hollis and Carter, 1952) PP. 362–3.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Letter to USA, January-February 1933, pp. 448, 445–6. Letters, Vol. 65, Grew Papers.Google Scholar

⁷² 27 August 1932 et seq., pp. 198–200, Diary (Letters, Vol. 58); letter to USA, January—February 1933, p. 446, Letters, Vol. 65. The treaties in question were the Kellogg—Briand Pact, the Nine-Power Pact and the Covenant of the League of Nations.Google Scholar

⁷³ 23 February 1933, p. 476, Diary (Letters, Vol. 65); Hoover, Memoirs, p. 365; Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Vol. 1 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948), pp. 270–1, 277, 290–1; 27 August 1932 et seq., p. 198, Diary, Grew Papers (Letters, Vol. 58).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ 27 August 1932 et seq., pp. 198–9, Diary, Grew Papers (Letters, Vol. 58).

⁷⁵ Letter to Hugh Wilson, 5 December 1932, Letters, Vol. 55.

⁷⁶ Nakamura, , The Japanese Monarchy, p. 41. See also Herbert P. Bix's Preface to this volume, viii-ix, and Heinrichs, American Ambassador, pp. 192–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Letters to Hugh Wilson, 5 December 1932 and 21 July 1932, Letters, Vol. 55; Diary, 13 June 1932 (Letters, Vol. 57).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Nakamura, , The Japanese Monarchy, pp. 55–9 on such critics. By the time Grew's Ten Years appeared in 1944, they included the scholars Andrew Roth (Dilemma in Japan) and Thomas A. Bisson, and some diplomats from countries other than the USA.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Hoover, , Memoirs, p. 364.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ ‘Be Just to Japan’, pp. 11–12 of version in Takagi Papers.

⁸¹ 1 June 1932, Stimson Diaries, Reel 4, Vol. 22; 27 February 1933, Reel 5, Vol. 26.

⁸² Letter to Stimson, 8 October 1932, Letters, Vol. 57, Grew Papers; Diary, 7 October 1932 (Letters, Vol. 58); Miscellaneous Notes, September 1933, after p. 694 in Letters, Vol. 65.Google Scholar

⁸³ Heinrichs, , American Ambassador, ix.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Gittings, John, ‘Rules of the Game’, review of Christopher Thorne, Limits of Foreign Policy, New York Review of Books, 20, no. 8 (17 05 1973), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Junji, Banno, ‘Diplomatic Misunderstanding and the Escalation of the Manchurian Incident’, Annals of the Institute of Social Science [University of Tokyo], no. 27 (1985; English version dated March 1986);Google ScholarBanno, , ‘“Kenseitodo”’, pp. 192–6. On Stimson's statements, see Rappaport,Stimson and Japan, ch. 3; Thome, Limits of Foreign Policy, ch. 6.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Cited (in Japanese translation) in Shin'ichi, Kitaoka, Kiyosawa Kiyoshi (Tokyo: Chuo koronsha, 1987), p. 96.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cohen, , Chinese Connection, p. 181.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Miyakawa, T. S., “Some of the Impressions of American Reaction’, 1935, A.1.1.0. 21–4–2, Vol. 11.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Wakasugi to Foreign Minister, 23 April 1932, A.1.1.0. 21–4–2, Vol. 5. On the significance of the Shanghai Incident to Americans, see Kitaoka, Kiyosawa, pp. 96–7;Google ScholarThome, , Limits of Foreign Policy, pp. 210–12;Google ScholarDoenecke, , When the Wicked Rise, ch. 2;Google ScholarShin'ichi, Kitaoka, ‘Taibei gaiko no joken: Kiyosawa Kiyoshi kankeikan’, Chuo koron (March 1986), p. 118. Thorne notes (p. 214) that the French, though greatly concerned about the Shanghai Incident, continued to express sympathy for Japan's initial grievances.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Louis, , British Strategy, pp. 187–8. See also p. 200.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cohen, , Chinese Connection, p. 181.Google Scholar

⁹² Rappaport, , Stimson and Japan, pp. 174–5;Google ScholarThome, , Limits of Foreign Policy, p. 124.Google Scholar

⁹³ Cohen, , Chinese Connection, p. 280.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Halliday, Jon, A Political History of Japanese Capitalism (New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1975), p. 353.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Toshikazu, Inoue, ‘Kokusai renmei dattai to kokusai kyocho gaiko’, Hitotsubashi ronso 94, 3 (11 1985), pp. 353–72;Google ScholarOgata, , ‘Gaiko’, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Nish, , Japanese Foreign Policy, p. 191.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Inoue, ‘Kokusai renmei dattai’.

⁹⁸ Ibid.

⁹⁹ Nish, Ian, ‘An Aspect of Tradition and Modernity: Matsuoka and Japanese Diplomacy at Geneva, 1932–33’, in Tradition and Modern Japan, ed. O'Neill, P. G. (Kent: Paul Norbury, 1981), pp. 114–22;Google ScholarNish, Ian, ‘A Japanese Diplomat Looks at Europe, 1920–39’, in European Studies on Japan, ed. Nish, I. and Dunn, C. (Kent: Paul Norbury, 1979), pp. 135 ff. On Matsuoka at the League, and on various Japanese attitudes to withdrawal from the League, see Lu, ‘Matsuoka Yosuke’.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Toshikazu, Inoue, ‘Kokusai renmei dattaigo no Nihon gaiko’, Hitotsubashi ronso 93, 2 (02 1985), pp. 210–29;Google ScholarOgata, , ‘Gaiko’, p. 50.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Takafusa, Nakamura, Showashi I (Tokyo: Toyo keizai shinposha, 1993), pp. 164–6Google Scholar; on British overtures, Bennett, Gill, ‘British Policy in the Far East 1933–1936: Treasury and Foreign Office’, Modern Asian Studies 26, 3 (07 1992), pp. 545–68. It should be noted that Hirota Koki's ‘conciliatory’ foreign policy had hardened by late 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰² Grew, , Ten Years, p. 73.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Tadashi, Fujino, ‘Showa shoki no “jiyushugisha”: Tsurumi Yusuke o chushin toshite’, Nihon rekishi, no. 415 (December 1982), p. 71.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ This is Brooks’, Barbara J. argument in ‘The Japanese Foreign Ministry and China Affairs: Loss of Control, 1895–1938’, Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1991, ch. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ibid.