They further "undertake in the event of a military attack on one of the contracting parties to render each other every assistance, including military assistance".

BULLITT

793.94/7833: Telegram

The Counselor of Embassy in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State

NANKING, April 9, 1936-9 a. m. [Received April 9-7 a. m.]

85. 1. A well-informed Chinese who arrived from Tientsin last night and who has recently been an official of the Tientsin municipal government has stated to an officer of the Embassy that General Matsumuro is pressing Tientsin Mayor Hsiao Chen Ying and General Sung Che Yuan for a written agreement providing for Sino-Japanese military cooperation against Communists.

2. Informant stated that large numbers of National Government troops continue to enter Shansi Province and his opinion tends to confirm a general belief here that Japanese objections to the despatch of such troops (reference this office's 51, March 6, 2 p. m.) are based on the probability that they will consolidate Chiang Kai Shek's authority in that province at the border of territory which is under Japanese influence by reason of the jurisdiction of the Hopei-Chahar Council. (Minister of Military Administration General Ho Ying Chin is understood to have flown to Taiyuan several days ago and is reported to be there at present.) Recently a Japanese spokesman here has minimized the number of Central Government forces sent to Shansi (reference this office's 65, March 26, 3 [2] p. m.) and 2 days ago the same spokesman informed a foreign news correspondent that only two Central Government divisions were then actually in that province, according to reports he professed to have received from Japanese military officers in Peiping.

3. To Tokyo and Tientsin by mail.

PECK

793.94/7835: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Johnson)

WASHINGTON, April 9, 1936-5 p. m. 82. 1. Under date April 6 the American Ambassador at London telegraphs as follows:

"In a casual luncheon conversation today a Foreign Office official intimated that they had received somewhat disturbing reports in the last few days from China, that it was possible that the Chinese were

38 Not printed.

reaching a point where 'they might do something foolish'. He said that 'Chiang Kai Shek had to decide whether he would take the course of wisdom which was to effect a compromise with the Japanese or take on the role of national hero in leading a fruitless drive against the Japanese'.'

2. In the absence of identification of the parties to the conversation the Department is not inclined, in the light of your reports and other data, to attach undue importance to the statement made in the first sentence quoted above but brings London's telegram to your attention for purposes of information and in order that you may have the indication contained in the last quoted sentence of the trend of thought in some British circles.

HULL

761.93 Outer Mongolia/10: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bullitt) to the Secretary

of State

Moscow, April 9, 1936-5 p. m. [Received 8 p. m.]

103. Soviet press this morning publishes a note of the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs to Bogomolov, Soviet Ambassador in China, dated April 7, 1936, asserting that the protocol between the Soviet Government and Outer Mongolia forms "undoubtedly a violation of the sovereignty of China and the terms of the Chinese-Soviet Agreement of 1924." The note goes on to state: "It is therefore my duty to declare a strong protest to your Excellency and to state that the conclusion of the above mentioned protocol with Outer Mongolia by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is illegal and the Chinese Government cannot under any circumstances recognize such a protocol and is in no way bound by it."

Litvinov's reply to the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow rejecting the protest, dated April 8, is also published. It contains the following statement: "Neither the fact of the signing of the protocol nor its separate articles violate to the slightest degree the sovereignty of China."

Litvinov then asserts: "that the Soviet-Chinese Agreement of 1924 concluded in Peiping did not suffer any harm and retains its force."

I have discussed the situation in the Far East with both Litvinov and Stomoniakoff during the past 2 days. They are exceedingly optimistic. They believe that the Japanese have alienated completely all sympathy among the Mongols not only of Outer Mongolia but also Inner Mongolia and Manchuria and are convinced that Japan's political position in North China, Manchuria and Inner Mongolia is becoming weaker.

A large Mongolian delegation reached Moscow last night for the purpose of arranging further integration between the military and economic systems of the Soviet Union and Outer Mongolia.

BULLITT

761.93 Outer Mongolia/20

The Consul General at Harbin (Adams) to the Ambassador in China (Johnson) 39

No. 224

HARBIN, April 10, 1936. SIR: I have the honor to attach hereto, as enclosure No. 1,40 a copy of a Kokutsu despatch from Hsinking dated April 6, 1936, containing a translation of a statement concerning the reported Soviet-Outer Mongolian agreement. It agrees exactly with the versions which appeared in the Japanese and Chinese press. Although the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and the Japanese Consulate General were unable to confirm that the Foreign Office actually gave out the statement, they had little doubt that Kokutsu reported correctly. It is believed that the statement may be taken as official.

The statement first assumes that in making the agreement, Soviet Russia broke Article V of the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924 regarding China's territorial integrity. It then says that the U. S. S. R. desires to place Outer Mongolia in its power "in fact as well as in name"; that the pact is contrary to the will of the majority of the Mongols; that its real intent is to use Outer Mongolia as a base to Sovietize the Far East; that it is a military alliance against "Manchukuo" and Japan; that the agreement cannot be recognized by "Manchukuo"; that as the Nanking Government has ignored the pact, it must be concluded that it has a secret agreement with Soviet Russia; that hence the Nanking Government may be considered as the public enemy of the Far East; that "Manchukuo" and Japan will be obliged to take independent action if China does nothing; that as Manchuria and Mongolia are racial and geographical neighbors, "Manchukuo” has as much if not more right to speak in Mongolia than the Soviet Union; that as the establishment of the Soviet position in Outer Mongolia increases communist influence, "Manchukuo" is menaced thereby, which may occasion it to take proper measures in Outer Mongolia; and, finally that the recent aggravation of attack on "Manchukuo" frontier guards is worthy of serious attention.

The relations existing between "Manchukuo" and Japan make the above referred to statement sound strange coming as it does from the authorities in Hsinking. The unrestrained tone of the article would

39

Copy transmitted to the Department by the Consul General at Harbin in his despatch No. 346, April 10; received May 18.

40 Not printed.

appear to indicate that the Kwantung Army is alarmed over the situation.

Attached hereto, as enclosure No. 2,41 is an English translation of an editorial which appeared in the Harbin Nichi Nichi, issue of April 2, 1936, claiming that the Russian policy toward Japan and "Manchukuo" has recently changed from one of passive defense to positive action. This editorial would not have been published in Harbin without the approval of the Japanese Military Mission.

The Harbin press reports of the Chinese protest against the conclusion of an agreement of mutual assistance between Soviet Russia and Outer Mongolia do not carry conviction. The protest was made following an outburst on the part of the Japanese press and probably following serious representations to Nanking by the Japanese.

In this general connection, attention is invited to this Consulate General's despatch No. 134 to the Embassy, October 7, 1935, entitled "Manchukuo' and Outer Mongolia"." That despatch invited attention to the circumstances that Japanese demands that the soldiers of Outer Mongolia be treated by the Chinese Government as "Chinese communists" might well drive China to jettison Outer Mongolia as a means of resisting Japanese pressure for Chinese military action which would tend to involve China in Japan's clashes with Russian interests.

Respectfully yours,

761.93 Outer Mongolia/14: Telegram

WALTER A. ADAMS

The Counselor of Embassy in China (Peck) to the Secretary of State

NANKING, April 11, 1936-7 p. m. [Received April 11-3:20 p. m.42]

89. My 87, April 10, 9 a. m." An official of the Foreign Office has unofficially sent to an officer of the Embassy the text of a note to Soviet Ambassador dated today as follows:

"Your Excellency: With reference to the signing of the Protocol of Mutual Assistance between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Outer Mongolia, I had the honor to address to Your Excellency, on the 7th of April, a note of protest, stating that the signing of the protocol constituted an infringement of the sovereignty of China and a breach of the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924, and that the Chinese Government could under no circumstances recognize such a protocol.

On the 9th of April, I received from Your Excellency a copy of the note addressed to the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow by the

Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs in reply to the above-stated protest. The note declared that 'the Soviet Government confirms once more that the above-mentioned agreement (the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924), as far as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is concerned, remains in force in future'. I have taken cognizance of the pledge thus again given by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that it recognizes Outer Mongolia as an integral part of Republic of China and respects China's sovereignty therein. I am, however, obliged to consider as without ground the explanation given by the Soviet Government in regard to the signing of the protocol by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with Outer Mongolia. Particularly, the Mukden-Soviet Agreement, signed at Mukden in 1924, which is cited in the note under reply, cannot be regarded as a precedent for the present protocol.

The contention in the Soviet note that the signing of the MukdenSoviet Agreement did not elicit a protest from the Chinese Government is just contrary to facts. It has to be recalled that before the said agreement was submitted by the local authorities to the Central Government and subsequently approved by the latter as an annex to the Sino-Soviet?] Agreement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at Peiping (then Peking) repeatedly made protests to the then Soviet Ambassador to China, on September 25 and October 11, 1924, respectively, and the Chinese diplomatic representative at Moscow also lodged protests with the Soviet Government. It was not until the said agreement had been approved by the Central Government and all legal procedure has [had?] been complied with that a notification was sent to the Soviet Government in March, 1925 to the effect that the Mukden-Soviet Agreement was to be considered as an annex to the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924. Thus, the signing of the Mukden-Soviet Agreement, which was originally an illegal act on the part of the Soviet Government, an act contrary to international practice, was only rectified subsequently by the Chinese Government. In no sense can it be referred to as a precedent for the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to enter into any agreement with Chinese local authorities.

Inasmuch as the present protocol signed by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with Outer Mongolia constitutes an infringement of China's sovereignty and is in complete contradiction with the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924, the Chinese Government has to renew its protest in respect of the protocol and to reiterate its stand in that regard as enunciated in its last note of protest on the same subject.

I have to request Your Excellency to transmit the above communication to Your Excellency's Government.

I avail, etc."

PECK

45 See telegram No. 377, October 4, 1924, 5 p. m., from the Chargé in China, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 510.