704.00/129
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 3.]
Sir: As of possible interest in so far as it may shed further light upon the somewhat vague and ill-defined recent Japanese policy known as the “Southward Advance”, I have the honor to transmit herewith a translation41 of an interpellation on this subject in the Lower House of the Diet during the hearings on March 16, 1938, on the Navy [Page 171] Budget, and of the Navy Minister’s reply thereto. A translation of the hearings in full on the Navy Budget were transmitted by the Naval Attaché42 to the Navy Department in his confidential report No. 71, dated March 30, 1938.43
Although this Southward Advance policy was developed, probably at the instigation of the navy, some two years ago, references to it have been relatively infrequent and not of such a nature as to clarify it; and although the present question and reply leave much to be desired in respect of precision and clarity, nevertheless they do reveal that the present intention of the naval authorities is that such a policy should be pursued by means of peaceful economic penetration rather than by force. In bringing up the subject the interpellator opened by stating that the present “Continental Policy”, (by which it may be presumed he refers to the policy of expansion on the Asiatic mainland), is by itself insufficient to meet the needs of Japan’s growing population which increases by one million per annum. He points out, significantly, that the various agrarian reform laws which have been and are constantly being tried have proven to be powerless to remedy the situation and that, therefore, thought must be given toward the question of “Southward Advance.” It is stated that “Manchukuo” has failed to prove an outlet for the surplus population as not more than 200,000 Japanese have been induced to emigrate there since 1931, but that the South Pacific offers room.
The interpellator is not specific as to the areas he has in mind although he makes reference to the desirability of obtaining the “understanding” of the United States for a peaceful exploitation of islands “in the vicinity” of the Japanese Mandated Islands and he remarks that Japan’s policy of expansion in this area need never menace the United States. There are also mentioned as possibilities for Japanese peaceful exploitation the Malay Peninsula and North Africa and there is an oblique reference to the fact that Holland is holding colonies in area eighty times as large as the motherland. The interpellator closes by saying that industrialization alone will not save the situation because the markets of the world are closed to Japan’s surplus goods by tariff barriers; that there are many peaceful means of pursuing the “Southward Advance”; and that it is foolish to antagonize the United States and Great Britain and be drawn into a naval race in spite of Japan’s policy of non-menace and non-aggression.
The Navy Minister replied briefly, refusing to comment upon the Continental Policy but agreeing that the “Southward Advance” was worth thinking about. He emphasized, however, that this policy [Page 172] should be pursued by peaceful and economic means only and he regards the Japanese Mandated Islands as furnishing the first step in this direction. “It would be better for people to go there first”, he says, “and thence to the south or southwestward.”
This last phrase falls somewhat short of furnishing a definite description of Japan’s objectives and embraces a substantial amount of territory.
Respectfully yours,