from any activities, however informal, which could possibley be interpreted as going beyond their custodial functions. 5. At posts where offices are leased, the Department leaves to the discretion of the Chief of Mission or principal consular officer whether to retain the premises, leaving the property of this Government therein, or to store the property in commercial warehouses and terminate the lease. Depending on the time at their disposal and the availability of warehouses, officers should endeavor to make the most economical arrangements that are not incompatiblę with the security of the property concerned. If the premises must be retained, efforts should at least be made to reduce the amount of rental. Officers will know best whether, when premises are retained, property left therein may be entrusted to landlords, or whether custodians should be retained as outlined in the foregoing paragraph. 6. The property mentioned in the above paragraphs includes furniture, equipment, and nonconfidential archives. Such archives should be sealed, however, [ 1967-D] 7. All It is of the utmost importance that all confidential files, seals, confidential codes, ciphers, true readings, protectograph dies, et cetera, should be destroyed. Fee stamps should be destroyed by burning in the presence of at least two competent witnesses whose affidavits should be obtained. 8. All passports of any character, valid or invalid, extra visa pages, certiflcates of naturalization and certificates of registration and identity, blank or filled in, should be thoroughly mutilated and then burnt. With the exception of passports the first page of which should be retained for delivery to Department, a complete list should be made of all documents destroyed with identifying data when possible. In no circumstances should you attempt to bring with you any of the above documents or supplies except the first pages of passports. 9. The Department would have no objection to the storage of the personal effects of officers and American employees in Government-owned buildings or in leased buildings that are retained. of the personal effects of officers and employees. If such facilities not available, Department will pay local storage charges. 10. If possible, forms 285 and 298 should be submitted after closing the office. The Department should be informed by telegraph of the effective date of closing. [1967-E] 11. All offices concerned are requested to inform the Department immediately (rather than at the time of closing) by telegraph of any foreign interests represented by them which have not been the subject of any specific instruction from or report to the Department since January 1, 1941. The disposition of foreign interests in the event of closing of offices will be dealt with later in a separate telegraphic instruction. 12. Each office at the time of closing and in connection with authorizations to draw drafts and make payments to individuals against deposits made with Department shall immediately inform it of all cases of noncompliance by citing instruction numbers and dates, amounts and beneficiaries. 13. The sending of this instruction is in the nature of a precautionary measure and the authority granted in the foregoing paragraphs is intended to enable the officers concerned to deal with a sudden emergency. The concerned officers should quietly formulate plans to deal with an emergency if and when it arises. It is highly desirable that discussion be kept to a minimum and that publicity be avoided. Tokyo instruct officers in Japanese territory. Peiping instruct officers in Japanese-occupied areas in China including Manchuria. Sent to Tokyo via Peiping. Repeated to Chungking and Hong Kong. Hong Kong repeat to Bankgok and Saigon. Saigon instruct Hanoi. [1968] The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is that all? Mr. GREW. That is all, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Senator, go ahead. HULL. Senator BREWSTER. You were also, Mr. Grew, going to look to see whether you had been at any time consulted or informed in advance [1974] So my question is not as to what happened but as to what might have happened if the modus vivendi had been in effect and at the end of 3 months the Japanese surveying the situation, had found their German friends in a very different position. I think you have hitherto emphasized that the Japanese had never believed they could conquer the world alone but that they were dependent on the success of the Axis armies in Europe for any final plan. Mr. GREW. My belief, Senator, was that at that time the Japanese were pretty independent. They were certainly very cocky. They had complete self-assurance, and I rather doubt whether any fluctuations in the war in Europe would materially have altered their procedure. But that is something that of course cannot be proved. It is only supposition. Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Now what did you feel, Mr. Grew, as to the consequences of any further southern expansion, moving into the Kra Peninsula, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, as to it requiring that we should, at all odds, take action or whether we could have tolerated any further movement safely for the sake of gaining time? Mr. GREW. The Japanese program, Senator, was constantly expanding. In the beginning they talked about the Greater East Asia coprosperity sphere, and later that developed into [1975] the coprosperity sphere for Greater East Asia including the South Seas, and that included Australia. In other words, their visions of grandeur were constantly increasing. Senator BREWSTER. You called it delusions. Mr. GREW. It was constantly increasing. Senator BREWSTER. You felt that at some point the line must be drawn, you could not let them go on indefinitely? Mr. GREW. Very decidedly so. Senator BREWSTER. That meant some parallel of latitude or some other definite spot beyond which you could not permit them to pass? Mr. GREW. I never thought of it in terms of precise geography, Senator. It was the general movement which was threatening what I considered our vital national interest. It was not a question of arriving at any particular point or crossing any particular line, it was simply the general movement. Senator BREWSTER. Now one other question, for the purpose of the historical record. You spoke yesterday about the encouragement which was given to the warlike spirit of Japan by the publication of statements of an isolationist or pacifist character in this country, and that those were frequently featured in the [1976] Japanese press during the year 1940 for the purpose of stimulating the Japanese attitude that they could safely attack us. Mr. GREW. It was for the purpose of creating in the Japanese mind a totally erroneous conception of the spirit of the American people. Senator BREWSTER. In order to do complete justice I want to read the most distinguished publication on that score and I want to ask you whether or not it was published in Japan. This was on September 16, 1940, a statement which I took from volume IX of Public 1 Subsequently corrected to October 30, 1940. Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Roosevelt, on page 434, and I quote: And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by 'its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. That is the end of the quotation. Do you recall whether or not that was published at that time in Japan. Mr. GREW. No, sir. I would not recall whether that precise statement was published in Japan at that time. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, will the Senator yield? [1977] Senator BREWSTER. Yes, I will yield. Mr. MURPHY. In view of the fact that the Senator from Maine has brought out the quotation, I want to state in the record that there were a number of other speeches made by the same distinguished gentleman from which any fair-minded person would take a proper construction. I would like also to say that on yesterday there was reference made by a member of this committee to certain things connected with politics, and now we have a reference to another political speech. I hope we will keep politics out of this investigation. Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share the hope of the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. In order that politics may be kept out, the Chair suggests that the whole speech from which the quotation was read be made a part of the record. Senator LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, at the proper time the Senator from Illinois Senator BREWSTER. That is entirely agreeable. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you have concluded? Senator LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Senator from Maine brings up this one quotation, the Senator from Illinois, at the proper time, will proceed to insert other [1978] speeches made by this distinguished President upon that same question, and those quotations will not be the same as the Senator from Maine quoted. I think the Senator from Maine, if he wanted to do real justice to the cause, would use more than that one quotation. Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I might well have taken a single sentence, but I did not, I took the entire quotation. I think those concerned will point out the language which the President there used regarding the defense. In other speeches he used the words "unless we are attacked." In this speech he used the words "that is for our defense," which may be considered as moderating its implication. However, I think the question is quite fair, and I certainly have no objection to any other statements of any kind being inserted, which I hope certainly are not in conflict or contradiction. I would expect a continuity of policy. The CHAIRMAN. The speech from which the quotation was read may be made a part of the record. (The speech referred to follows:) [1979] Campaign Address at Boston, Mass. "WE ARE GOING FULL SPEED AHEAD !" October 30, 1940 (Rebuilding the Navy and naval bases-Expending and training the ArmyDefense contracts-Defense housing-Our Air Power is growing-Planes for Britain Production capacity-Progress of agricultural recovery-Republican opposition to aid to the farmers.) Mr. Mayor, my friends of New England: I've had a glorious day here in New England. And I do not need to tell you that I have been glad to come back to my old stamping ground in Boston There's one thing about this trip that I regret. I have to return to Washington tonight, without getting a chance to go into my two favorite States of Maine and Vermont. In New York City two nights ago, I showed by the cold print of the Congressional Record how Republican leaders, with their votes and in their speeches, have been playing, and still are playing politics with national defense. Even during the past three years, when the dangers to all forms of democracy throughout the world have been obvious, the Republican team in the Congress has been acting only as a Party team. [1980] Time after time, Republican leadership refused to see that what this country needs is an all-American team. Those side-line critics are now saying that we are not doing enough for our national defense. I say to you that we are going full speed ahead! Our Navy is our outer line of defense. Almost the very minute that this Administration came into office seven and a half years ago, we began to build the Navy up-to build a bigger Navy. In those seven years we have raised the total of 193 ships in commission to 337 ships in commission today. And, in addition to that, we have 119 more ships that are actually under construction today. In those seven years we raised the personnel of our Navy from 106,000 to 210,000 today. You good people here in Boston know of the enormous increase of productive work in your Boston Navy Yard. And that is only one of many Navy yardsone of the best. There are now six times as many men employed in our Navy yards as there were in 1933. The private ship-building yards are also humming with activity-building ships for our Navy and for our expanding merchant marine. The construction of this Navy has been a monumental job. In spite of what some campaign orators may tell you, you cannot buy a battleship from a mail-order catalogue. [1981] We have not only added ships and men to the Navy, we have enormously increased the effectiveness of Naval bases in those outlying territories of ours in the Atlantic and Pacific. For our objective is to keep any potential attacker as far from our continental shores as we possibly can. You here in New England know that well, and can well visualize it. And within the past two months your Government has acquired new naval and air bases in British territory in the Atlantic Ocean; extending all the way from Newfoundland in the north to that part of South America where the Atlantic Ocean begins to get narrow, with Africa not far away. I repeat: Our objective is to keep any potential attacker as far from our continental shores as we possibly can. That is the record of the growth of our Navy. In 1933 a weak Navy; in 1940 a strong Navy. Side-line critics may carp in a political campaign. But Americans are mighty proud of that record and Americans will put their country first and partisanship second. Speaking of partisanship, I remind you-when the Naval Expansion Bill came up in 1938 the vast majority of Republican members of the Congress voted against building any more battleships. What kind of political shenanigans are these? Can we trust those people with national defense? [1982] Next, take up the Army: Under normal conditions we have no need for a vast Army in this country. But you and I know that unprecedented dangers require unprecedented action to guard the peace of America against unprecedented threats. Since that day, a little over a year ago, when Poland was invaded, we have more than doubled the size of our regular Army. Adding to this, the Federalized National Guardsmen, our armed land forces now equal more than 436,000 enlisted men. And yet there are armies overseas that run four and five and six million men. The officers and men of our Army and National Guard are the finest in the world. They will be, as you know, the nucleus for the training of the young men who are being called under the Selective Service Act. 800,000 of them in the course of this year out of nearly 17,000,000 registered-in other words, a little less than 5 per cent of the total registration. General Marshall said to me the other day that the task of training those young men is, for the Army, a “profound privilege." Campaign orators seek to tear down the morale of the American people when they make false statements about the Army's equipment. I say to you that we are supplying our Army with the best fighting equipment in all the world. Yes, the Army and the Defense Commission are getting things [1983] done with speed and efficiency. More than eight billion dollars of contracts for defense have been let in the past few months. I am afraid that those campaign orators will pretty soon be under the painful necessity of coming down to Washington later on and eating their words. I cannot help but feel that the most inexcusable, most unpatriotic misstatement of fact about our Army-a misstatement calculated to worry the mothers of the Nation-is the brazen charge that the men called to training will not be properly housed. The plain fact is that construction on Army housing is far ahead of schedule to meet all needs, and that by January fifth, next, there will be complete and adequate housing in this Nation for nine hundred and thirty thousand soldiers. And so I feel that, very simply and very honestly, I can give assurance to the mothers and fathers of America that each and every one of their boys in training will be well housed and well fed. Throughout that year of training, there will be constant promotion of their health and their well-being. And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: [1984] They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores. The purpose of our defense is defense. The Republican campaign orators who moan and groan (laughter) about our Army and Navy are even more mournful about our strength in the air. But only last year, 1939, the Republicans in the Congress were voting in favor of reducing appropriations for the Army Air Corps. What kind of political shenanigans are these? Can such people be trusted with national defense? I stress particularly what every Army and Navy flier tells us that what counts most in sustained air power is the productive capacity of our airplane and engine factories. That ought to be almost a first-grade lesson. We are determined to attain a production capacity of 50,000 planes a year in the United States. And day by day we are working and making very rapid progress toward that goal. You citizens of Seattle who are listening tonight-you have watched the Boeing plant out there grow. It is now producing four times as many planes each month as it was producing a year ago. You citizens of Southern California can see the great Douglas factories. They have doubled their output in less than a year. You citizens of Buffalo and St. Louis can see the Curtiss plants [1985] in your cities. Their output has jumped to twelve times its level of a year ago. |