Page 320 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK "We indicated desire for meeting, but suggested first an agreement in principle on the vital questions left open, so as to insure the success of the conference. "Soon thereafter, the Japs narrowed their position on these basic questions, and now continue to urge the meeting at Juneau. "My suggestion is to recite their more liberal attitude when they first sought the meeting with you, with their much narrowed position *now*, and earnestly ask if they cannot go back to their original liberal attitude so we can start discussions again on agreement in principle before the meeting, and reemphasizing your desire for a meeting (ex. 179). [Italics in original.]" President Roosevelt sent his comments to Secretary Hull from Hyde Park in the following memorandum dated September 28 (Washington time): "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE "I wholly agree with your penciled note to recite the more liberal original attitude of the Japanese when they first sought the meeting, point out their much narrowed position now, earnestly ask if they cannot go back to their original attitude, start discussions again on agreement in principle, and reemphasize my hope for a meeting. "F. D. R. "(Ex. 179.)" On October 2 (Washington time), Secretary Hull handed to Ambassador Nomura the United States' reply to the Japanese Government's proposals of September 6 and its subsequent statements of September 23 (Annex c) and September 27 (Annex D). This reply briefly reviewed the course of the conversations thus far, pointing out that developments from early August up to September 6 had seemed to justify the United States Government in concluding that the Japanese Government might be expected to adhere to and to give practical application to a broad progressive program covering the entire Pacific area. The reply continued: "It was therefore a source of disappointment to the Government of the United States that the proposals of the Japanese Government presented by the Japanese Ambassador on September 6, 1941, which the Japanese Government apparently intended should constitute a concrete basis for discussions, appeared to disclose divergence in the concepts of the two Governments. That is to say, those proposals and the subsequent explanatory statements made in regard thereto serve, in the opinion of this Government, to narrow and restrict not only the application of the principles upon which our informal conversations already referred to had been based but also the various assurances given by the Japanese Government of its desire to move along with the United States in putting into operation a broad program looking to the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the entire Pacific area (ex. 29, vol. II, pp. 658-659)." It was then noted that the Japanese assurances of peaceful intent continued to be qualified by phrases the need for which was not readily apparent; that in the economic sphere the new proposals were restricted to the countries of the Southwest Pacific area, rather than the entire Pacific area, as before; and that a clear-cut manifestation of Japan's intention in regard to the withdrawal of Japanese troops from China and French Indochina would be most helpful in making known Japan's peaceful intentions, as would additional clarification of the Japanese Government's position with respect to the European war. The reply continued by stating that from what the Japanese Government had so far indicated in regard to its purposes, the United States Government had derived the impression that Japan had in mind a program by which the liberal and progressive principles adhered to by the United States would be circumscribed in their application by qualifications and exceptions. The Japanese Government was PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Page 321 then asked whether, under such circumstances, it believed the proposed Roosevelt-Konoye meeting would be likely to contribute to the high purposes "which we have mutually had in mind." The reply concluded by stating that it was the belief of the United States Government that renewed consideration of the fundamental principles which it had long advocated would aid in reaching a meeting of minds in regard to the essential questions on which agreement was sought and would thus lay a firm foundation for the proposed meeting, and that it was the President's earnest hope that a discussion of the fundamental questions might be so developed that the meeting could be held (ex. 29, vol. II, pp. 656-661). After reading the reply, Ambassador Nomura commented that he thought his Government would be disappointed because of its very earnest desire to hold the meeting, but that in any case he would transmit it to his Government, which he did the same day (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 655; ex. 1, p. 50). He added that he was convinced that the Japanese Government was entirely sincere in this matter and had no ulterior purpose. He said, however, that in view of the difficulties of the internal situation in Japan, he did not think his Government could go any further at this time (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 655). In a memorandum bearing the same date, October 2 (Washington time), which was distributed to President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull in addition to Secretary Stimson, General Marshall and other high officers in the War Department, Colonel Hayes A. Kronor, Acting Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, reached the following conclusions: "10. This Division is of the opinion that neither a conference of leaders nor economic concessions at this point would be of any material advantage to the United States unless a definite commitment to withdraw from the Axis were obtained prior to the conference. * * * "11. Since it is highly improbable that this condition can be met by the Japanese Government at the present time our course lies straight before us. This Division still believes that forceful diplomacy vis-a-vis Japan, including the application of ever increasing military and economic pressure on our part, offers the best chance of gaining time, the best possibility of preventing the spread of hostilities in the Pacific Area, and the best hope of the eventual disruption of the Tripartite Pact. The exercise of increasingly strong "power diplomacy" by the United States is still clearly indicated (ex. 33)." The following undated note, in Secretary Stimson's handwriting, appears at the end of his copy of the above memorandum: "Quite independently I have reached similar conclusions and hold them strongly. I believe however that during the next three months while we are rearming the Philippines great care must be exercised to avoid an explosion by the Japanese Army. Put concretely this means, that while I approve of stringing out negotiations during that period, they should not be allowed to ripen into a personal conference between the President and P. M. [1] I greatly fear that such a conference if actually held would produce concessions which would be highly dangerous to our vitally important relations with China (ex. 33)." Admiral Stark testified before the Committee that he neither opposed or approved the proposal for a meeting between President Roosevelt and Premier Konoye. He continued: "I do recall when it was discussed my own personal opinion was that the President and Mr. Hull were right in not just going out to discuss something with the Prime Minister without some preliminary agreement regarding the agenda and something which might be accomplished (tr. 6308). [1] Prime Minister Konoye. Page 322 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK In his testimony before the Committee, Secretary Hull set forth at length the considerations which were taken into account in determining the position to be taken by the United States Government regarding the proposed "leaders conference" (tr. 1120-1124). The next day, October 3 (Washington time), after he had forwarded the United States reply to Tokyo, Ambassador Nomura cabled Foreign Minister Toyoda a long report on the situation in the United States as he saw it. His report began by stating "although there is a feeling that the Japanese-U. S. Talks have finally reached a deadlock, we do not believe that it should be considered as an absolutely hopeless situation. We are of the impression that the United States worded their memorandum in such a way as to permit a ray of hope to penetrate through (ex. 1, p. 51-52)." He expressed the view that an "understanding" between Japan and the United States hinged on one point, the problem of the evacuation of the Japanese troops from China (ex. 1, p. 53). During the next 2 weeks the Japanese Foreign Office made repeated efforts both in Washington and in Tokyo to have the United States Government state what further assurances it desired from the Japanese Government, emphasizing that the position of Premier Konoye was daily growing more difficult. Also during this period, Ambassador Nomura appears to have incurred the displeasure of Foreign Minister Toyoda. In a message to the Foreign Minister on October 8 (Washington time), the Ambassador indicated that he agreed with many of Secretary Hull's criticisms of the Japanese proposals of September 6, which the Foreign Office had prepared. He expressed the opinion that "In our proposal of the 6th and in the explanation thereof, not only did we limit them and narrow what we had discussed in our informal conversations thus far, but we also curtailed extremely the guarantees we offered concerning the aforementioned principles. We equivocated concerning guarantees that we would not engage in armed aggression. We limited the area to which the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment would apply in the Pacific, and on the excuse that China was geographically near to us, we limited the very principle itself. On the question of stationing and evacuating troops in and from China (including French Indo-China), the Americans are making some demands which we in principle have objections to. Moreover, they figure that they must be much surer of our attitude toward the three-power pact. These points you probably already know (ex. 1, p. 59)." As the result of repeated instructions from the Foreign Minister to obtain from Secretary Hull an expression of his views regarding the three major points of difference between the two Governments, i. e., which had developed in the earlier conversations, namely, (1) the withdrawal of troops from China, (2) Japan's obligations under the Tripartite Pact, and (3) nondiscrimination in international trade, Ambassador Nomura called on Secretary Hull on October 9 (Washington time) (vol. II, pp. 670 672). The Ambassador's report of this meeting (ex. 1, p. 61) was plainly unsatisfactory to Foreign Minister Toyoda, for on October 10 (Japan time) the Foreign Minister cabled Ambassador Nomura that he was well aware of the Ambassador's opinions and that what he wanted was "the opinions of the American officials and none other." Saying that "slowly but surely the question of these negotiations has reached the decisive stage," and that he was doing his utmost "to bring about a decision on them and the situation does not permit of this senseless procrastination," he told Ambassador Nomura: PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Page 323 "You do not tell me whether or not we have a chance to proceed with these parleys. You do not tell me how Hull answers. You do not tell me anything else I need to know for my future consideration. You must wire me in detail and immediately the minutes of these conversations, what they say and the prospect for negotiations. Hereafter, when you interview Hull or the President of the United States, please take Wakasugi or Iguchi with you and please send me without delay the complete minutes of what transpires (ex. 1, p. 63)." On the same afternoon, October 10 (Japan time), Foreign Minister Toyoda requested Ambassador Grew to call on him, and during their conversation told Ambassador Grew that Ambassador Nomura had been "unable to provide the information" he had asked for and that- "a week of very valuable time had been wasted in an endeavor to elicit through the Japanese Ambassador information which, had it been received, would have measurably accelerated the present conversations (ex. 30, p. 454)." The Foreign Minister told Ambassador Grew that in order to prevent further delay he was requesting the Ambassador to ask his Government to reply to the following question: "The Government of Japan has submitted to the Government of the United States with reference to certain questions proposals which are apparently not satisfactory to the Government of the United States. Will the American Government now set forth to the Japanese Government for its consideration the undertakings to be assumed by the Japanese Government which would be satisfactory to the American Government (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 678)?" He continued by saying that since "he had the impression that the Japanese Ambassador in Washington was apparently very fatigued, serious consideration was being given to the question of sending to Washington a diplomat of wide experience to assist the Ambassador in carrying on the present conversations. Admiral Toyoda said he had in mind a high-ranking diplomatic official with the personal rank of Ambassador, but he had not yet approached the official in question and was therefore uncertain as to whether he would agree to undertake to accept the mission. It would be of great assistance to the Minister to ascertain whether the Government of the United States, in the event that it was decided to send the official in question to Washington, would be prepared to make available a reservation for him on the airplane from Manila to San Francisco. Admiral Toyoda said that the official in question would not be accredited to the Government of the United-States but would be temporarily and unofficially attached to the Japanese Embassy in Washington. I told the Foreign Minister that I would transmit his inquiry to my Government. "In concluding the conversation, the Minister several times stressed to me, in view of the importance of the time factor, the necessity of expediting the progress of the conversations (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 679)." Ambassador Nomura replied to Foreign Minister Toyoda's message of October 10 (Japan time) on the same date (Washington time): "What they want is the maintenance of peace in the Pacific, and they claim that our policy is semipacific and semiaggressive. They say that our proposal of September 6 diverged greatly from preceding statements and that it will be out of the question to agree on any preparatory talks on the basis of such a proposal. In addition to the three matters mentioned in your message, it seems that there are many other objections. I have repeatedly asked them to clarify what I do not understand, but they won't answer. At any rate, however, I feel safe at least in saying that they are demanding that we compromise in accordance with the lines laid down in their memorandum of October 2. *I am sure that there is not the slightest chance on earth of them featuring a conference of leaders so long as we do not make that compromise.* "In other words, they are not budging an inch from the attitude they have always taken; however, they act as if they were ready to consider at any time any plan of ours which would meet the specifications of their answer of the 2nd (ex. I, p. 63). On October 13 (Japan time) Foreign Minister Toyoda cabled instructions to the Counselor of the Japanese Embassy in Washington, Page 324 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Mr. Wakasugi, who had just returned to Washington after 2 weeks in Japan, to call upon Under Secretary Welles. In his message, the Foreign Minister said that he was particularly anxious to be advised as soon as possible as to whether he could assume that the United States had no particular disagreements other than the three major points and whether the United States would submit a counterproposal to the Japanese proposals of September 27. He said: "The situation at home is fast approaching a crisis, and it is becoming absolutely essential that the two leaders meet if any adjustment of Japanese-U S relations is to be accomplished (ex 1, p 64)." Counselor Wakasugi talked with Under Secretary Welles on the afternoon of October 13 (ex. 29, vol. II, pp. 680-686). Admiral Nomura sent two reports of that meeting to Tokyo, on the same day (ex. 1, pp. 66-68). His first report stated that so far as Mr. Welles knew there were no obstacles to the materialization of the leaders' conference other than the three major points, though there might be one or two others, and that the United States had no intention of submitting any counterproposal other than those of June 21 and October 2. His second report was a more detailed description of the Welles-Wakasugi meeting. In reply, the Foreign Minister said that these reports had "clarified many points" and "that there is no need for us to make any further move until the other side decides that it is impossible to clarify the concrete proposal any further" (ex. 1, pp. 69-70). In Tokyo, the Japanese Government also made frequent overtures to the officials at the American Embassy. Thus, early on October 7 (Japan time), the Premier's private secretary, Mr. Ushiba, called on Counselor Dooman (ex. 29, vol. II, pp. 662-663) and complained that the failure of the preliminary conversations to make any progress had made the Premier's position difficult. He concluded his remarks with the comment that "the only thing left for the Japanese Government was to ask the American Government to give specifications with regard to the character of the undertakings which Japan was desired to give, and that if a clear-cut reply as not forthcoming to bring the conversations to a close (ex 29, vol. II, p 663)." This meeting appears to have been preliminary to a meeting the same morning between Ambassador Grew and the Foreign Minister, at the latter's request. At that meeting, as on the occasion of subsequent calls by Mr. Terasaki on Counselor Dooman and Ambassador Grew on October 8 and 9, the Japanese endeavored to obtain comments on the American reply of October 2. It was again indicated that the Japanese Government wished to know more definitely what undertakings the United States Government wanted it to give. These efforts culminated in Foreign Minister Toyoda's request of Ambassador Grew on October 10 that he submit that question to Secretary Hull. On that occasion Ambassador Grew commented at length on the opinion he had conveyed the day before to the Foreign Minister, that the reports he had received of plans to dispatch additional Japanese troops to Indochina in substantial numbers "could not but seriously and adversely affect these conversations (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 679). PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Page 325 GERMANY DEMANDS THAT JAPAN WARN THE UNITED STATES THAT WAR BETWEEN GERMANY AND ITALY AND THE UNITED STATES WOULD LEAD TO WAR BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE TRIPARTITE PACT (October 1941) The intercepted Japanese messages show that during the latter part of September and the early part of October both the German and Italian Ambassadors sought to obtain from Foreign Minister Toyoda confidential information regarding the Japanese-American conversations. In contrast with the policy followed by his predecessor, Foreign Minister Matsuoka, from whom the Axis partners had obtained such information, Foreign Minister Toyoda declined to give them any (ex. 1, p. 71). Failing in this, after the German attacks on American merchant vessels and the movement in the United States for revision of the Neutrality Act, the Germans took a stronger line. This became known to the United States not only from intercepted messages but also through statements made by the Japanese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Amau, to Ambassador Grew in Tokyo on October 15 (Japan time). Mr. Amau told Ambassador Grew "that the German Government is insistently pressing for the issuance of a statement by the Japanese Government in confirmation of the interpretation given to the Tripartite Pact by Mr. Matsuoka, to the effect that Japan will declare war on they United States in the event of war occurring between Germany and the United States. As a reply, although it has not yet been decided when or whether such reply will be rendered to the German Government, the Japanese Government is considering a formula of a noncommittal nature to the effect that maintenance of peace in the Pacific is envisaged in the Tripartite Pact and that the attention of the American Government has been sought for its earnest consideration of Japan's obligations under the Pact (ex. 29, vol. II, p. 686)." The following day, however, Foreign Minister Toyoda cabled Ambassador Nomura that early in October "the German authorities demanded that the Japanese Government submit to the American Government a message to the effect that the Japanese Government observes that if the ROOSEVELT Administration continues to attack the Axis Powers increasingly, a belligerent situation would inevitably arise between Germany and Italy, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, and this would provide the reasons for the convocation of the duties envisioned in the Three Power agreement and might lead Japan to join immediately the war in opposition to the United States. We have not as yet submitted this message because, in view of the Japanese-American negotiations, we found it necessary to consider carefully the proper timing as well as wording of the message. The German authorities have been repeatedly making the same request, and there are reasons which do not permit this matter to be postponed any longer. While Japan, on the one hand, finds it necessary to do something in the way of carrying out the duties placed upon her by the Three Power Alliance she had concluded with Germany, on the other hand, she is desirous of making a success of the Japanese-American negotiations. Under the circumstances, we can do no other than to warn the United States at an appropriate moment in such words as are given in my separate telegram #672 and as would not affect the Japanese-American negotiations in one way or another. This message is a secret between me and you (ex. 1, p. 71)." The proposed "warning" to the United States sent to Ambassador Nomura in the Foreign Minister's separate telegram #672 was as follows: "The Imperial Japanese Government has repeatedly affirmed to the American Government that the aim of the Tripartite Pact is to contribute toward the prevention of a further extension of the European war. Should, however, the Page 326 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK recent tension in the German-American relations suffer aggravation, there would arise a distinct danger of a war between the two powers, a state of affairs over which Japan, as a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, naturally cannot help entertain a deep concern. Accordingly, in its sincere desire that not only the German American relations will cease further deterioration but the prevailing tension will also be alleviated as quickly as possible, the Japanese Government is now requesting the earnest consideration of the American Government (ex. 1, p. 71)." Foreign Minister Toyoda never had an opportunity to select the "appropriate moment" for the delivery of his warning, because the next day Premier Konoye and his entire Cabinet resigned *en bloc*. The German Ambassador continued to press for action by Foreign Minister Togo; Admiral Toyoda's successor, but by November 11 (Japan time) when the Foreign Minister communicated with Ambassador Nomura concerning it, far more vigorous measures were contemplated by the Japanese. Foreign Minister Togo's reply erred on the side of understatement: "I explained (to the German Ambassador) that there is a good chance that it would be more effective, under the present circumstances, for us to present a determined attitude rather than to merely make representations to the United States. It is exceedingly doubtful, I pointed out, whether a mere representation would bear any fruit (ex. 1, p. 117)." THE KONOYE CABINET FALLS, AND AMBASSADOR NOMURA ASKS PERMISSION TO RETURN TO JAPAN (October 16, 1941; October 18-November 5, 1941) The attitude of the Japanese representatives in the conversations in Washington and in Tokyo during the latter part of September and the early part of October reflected developments within the Japanese Government during that period. In turn, the course of those developments was directly affected by the far-reaching decisions which had been made at the Imperial Conference on September 6 (Japan time). As has been seen, it is now known that at that conference it had been decided that if "by the early part of October" there should be "no reasonable hope" of having the Japanese "demands" agreed to in the diplomatic negotiations "we will immediately make up our minds to get ready for war against America (and England and Holland) (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 77)." This decision, according to Premier Konoye, had established a dead line "beyond which negotiations could not proceed." The Japanese Government "came more and more to feel that we were approaching a show-down" (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 43). As Ambassador Nomura had told Secretary Hull, with the presentation of its new proposals of September 6, its proposals for basic peace terms with China on September 23, and its revision of the American proposals of June 91 which had been delivered to Secretary Hull on September 27, the Japanese Government took the position that there was nothing more that it desired to say and that the next move was up to the United States. In his memoirs, Premier Konoye criticizes the action of the Japanese Foreign Office in submitting three proposals during September without deciding that it would proceed with the September 27 plan "alone, in complete disregard of the plans of the past" (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p- 46). PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Page 327 This action, which left the Japanese intentions confused, was largely responsible for the fact that the United States Government, in its reply of October 2 (Washington time), had asked for a further clarification of the Japanese intentions. It is now known that before the United States' reply of October 2 was received in Tokyo and as a result of the fact that the deadline set on September 6 was approaching at a faster rate than the conversations were progressing, Premier Konoye began frequent conferences with members of his Cabinet. He conferred on September 24 and 25 (Japan time) with the War Minister, Navy Minister, Foreign Minister, and President of the Navy Planning Board. From September 27 to October 1 (Japan time) he had discussions with the Navy Minister "concerning the atmosphere in his circle." On October 4 (Japan time), after receipt of the United States reply of October 2, Premier Konoye had an audience with Emperor Hirohito, following which there was a Joint Conference attended by the chiefs of the Japanese High Command. On the evening of October 5 (Japan time) he conferred with General Tojo, the War Minister, to whom he expressed the opinion "that he would continue negotiations (with the United States) to the very end" (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 49). On the evening of October 7 (Japan time), General Tojo called on Premier Konoye and declared that the Army would find it difficult to submit to the withdrawal of its troops from China. In view of this attitude, on October 8 (Japan time) Premier Konoye conferred with the Navy Minister and the Foreign Minister concerning "methods of avoiding a crisis." He met twice with Foreign Minister Toyoda on October 10 (Japan time), the day on which the Foreign Minister asked Ambassador Grew to inquire from the United States Government what additional assurances it desired the Japanese Government to give. A Joint Conference was held on October 11 (Japan time) (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 49). On Sunday, October 12 (Japan time), Premier Konoye called a meeting attended by himself and the Ministers of War, Navy, and Foreign Affairs, together with the President of the Planning Board, which he described in his memoirs as "almost the last conference relative to peace or war." Before the meeting he had learned that the Navy, although not desiring a rupture in the negotiations, and wishing as much as possible to avoid war, nevertheless was unwilling to state this publicly, and would therefore leave the question of peace or war up to the Premier. At the meeting, according to Premier Konoye's memoirs, the Navy Minister stated: "We have now indeed come to the crossroads where we must determine either upon peace or war. I should like to leave this decision entirely up to the Premier. And, if we are to seek peace, we shall go all the way for peace. Thus, even if we make a few concessions, we ought to proceed all the way with the policy of bringing the negotiations to fruition. * * * If we are to have war, we must determine upon war here and now. Now is the time. We are now at the final moment of decision. If we decide that we are not to have war, I should like to have us proceed upon the policy that we will bring negotiations to fruition no matter what happens (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 50)." In reply to this, Premier Konoye said: "If we were to say that we must determine on war or peace here, today, I myself would decide on continuing the negotiations (ex. 173. Konoye Memoirs, p. 50)." Page 328 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK General Tojo, the Minister of War, objected, saying: "This decision of the Premier's is too hasty. Properly speaking, ought we not to determine here whether or not there is any possibility of bringing the negotiations to fruition? *To carry on negotiations for which there is no possibility for fruition, and in the end to let slip the time for fighting, would be a matter of the greatest consequence* (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 50)." General Tojo then asked Foreign Minister Toyoda whether he thought there was any possibility of bringing negotiations to fruition. In answer to this question, the Foreign Minister replied that the most difficult problem was the question of the withdrawal of troops from China. He continued: "if in this regard the Army says that it will not retreat one step from its former assertions, then there is no hope in the negotiations. But if on this point the Army states that it will be all right to make concessions, however small they may be, then we cannot say that there is no hope of bringing the negotiations to fruition (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 50)." General Tojo, however, would not yield, saying: "The problem of the stationing of troops, in itself means the life of the Army, and we shall not be able to make any concessions at all (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 50)." According to Premier Konoye, although the conference lasted 4 hours, no conclusion was arrived at before the meeting adjourned. The following day, October 13 (Japan time), Premier Konoye reported the situation to Emperor Hirohito and Marquis Kido, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and a leader of the "senior statesmen." The next day the Premier met with General Tojo before the Cabinet meeting and again asked his considered opinion concerning the problem of the stationing of troops in China, saying that he had a very great responsibility for the "China Incident," which was still unsettled, and that he found it difficult to agree "to enter upon a greater war the future of which I cannot at all foresee." He then urged, according to his memoirs, that Japan "ought to give in for a time, grant to the United States the formality of withdrawing troops, and save ourselves from the crisis of a Japanese-American war" (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, P. 51). In response to this, General Tojo declared "if at this time we yield to the United States, she will take steps that are more and more high-handed, and will probably find no place to stop. The problem of withdrawing troops is one, you say, of forgetting the honor and of seizing the fruits, but, to this, I find it difficult to agree from the point of view of maintaining the fighting spirit of the Army (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 51)." Premier Konoye records that thus General Tojo did not move from the position he had taken, and the talk ended at odds. According to his memoirs, at the Cabinet meeting which followed, General Tojo at the outset "strongly and excitedly set forth the reasons why the Japanese- American negotiations should no longer be continued." No further reference to the question of continuing the negotiations was made at the Cabinet meeting, as none of the Cabinet ministers would answer General Tojo (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 51.) That evening General Tojo is reported to have sent a message to Premier Konoye in which he said, in effect, that if the Navy's decision to entrust the question of peace or war to the Premier was due to a desire on the part of the Navy not to have a war, then the Imperial Conference on September 6 "will have been fundamentally PEARL HARBOR ATTACK Page 329 overturned," as the decisions reached at that conference would not have taken into account such an attitude on the part of the Navy. He then expressed the belief that the entire Cabinet should resign and "declare insolvent everything that has happened up to now and reconsider our plans once more." He said that it was very hard for him to ask the Premier to resign but that, as matters had come to pass, he could not help but do so, and begged the Premier to exert his efforts toward having the Emperor designate Prince Higashikuni, the Chief of the General Staff, as the next Premier, in the belief that only an imperial prince would have power to keep control of the Army and the Navy and to refashion a plan (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 52). The next day, October 15 (Japan time), Premier Konoye was received by Emperor Hirohito, to whom the Premier reported the foregoing developments. The Emperor expressed doubts concerning the desirability of naming Prince Higashikuni the next Premier, saying, according to Premier Konoye: "In time of peace it would be all right, but in a situation in which we fear that there may be war, and when we also think further of the interests of the Imperial House, I question the advisability of a member of royalty standing forth (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, p. 52)." That evening the Premier secretly discussed the situation with Prince Higashikuni, who said he desired several days to think the matter over. However, according to Premier Konoye's memoirs, the situation would not permit further delay, and the following morning all of the Cabinet members submitted their resignations. The next day the "senior statesmen" met in consultation regarding the selection of the next Premier, but Prince Konoye did not attend (ex. 1, 3, Konoye Memoirs, pp. 52-53). Instead, he submitted a long letter explaining in detail the chain of events leading to the resignation of his Cabinet (ex. 173, Konoye Memoirs, appendix IX, pp. 87-91). Several of the intercepted Japanese messages confirm Prince Konoye's emphasis upon the Army's stand regarding the withdrawal of Japanese troops from China as one of the main causes of the resignation of the Konoye Cabinet. Thus, on October 15 (Washington time), shortly after the Cabinet meetings in Tokyo at which General Tojo refused to make any concessions regarding the evacuation of troops from China, Ambassador Nomura reported to the Foreign Office that the Japanese military attache at the Japanese Embassy in Washington had been "instructed by the Headquarters in Tokyo to advise us not to yield an inch in our stand regarding the question of the evacuation of troops. They are apprehensive that we have not emphasized enough our stand regarding it and urge us to lay special stress on this point (ex. 1, p. 70)." On October 17 (Japan time), Foreign Minister Toyoda cabled Ambassador Nomura that the Cabinet had resigned, saying: "The resignation was brought about by a split within the Cabinet. It is true that one of the main items on which opinion differed was on the matter of stationing troops or evacuating them from China. However, regardless of the make-up of the new Cabinet, negotiations with the United States shall be continued along the lines already formulated. There shall be no changes in this respect. "Please, therefore, will you and your staff work in unison and a single purpose, with even more effort, if possible, than before (ex. 1, p. 76)."