Double Warning

Nothing happened in Japan to make news last week, and this in itself was news.

So suspicious was the silence of a naturally talkative officialdom that New York Times Correspondent Otto D. Tolischus went burrowing for the reason. He discovered that behind the scenes Japanese statesmen, politicians, businessmen and Army & Navy bigwigs were heatedly debating the issue of war or peace with the U.S.

Legalistically, the issue is this: if the U.S. convoys war materials to Britain, is this an "attack" on Germany, the nation whom Japan has agreed to defend in case of attack? Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, reported Correspondent Tolischus, thinks so.

Behind him are all those groups which believe in totalitarianism and Nazi invincibility, especially the younger men in the Army and in the bureaucracy. Older, more conservative groups in both the Government and the Army are suspicious of the aims of both Germany and Russia, and behind them are most of the people. They do not want to involve Japan in a dangerous war with any power outside Asia, regardless of legalistics.

How Germany felt about the treaty was brought home to the Japanese people by none other than Germany's Grand Admiral Erich Raeder. Timing an exclusive interview with Domei's Berlin Correspondent Susumu Ejiri so that it was published the day before President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside talk this week, the Admiral issued a warning to the U.S. that was, by inference, also a warning to Japan.

Said he:

"I can only confirm President Roosevelt's opinion that convoying means shooting, and since according to American statements cargoes of convoyed ships must be regarded as contraband, the introduction of such a convoy system would be not only an unneutral act under international law, but a plain act of war and unprovoked aggression." In other words, if the U.S. convoys, Germany will shoot--and expect the Japanese to shoot too.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.