I am Tangdi, a history buff. Welcome everyone to [follow] me, let’s talk about the past and present together, and discuss the general trend of the world. A gentleman lives his life just to learn and make friends! After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the United States adopted a w

I am Tangdi, a history buff. Welcome everyone to [follow] me, let’s talk about the past and present together, and discuss the general trend of the world. A gentleman lives his life just to learn and make friends!

After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the United States adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

U.S. officials believe that the incident itself was not intentionally caused by Japan. Moreover, both China and Japan have expressed their intention to negotiate. "As long as Nanjing does not become too tough diplomatically and militarily, it is very likely that adjustments can be achieved without large-scale military conflict."

1, The July 7th Incident broke out Why doesn’t the United States uphold justice?

On the contrary, the United States' intervention at this time can only stimulate Japan and complicate the situation, which is not conducive to the interests of the United States.

html On July 12, Hornbeck, director of the U.S. Far East Department, wrote in a memorandum:

"Any action taken by this government with the intention of mediating at this time is premature and unwise and will likely intensify rather than ease the situation." Secretary of State Hull was worried that "a proposal for mediation will only anger the Japanese government and tell the Japanese people that Western powers are trying to interfere with Japan's so-called right of self-defense in China."

The U.S. government’s foreign policy decisions in the Far East are also restricted by domestic factors. At that time, the United States was still in the abyss of isolationism. In February 1937, some members of the House of Representatives even proposed a constitutional amendment: Unless the U.S. territory is invaded by a foreign enemy, after Congress declares war, it must be approved by a referendum before it can take effect.

Moreover, a few years after the implementation of the "New Deal", the domestic economic situation in the United States was still severe. From 1932 to 1939, U.S. exports to Japan accounted for 7.3% to 9.9% of the total U.S. exports, and Japan has always ranked first among U.S. exports. Thirdly, this forces the US government to carefully consider the possibility of imposing economic sanctions on Japan.

In fact, the United States also lacks the necessary military strength to support economic sanctions. Most senior admirals in the Navy Department believe that sanctions will trigger war, and the U.S. Navy is not prepared for this.

Therefore, U.S. Secretary of State Hull determined:

"The only hope is to continue to maintain friendly relations with Japan, thereby ensuring that when the time comes, we have the opportunity to intervene to end the war, just as Theodore Roosevelt did in 1904 As Russia did during the war . "

As for the United States taking any initiative before the time comes, it can only mobilize international public opinion through moral persuasion and exert influence on promoting peace.

2. The negative attitude of the United States

During this period, in addition to negotiating with Japan, the Chinese government also tried to promote the intervention of great powers.

On July 21st and 24th, Chiang Kai-shek met with the British Ambassador to China Hugo Sen twice, warning that Japan's actions would lead to war, and persuaded the United Kingdom to make an agreement with the United States to "take joint measures and take precautions in advance." On the 25th, Chiang Kai-shek met with the U.S. Ambassador to China Johnson and asked the U.S. government to negotiate with the United Kingdom and warn Japan to "prevent it from making any further demands on China." China has also expressed a similar attitude towards Italy and France.

The British government has a relatively positive attitude in order to protect its interests in China. It warned the Japanese government many times after the incident: If Japan turns North China into another puppet Manchukuo, it will be difficult for Britain-Japan relations to truly improve. Britain is also trying to use the ongoing Anglo-Japanese negotiations as leverage to force Japan to restore peace with China as soon as possible. In addition, on the 13th, the United Kingdom also asked the United States whether it was willing to jointly mediate the Sino-Japanese conflict, and stated that France had agreed in principle.

However, the U.S. State Department politely rejected the British proposal, saying that the United States has emphasized to China and Japan the importance of maintaining peace. The United States is willing to cooperate, but hopes to take parallel actions rather than joint actions.

Since then, the United States has repeatedly rejected similar proposals from the United Kingdom.

The action taken by the United States was that on July 16, Hull issued a statement to the signatories of the Non-War Convention, including China and Japan, and asked them to respond.The

statement put forward the principle of "peace is indivisible" and pointed out:

There are currently tensions in several regions of the world. "On the surface, this only involves those neighboring countries, but in the final analysis it will inevitably involve the entire world", and It was emphasized that "any serious hostile behavior will affect the interests, rights and obligations of the United States in one way or another." For this reason, the U.S. government feels the need to clarify its position on international issues and international situations that it is deeply concerned about.

htmlOn August 13, the Anti-Japanese War in Songhu broke out. U.S. interests in China have been further impacted.

The atrocities committed by the Japanese army in China and the tenacious resistance of the Chinese military and civilians also made the American people gradually sympathize with China. In a Gallup poll at the time, although 55% of the respondents said they did not support either China or Japan, 43 % of the respondents support China, while only 2% support Japan. The U.S. government also decided to send additional Marine Corps to Shanghai.

html On August 23, Hull issued another statement. He pointed out that the current situation in the Pacific region is not only related to the specific interests of the United States, but also related to the basic principles of handling international relations that the United States believes in, and emphasized:

"The principles elaborated on July 16 can be applied to the Pacific and other regions of the world. …These principles are embodied in the Treaty of the Washington Conference and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris,” stating that “this administration does not believe in political alliances or intervention, nor in extreme isolation. It believes in international collaboration…and is seeking to do so.” Preserve, strengthen and revitalize these principles in the Pacific and around the world”.

Hull's two statements were repeatedly mentioned as the basis for official U.S. policy toward the Sino-Japanese War in the following months.

This innocuous statement by the US government naturally cannot satisfy China. On the same day, Chiang Kai-shek sent a message to Roosevelt, through Bu Kai, an American who taught at Jinling University, expressing his "genuine disappointment" at the United States' refusal to cooperate with the United Kingdom in resolving the current crisis, and said that in 1931 the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Simon did not cooperate with the United States on the Northeast issue, which China and the world will never forget; now, the United Kingdom will also long remember that the United States did not cooperate with it.

3. Why didn’t the great powers agree to resort to the League of Nations?

As the conflict between China and Japan gradually escalated, resorting to the League of Nations put the conflict on the agenda of the National Government. Although historical experience has made the Chinese National Government realize that the League of Nations will not give China any actual assistance, China can use the League of Nations as a forum to win moral sympathy and condemn Japanese aggression, and also to leave a legitimacy for possible future sanctions against Japan. Foundation.

html A letter from the Central Political Committee of the Kuomintang to the Supreme National Defense Conference on August 26 reflected this view well:

"Although the League of Nations has lost its powerful status as a covenant in recent years, it has not been formally dissolved. The covenant of member states The responsibility still exists. If our country resorts to the League of Nations, even if it cannot obtain its assistance in terms of strength, it can at least obtain the sympathy of international public opinion, and the sympathy of public opinion often produces incredible assistance in international wars. "

From 7 From mid-October to August, China notified Britain and France respectively of its intention to refer the Sino-Japanese conflict to the League of Nations and conduct consultations with them. British Foreign Secretary Eden was noncommittal in his reply, but emphasized that China's resort to the League of Nations would be useless.

French Foreign Minister Delbos’s answer was similar: China should decide on its own whether to file a complaint, but it cannot expect this complaint to have any actual results.

htmlOn August 20, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Wang Zhengting visited the State Department to inquire about the United States' attitude towards China's complaint to the League of Nations. But Hull faced the pressure of domestic isolationism and was unwilling to be dragged down by Britain. He wanted to maintain the independence of American policy without restraint.

Therefore, he avoided answering directly and just reiterated his speech on July 16. Hornbeck expressed his desire to understand China's intentions and its plans for the League of Nations meeting agenda.

html On 012, Gu Weijun officially submitted a letter of complaint from the Chinese government to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.

html On the 14th, Aiden, Delbos and Ivano met with Gu Weijun and tried their best to persuade China to give up invoking Article 17.

This article stipulates: If a country fails to abide by the alliance and engages in war, "it shall be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other member states of the Union. Each other member state shall be obliged to immediately sever all commercial or financial relations with it and prohibit its people from and disrupt all intercourse with the peoples of the Allied Powers, and prevent financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the peoples of any other country, whether members of the Union or not, with the people of that country.”

They said: The most important thing is "to obtain the cooperation of the United States." Eden proposed a compromise plan, in which Ku Weijun would state in his speech at the General Assembly that the procedure to be adopted would be decided by the Executive Yuan, pointing out that the Executive Yuan could take action on its own or refer the case to the General Assembly or the advisory committee.

html Starting late at night on September 20, Japan carried out large-scale bombings on non-military targets in Nanjing and Guangzhou. The nature and extent of the Japanese air raids aroused unanimous condemnation from world public opinion, and the governments of Britain, the United States, France, the Soviet Union, Germany, and Italy also protested to Japan. Chiang Kai-shek met with foreign journalists on the 24th, condemned Japan's barbaric acts, expressed his belief that "justice will prevail in the end", and called on the signatories of the " Nine-Nation Convention" and the "Covenant of the League of Nations" to assist China in its war of resistance. .

As a result, the Chinese delegation adjusted its goals and decided to take advantage of the opportunity. On October 6, the League of Nations General Assembly passed the resolution submitted by the advisory committee. The resolution consists of two reports.

The first report mainly reviewed and analyzed the process and reasons for the escalation of the Sino-Japanese conflict since the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The report concluded that Japan had invaded and occupied a large amount of Chinese territory, blocked the Chinese coast and carried out bombings in various places. It pointed out that Japan "violated the provisions of the " obligations under the Nine-Power Convention and the Paris Convention on the Non-War."

The second report states the subcommittee's attitude and proposes solutions. It first refuted Japan’s claim that Sino-Japanese disputes can only be resolved by the two countries themselves and that third countries cannot intervene, emphasizing that “the current situation in China is not only related to the two countries in conflict, but also has some relationship with all countries, and many countries have some relationship with them. People have been directly affected by it."

On October 6, the U.S. State Department issued a statement in response to the League of Nations resolution, stating: The United States has to conclude that Japan’s behavior in China is not in compliance with the proper principles for handling international relations and violates the Nine-Power Convention and the Non-War Treaty. Convention. The League of Nations meeting ended.

Due to the weakness and mutual blame-shifting of the great powers, the conference did not provide actual assistance to China, did not identify Japan as the aggressor, and was not even willing to reiterate the principle of "non-recognition". The positive significance of the meeting is that it basically achieved the minimum goal of the National Government, which is to maintain international attention on Far Eastern affairs, mobilize international public opinion, and strive for moral sympathy.

4, Roosevelt's quarantine speech

Since the "September 18th" incident, international tensions have increasingly aroused the concern of knowledgeable people in the United States. Japan not only continued to occupy the entire Northeast of China, but also continued to encroach on North China, withdrawing from the League of Nations, and withdrawing from the London Naval Arms Limitation Treaty; Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1936; Germany continued to expand its armaments and sent troops into the Rhine Demilitarized Zone in 1936. Actively intervened in the Spanish Civil War . Pessimism grips the world. When the novel "Lost Horizon" was published, Roosevelt couldn't help but comment that the book accurately described "the current situation in which the world is facing an abyss."

But the main trend in American society in the 1930s was isolationism. Therefore, the Roosevelt administration determined that it was necessary to launch a propaganda campaign to make the public aware of the dangers of isolationism and to express the United States' opposition to the "robber countries" of Germany, Japan, and Italy.

In late September 1937, the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in China, especially the brutal bombing of Nanjing, aroused the indignation of the American public, and the time was ripe for propaganda. Therefore, Secretary of State Hull suggested that the president deliver an important speech on foreign policy while touring the country. Roosevelt readily agreed and chose the location of his speech in Chicago, the city in the midwestern United States with the strongest isolationist atmosphere.

On October 5, Roosevelt gave a speech in Chicago.

After reviewing the construction achievements of the United States since the New Deal, he changed the topic and mentioned that the current world political situation is gradually deteriorating to the point where "the foundation of civilization is seriously threatened", and then reminded his audience , in a world mired in war, “Don’t imagine that the United States can escape and that the Western Hemisphere will not be attacked... Mere isolation or neutrality has no way out... The modern world is technologically and spiritually interconnected and dependent on each other, and no country can compete with the world. Completely insulated from the rest of the economic and political turmoil," he called on "peace-loving countries to make concerted efforts to oppose treaty violations and disregard for humanity."

This was the Chicago speech that shocked the world at the time, also known as the "Quarantine Speech." Roosevelt's intentions in delivering the speech have since been a matter of debate among political scientists and historians.

According to the recollections of Wells, Roosevelt’s friend and then U.S. Under Secretary of State, in July 1937, shortly after Japan invaded China, Roosevelt revealed to him his plan: to use the U.S. and British navies to attack strategic locations in the Pacific. Japan imposes a trade embargo.

Roosevelt believed that the embargo would not trigger a war at this time because Japan was already deeply involved in the war in China and its economy was on the verge of collapse; if its trade was cut off, Japan would be unable to obtain the oil and other raw materials it needed from Southeast Asia. Downfall before. He also believed that Britain would also support radical measures because of threats to its huge commercial interests in the Far East and the survival of the Commonwealth.

The diary of Secretary of the Interior Ickes also records that Roosevelt talked about September 14th. He was considering sending a letter to all countries in the world, suggesting that in the future, if any country violates the rights of other countries and endangers freedom, peace-loving countries will isolate it. rise, "to cut off all trade with this country, thereby depriving it of raw materials."

A few months later, at a December 17 Cabinet meeting, Roosevelt declared that economic sanctions could be truly effective, but "we don't call them economic sanctions; we call them quarantines. We are going to invent a system that will not technology for war. We want to be as smart as Japan and Italy and we want to deal with this problem in a modern way."

What Roosevelt was looking for was just a technical method to facilitate diplomatic change, and the essence still did not deviate from the idea of ​​​​economic sanctions.

However, it should be noted that even if Roosevelt persisted in his own ideas, he would not immediately impose sanctions on Japan as China expected. In the above-mentioned conversation with Ickes, Roosevelt stated that he had no intention of applying his plan to the situation in China and Spain because "what has happened cannot not happen" and what he wanted to do was "give Design a new policy in the future as a warning to those countries that are now acting arrogantly."

In short, Roosevelt personally preferred to use deterrence measures similar to economic sanctions against Germany, Japan, or Japan alone; but if there was a chance to succeed, he would also be willing to try to realign interest relationships through negotiations among various countries. After all, it would be more politically feasible to do so. favorable. But no matter what method is used, it is based on the premise of preventing war rather than taking the risk of war, and its purpose is to ultimately promote compromise. The "Quarantine Speech" was one of various experiments conducted by Roosevelt in 1937.

Regardless of Roosevelt's original intention, once the speech was released, it immediately aroused great attention and expectations from all parties. The Chinese government and the public were undoubtedly deeply inspired. On October 7, Chiang Kai-shek spoke to Associated Press reporters, praising the significance of his speech:

"Today's President of the United States has published his great speech, which has clarified human rights and peace and equality, which is enough to impress me." People are convinced that whoever insists on justice will get what they want."

British Foreign Secretary Eden also sent people to the United States several times to inquire about the exact meaning of the word "quarantine". The Japanese ambassador to the United States visited the State Department and uneasily inquired about the future course of action of the United States.

5. The influence of American isolationism

There is a voice of opposition in the United States.

Some isolationist media are building momentum. "Chicago Tribune" criticized that "quarantine" means economic sanctions, and economic sanctions mean war. The United States is just a doll used by the British to save their Far Eastern empire.

"Hearst News" surveyed members of Congress on their attitudes towards the Sino-Japanese conflict, and then announced the results:

"From the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico , members of Congress roared their determination today and tomorrow "The United States must never be involved in foreign wars."

Some conservative members of Congress criticized Roosevelt's speech. Bora claimed that he was completely opposed to the United States participating in sanctions against Japan, believing that "it is no different from launching a war." Vandenberg believed that any action aimed at identifying the aggressor and adopting sanctions would involve the United States in the alliance it sought to avoid. relations; Lafayette said he opposed anything that would ultimately require the United States to use force, whether implicitly or not.

Even most cabinet members did not support Roosevelt's unexpected statement. Wells recalled that only Ickes, Morgenthau, and Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace supported the president, and Hull was furious that Roosevelt had not discussed the idea of ​​a "quarantine" with him beforehand.

Hull wrote in his memoirs:

"Reaction to the idea of ​​quarantine was swift and violent, setting back for many months the government's educational campaign to create and strengthen public opinion in favor of international cooperation."

Under these circumstances, Roosevelt immediately backed away from his speech.

The next day, when a reporter asked him whether "quarantine" meant imposing economic sanctions on Japan, he prevaricated and said:

"Sanctions" is a terrible word. No one uses it now. The main meaning of his speech was the last sentence. He said that “the United States hates war and the United States longs for peace, so the United States actively acts to seek peace,” adding that “this approach does not necessarily run counter to neutrality.”

The storm of the "quarantine" speech finally subsided, but this speech was just the beginning. Since tough measures were not yet available, Roosevelt was happy to continue trying new methods, so the Brussels Conference was held.

6. The convening of the Brussels Conference

The Brussels Conference was the product of the League of Nations conference. Under pressure from China for the League of Nations to take practical actions to aid China and contain Japan, the British government proposed to convene a meeting of the member states of the Nine-Nation Pact in order to shift the responsibility to the United States. The United States decided to accept the invitation and suggested that the meeting be held in Brussels, the capital of the small country Belgium . It was co-sponsored by six of the nine countries except China, the United States, and Japan. In this way, "no country stepped forward to lead. So no country is in a position of fear or criticism."

This fully reflects the mental state of the great powers at that time towards the Sino-Japanese conflict: no one was willing to come forward to offend Japan, and no one was willing to take responsibility, passing the blame to each other and prevaricating China. A total of 19 countries participated in the conference. In addition to the signatory countries of the Convention (Japan refused to participate), there were also 5 countries including Canada, the British Dominion, and Sweden and Denmark that later joined the convention. The Soviet Union was also invited to participate in the meeting.

The US government also has its own plans for the Brussels meeting. Before the departure of U.S. representative Norman Davis, Roosevelt met with him several times and made arrangements for the U.S. strategy for participating in the conference.

According to Roosevelt's vision, Japan should be invited to the Brussels Conference. If Japan refuses, the conference should be extended for weeks or months as much as possible, and invitations should be continuously sent to Japan, thereby exerting joint moral pressure on Japan to force it to participate in the conference. and reach a compromise with China that avoids discussing or considering other steps when taking the above actions.

If all attempts fail and Japan persists in its intransigence, "public opinion in the world and in the United States will most likely demand that we do something."

At this time, the "neutral countries" in the world can unite to provide China with the convenience of obtaining weapons and equipment, but the United States cannot participate due to restrictions on neutrality laws; another option is to "exile Japan and sever relations with it."

But this requires two prerequisites:

The substantial unanimous consent of all participating countries in the Brussels Conference; The substantial unanimous consent of the vast majority of countries in the world (both inside and outside the League of Nations).

Obviously, Roosevelt's intention for the Brussels Conference was:

(1) to actively create pressure from international public opinion to force Japan to make peace with China;

(2) even if the above strategy fails, at least promote the development of domestic and international public opinion and make it become more clear, thus giving the U.S. government greater room for diplomatic action;

(3) If the participating countries in the Brussels Conference unanimously show a desire to sanction Japan, and the domestic and foreign demands for sanctions against Japan are so strong that they overwhelm isolationism The United States can, to a limited extent, discuss and participate in deterrence measures other than war against Japan at meetings.

In hindsight, the US government’s strategy of extending the meeting was just an unrealistic fantasy. Japan has already made up its mind and has no intention of compromising; and knowing that it will be put on trial at the Nine-Nation Pact meeting, it will certainly not go to the meeting.

Throughout October, the United States repeatedly tried its best to persuade Japan to participate in the Brussels Conference, stating that the conference only provided an opportunity for communication and that Japan could better state its reasons. It even considered clarifying that "the conference was related to the October 5 League of Nations resolution and the October The U.S. statement of support on the 6th has nothing to do with it" and is not prepared to "declare Japan as an aggressor." However, Japan was indifferent to the U.S. suggestion and insisted on refusing to participate in the meeting. During the

conference, on November 9, Shanghai fell. The Nationalist Government urgently called on the conference to take steps to intervene in the Sino-Japanese War. On the 19th, Gu Weijun sent a memorandum to representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, asking the great powers to jointly hold a large-scale naval demonstration to protest against Japanese aggression; the great powers turned a deaf ear to this.

But it's all in vain. On November 24, the Brussels Conference finally adopted a report and declaration. The report reviewed the terms and signing process of the Nine-Nation Pact and the efforts made at the Brussels Conference, and pointed out that the Chinese government attended the meeting and announced its willingness to accept peace consistent with the principles of the Nine-Nation Pact, while Japan has repeatedly refused Attend the meeting. The

declaration focused on reaffirming that the principles of the Nine-Power Convention are "basic principles indispensable for world peace and the orderly development of domestic and international life." "Force itself can never cause disputes between two countries." provide a just and lasting solution” and strongly demand “a cessation of war actions and resort to peaceful procedures.”

Chinese representative Gu Weijun solemnly stated at the closing ceremony that "the Chinese delegation firmly believes that merely reiterating principles verbally will not help in practice" and "it is a pity that the conference cannot take positive and complete steps", and once again expressed China's commitment to the international community Expectations for concerted action. The Brussels meeting ended amid disappointment and rebuke.

(End of text)

If you have other topics or opinions about the field of history, you can [Follow] me for a private chat, or you can leave a message in the comment area below and I will reply as soon as possible.