From January 3 to February 3
FAR EAST
Occupation of Shanghai.—Following demands, first presented on January 21, calling upon the Shanghai municipal authorities to suppress anti-Japanese associations and boycott activities, Japanese forces on the night of January 28 entered and occupied the native section of Shanghai. About 2,000 sailors were employed in the attack. Although the defense was feeble and disorganized, and largely confined to sniping, the streets were plunged in darkness and large numbers of Chinese—estimated at about 1,000—were killed or injured during the clearing of the streets by machine-gun fire and bayonet. All of the Japanese demands had been acceded to by the mayor of Shanghai on the afternoon before the attack, and, according to the Japanese version, the fighting was brought about by Chinese assaults as the Japanese forces were marching to their assigned areas in the international section. On the other hand, the Japanese operations appeared fully planned, and they were expected by everybody in Shanghai. When Chinese reëforcements were brought up in two armored trains, Japanese aircraft during the morning dropped bombs which started fires in the native quarter. Despite partyly successful efforts of the British and American consular authorities to arrange a truce between the Japanese and Chinese, there were frequent clashes during the first days of the occupation. The Japanese also extended their area of occupation into the international district. The Nanking government rushed up reënforcements, until on February 3 some 20,000 troops had been added to the 30,000 of the “19th route” army already in or near Shanghai. Artillery and machine-gun firing was renewed on February 2. At Nanking Japanese destroyers on February 2 fired for two hours on the Chinese forts and during the bombardment landed sailors along the water front.
The western powers hurried naval and military forces to strengthen those already guarding foreign interests and concessions at Shanghai, the United States sending Admiral Montgomery H. Taylor from Manila in the Houston with nine destroyers, and the 31st Regiment in the transport Chaumont.
Foreign Protests.—Both the United States and Great Britain, acting in cooperation, made immediate protest to Japan over the invasion of the native city of Shanghai, after the Japanese consul general had announced that the Chinese pledges were satisfactory. Similar protests were made by France and Italy, and these nations joined in subsequent representations to Japan against her use of the international sections as a base for further hostilities. Japan’s response was a request that the foreign representatives use their influence to have the Chinese withdraw beyond a neutral zone. On February 2 the four western powers made a peace proposal of five points: (1) Cessation of hostile acts; (2) no further mobilization or preparations; (3) withdrawal of combatants from points of contact at Shanghai; (4) creation of neutral zones by consular authorities; (5) negotiations on basis of Pact of Paris and with aid of League Commission.
Fighting at Harbin.—Japan found it necessary to send troops northward to Harbin, on the Soviet-controlled Chinese Eastern Railway, when at the close of January fighting and general disorder broke out there due to conflicts between pro-Japanese and anti-Japanese factions. Transportation was secured by taking control of the branch line from Changchun to Harbin, when trains were refused by Russian railway officials, the Soviet government subsequently acquiescing in this action in its evidently fixed policy of avoiding a present conflict. Near Harbin, on January 31, the Japanese force defeated a much larger body of Chinese in what was described as the sharpest fighting of the Manchurian campaign.
Treaty Rights Asserted.—Following the complete occupation of Manchuria by Japan, Secretary of State Stimson on January 7 issued a note declaring that the United States government would refuse to admit the legality of any situation de facto, or any future agreement between Japan and China,
which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty, the independence, or the territorial and administrative integrity of China, or to the international policy relative to China, commonly known as the open-door policy; and that it does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty, or agreement, which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928.
This note was sent both to Japan and China, and to other nations party to the Nine-Power Pacific Treaty. These latter nations, did not take similar action, Great Britain being content with verbal assurances from the Japanese ambassador about the continuance of the open door. The League Council, however, on January 28 took a similar position by a declaration adopted by twelve members (excluding the representatives of China and Japan) to the effect that the league would not recognize any Sino-Japanese agreement imposed by Japan’s military aggressions.
League Commissions.—Acting finally under Articles X and XV of the League Covenant, under which investigation may be undertaken without consent of the nation whose conduct is in question, the League Council wound up its formal program on January 30 by a tentative decision to create a second commission of inquiry into Sino-Japanese problems, composed of some half dozen diplomats already in the field. This action was, however, hotly resented by Japan, and from the Tokyo War Office came threats of withdrawal from the league if a second commission were set at work. The United States promised to coöperate, without appointing a member to the board.
As for the first league commission, composed of Gen. F. R. McCoy (U. S.), Lord Lytton (Brit.), Gen. H. E. Claudel (Fr.), Dr. Heinrich Schnee (Ger.), and Count Aldrovandi (Ital.), its departure for the Far East was much delayed, but the European members finally sailed for the East via the United States on February 3. At the end of January, General McCoy was still in this country, awaiting the plans of his European colleagues.
Changing Rule in China.—As expected, the feeble stop-gap government formed at Nanking in December went to pieces within a month’s time, upon the resignation of Sun Fo as premier and Eugene Chen as foreign minister. At the close of January Marshal Chiang Kai-shek was back in control, with his able lieutenant, T. V. Soong, again in charge of China’s desperate problems of finance. In view of the threat of Japanese destroyers along the river at Nanking, the seat of government was shifted to Loyang, in Honan province. A kind of emergency government, composed of some thirty members of the Kuomintang Central Executive Committee, was meantime organized at Shanghai, with Eugene Chen as chairman of the committee on foreign affairs.
BRITISH COMMONWEALTHS
Force to Rule India.—In England all shades of political opinion have supported the government in its return to a policy of ruling India with a firm hand, and during the first month of 1932 this policy operated with more than anticipated success. The imprisonment of Gandhi was followed quickly by the arrest of three successive presidents of the All-India Congress, and the promulgation of four new ordinances extending severe restrictive measures to the whole Indian Empire. Picketing was made a crime; the government was given power to declare any association unlawful and contributing to such an association also unlawful; and the provincial governments were specifically empowered to take measures against the All-India Congress in the same manner as adopted by the Central Government. Speaking in the House of Commons at the close of the month, Secretary for India Samuel Hoare was able to declare that the opposition was half-hearted, and that “a strong policy had won the day.” British delegates arrived in India on January 29 to continue there the special committee work on federation problems laid out at the end of the London conference.
Autonomy for Burmah.—In January was ended a six-week’s conference in London arranging for the complete separation of Burmah from India and its organization as a semi-autonomous state under a new constitution. As a final step, the question of separation will be put to a popular vote. The new constitution if adopted will provide for a large measure of self-government under a legislature, but with a cabinet appointed by the governor general and presided over by him, and British control over defense, foreign affairs, and larger questions of finance.
A Bargaining Tariff.—Rather than break up over divergent views on tariff policy, the MacDonald cabinet in January took the unprecedented step of agreeing to disagree, so that the four militant free traders in the ministry will be able to remain in it and still carry on their fight against the government’s high tariff measures. These provide in general for a 10 per cent increase of duties on all manufactured articles, but with opportunity for preferential arrangements with the dominions and also for reciprocity agreements with foreign countries, such as Denmark and Argentina, as a means of stimulating trade. Thus the new tariff will serve as a means of securing favorable entry for British goods especially in the countries from which England’s imports are drawn. Agreements with the dominions will be postponed until the Imperial Trade conference which is to meet at Ottawa on July 19, but arrangements with other nations may be undertaken even sooner.
FRANCE
Briand out of Cabinet.—Chief outcome of the cabinet reorganization in France in the middle of January was the withdrawal of M. Briand, France’s perennial foreign minister, from control of foreign affairs. In the reorganization, M. Laval took over the foreign office in addition to his duties as premier. Whether M. Briand’s resignation was due solely to increasing ill health, or to the complications of French internal politics, was not entirely clear. The necessity for cabinet changes came with the death of Minister of War André Maginot early in the month, which was followed by the resignation of the entire Laval cabinet, M. Briand insisting upon this as a condition to his own resignation. In the new ministry former premier André Tardieu was persuaded to take the war office, but aside from this and the elimination of M. Briand, there were few changes. With Briand out, the Laval government suffered some loss of support in the Chamber, its majority in the first vote of confidence being reduced to 51. This however, was considered sufficient to carry it through the important winter conferences at Geneva and until the dissolution of the Chamber in March.
GERMANY
Party Conflicts.—Following the failure of Chancellor Bruening’s proposal to the Hitlerites that President von Hindenburg’s term be extended beyond May 5 without an election, it appeared likely that an election would be held about the middle of March, with a practical certainty that President von Hindenburg would be continued in office as the choice of all parties except the Communists. In his cleverly devised but vain proposal, the Chancellor was, of course, less concerned in keeping the aged marshal at the head of the state than in avoiding an internal political conflict in the midst of the important international discussions of debts, armaments, etc., which will be carried on during the winter and coming spring. This has not been avoided, but the possibility of a Hitlerite triumph in Germany, either by popular vote or by revolution, is perhaps less than heretofore. The great mass of the Socialist working classes are still solidly against him, and his appeal to the middle classes has been weakened by the growth of the new “Republican Action” society, linked with the "Reichsbanner” of the workers, yet strongly championing national rights. This detracts from the force of Hitler’s condemnation of his opponents as “unpatriotic,” “internationalist,” and “bolshevistic,” and the strong stand of the government against further reparations has also deprived him of a basis of attack.
The Reparations Muddle.—During January the reparations problem, referred again to the politicians after the bankers’ investigation of last autumn, became still more confused. It was expected that the Lausanne conference tentatively arranged for the close of January, would simply extend the Hoover moratorium for another six months or more, when the elections in America would be over and the European situation perhaps clearer. This, however, became impossible when Chancellor Bruening came out with a declaration, not only that Germany could make no further reparations payments for an indefinite period, but that she would insist on a permanent settlement of the question rather than a mere extension of time—and an immediate settlement also, at least before the end of the present moratorium in July. The Lausanne conference had to be indefinitely postponed.
There was considerable discussion of the proposal—advocated by Premier Mussolini among others—that Germany’s debts to the Allies be frankly scratched off, and the European nations then present a united front to America for a corresponding reduction of their debts to her. As if to meet this scheme, Secretary of State Stimson on January 20 again summarized the American position, briefly as follows:
- There is no connection between war debts and reparations.
- The European powers must take the initiative on reparations.
- An extension of the present moratorium would have to be approved by Congress, and the Senate opposes cancellation or reduction of debts.
- The United States would “look with displeasure" on a united front by debtor nations.
- The existing debt arrangements, arranged separately, can be revised only by separate accords.
SOUTHERN EUROPE
Revolt in Spain.—During January, Spain was troubled by a succession of anti-Catholic riots, Communistic uprisings, and strikes which put the new republic to a severe test. The climax of these disorders was to have been a general strike set to begin on January 25, but the government had ample warning from preliminary disturbances and kept the situation in hand. Government reports declared that financial support for these outbreaks came from monarchists sources outside Spain.
Balkan Debt Problems.—With England off the gold basis, reparations payments stopped, grain markets over-supplied, and trade in general restricted, the countries of southeastern Europe are faced with difficulties as great as Germany’s in paying foreign obligations. Austria has met these difficulties by arrangements for reduced interest and sinking fund payments, and Hungary by a moratorium on practically all debts due abroad. Yugoslavia secured an additional French credit of §14,000,000, but in the speech from the throne at the opening of her restored parliament on January 18, it was held that further payments on American debts must be contingent on continuance of reparations. It is estimated that American money in Austria, Hungary, and the Balkans amounts to about $600,000,000.
Balkan Conference.—A second annual conference of foreign ministers and other representatives of the states in southeastern Europe met informally at Constantinople in October last to continue the discussion of various schemes for bringing the Balkan countries into closer union, including plans for a “pact of friendship” for peaceful settlement of disputes, a postal union, a central office for control of grain and tobacco production, proposals for some measure of customs union, and for bilateral arbitration treaties among the several states. While it was perhaps only the unofficial character of the meeting which made such discussions practicable, the conference served at least to advertise the possibilities of mutual benefit from political and economic coöperation.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Revolt in Salvador.—During the last two weeks of January a revolutionary movement of considerable seriousness appeared in the Central American republic of San Salvador, the causes of which were linked with Communistic propaganda spread from Mexico some three years ago. United States and British naval vessels were sent to the chief ports of Salvador, but, after conflicts for possession of several of the smaller towns in the republic, the government under Provisional President Maximilian Martinez soon reestablished its control. No connection was shown between the uprising and the former government in Salvador which was overthrown some two months before.
Mexican Churches Again Closed.— The religious issue has again been raised in Mexico by a new federal statute declaring that in the federal district of Mexico City and in Mexican territories no creed shall be represented by more than one priest or clergyman to every 50,000 people, and that all priests and clergymen must be native Mexicans. In protest against the new law, the Catholic Church stopped services in all churches within the federal district.
According to the religious truce arranged when Ambassador Morrow was in Mexico, the Mexican states are able to restrict the number of clergy, and six states have done so, but there was doubt as to whether this right could be exercised also by the federal government.