8
See (21) and encl. to (97) on 53838/10/37.
See (6)
B
adequate reply.
The case for regarding this as
more than a purely Sino-Japanese affair has
already been set out, and it does not seem to
me to be affected in any way. Even if the
vessel concerned was not a submarine, we have
still a ground of protest in that the action was
a breach of Hague Convention No: XI.
The Japanese reply also states that
if there were British subjects killed and if
they did not take part in challenging the attack,
the Japanese Government "will not be slow to
express regret and are prepared to consider
indemnification".
H.M. Ambassador in Tokyo suggests
that our reply should merely take note of this,
and that we should present a claim accordingly
in due course. On our instructions the
Governor has already taken steps to draw up such
a claim7. It seems to me that such a reply
is inadequate in view of the nature of our case
and the very strong evidence against the
Japanese, as well as the revolting inhumanity
shown in the attack in question. I suggest
that in addition to the action suggested by
H.M. Ambassador we should refuse to accept the
Japanese reply as final, and should take the
line that we cannot consider that the junks
in question would ever have dared to attack
a vessel of the Japanese navy, that there has
been a definite breach of the Hague Convention,
and that H.M.G. must maintain their protest
and