Dear Spaight,
397
FOREIGN OFFICE, S.W.1.
28th October 1926.
In my opinion the answers to the two questions put in your letter S.24154 (S.4) of the 27th are as follows.
(a) Certainly, on the assumption that to shoot down the aeroplane would be the only effective means of ensuring that it did not drop any more bombs. No state can be expected to allow its territory to be treated in this way, whatever the position and status of the offending foreign aeroplane.
(b) (1) If there were reason to suppose that the bomb dropping was the action of an irresponsible indiv- idual, I do not think that to carry out reprisals aga inst the Cantonese air base would be justifiable. The first step would be to ascertain the identity of the aeroplane and the circumstances in which the bomb dropping occurred because until this was known it would be impossible to decide on the appropriate action.
(11) If it were established that the bomb dropping was 'an intentional act authorised by the Cantonese air commander', so that it must be regarded as the official action of the Canton Government, we should (subject to the point about the relations of the Cantonese authorities to the central government, which I will mention later be entitled to carry out repriss against the Cantonese air base or to take other hostile measures against Canton. Such action would however amount to treating as a hostile act without further enquiry something which we should be entitled so to treat, but need not necessarily do so; it would in fact amount to the opening of hostilit les against Canton and would place us in a position of belligerency. Such a decision ought
Spaight Esq., 0.B.E.
Air Ministry,
W.0.2.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.