Dispatch S-52 TOKYO, 20 May 1941

CONFIDENTIAL

As I have had the honour to report in my telegram No. 234 [1], on
the afternoon of the 17th May I called on Mr. Matsuoka, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the Foreign Office.

After referring to other matters I spoke of the escape of Rudolf
Hess from Germany. [2] He said that he did not know Hess
personally, but was told that he was an idealist, and that he
probably thought that he could end the war by his personal
influence. I said that this was the German story which was now in
circulation but that it was very different from the first story,
which was to the effect that Hess was out of his mind.

The Minister said that he could understand the action of Hess
quite well. He himself had been an idealist since the age of 15
and recently had sometimes thought of himself flying to Chiang Kai
Shek [3] and endeavouring to settle the China Affair. He had also
thought of inviting Hider, Mussolini, Stalin, Roosevelt and
Churchill to Tokyo in order to bring about the end of the war. If
he had done so perhaps people would have said of him, as they were
saying of Hess, that he was out of his mind.

He said that Mr. Togo, former Japanese Ambassador to Berlin, who
knows Hess well, had told him that Hess was a very earnest anti-
Bolshevist, and that his flight probably meant a real difference
of opinion between Hitler and himself
2. I raised the question of the general war position. The Minister
was most despondent. The world was headed for Armageddon-this he
repeated several times-for a disaster which would probably mean
the end of civilisation.

The Pope had impressed him more than any other man he had met in
Europe. The Pope was praying every day and every night for the end
of the war, and Mr. Matsuoka had promised that he would also pray
every day and every night, and was doing so.

The outlook was very bad. Perhaps God intended to destroy
civilisation as a punishment for national egotism, for national
selfishness. Man could do nothing if God so decided.

I said that it seemed to me that it was within the power of man to
decide the issue. For example, a great deal depended on the course
of action taken by Japan. He had spoken of national egotism. Would
he allow me to apply to Japan what he said?- with particular
reference to Australia. I told him that before Mr. Kawai [4] went
to Australia I had conversations with him in which I told him that
he would be received personally in a friendly manner in Australia,
and that he would find little personal antagonism to Japanese
people. He would, however, find very strong objection to Japanese
policy. Australia was not prepared to submit to any self-appointed
leadership by Japan in anything described as a 'sphere' in which
each country had 'its proper place', as the Minister had so often
declared. If Japan would abandon all the dangerous talk of
'southward advance' and of 'Japanese leadership' there would be no
trouble in this part of the world. Leadership by Japan would mean
submission to Japan by other people. Let Japan abandon these ideas
and offer to buy what she wants-rice, rubber, tin etc.-without
claiming that she had some sort of right to get anything she
wanted on her own terms. The whole position would then be changed
for the better. I referred to several recent articles in the press
and especially to one in the 'Miyako' (see my S-49 paragraph 8)
[5] in which it was said that now was the time for Japan to push
southward when other countries were involved in war-that now was
the opportunity to get rid of British influence in the East-that
any country which was unwilling to enter 'the common sphere of
prosperity under Japanese leadership' should be compelled to come
in-and that the southward economic advance of Japan must have a
political foundation.

I referred to China as providing an opportunity for Japan to show
that her aims were not selfish. (We had some discussion about the
statements made by Mr. Honda, the Japanese Ambassador to Nanking,
who has recently been urging a policy of conciliation towards
China to be exercised through the Nanking Government.)
3. The Minister replied that his intention was that Japan should
only have spiritual leadership and that such leadership by one
country would not imply submission by others. Some peoples, such
as Japan, were fitted for leadership and others were not. In
Australia, for example, we did not think of allowing the rabble of
the streets to lead the country. They were quite unfitted for it.

4. I replied that in Australia all the people had a share in the
government of the country, all the people were subject to the laws
made by their own representatives and no section of the community
claimed a right to lead irrespectively of the Government. As
between countries the position was quite different. There was no
law or principle according to which one country was entitled,
independently of the consent of other countries, to appoint itself
the leader of those countries.

I compared Russia and Germany with Great Britain. Russia and
Germany had deliberately adopted brutality and savagery as
instruments of Government. Take on the other hand the policy of
Great Britain in recent years. In Australia, for example, we had
complete freedom and self-government, without objection from Great
Britain and by the will of Great Britain. There had not been a
British soldier in Australia for about 70 years. The other self-
governing dominions were in the same position, and other parts of
the Empire were advancing toward self-government. Compare this
with anything that Russia or Germany had ever done.

5. The Minister said that he did not agree with what I said about
Russia and Germany. He had a quite different opinion, but there
was not now time to explain it. I replied that this was not a
matter of opinion. The facts were plain and could not be denied.

The Minister said that he admitted that many people in Japan did
think and speak and write in the manner which I had condemned. He
thought that they were entirely wrong and he condemned them. He
was fighting against them, but they had learned these ideas from
Western civilisation. It was necessary, while receiving good ideas
from Europe to get rid of these evil ideas which Europe had
brought into Asia. He and Prince Konoye [6] as leaders of a
minority party were struggling against these evil ideas.

6. I have already said that the Minister was very despondent. He
seemed to me to be in a state almost of despair as he contemplated
the possibility of the destruction of human civilisation as a
result of the war. He referred to this subject again and again,
and several times said that he was afraid that God had decided to
destroy mankind. I abstained from referring to the subject of the
U.S.A. introducing a convoy system and so possibly entering into
the war against Germany, and possibly involving Japan on the other
side. This question had been fully discussed in separate
conversations between the Foreign Minister and the British and
American Ambassadors []7] two days before. I am sure however, that
it was this possibility which he had in his mind when he took such
a gloomy view of the outlook. My impression was that he thought
that Japan would be forced to enter the war, that he could not say
what the result would be, and that he was profoundly disturbed
when he contemplated the possibilities.

J. G. LATHAM