Minutes
¦ LlH : Oct ft?/*.
V October 6th, 19W
H.E.
With reference to your conversation
on the Par Bast with Mr, Hull on October 3rd
would Y.E. consider trying to find out when
next you discuss this matter whether the
distinction in Mr. Hull's mind between the
assertion of his well-known principles in
regard to China and the position existing in
Manchukuo "which e& traced from an earlier
date" involves the possibility of recognition
of Manchukuo or merely leaving the question
aside and possibly keeping it in cold-storage
for settlement with the general peace settle-
ment?       <M   di-c^J   to jh^S.
/>oi*U~    Prv^yM ~ S-ry^-
fi~~   JC /y^' *} ^ J
USA -
ii.c.
Yum t**   v "
SIR RONALD CAmPBSLL
I spoke to Mr. Welles this
evening on this point,  saying that I had
not reported Mr. Hull's observations in great
detail to London, and was speaking purely
personally.
When Mr. Hull had used the
language he did to me about Manchukuo, I had
wondered /
Minutes.
wondered whether this would imply recognition
"by the U.S. Government of the position in
Manchukuo, or whether they would leave the
question in suspense.
Mr. Welles said that what Mr. Hull
had in mind was that if matters progressed so
far as to make a general settlement possible
on other matters, the U.S. Government would
take the line of saying that they would not
dispute any settlement at which China and
Japan might arrive.
I asked him what would happen if
China maintained her position as regards
Manchukuo, and to this he replied that the
particular point about Manchukuo in the form
in which we were discussing it would not
arise unless and until a general settlement
had been reached agreeable to both China and
Japan which would inevitably cover the point
about Manchukuo.
9th October, 19U1