FROM 3 OCTOBER TO 3 NOVEMBER
GREAT BRITAIN
Nationhood for British Dominions.—It was reported that at the Imperial Conference in session in London at the close of October, a plan was being worked out for changing the status of the dominions to practically independent nations. The governors general would become viceroys, i. e., representatives of the crown rather than the home government; dominion high commissioners in London would become ministers; and dominion representatives in other countries, as for example the Canadian and Irish representatives in Washington, would have full ministerial status.
The Imperial Conference of premiers from the British Commonwealths opened in London on October 19 and after two weeks was still in session. It was the eleventh meeting of this general character since the first “Colonial Conference” in 1887. The name was altered to “Imperial Conference” in 1911 and the presiding officer became the English Premier rather than the Colonial ’ Secretary, these changes typifying the increased importance of the dominions. With this growth have developed centrifugal tendencies, which it is one of the purposes of the conferences to overcome.
Thus, in the present conference, Premier Herzog of South Africa was decidedly less interested in aid to the mother country than in a clearer definition of the status of the various “commonwealths” in their relations with each other, and the reported elevation of the dominions to full national status was evidently with this purpose in view. On the other hand, Premier Bruce of Australia declared that “if any man is going to suggest that we shall now take some action which might lead to the disintegration of the empire, then for Australia I say we are going to have nothing to do with it.” And Premier Mackenzie King of Canada scouted talk of Canada’s joining the United States as merely party politics.
Behind closed doors on the second day the conference listened to an extended review by Foreign Secretary Chamberlain of British foreign affairs since the last conference in 1923, a defense of the Locarno treaties as not committing the empire to dangerous participation in European affairs. The Australian, New Zealand, and South African premiers all expressed the eagerness of their respective countries to retain the various mandate territories which they have held since the war. On October 28 the conference was especially interested in an outline by the British Air Secretary of plans for intensive development of air communications on an imperial scale, to serve like the navy and merchant fleets as a means of linking the empire. Premier Mackenzie King pledged cooperation in preparations for experimental flights to Canada via Ireland and New Foundland, or possibly to Northwest Canada via the polar seas.
Dominions and Naval Costs.—Great Britain’s vital need of assistance from the dominions is brought out clearly in an article on “Imperial Conferences and Imperial Defense,” published in the Canadian Defense Quarterly for October. The article ends with the following statistics and comment, emphasizing Canada’s tiny naval contributions in proportion to her population and sea-borne trade.
In the comparison, too, it must be borne in mind that Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa have continuous coast lines, whereas Canada has a Pacific and Atlantic coast line with no means of quick transfer of ships from one coast to the other (especially if the Panama Canal were to be closed to Canada on the outbreak of war), so that Canada is forced to divide her forces between the two coasts.
Such is the present position. What of the future? Are the disastrous consequences that would have followed the severing of the empire’s sea communications in 1914, fully realized?
In Great Britain, trade is diminished, unemployment is high, taxation is grievous. The mother country cannot bear the burden unaided.
The call for economy is great and the need urgent. But even more urgent, and indeed vital, is the call for safety of the empire s trade. Urgent too is the need for maintenance of the international prestige of the empire as a whole, and of each component part of the empire, for this empire is today the greatest factor in the world making for the progress of international peace and world progress.
We cannot, we dare not, forget that it is on the navy, under the good Providence of God, that the wealth, safety, and strength of the empire chiefly depend.
Asquith Resigns as Liberal Leader.—On October 14 Lord Oxford and Asquith announced the end of his leadership of the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom. His resignation was due in part to age, for he is now seventy-five, but primarily to the opposition of former premier Lloyd George. Mr. Lloyd George s conciliatory references to Lord Oxford and his followers, in a speech soon afterward, were interpreted as a bid for succession to leadership.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS
British Continue Rubber Control.—On November 1 the British Colonial Office announced that, in continuance of the Stevenson plan for restriction of rubber exports from Ceylon and Malaya, the exports for the ensuing quarter would be cut from 100 to 80 per cent. This was because the average price for the current quarter was below twenty-one pence. In following quarters the plan provides for the reduction of output as low as 60 per cent, or increase to 100 per cent, according as prices fall below twenty-one pence or rise above twenty-four pence a pound.
On the same date the U. S. Department of Commerce stated that government control now affects nine important commodities of which the United States is a purchaser—rubber, coffee, long staple cotton, camphor, iodine, nitrate, potash, mercury, and sizal. This, together with the current talk of international control of prices and output of steel and sugar, must be considered as a new and significant development in world economics.
Anglo-German Industrial Conference.—A notable conference, the first of its kind and scope, was held between British and German industrial and financial leaders during the week ending October 11 on the estate of Colonel William Ashley, British Minister of Transport, near London. Although no definite agreements were made public, there were suggestions of cessation of rivalry in ship building, and of accords in steel, iron, and coal. The meeting was regarded as a tentative step on the part of Great Britain toward entry into the Continental economic union including France, Germany, and Belgium, now in process of formation. Either England must take this step, or else, continuing her policy of isolation, hope by closer trade cooperation within the empire to meet both Continental and American competition.
Appeal for Lowering of Trade Barriers—One document, at least associated with the Anglo-German Conference, was an extraordinary appeal, signed by an imposing array of over 100 leading international financiers and industrialists, issued in London on October 19, and entitled “A Plea for the Removal of Restrictions on European Trade.” The plea called for the breaking down of customs barriers and similar obstacles hindering the free flow of trade across European frontiers. Among the American signers were J. P. Morgan, Thos. N. Perkins, and several presidents of banks and trust companies. The document read in part as follows:
‘‘We desire, as business men, to draw attention to certain grave and disquieting conditions which, in our judgment, are retarding the return to prosperity…
“The break-up of great political units in Europe dealt a heavy blow to international trade. Across large areas, in which the inhabitants had been allowed to exchange their products freely, a number of new frontiers were erected and jealously guarded by customs barriers. Old markets disappeared. Racial animosities were permitted to divide communities whose interests were inseparably connected…
“Too many states, in pursuit of false ideals of national interest, have imperiled their own welfare and lost sight of the common interests of the world by basing their commercial relations on the economic folly which treats all trading as a form of war.
“There can be no recovery in Europe till politicians in all territories, old and new, realize that trade is not war but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbors are our customers, and that their prosperity is a condition of our own well-being. If we check their dealings, their power to pay their debts diminishes and their power to purchase our goods is reduced. Restricted imports involve restricted exports, and no nation can afford to lose its export trade…
“We wish to place on record our conviction that the establishment of economic freedom is the best hope of restoring the commerce and the credit of the world.”
American Comment.—On October 24, soon after the appearance of the Trade Barrier Appeal of October 19, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon issued a statement to the effect that the manifesto evidently referred solely to Europe, and had no application to the United States tariff. He argued that reduction of our tariff would lower our living standards by driving industries abroad where labor is cheaper.
A statement from the White House pointed out that it was very natural to find international financiers advocating measures that would help nations in economic difficulties, and that those who lend money internationally always favor free trade.
WORK OF DISARMAMENT COMMISSION
Sub-Committee on Economic Phases.—A sub-committee of thirteen experts, to which the Preparatory Commission for the proposed disarmament conference had referred economic phases of disarmament, met in Paris for a ten-day session October 18-28. The report of the committee, largely technical in character and designed merely to clear the way for the work of the Preparatory Commission, reached no very definite conclusions. It expressed the opinion that disarmament by proportional scaling down of military budgets of various nations would be impractical, and that results could better be secured by separate agreements for armament reduction between nations. The question of the weight to be attached to the economic development of nations, in measuring their military resources, was left practically untouched.
The committee recommended the ultimate creation of a permanent international arms surveillance body, which should be charged with the collection of armament statistics and with enforcement of whatever limitation program the future conference might agree upon.
Italy Shifts on Naval Reductions.—Italy, which hitherto had stood firmly with France for reduction of naval armaments only by total tonnage and not by classes of vessels, surprised the conference on October 20 by declaring that “while she had always maintained that limitation by total tonnage was the most equitable method for smaller navies, a method of limitation by classes might be equitable for larger navies, and the two methods might be used together.” A Spanish delegate at once supported this declaration, and the concession appeared to cheer the commission, which after five months’ work had made little or no progress. Italy’s shift was unexpected, since, like France, she had favored reduction by total tonnage as a means of retaining the privilege of putting most of her naval allotment into submarines and small units.
On the same date France and six other European states reiterated their former decision that they would be unwilling to limit their number of trained reserves until a system of security was organized that would compensate for their inequality in war resources. Reduction of reserves, a French delegate declared, would sacrifice nine-tenths of the defensive power of one of France’s most important arms. Here again, as in the naval discussions, it appeared that the efforts of five months had reached nowhere.
FRANCE AND BELGIUM
Belgian Franc Stabilized.-—The Belgian Government on October 25 announced stabilization of the Belgian franc at 174.30 to the pound and 36 to the dollar. A new monetary unit (not a coin) called the belga was created, to be used only in foreign transactions, amounting to five francs and valued at 35 to the pound and 7.20 to the dollar.
French Plans for Debt Pact Ratification.—Prior to the opening of the French parliament in November, Premier Poincare announced that he hoped to get the Franco-American Debt Agreement ratified by the Chamber by writing in a series of “provisos” that would not have the effect of reservations but would register the French misgivings about the agreement as it stands. The agreement would not be brought up in the Chamber, however, until after consideration of the budget, which would no doubt postpone it until the new year.
In the meantime, the rise of the franc, with the easing of French finances under Poincare, has had the curious yet not unnatural effect of making French politicians less willing to accept the bitter dose of the debt agreement, and has also permitted a revival of party warfare which threatens the early fall of the ministry itself.
GERMANY
Settlement of Hohenzollern Claims.-—The Prussian Diet by a vote of 258 to 37 ratified on October 15 the financial settlement between Prussia and the Hohenzollern family, thus carrying out the decision of the popular referendum on the question last June. Sixty-five socialists abstained from voting, but only the communists opposed. The bill transferred to the ex-kaiser 15,000,000 marks ($3,570,000) in settlement of all claims.
Resignation of German Army Head.—General von Secht, able head of the army of the German Republic since 1920, was forced to resign in October, owing to agitation aroused by his allowing the former Crown Prince to take part in recent army maneuvers without regular enlistment. Lieutenant General Wilhelm Heye succeeded with diminished powers.
ITALY
Mussolini's Life Again Threatened.—Benito Mussolini escaped the sixth attempt on his life when on October 31 he was shot at by a 15 year-old boy, as he was leaving a scientific meeting at Bologna. The bullet tore decorations on the breast of the Premier’s coat. The boy was beaten and stabbed to death by the mob.
Italian Expansion.—In a speech at Perugia early in October Premier Mussolini took occasion to recall the ancient days of Roman sea power, when at first the Romans “could not even wash their hands in the Mediterranean without permission of the Carthaginians,” and when later, after the Punic Wars, the Mediterranean became a Roman lake.
Both in Italy and abroad the speech prompted comment on Italy’s ambitions for over-seas expansion, in view of her increasing population and need of markets. The Journal de Genevois, usually well informed in League of Nations affairs, reported on October 21 that a subsequent conference between Premiers Mussolini and Briand would have as it chief subject the transfer of the French mandate of Syria to Italy, in return for renunciation of Italian ambitions in Morocco and Tunis. The London Daily Express in the same week featured an alleged revelation to the effect that Premier Mussolini had definite plans for seizure from Turkey of the Adalian strip on the south coast of Asia Minor, with the connivance if not the armed support of Greece.
In the Fortnightly Review for October, “Augur” discussed England’s attitude toward these naval and colonial aims of Italy in the Mediterranean. “People speak,” to quote the article, “of the menace of an Italian naval base at Neros in the Ægean, but if the Italian naval armament is any good its central position between Sicily, Sardinia, and Tripoli constitutes a more serious menace,” He argues that England may well abstain from interference with Italy’s plans. A part of the article follows:
“Italy at present has one national problem overshadowing all others to such an extent that it really is the ‘only’ problem. This is her surplus of population, for which today there is no good outlet. The need of solving this problem is so pressing that there can be no suggestion of Mussolini discussing it when he wants, and shelving it when it so suits him. He must concentrate, willy-nilly, on the all-important issue. It is certain that he has given serious thought to the matter. When whole continents are closed against the Italian emigrant, and when there is danger of the few meager outlets yet open being intercepted, as for example in France, Mussolini cannot hesitate and must look round to find the empty land towards which immigration may be directed in a broad stream. It is clear that it is not in Tangier or in Abyssinia that the promised land can be found. Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and Syria are under the hand of the two great powers with which Mussolini is not ready to try conclusions. Agrarian concessions in Soviet Russia have been considered and set aside as impracticable. Unavoidably the eyes of the Italians turn, to the empty spaces in Asia Minor, where an uncultured government continues its efforts to change a fertile land into a wilderness. Official loyalty towards Turkey may prevent the formation of an openly avowed plan, and fear of other powers may prove an obstacle, yet a populous and civilized nation is drawn with irresistible force to look towards a sparsely inhabited and weakly held land. The thing cannot be prevented. And there is the idea that ways may be devised to satisfy the land hunger without having recourse to violence. The Turks at Angora instinctively feel the pressure of the Italian eye turned towards them. This fear has helped them to make up their minds to sign the Treaty of Mosul with Great Britain. The same fear drives them to seek additional security in the membership of the League of Nations.
“Mussolini has weighed the facts and seems to have arrived at a decision. There is reason to believe that his first step will be to have recourse to the League of Nations. He will ask his fellow- members to consider the conditions in overcrowded Italy, and he will ask for an international effort to solve the problem. The League will be expected to declare its views on the principle involved and to devise practical means of assistance. This appeal to the League will come at the opportune moment. The latter is not yet, because, thanks to Mussolini’s statesmanship, Italy is stemming the tide of unemployment caused by an industrial crisis. But, when the expected economic stringency arises in France, thousands of Italians will be thrown back into their own country; there will be difficulty in absorbing them, and Mussolini will then go before the League of Nations.
“The League will have to consider carefully its decision. If through lack of courage the issue is shelved, Mussolini will return to a purely national plane of action, while morally his position will be strong. He will be able to treat the question of the surplus of population as one concerning Italy ’alone, and the powers, which as members of the League had refused to discuss the issue, will be politely asked to stand neutral while Mussolini takes appropriate action backed by all the energy which is now being accumulated in the nation. Political observers insist that this forecast should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand. For timely discussion and an intelligent understanding of the legitimate needs of the Italian nation may help to avoid serious complications in a future not too far removed.”
BALKAN STATES
Hungary’s Sea Outlet.—Early in October Foreign Minister Ninchitch of Jugoslavia, in an announcement to the Belgrade press, expressed recognition of Hungary’s need of a sea outlet and stated that Jugoslavia had offered Hungary a free port in one of Jugoslavia’s Adriatic harbors. The matter at that time had not passed beyond preliminary conversations. It appeared that, while Spalato had been offered, the negotiations would deal rather with Susak, the Jugoslav part of the port of Fiume, where large concessions would be offered for Hungarian trade. This more northerly port was preferred by Hungary as nearer and more accessible by pre-war rail systems. Present traffic from Hungary through the Italian ports of Trieste and Fiume runs to 20,000 cars yearly.
The offer to Hungary came at a time when Jugoslavia was herself very uncertain that her agreement with Greece over concessions in Saloniki would be ratified. This was negotiated by the former Greek dictator Pangalos, now under trial for treason on that very ground. It would appear that by overtures to Hungary Jugoslavia wished to assure relations on her northern frontier in the face of possible difficulties with Greece.
POLAND
Poland Objects to Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty.—The treaty of neutrality between Soviet Russia and Lithuania, signed early in October, together with similar treaties which the Soviet Government is negotiating with Finland, Esthonia, and Latvia, apparently has the effect of isolating Poland among the Baltic states.
To one clause of the Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty in particular the Polish Government raised objection in a mild protest to Moscow on October 11, on the ground that it recognized Lithuanian claims to Vilna in spite of its award to Poland by the Council of Ambassadors in 1923. This award Lithuania has never accepted. The Polish note to the Soviet Government declared that the latter by its agreement with Lithuania violated the Soviet-Polish Treaty of Riga, in which Russia promised neutrality in event of a Polish-Lithuanian contest. Poland expressed willingness to enter into a northern “Locarno pact,” but only one which should include all the northern nations.
Pilsudski Becomes Premier.—Following a confused period in Polish politics, during which the Sejm (Parliament) refused to vote the government budget and forced the resignation of the Bartel Cabinet, Marshal Pilsudski himself assumed on October 7 the office of Premier as well as War Minister. His new cabinet was hailed as a “strong left democratic government,” the most stable since Poland’s independence in 1918.
Royal Leanings of Pilsudski.—Fears of socialists, and hopes apparently of most of the rest of Poland, that Marshal Pilsudski had finally decided to accept kingship, were aroused on October 25 when the Marshal attended a great banquet of powerful landowners and avowed monarchists on the estate of Prince Radziwill. He returned without the crown, but many believed that his assumption of royalty awaited only the dissolution of the present parliament.
SOVIET RUSSIA
Stalin Overcomes Opposition.—The opposition within the communist party headed by Trotsky, Zinovieff, Kameneff, and others, was forced in the middle of October to tender what amounted to an unconditional surrender to the central executive committee controlled by Stalin as leader of the majority group of the party. The opposition admitted its conduct was calculated to split the party, confessed violation of discipline, and promised to dissolve its organization and submit without reserve to decisions of the central committee. Zinoviff, chairman of the executive committee of the Third Internationale, and arch-exponent of world revolution, was subsequently (October 23) expelled from the committee, as no longer a representative of soviet policy. Later, on October 31, the so-called “Workers’ Opposition,” an organization which since 1921 had held steadfastly to “pure communism” against the New Economic Policy of Lenin, also made complete surrender to majority rule. It will’ be noted that the opposition leaders in these cases were more “red” or “left” than the majority.
Power in the Soviet Government is now firmly in the hands of Joseph Stalin, who is officially only Secretary General of the communist party. Among his chief henchmen are Rykov, President of the Council of People’s Commisars (or Premier), and Iribeschev, who has succeeded Dzerzhensky as Chairman of the Supreme Economic Council.
The conflict among the soviets is primarily between the “pure communism” advocated by the Trotsky group, and the temporizing policy of modified capitalism now pursued by Stalin and embodied in the New Economic Policy. Briefly, Stalin and his followers seek to win peasant support by continuing their virtual ownership of the land, extending their franchise and representation, and by strictest governmental economy securing funds to expand Russian industry so as to meet peasant needs. As Mr. Walter Duranty has said, Stalin and his followers “have their ears closer to the Russian soil than have the opposition leaders, who are more closely affiliated with the international proletarian movement.”
From another point of view, the Stalin group aim to keep power in Russia firmly in their own hands, whereas the minority would extend a voice in affairs to the rank and file of the communist party. (Of course both sides aim to keep power within the communist party of about one million members).
The All-Russian Soviet Congress, which was to have met this autumn, has been postponed until spring. In it, the non-communist representation is said to have been greatly increased.
CHINA
Fall of Wuchang.—The Yang-tse city of Wuchang, long besieged by the Cantonese forces under Chang Kai-shek, surrendered on October 10. It was reported that Yang Sen, the Central Chinese commander who was responsible for the seizure of British vessels at Wanhsien, had gone over to the Cantonese and had been offered a command in their army.
During the campaign the southern army conducted itself with restraint as compared with the northern troops, and this together with a flood of propaganda through central China brought about a growing feeling in favor of the Cantonese. With Wu Pei-fu defeated, and the Manchurian leader Chang Tso-lin in financial straits, ascendency of the Cantonese in China appeared a possibility, which would mean prompt abrogation of the special rights and privileges now held by foreign nations.
Foreign Navigation Rights in China (By Thomas F. Millard in New York Times, October 29).—Shanghai, September 15.—The armed clash last week at Wanhsien between a British naval flotilla and troops of a Chinese general that resulted-in a score of casualties on the British side and from 1,000 to 2,000 estimated casualties on the Chinese side again draws international attention to one very irritating phase of relations of foreign powers with China. This is the “right” of foreign naval and merchant ships to navigate the interior and coastal waters of this country.
That “right,” like nearly all of the foreign privileges to which the new Chinese nationalism now objects, is based on old treaties obtained from China partly by intimidation and partly because Chinese officials of that time were ignorant of what they conceded.
In his book Foreign Rights and Interests in China, published in 1920, Professor W. W. Willoughby of Johns Hopkins University (formerly legal adviser to the Chinese Government), said:
“In most of the developed countries of the world the rights of inland navigation are reserved for citizens or subjects respectively of those countries. In China, however, by treaties beginning with that of 1858, which opened up the Yiangste River to British traders, nearly all of the inland water-ways have been made navigable for trade by foreigners.”
That is not all. Partly by original treaty provision and later by gradual usurpation, a “right” of foreign warships to navigate the inland waters of China has been established. The Sino-British Treaty of 1858 had this provision: “British ships of war coming for no hostile purpose, or being engaged in the pursuit of pirates, shall be at liberty to visit all ports within the dominions of the Emperor of China.”
Other nations, including the United States, took advantage of that provision to claim and assert a similar “right” under the most favored nation thesis, notwithstanding frequent protests of Chinese officials.
In 1903 the American gunboat Villa-lobos was sent to the upper Yiangste against the protest of a local mandarin, which eventually led to the following ruling by the Secretary of State:
“The department is inclined to the opinion that Rear Admiral Evans is right in his contention that our gun-boats may visit the inland ports of China, including those which are not treaty ports. Even if this right were not granted us by treaty, Rear Admiral Evans is unquestionably right in using it like ships of other powers are constantly doing. This department thinks, however, that Article LII of the British treaty of 1858 with China which is reproduced in Article XXXIV of the Austro-Hungarian treaty of 1869, gives full authority for his course.”
That is, one foreign nation obtained a qualified privilege for its warships to visit China’s inland ports back in 1858,'which therefrom provided a precedent for the creation of a more extensive “right” for all nations.
I will not trace specifically the process by which that original treaty privilege has been stretched to its present interpretation, but will bring the situation quickly to where it has gotten in the last few years.
In time the foreign maritime powers adopted a set of policy of keeping gun-boats on the inland waterways of China, and ships adapted for this use were built. Their function is to “protect” foreign shipping plying on China’s rivers to protect foreign residential concessions and to protect business whenever and where-ever they are endangered or interfered with.
A mandarin, or later an official of the republic, or still later a military regional dictator, might at will seize or delay or otherwise interfere with Chinese shipping and commerce; but let one of them do likewise with foreign shipping or commerce (or any important power) and gunboats might be sent to the rescue. That put Chinese at a disadvantage in their own country in comparison with foreigners here.
An early reaction to this condition was a tendency of Chinese shipping and merchants to get under foreign protection somehow, by putting Chinese ships under foreign registry or by taking foreigners into partnership. (That situation was a fruitful field for one kind of chicane working under the “protection” of some consuls.) Since foreign ships seldom were interfered with, and if so, were soon released, even Chinese preferred to ship by and travel on them. That threw to foreign shipping the cream of China’s coastwise and river traffic. Naturally the foreign shipping companies (which are mostly British with nowadays a strong Japanese competition) want to hold the advantage that has accrued to them.
But in late years powerful influence have begun to pull the other way. Chinese now are intensely annoyed to witness ships flying foreign flags freely plying the rivers of China, often under escort of foreign gunboats. On the upper Yiangtse in these times it is an exception for a foreign steamship to make a voyage without being fired on, and it is a weekly occurrence for foreign gunboats to reply to such “shipping.” For two or three years now that condition has aggravated steadily until it culminated in the Wanhsien fight.
The immediate occasion of this fight at Wanhsien is not very important of itself. Two British river merchant ships were detained there by an order of a military dictator, pending a claim for damages done by the ships, or by one of them, to Chinese. (I believe that the “wash” of a steamer overturned some junks and caused loss of lives). The merits of that issue also are not important. Ordinarily such cases would be adjusted in courts or by arbitration. In this instance the fact that a few British ship officers were arrested and held was made the reason for a British naval flotilla, composed of two small gunboats and an auxiliary ship, to attempt their “rescue.”
We have now from different accounts of foreigners at Wanhsien a fairly good idea of what happened. One of the British gunboats was run alongside one of the detained ships, and men from the gunboat boarded the ship for the purpose, it is said, of releasing the foreign officers, who it appears, were confined m their quarters. Chinese soldiers on the ship then fired on the boarders and killed some of them. A general battle followed, m which Chinese soldiers on shore took part, and the British gunboat replied, also shelling the town and starting a conflagration which consumed a large section of it. Of the many hundreds (some accounts say thousands) of Chinese killed and wounded a large majority were non-combatants. Virtually all of the property destroyed was privately Chinese owned.