West Across the Pacific: American Involvement in East Asia from 1 ...

Only Payson J. Treat, writing in the American Historical Review, introduced an ever-so-slight minus into his generally plus review, when he said: “No one will agree completely with Dr. Griswold, but he, at least, has documented the reasons for his belief. At times a better knowledge of what was going on in East Asia might have modified his conclusions, but in the main policy was determined in Washington and not always on the basis of sound reports.” Also Professor Treat, just completing the third volume of his meticulous study of the Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Japan, from 1853 to 1905, pointed out that Griswold’s treatment was “most thorough to 1906,” but despite the fact that the Department of State Archives closed after that date, it remained “quite adequate to 1922,” and though “sketchy from that time on” was nevertheless, all told, “a fine piece of work.”

Reading between the lines of Treat’s review, and taking into account his stance on Far Eastern policy questions, it should be noted that his appreciation of Griswold was in spite of the fact that he disagreed fundamentally with the latter’s interpretation. Griswold had in general applauded America’s efforts to thwart Japanese expansion and injected a tone of criticism in describing her instances of retreat from this noble objective, but Treat was pro-Japanese. He could not resist saying that “the earlier open door and Integrity of China policies, which when enunciated scarcely had Japan in view, were later mobilized against her almost alone. Many Americans will be amazed at the length to which this policy was pursued” and adding an unwarranted twist to claim that Griswold had made it “very clear that Japan had suffered much more from American intervention in Asia than the United States has suffered from Japanese intervention in the Americas.”