JAPANESE CLAIM SUCCESSES

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22370, 6 April 1938, Page 9

JAPANESE CLAIM SUCCESSES

FIERCE FIGHTING FOR TWO TOWNS CHINESE DEFENCES SAID TO BE BROKEN (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT.) (Received April 5, 7.30 p.m.) LONDON, April 4. The Shanghai correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” says that after 16 days’ fierce fighting, Taierchwang and Hanchwang, now smouldering shells, filled with the charred bodies of those killed in street fighting, changed hands four times. The Japanese again claim that they have ejected the Chinese from both towns, breaking the Chinese defence of the Grand Canal. The Chinese further suffered in the retreat, the defenders on the south bank machine-gunning them, believing that they were Japanese. The attacking Japanese have now resumed the advance towards Hsuchow.

A Hankow message says that the Chinese do not admit the Japanese claims, adding that they still hold portions of the towns. They also assert that they are advancing satisfactorily south-west of Shanghai towards the ShanghaiHangchow railway. A message from Hong Kong says that the Japanese casualties during the week-end at Taierchwang were 15,000, and the Chinese 9000.

SOVIET AID TO CHINA PROTEST BY JAPANESE AMBASSADOR M. LITVINOV DENIES ILLEGAL ACTION (Received April 5, 9 p.m.) LONDON, April 5. The Moscow correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” says the Japanese Ambassador (Mr Mamoru Shigemitsu) protested to the Commissar for Foreign Affairs (M. Maxim Litvinov) against the military assistance which, he asserted, the Soviet was rendering to China.

He warned M. Litvinov that Moscow must “assume full responsibility for the consequences” if the aid was continued.

M. Litvinov replied that the Soviet attitude in selling arms and aeroplanes to China was completely in accordance with international law. Arms were sunplied to both China and Japan by many countries, he added.

Although many foreigners were serving with the Chinese armies, the Japanese Government had not protested to any other government, as it realised that it had no legal ground in doing so.