500.A15a3/456: Telegram
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:45 p.m.]
359. Department’s 299, November 18, 4 p.m. The following letter, dated December 3, has been received by Atherton from Craigie of the Foreign Office: [Page 293]
“I have been asked to let you know that the aide-mémoire on the naval question communicated by the Secretary of State to the French Naval Attaché at Washington, a copy of which you were good enough to enclose in your letter to Vansittart, of the 19th ultimo, has been carefully considered here.
As regards categories, we are very interested to learn that in the later conversation between the French and yourselves the ‘French formula’ was modified so as to cover five categories, namely, capital ships, aircraft carriers, cruisers from 10,000 to 1,850 tons, destroyers from 1,850 to 600 tons, and submarines. This division of categories would be fully in accordance with our views, and it is to be hoped that the French Government will see their way to abide by the formula which emerged from the unofficial conversations at Washington and Paris.
We also agree to what you said in regard to the percentage of transfer between categories, though in anything we say to the French we shall have to make it clear that we can only agree to this proposal in principle and must safeguard ourselves against the scheme being used to upset equilibrium in strength or to produce programs of relatively unequal strength. Thus the percentage of transfer would have in any case to be a relatively small one. We also consider—and I believe that this is equally the view of the United States Government—that this principle would not apply to the two categories of capital ships and aircraft carriers. These are matters for consideration at the Conference, but it has been thought desirable that you should know our view on this point and we shall be glad to learn in due course whether the United States Government agree.
The only other observation I am asked to make relates to cruisers, and this is really merely a question of wording. The aide-mémoire states that ‘there is no agreement on a proportion between the number of 10,000 and the number of smaller cruisers and the question of numbers of such units is still to be agreed upon, the United States desiring 21 and Great Britain 15 such cruisers.’ This wording might possibly give the impression that, as things stand, we only desire to have fifteen 8-inch cruisers against the American twenty-one 8-inch cruisers, although no final agreement on the point has been reached. The wording is the more open to such an interpretation in that the sentence which introduces the discussion of the five categories of combatant ships runs as follows: ‘Certain matters have been discussed and tentative understandings arrived at as follows’ (the underlining [italics] is mine).
We shall, therefore, propose to say, in discussing this matter with the French Government, that there is no agreement yet on a proportion between the number of 10,000 ton and the number of smaller cruisers, that we are anxious if possible not to add to our existing program of 15 eight inch gun cruisers, but that in order to obviate this, some means will have to be found to enable the United States Government to reduce their number of eight inch cruisers from twenty-one to eighteen.
As you will see we only differ from you on points [of] detail and wording, and it is satisfactory that we can, if approached by the French or Italian Governments with the same inquiries, give them an almost identical reply to that embodied in the aide-mémoire.”