500.A15A4 Military Effectives/23: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson)
127. I have received your personal letter of May 3032 enclosing proposed speech on effectives, which I have read. I have given careful thought to the situation. I feel that the presentation of this subject may be the key to securing a real reduction in land forces provided it is presented in a way to preserve and increase the good-feeling which you have secured in your initial conferences with the French General Staff and others. At all events it seems to be the best chance for such reduction now at hand. I am, therefore, anxious that every precaution should be taken to make it effective by wise and tactful management.
My suggestions are as follows: (1) As to methods and tactics, I attach great importance to the suggestion contained on page 3 of your [Page 162] letter of May 30 that by far the best way of presenting the proposal is to obtain the consent of several of the large European land powers to join in sponsoring the basic principle underlying the proposal. In this connection the President has assured me that you should feel under no obligation to present this as exclusively an American proposal. I believe, however, that a reference to Mr. Hoover as the original suggestor of the principle can and should be made in the course of presentation by its sponsors and that the other nations who may join in sponsoring the principle will be entirely willing to accept or even to cooperate in such a reference.
If you are unable to obtain actual joint sponsorship but if the important European land powers have agreed that there is merit in the basic idea which deserves consideration and are willing to treat it sympathetically, I see no objection to your proceeding with the speech provided it is submitted beforehand to say the French, British, Italians and Germans and you are given an opportunity to see their replies thus assuring that the debate will follow a prearranged and non-controversial course.
(2) I have read your speech and it seems to me to be friendly and conciliatory in tone and adapted to the course I am discussing. I am cabling you certain specific suggestions in a separate telegram. I now merely suggest certain changes in form and arrangement which I think might help the ideas I have in mind. When on your request I talked with General Requin at Geneva, I made a sharp distinction between the general principle of Mr. Hoover’s proposal on the one hand and the formula to be found in the shape of figures for applying the principle. I said we believed that the principle of dividing land forces into two components, one for protection of internal order and the other for defense against outside attack was of far-reaching importance and, in my opinion, might offer the long-sought key to securing a successful reduction of land forces. On the other hand, I conceded that the formula or figures by which this principle should be applied was necessarily difficult; would be appropriately a matter for joint conference and effort among the various nations; and that the formula and figures which we had adopted thus far were a mere try-out; and that we did not seek to impose them in any sense upon the other nations, although we believed that our attempt was intelligent and useful. You have made the same distinction in your speech, but as I read it, I felt that by accentuating it and placing the sharp distinction between the principle and the tentative formula in the beginning rather than at the end of the speech, it would make it clearer to the hearers to whom it was addressed for the first time. I should take pains [Page 163] to accentuate in the very beginning the tentative nature of our figures and formula, and that while we have done our best, we make no claim that they cannot be improved.
This is a rough statement of my views. I feel that this proposal as to land effectives offers a real and important opportunity to the Conference, and I hope that with careful and considerate treatment it may become very fruitful.
- Not printed.↩