500.A15A4/1112: Telegram
The Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
239. The delegates desire to send you the following personal message.
If we have given the impression that we are desirous of making one-sided concessions or in any way impairing the efficacy of American national defense our telegrams have been badly expressed. We are thoroughly mindful of features of advancing only in step with other nations and you may be sure that we are just as determined as anyone to get a fair bargain for our country.
We confess that on the basis of the information in our possession we do not understand your recent telegrams which leave the impression in our minds that you feel we have misled you. We fear that we may be working at cross purposes because of our lack of knowledge of developments in Washington.
The following telegram is an attempt to analyze the situation on the basis of the information in our possession in order that we may have a careful check before the arrival of MacDonald, Simon and Herriot:
- 1.
- The delegation has at no time reported that any comprehensive proposal had “been agreed upon” by the British Government (your 125, June 9, 4 p.m.). I reported to you accurately the statements made to Davis and me by Baldwin which he at least considered of sufficient importance to place before the Cabinet. Later statements were made to us here by Mrs. Corbett Ashby, British delegate (whose words were repeated exactly in our 233, June 7, 1 p.m.) also by Drummond, Secretary-General of the League, and by Cadogan of the Foreign Office (reported to you over the telephone by [Page 164] Davis on June 7th)34 as to the fact that a general scheme was at that time under consideration by the Cabinet. As you were informed by telephone, Drummond told us that Simon had told him definitely in London last week that he would not return to Geneva unless authorized by the Cabinet to put forward a “real program” calculated to accomplish something worth while. That same afternoon Cadogan came in to say that he had been called home for conference; that he understood the Cabinet which was now considering disarmament was about to make a “bigish decision” and asked if there was any word or information which he might carry back to London for the guidance of his Government. Drummond said that the only definite information Simon had given him was that he was in favor of the total abolition of military aviation. Cadogan confirmed this, adding that he did not know what it was proposed to do in the general scheme about reductions in the navy. Since our last telegrams to you Drummond informed Davis and me yesterday that he had talked with Simon by telephone the night before and that the question was still under discussion by the British Cabinet but he hoped they would reach a decision before MacDonald and Simon leave for Geneva. In conversation with me yesterday Henderson indicated his knowledge of a general plan now under discussion. We have at no time sought to give you a detailed estimate of the plan under discussion but have felt obliged to inform you of the various reports of this character which have reached us.
- 2.
- As to the possibility that the abolition of capital ships may have been omitted from any plan now before the Cabinet, we are inclined to believe that this is so and that this may have been due in part at least to the very definite views which Davis and I immediately expressed to Baldwin on the attitude of our Government.
- 3.
- As to your repeated warnings to refrain from divulging the elements of your instructions, I am asked to say by all the delegates that none of us have at any time advocated or contemplated volunteering in a one-sided way a statement of the concessions we were prepared to make. If you will reread our 22035 you will see that we were prompted neither by any desire to take the lead, that we were not even advocating that we should join in the presentation of an acceptable general scheme brought forward by others. We do not advocate or expect you to agree to such a far reaching plan as that outlined by Baldwin. The fundamental purpose of our 220 was to elicit for our guidance and information a conception of what our [Page 165] Government could envisage as a general scheme along the lines you have since indicated in your 122, of June 7, noon. We merely wanted to know where we stood and what position we should take in the event some scheme was proposed. In the second place we wanted to see what possibilities there were of meeting the British in certain respects, in the belief that they would rather adopt any reasonable plan acceptable to us which would give them a substantial measure of financial relief together with the advantage of American support, rather than press for their own plan without such support.
- 4.
- Davis and I wish to make it very clear that Baldwin did definitely include the total abolition of capital ships as point 3 of his personal scheme and the conversation followed the lines exactly as reported to you in London’s 169, May 13, 4 p.m., and our 189, May 17, 1 p.m. Although Baldwin stated that the views advanced by him were the result of his own personal thought and that he was not speaking for the British Government, he expressed them in the presence of the Foreign Secretary who did not dissent. You will observe that Simon does not deny that the abolition of capital ships was brought forward but merely states (as reported in 198, June 8, 5 p.m., from London) that such a point of view regarding capital ships “to which his mind clung” was the financial advantage in reduction in maximum unit size. Simon did bring forward this, and as British proposal, and we replied with the usual arguments. It had nothing to do, however, with Baldwin’s idea which was for total abolition.
- 5.
- Baldwin’s expression of surprise that his purely personal outline of a plan should have been communicated to you must be considered in the light of the circumstances. As a matter of fact he specifically expressed the hope that our Government would give earnest consideration to his plan, as reported in the last sentence of 169, May 13, 4 p.m., from London and the last paragraph of our 189, May 17, 1 p.m. However, he was obviously taken aback by having the subject matter of our conversation made the subject of official representations by the American Ambassador especially as the subject thereby became a matter of record which he realized might in the event of questions in the House of Commons be embarrassing. His only course, therefore, was to make a clear record that no proposal for abolition of capital ships had emanated from the British Government.
- 6.
- While we have no idea of the character of the proposals which the British may bring forward, we feel it would be most unfortunate if you were to conclude from what was said or not said to Mr. Mellon that all plans have been washed out. The fact that Baldwin or Simon did not inform Mr. Mellon of the adoption of any plan was presumably [Page 166] due, first, to the fact that the Cabinet had not acted upon it and, second, that their final and definite proposals would be in some measure contingent upon consultation with Herriot in Paris and ourselves here.
- 7.
- We feel that the private, personal and unofficial conversations which we have had under way offer the greatest hope of collaboration but we fear that our usefulness will be somewhat impaired and our ability to elicit frank expressions from other delegations will be lessened if the substance of such conversations is made the subject of official diplomatic representations through other channels.
In conclusion the delegates wish me to submit the following:
Throughout our work here in informing you of plans for the future of the Conference and in all other steps we have taken, we have been moved solely by a desire to conform to your policies and those of the President and to provide you with the information on the situation as it appears to us here which may be essential to the formation of such policy.