500.A15A4/1355
Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation50
Secretary: Hello, Gibson.
Gibson : Good-morning, Mr. Secretary, this is Hugh Gibson. Have you had a chance to read our telegram No. 350?
Secretary: Well, I just got it and have read it rather hurriedly.
Gibson : Do you still feel any misgivings?
Secretary: I do.
Gibson : You feel that it is desirable that we refrain from this subject in our speech at the beginning of the discussion.
Secretary: I can’t myself see that your 343 makes any serious change in the 333.
Gibson : It leaves out all reference to global limitations; it is not in the section of the treaty that has to do with principles but only lays down work and leaves all methods wide open for discussion. In fact, it is nothing more than telling the Committee on Expenditures to go ahead and complete the task which it had in the beginning.
Secretary: It leaves it open for the conference to bring up global limitations as an alternative to the Hoover plan.
Gibson : They are going to do that as a supplementary thing to it and that is all these people want, to complement this system of disarmament. They are going ahead and even if they accept the President’s plan, they will also do that. They don’t care whether we are in on it but they do want it themselves. I think we would be in a very bad position if they could point to us as the stumbling block.
Secretary: If they wanted to add an additional agreement between themselves, of course we would not oppose that, but I am afraid that is not the way in which it would be used.
Gibson : The British and the Italians who are just as rigid as we are on this are opposed because it is not open to their objection, and since your telegram came in, we have had a further talk with Simon and with the Italians and they say they scrutinized this carefully and they would not accept it because they did not feel that it was open to that objection.
[Page 300]Secretary: I have the two before me here. I have talked with the President this morning and he is very much opposed to anything which will give an opportunity like this, as he thinks this might, to slide off from the plan for direct limitation.
Gibson : I don’t think it will do that. The whole thing is a complementary method. These people want this so as to control the effective carrying out of direct limitation. There is no doubt about that. I don’t think it will be used in any way to sidetrack the President’s proposal. Mr. Secretary, may I read what I had proposed in our opening statement this afternoon. See if that does not do it. It was stated in the sixth paragraph from the end between the paragraph ending, “giving assurance against competition either in quality or quantity of armaments.”
Secretary: Are you talking about your speech given in 349?51
Gibson : Yes, it would be inserted in the sixth paragraph from the end of the speech.
Secretary: The trouble is, we have not got the whole of your speech yet.
Gibson : Well, may I read you this? I feel that this resolution has the merit of registering at the same time the point of complete accord in Chapter II, and those points on which we are agreed to continue study in Chapter III, considering that these methods will produce the adjustments necessary for further accord. There has not been time to work out the details of various proposals. For instance, the Committee on National Defense Expenditure has not yet been able to complete its study. The resolution thus, does not attempt to judge the results of those studies and for the conclusions to be derived from them, each nation will be its own judge. The resolution leaves open the…52 as complementary for direct limitation of expenditure or an objection by them. These methods shall be the ultimate result of our work. It merely indicates that by any of these methods we seek a common end.
Secretary: Is that what you intended to put in? That is not enough. The United States delegation is unalterably opposed to global limitation, and I should not be satisfied with any collateral statement which did not go as far as that. In other words, you are leaving yourself open to trouble hereafter and I want you to stop that. I want you to say that we will not, under any circumstances, consent to global limitation.
Gibson : All right, we will put that in.
Secretary: And not in any diplomatic language either.
[Page 301]Gibson : Global limitations which we will not accept. We will put that in in perfectly definite language.
Secretary: It must be absolutely clear so that there will be no mistake hereafter that the American delegation will not accept global limitation.
Gibson : Don’t you think that is clear: “global limitation which we will not accept.”
Secretary: No, I should make it even a little more clear than that. I should say, “My country has consistently from the beginning been unwilling to accept global limitation because it is quite (you can give the reasons) unfair from the standpoint of a nation that has already made its reduction, and give them an absolutely clear notice.”
Gibson : All right, we will do it and not in terms to be open to interpretation.
Secretary: I don’t want it to be open to a bit of interpretation, so that there will be no argument hereafter about it. In other words, if that system is adopted by the conference at Geneva it must be adopted as a regional method applicable to other nations but not to us. Is that clear?
Gibson : Yes, that is clear, we can put that in and not start any more. We are still working on artillery.
Secretary: I mean I am not at all favorably impressed by the attitude the French have taken in the telegram which you sent me this morning, about their last minute proposition in your 348.53
Gibson : That is the naval subject.
Secretary: Yes. I am not satisfied that you have been treated very fairly by the other people, particularly the French. Gibson, if you accept this form in No. 343, I must insist that you make the statement very clear and emphatic in your speech.
Gibson : The statement in our speech will be very clear.
Secretary: Yes, it must not be a mere relative speech to go in as you propose, but you must say something like this:
“The American delegation is obliged to refer to its consistent objection to the method of global limitation of expenditures as a method which is unfair to a nation in the position in which the United States is, of having already made its great reduction in land effectives and armaments as we have, and, therefore, I am obliged far the purpose of avoiding misunderstanding to point out that this position cannot be changed and that if any such system is adopted, it must be adopted as a regional method for other nations.” Do you see?
Gibson : Yes, I have got that.
Secretary: That has got to be absolutely clear. I am not insisting upon the actual verbiage which I give you but I want the idea absolutely clear.
Gibson : We will make it as clear as we can. That will be all right. Have you had a chance to look at the draft of the speech that I sent in, reporting the draft resolution?
Secretary: I have the first two sections, but I haven’t all of the speech.
Gibson : Is it all right as far as it goes? The thing to do is get people to accept it without being weakened and I think we are getting a lot of support to that end.
Secretary: I thought the speech was all right and I was glad to notice what you said about the real opinions of the nations being more advanced than the resolution, because I feel that the resolution is not much.
Gibson : That is the way we wind up, “This represents the point that has been reached by the last resolution.”
Secretary: Yes, I noticed that. You can go ahead that way but make your reservation absolutely clear.
Davis : This is Davis, may I speak to you a minute. I just want to say to you that on this work we are all just as much opposed to global reduction as you are and we are going to make that objection as clear as a whistle so don’t worry about that. We feel that we have got a great measure of success in regard to the effectives, don’t you like that formula?
Secretary: I am unable to tell which formula is now in effect. There have been so many changes and so much whittling down that it is hard for me to follow it.
Davis : You don’t know what a terrible battle we have had.
Secretary: Oh, yes I do. I know perfectly well what a battle you have had and I am not criticizing what you have done. On the contrary, I feel very much inclined to sympathize and congratulate you, but you have been the focal point of a general onslaught aimed to whittle down the Hoover plan into a rather meaningless statement.
Davis : We finally succeeded in getting it tied to the Hoover proposal. There was no mention of that proposal at all in regard to that resolution and it is a very definite commitment and they look on it most seriously and everyone here thinks it has been a remarkable success. We had an all day struggle on that yesterday, two days in fact, and on the air armaments.
Secretary: I am very glad that you have had that measure of success but, on the question of effectives, the form which immediately [Page 303] preceded this one, recognized not only Mr. Hoover’s name but it recognized the essentials of his method, namely, the difference between forces for internal defense and other forces. Now this last method does not do that.
Davis : That is perfectly true but it also uses the name of the proposal.
Secretary: Yes, but not by way of adoption and that is what I mean when I say that they have in their usual method pretty well gotten away from any definite commitments but I didn’t expect much else and I know the difficulties you have been up against.
Davis : I think you are wrong in thinking this does not commit them to the President’s plan. They look upon it as such. They objected to stating specifically the defining of the component points because they said that was the most specific criticism they felt at this moment in regard to the method which had not been examined, but they agreed to the principle without the actual method of the mentioning of that plan and no other plan at all. We look upon it as the British look upon it, as a very distinct commitment of the French. The British have been working with us the last few days most loyally.
Secretary: I am very glad to hear that.
Davis : The understanding there between France and England is not as strong as we thought at one time. Would you like for me to read to you the formula on artillery that we are struggling over.
Secretary: I think that it had better be cabled, it is very hard to get it down.
Davis : Senator Swanson and Simon have both agreed to it.
- 1.
- All heavy land guns of calibres between any maximum limit as determined in the succeeding paragraph and a lower limit to be defined shall be limited in number.
- 2.
- Subject to an effect of the matter being elaborated to prevent
the …54 of guns on such
mountings and to mobile guns as such maximum of land guns may be
fixed for the conference as follows:
- (a)
- the maximum limit for the calibre of coastal guns which shall not be less than the maximum calibre of naval guns;
- (b)
- a maximum limit for the calibre of guns in …54 frontier or defense system;
- (c)
- a maximum limit for the calibre of mobile land guns other than those employed for coastal defense.
Secretary: I just want to ask you this question. Is the safeguard that they are trying to introduce by that method against the mobilization of fixed artillery; is that simply making a different maximum calibre permitted in each case.
[Page 304]Davis : Yes, also numbers. It is agreeing to the principle of the abolition of mobile land guns above a figure which the French have never agreed to before. They have been arguing constantly that land guns were related to naval guns and we have positively refused to accept that position and the British have stood with us on that. This is the final concession by the French and the only way they would do it. We propose that we have got to go to conference and say we have not been able to reach any agreement on this.
Secretary: Is this the result of that? Just let me give you this proposition. If this goes into effect, there will be in each nation a limited number of large mobile guns; there will be a limited number of coast artillery guns of a different calibre, and there will be a different calibre for naval guns. Any other guns?
Davis : Yes, that is right.
Secretary: I think I understand it roughly.
Davis : I don’t think there is any disagreement to it from the Army or Navy; certainly they accepted it here.
Secretary: All right, that is much better than the previous proposal.
Davis : We have left it wide open to the President’s proposal. Our next subject is torpedoes.
Secretary: If you think you have had troubles in the past, I warn you that the big troubles will come when you reach the Navy. You had just better have your shirt sleeves rolled up when you get to that.
- Between Mr. Gibson and Mr. Davis in Geneva and Mr. Stimson in Washington, July 20, 1932, 9:55 a.m.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Apparently a break in telephone connection at this point.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Apparently a break in telephone connection at this point.↩
- Apparently a break in telephone connection at this point.↩