500.A15A4/1375: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson)
198. On Thursday during a call of the German Ambassador the Secretary referred to your report (353, July 20, 11 p.m.)61 that Nadolny would introduce an amendment to the conference resolution recognizing Germany’s claim to equality of treatment and that if this amendment was not adopted, he would vote against the resolution and announce that Germany would no longer collaborate with the conference. The Secretary told the Ambassador that this attitude was bad procedure on the part of Nadolny and reminded the Ambassador that it was a reversal of the attitude which Bruening had taken with the Secretary in Geneva last April,62 at which time the latter had stated that he would be satisfied to have the present figures of armament inserted in the new treaty, making only a reservation to the effect that this was done voluntarily by Germany. The Secretary stated the pending resolution had been under general discussion with all the principal nations, had been substantially agreed upon and a maneuver by Germany of this type now would tend to break up a conference from which she had the most to gain and seemed bluntly stupid. It would disturb international confidence in Germany and unsettle the world. The Ambassador said he saw the force of these views, that he had no information about Nadolny’s instructions but would communicate immediately with his Government.
Today the German Ambassador called on Rogers with an oral response to the above interview. He said Nadolny had not been instructed to withdraw from the conference if his amendment failed of adoption but to record the dissent of Germany and to take the position that Germany would not reenter the conference after adjournment unless meantime informal conversations had developed an agreement to have the conference adopt an expression upon reconvening that the general principle of equality was recognized. He said Germany did not seek any practical application of the principle at this time except perhaps some modification of the minor detail of its land forces but would insist upon recognition of the principle.
In response to the Secretary’s reference to the understandings with Bruening and Bülow the Ambassador stated his Government replied that the Secretary must be mistaken in regard to the terms of their [Page 316] conversation; that Germany had from the beginning, indeed from a time shortly following the signature of the Treaty of Versailles, steadily insisted upon the reestablishment of equality and that the German expressions to the Secretary had been consistent with this and had conceded only that an adoption of the principle of equality in general terms would be sufficient. The Ambassador stated that the pressure of popular opinion with the impending elections in Germany required a bold stand on this principle which was being constantly agitated in the German press, and that inasmuch as Germany was united with the United States and the other nations in the movement for reduction of armament, informal conversations during the period of adjournment might and should develop an agreement for recognition of the principle.
Rogers repeated the Secretary’s statement that the procedure adopted had been disappointing, unnecessary and unjustified. Rogers said we had not yet received adequate reports of the final proceedings and a study of these proceedings would be necessary to estimate the effect of what seemed a blunder. The effects might be serious both to the progress of the disarmament movement and to the American and international attitude of confidence and sympathy with Germany. The Ambassador was reminded that Germany might well have preserved her position by less violent action. The Ambassador asked for a further conference and for affirmative suggestions from the Secretary if possible before sailing for Europe next Wednesday.
Please repeat to Berlin.