File No. 763.72/6168
The Ambassador in France ( Sharp) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 3, 2.30 p.m.]
2353. Your telegram No. 2501, July 31, 4 p.m. In a talk with Mr. Cambon this morning I learned of a most interesting and rather complicated situation as it bears upon the question of Allied future interests in Asia Minor. It develops that prior to the entrance of Italy into the war England, France and Russia had entered into an alliance or at least had an understanding as to their respective interests in that country. The interests and aims of England in the valley of the Euphrates were tentatively defined, also those of Russia in Armenia, and those of France in Syria where she has valuable properties and many people of French nationality or allegiance. Besides she had in a way for several centuries protected Christianity in that country. This agreement naturally was based upon the collapse and practical dissipation of Turkish dominion in the countries named. Mr. Cambon, however, expressed it as his belief that England and France would not feel willing now to support Russia in her control of affairs [Armenia], stating that that country ought to be autonomous and free from outside control.
When, however, Italy joined the Allies she at once manifested a desire to assert her rights in the participation of a future exercise of power and possible acquisition of territory in the eastern Mediterranean which has not been well received by either France or England. As a matter of fact Sonnino, the Italian Premier, has been in London since the adjournment of the conference here last week in consultation with Lloyd George on these questions as they affect these different interests in Asia Minor and surrounding territory. Mr. Cambon said that Sonnino was pressing Italy’s claim very persistently but that he thought that it was too early to enter into a definite agreement and I inferred that he also voiced the views of England in expressing that opinion. I have gathered from time to time that the contentions of Italy have been a bone of contention to harmonious action with the other Allied powers and Mr. Cambon made no concealment of the fact that Servia had previously cause for concern and dissatisfaction on account of the ambitions of Italy as briefly referred to in my No. 2321, second section, July 24. The subject mentioned in Mr. Cambon’s third question and to which your telegram No. 2501 refers, has to do with the situation which I have thus briefly set forth.
[Page 156]Mr. Cambon added that naturally the questions were submitted to our Government in order that it might be made [aware of?] the questions which confronted the Allied powers for solution sooner or later. As I have stated in my No. 2352, August 2, 6 p.m., Mr. Cambon frankly said to me that on account of the enormous nature of one or two of these subjects of contention he was really glad that our Government was not represented at the conference.