Office of the Historian

462.00 R 29/392: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Wallace) to the Secretary of State

Paris, November 19, 1920—1 p.m.
[Received November 20—4:28 a.m.]

1939. B–320 for Davis.

Embassy has forwarded details final arrangement between France–England for conferences about indemnity (Embassy number 1933). Changes since my last cable on subject slight.

1st.
Meeting by experts designated by governments instead of by Reparation Commission. Under previous arrangement Commission was expected to nominate delegates themselves as experts to meet Germans. Am told generally understood now each government except France will still designate its Reparation Commission delegate as expert for first meeting with Germans at Brussels. Am told this whole change result of Dubois unwillingness take part in such meeting. If so probably due to his strong belief that treaty should be followed exactly combined with feeling that participation in conference not consistent with his position as member of tribunal whereunder treaty is sole authority subject to no control. Evidently French Government does not share this view if rest of foregoing information is correct.
2d.
My first impression was following. France, while maintaining legal status of Reparation Commission, has accepted arrangement which seems to sidetrack Commission, so weakens Commission prestige, because these governmental conferences in which Commission does not participate will inevitably report regarding governmental instructions either to Commission as body or to individual representatives. England while maintaining principle of governmental conference has accepted complicated arrangement which makes original purpose, namely prompt fixation of indemnity, impossible of attainment. I recognized however some advantage in fact that meeting of French wishes regarding methods would lessen French prejudice against conclusions, also during delay French public sentiment may become more sensible. I have rather indefinite feeling that French business already recognizes necessities of situation. This influence may become more helpful.
3d.
Expressed to Bradbury yesterday opinion that parties had adopted very complicated method of accomplishing nothing. He dissented from this statement on the ground that Brussels meeting afforded opportunity for doing just what I some time ago suggested very emphatically to him namely fixation of principles without immediate insistence on concrete figures. I had supposed this suggestion lost long ago in the confusion. Bradbury then told me of [Page 443] understanding about nomination experts in the first paragraph above, which was his reason thinking Brussels meeting would accomplish something.
4th.
Change in arrangements from nomination of experts by Commission to nomination by governments affects United States attitude. If Commission went to Brussels as official body or if Commission nominated delegations as experts, as first proposed, I should have gone as a matter of course but when delegates excepting Dubois go as representatives not of Commission but of governments there arises obvious difference in principle. Although still retain my unofficial character should not feel authorized to go without your authority. Please advise.
5th.
For your information, add Bradbury evidently expected me to go. Recognized difficulty when I explained it. I told him your decision might depend considerably on whether other governments wanted me there. He thought no doubt that could be. Met Theunis later who also took for granted I was going. Am told French in replying to direct question said glad have us represented because sure we wanted them to be paid which is true if you add to the fullest extent possible.
6th.
My inclination is to go. Recognize possible ill feeling which may be caused here by any influence we may exert towards sensible conclusions also further difficulty created by recent election at home but believe these difficulties slight in comparison with duty and advantage over doing all reasonably possible to reach sound economic basis on indemnity which will I believe be supported in the United States by most Republicans as well as Democrats. This of course on assumption that our participation would really be welcomed.
7th.
Theunis leaves Commission almost immediately to become Finance Minister. Succeeded here by Delacroix. Probably best choice for successor but Theunis’ place can not be really filled.
  • Boyden
  • Wallace