500.A4b/84
Mr. Balfour, of the British Delegation, to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Hughes: You asked me this afternoon what view the British Empire Delegation would take of a possible French proposal for a flat rate of 60,000 tons of submarines for the U. S. A. G. B. Japan & France & presumably Italy.
I told you in reply that broadly speaking the British attitude was this—that (1) we desired the total abolition of submarines, (2) that if this could not be obtained we were in favour of any diminution in their number, but that (3) no mere diminution in their numbers during peace would relieve us from the necessity of devising and preparing all practicable methods of dealing with them in war, so that no limitation of anti-submarine vessels would seem consistent with our national safety.
As regards the flat rate of 60,000 tons I cannot imagine what justification the French have for demanding it. If submarines are to be employed for purely legitimate naval purposes their main use would be as “fleet” submarines, as mine layers, and so forth. The powers which have most claim to build them are therefore the powers [Page 144] which have the largest fleets and the longest coast line. In neither respect are the French in a position comparable with that of either the U. S. A. or G. B.
Let me add this further observation—If the French are to be allowed to build 30,000 tons of new submarines the Americans and British should not be compelled by any “replacement rule” to be content with 60,000 tons of old submarines. The submarine is supposed to be a rapidly developing instrument, and new types are dreamed of by every submarine officer and naval contractor! In these circumstances the freedom of invention given to one naval power can hardly be denied to another.
I am afraid there are still other problems which must be raised in connection with any attempt to limit submarine tonnage—but I will not trouble you with them now.
Yours sincerely,