462.00 R 294/196: Telegram
The Ambassador in France ( Herrick ) to the Secretary of State
220. W–38. This is in reply to your W–29, April 25.
I did not press the proposition set forth in paragraph 5 of your telegram W–23, April 13, but I arranged that Logan should suggest [Page 167] as a compromise plan to the Belgian representative that the priority you desired be granted, but that for the last eight years the 100 percent priority be reduced to, say, 80 percent. This suggestion was made by Logan in a telephone conversation about other matters in order that at the conference of the Allies last Wednesday, at which they discussed their reply, this thought might be before them. The Allies have not mentioned this proposition and the foregoing is the only mention made of the possibility along this line.
As for your request for candid and direct judgment, after my reviewing the situation with Logan and with the Ambassador, I can say that my information (see my W–32, April 19) and the Ambassador’s information, from word received from the Foreign Office, is that your request for priority over current army costs was about to be denied by the Allies. The pressure which the Ambassador brought was not as to any detail of the proposition, but came from the personal expression of his opinion that a break at this time would be politically serious and produce in the United States a bad impression. The Allies held formal and informal meetings between last Wednesday and Monday, and I understand they finally agreed on Monday afternoon to make counter proposition as now outlined in the third paragraph of article 2. It is our understanding here that the Allies were ready to break on the subject of priority, and that only by reason of political aspects in America were they persuaded to change their minds. I express the opinion, therefore, under these conditions, that the proposition as to priority should be accepted.
As to the second paragraph of article 6, I am not so clear and am ready to insist that in return for our giving up priority desired in the first four years, it be eliminated, but I would prefer the introduction of some innocuous clause to recognize that the Allies at least had a right to a hearing should a recovery act be adopted by the United States.
Would you authorize me to state that public opinion as to this particular agreement will doubtless have a bearing on the consideration of debt settlements between the Continental Allies and the United States when in the future they come before Congress, and perhaps even further that the public opinion or the opinion of Congress at least will in a way treat this as a part of the general financial settlement which must take place, and if United States public opinion impressed favorably by terms now made, the consideration of debt settlement terms will be beneficially affected.
In view of the attitude taken by the Allies as to the legality of our claim, the importance of getting a settlement and the problems [Page 168] involved, I should on the whole be willing to accept personally the present status as to priority:
- (a)
- With the elimination of paragraph 2, article 6;
- (b)
- With paragraph 2, article 6, reworded so as simply to call for a conference but giving no right of abrogation to the Allies;
- (c)
- Accept 80 percent priority for the last eight years in place of 100 percent if that made the Allies feel any better, in order to eliminate paragraph 2 of article 6.
Generally speaking, if Germany begins to pay, and army costs are reduced to normal figures, this percentage will not be a factor. If paragraph 2 of article 6 is to be impossible in any form, I would make straight out proposition to accept the terms as to priority and eliminate this paragraph with the possibility in view of a compromise and getting acceptance by reducing part of our 100 percent priority, but at the first meeting I would not intimate this.
- Wadsworth
- Herrick
- Telegram in two sections.↩