500.A15Franco–British/7½
The Secretary of State to President Coolidge
Dear Mr. President: I received your telegram yesterday and, as I wired you, I have no idea of making any commitments to the British or any other Government on the subject of the limitation of armaments.
Wednesday I received from the British Government through the British Embassy here the enclosed communication36 on the subject of the agreement between Great Britain and France. I discussed the matter yesterday and today with officers of the Navy Department, Admirals Long and Scofield and Commander Train, who are familiar with all that took place at the Preliminary Conference during the last two or three years and also the discussions which took place at the Geneva Three Power Conference.37
In the first place, I judge the memorandum to be an attempt to come to an agreement with France on the bases of limitation of naval armament to be submitted to the Preliminary Conference which adjourned some time ago and which is expected to meet again in the Autumn. During the discussions heretofore there has been a wide divergence between the British plan and the French. The French have insisted on what is known as a global tonnage, that is, that the total tonnage of all naval vessels which France might build should be fixed and that France might construct in any class of ships up to that total tonnage while Great Britain insisted that the tonnage must be agreed to as to each class, battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers [Page 269] and submarines. We took that same position at Geneva. Of course, battleships and aircraft carriers are already provided for so that leaves the other three classes of ships and we insisted, instead of a total tonnage for all three, that there must be a tonnage agreed upon for each class. Our position was the same in the Preliminary Conference but Admirals Jones and Long, with their experts, had discussed with France a modification of this plan which our Navy officials would have been willing to agree to, which authorized the twenty per cent, variation in the construction of ships of each class—that is, if one was increased, the other should be reduced.
I will not go into the details of this because before the Preliminary Conference reassembles, we shall have to examine the whole subject and, of course, present it to you upon your return to Washington. However, after discussing it with the Navy, we thought we ought to ask for some information. You will see from the British note that apparently they propose no limitation for surface vessels, that is, cruisers or destroyers, except those carrying guns of over six inch and up to eight inch calibre. If this is what their understanding is, it would leave all cruisers with six inch guns or less without any limitation at all and no limitation whatever on destroyers which I assume we could not agree to. Also apparently it would permit any country to build all the submarines of six hundred tons or less without any limitation. Of course, the size of submarines vary. Most of them are more than six hundred tons, especially the ocean-going ones. Nevertheless, a six hundred ton submarine can be very effective with a short range of cruising.
We shall make no reply to the note at all until we get the British answer and until the whole subject is studied and submitted to you. Of course, I cannot see how we could agree simply to limit cruisers carrying over six inch guns and leave the countries free to construct all the small cruisers they desire armed with guns of six inch calibre or less. In any event, I do not believe the Preliminary Conference would recommend any such proposition to a disarmament conference if there is one ever called. I think, however, that Great Britain is going to try very hard to get some plan to be recommended to a general disarmament conference and officials of the Navy Department are working on the whole subject for the next meeting of the Preliminary Conference.
Faithfully yours,
- Note No. 35S, July 31, 1928, p. 264.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 1 ff.↩