500.A15Franco–British/63: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Italy ( Fletcher )

[Paraphrase]

105. At noon yesterday the Italian Ambassador read to me the following telegram which he had received from Premier Mussolini, and which he wished to communicate to me:48

“I have been very much interested in the communication that has been made to me by the Secretary of State, Mr. Kellogg. Neither the United States nor Italy has given any answer to the Franco-British proposition. The point of view of Italy is not favorable to those proposals in their entirety. The proposal should have been made to facilitate the progress of disarmament. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the two governments but it is positive that in public opinion and in the press the accord has been received with many doubts and uncertitude. This increases instead of diminishes the difficulties and renders the more problematical the answer for me to give. On my side I shall wait some time before answering. If the Secretary of State will let you know in due time the conclusion at which the American Government will arrive this will be very gratifying to me and I could also take into account our point of view in the decision that we have to make concerning the definite attitude of Italy in this matter. I will communicate to you this decision as soon as I have made it so that you can inform the Secretary of State. Please have a confidential conversation with Mr. Kellogg on this matter.”

I then said to the Ambassador that early next week I expect to present to the President a draft of an answer to the British and French proposals. I am quite sure, I told him, that this Government cannot adopt the Anglo-French agreement as a basis for negotiating for a limitation of armament. I said that I would not go into details [Page 282] now as my conclusions have not yet been approved by the President, but there are some objections to the agreement which seem to me to be apparent:

1.
The agreement proposes only a limitation of cruisers of 10,000 tons or below that figure armed with guns of more than 6-inch and up to 8-inch calibre, leaving unlimited all cruisers that carry 6-inch guns or less;
2.
It leaves unlimited all destroyers which can easily carry guns of at least 5-inch calibre and perhaps six;
3.
It leaves unlimited all submarines of 600 tons or less, and only limits the larger submarines. A 600-ton submarine, I said, is just as destructive within the radius of its operations as a larger one; and I added that if we were going to have a limitation of armament it ought to cover combatant vessels of all kinds.

This Government is willing to take into consideration the special needs of France or Italy or any other naval powers for a particular class of vessel, and it would be willing, if an agreement as to a total limitation can be made, to vary the tonnage of particular classes of vessels within a certain percentage to be agreed upon. Object of this is that Italy or France or some other power may have the vessels which are more suitable to their defense.

I told the Ambassador that I am not authorized to state definitely that the foregoing will be this Government’s answer, but that it is my view, which I believe will be adopted.

I also said that I had no objection to the Ambassador’s communicating this information to his Government, of course subject to any change which the President after consulting with me and with the Navy Department may decide to make. I said further that I am inclined to think I shall send the answer sometime next week, but that I am not sure.

Kellogg
  1. Quoted passage not paraphrased.