500.A15a3/171: Telegram
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 14—11 a.m.]
270. The following additional letter was received from the Prime Minister this evening.
“My dear General Dawes: I now send you my suggestions regarding the memorandum which, when agreed to, is to be handed to the other naval powers and published.
- (1)
- The sections to which no reference is made are agreed.
- (2)
- Section 7. The words ‘it may be difficult to secure the consent of other nations to this proposal’ seem to give up the battle before we engaged in it. Would it [disturb?] the President if these words were to be substituted ‘a final decision upon this must be such as the Five-Power Conference will accept’?
- (3)
- Sections 9 and 10. These sections include a specific mention of fifteen and twenty-one 8-inch cruisers. It is true that these figures are given as maxima but as they are included in those about which we are still negotiating the mention of them is likely to be misunderstood. Would the President consider ending of section 9 at ‘standard tons’ and of section 10 at ‘and guns’. It will be perfectly well known that these two figures have been mentioned by us and discussion will range round them but for the purposes of a published agreement I think on the whole it would be advisable to make the alterations I suggest.
- (4)
- Section 11. I agree [to] this being put on the agenda of the business of the Conference but, as I told you, I am meeting with considerable technical difficulties which the President will easily understand when I tell him that they relate to the fact that police cruisers of slow speed in the event of any naval disturbances would be smashed to smithereens and the most friendly and helpful of my advisers, whilst favorable to the idea if it could be worked out and generally agreed to, would like to delete the final words ‘of limited armament and speed’ and put instead some such words as ‘of [severely?] limited fighting value.’ Frankly the technicians who have to design such ships are very doubtful if the idea is practicable but they will work at it. Meantime if we specify too definitely what the characteristic of a police cruiser is it will put obstacles in the way of getting them accepted and I have been advised that that objection will be taken even more strongly by some other powers than by ourselves.
- (5)
- I should like after section 12 that a clause would be put in to run as follows. ‘Thirteenth: During or before 1935 this agreement will be reviewed for the purpose of considering whether these provisions regarding naval strength could be revised so as to contribute more than is possible at the moment to general disarmament.’
- (6)
- Section 13 (new 14). If the President agrees to my observations about date of the Conference made in my note of today ‘1929’ should be deleted—and the words ‘or January next’ inserted.
- (7)
- Section 14 would then become section 15.
- (8)
- In order to carry out another precaution which has been referred to several times in our conversations, I think a note should be added as follows: ‘Note: It is understood that if the decisions of the Five-Power Conference or its failure to come to decisions should affect this agreement, readjustments will be made in many ways so that it may conform to the conditions left by the Conference.’
The only purpose of this is to prevent arguments which may proceed on the assumption that we have bound ourselves to a program which may find us in a state of inferiority to powers upon whose building we must keep our eye. Moreover if other powers assume that you and we have fixed ourselves up before we meet them they may trade upon that assumption and give us difficulties in the further negotiations.
Perhaps the President would be so good as to let me have his decision on these points without delay and then we could simultaneously publish the document.
I am, yours very sincerely, J. Ramsay MacDonald.”