Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume I

500.A15a3/177: Telegram

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State

London, September 17, 1929—4 p.m.
[Received 6:15 p.m.⁶¹]

274. I have just received the following letter from the Prime Minister together with the draft of a letter which, subject to your approval or modification, he desires to send to the French, Italian, and Japanese Ambassadors in London:

“My dear General Dawes: I saw the Italian and Japanese Ambassadors last night (the French was out of town), and told them of how matters stood between us in terms which have already been published in the press—but without the mistakes which are included in all the newspaper stories. There is however one proposal made by the Secretary of State in his last message which you might reconstruct. He proposes that no invitation should be sent to the naval powers to attend a Conference until after I have been in Washington. Both Washington and London have given it out that they are to propose such a Conference and a delay in issuing a notification to that effect would give rise to all sorts of surmises and might give time for difficulties to grow up in our way.

I am asking the Foreign Office to send you a copy of a despatch which I think ought to go at once to the Ambassadors of France, Italy, and Japan, in London. Perhaps after what has been published in the press you will be willing to agree to its being sent without referring it to Washington but if you decide otherwise I should be glad if you would let the Foreign Office have the consent of Washington as soon as you possibly can. The sooner we settle this the better for the successful completion of the work we have been doing.

I am, my dear General, yours very sincerely, J. Ramsay MacDonald.”

Draft

“September (blank) 1929.

Your Excellency: I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that the informal conversations on the subject of naval disarmament which have been proceeding in London during the last three months between the Prime Minister and the Ambassador of the United States have now reached a stage at which it is possible to say that no point of such serious importance as to prevent an agreement now divides the two Governments.

From time to time the Prime Minister has notified Your Excellency of the progress made in these discussions and I now have the honor to state that provisional and informal agreement between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of the United States has been reached on the following principles.

1. The conversations are the result of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War signed at Paris in August, 1928, and the consequent realignment of our national attitudes to the position that war may not be used as an instrument of national policy in the relations of nations with each other. The Peace Pact must therefore be regarded as the starting point of agreement.

2. It has been made abundantly clear both by His Majesty’s present Government and by their predecessors in office that this country has no intention of instituting a program of naval construction in competition with the United States. The conversations have therefore been directed toward the program which both Governments could agree to be parity in the combatant strength of the two navies. Furthermore, the aim which both Governments had in view throughout has been the reduction and not merely the limitation of naval strength.

3. The conversations have covered the whole field of naval disarmament and have dealt in greater or less detail with all categories.

4. It is agreed that parity as between the two nations shall be established by December 31, 1936.

5. The main subject which has been under discussion has been the relative cruiser strength of the two navies. The position reached at present is that Great Britain has agreed to accept the following minimum cruiser strength:

• Fifteen 8-inch gun ships with a total tonnage reduction to 146,800.
• Thirty-five 6-inch gun ships with a total tonnage of 192,200.
• Making grand total for the cruiser strength of the British Navy of 339,000 tons.
• As against this the Government of the United States propose that the following should be regarded as parity in combatant strength with Great Britain.
• Twenty-one 8-inch gun ships with a total tonnage of 210,000.
• Ten of the existing Omaha class of 6-inch gun ships with a total tonnage of 70,000.
• Five new 6 [-inch] gun ships with a total tonnage of 35,000.
• Making a grand total of 315,000 tons.

His Majesty’s Government have not accepted the above figures for the American Navy as constituting their conception of what would be parity with the British minimum figures but I am happy to state that the margin which divides the two Governments is a relatively small one. For the confidential information of the (blank) Government, I would add that His Majesty’s Government are prepared to accept as parity in combatant strength a maximum figure for the United States of eighteen 10,000, 8-inch gun cruisers and a maximum total cruiser tonnage of 300,000.

6. The question of battleship strength was also touched upon during the conversations and both Governments are in agreement that, subject to the assent of the other signatory powers, it would be desirable to reconsider the battleship replacement programs provided for in the Washington Treaty of 1922 with the view of diminishing the amount of replacement construction implied under that treaty.

7. As regards other categories of ships, i. e., destroyers and submarines, His Majesty’s Government and the Government of the United States are agreed that parity should be established on the basis of ton for ton. Since both Governments adhere to the attitude that they have publicly adopted in regard to the desirability of securing the total abolition of the submarine, this matter hardly gave rise to discussion during the recent conversations. They recognize, however, that no final settlement of this subject can be reached except in conference with the other naval powers.

In view of the scope of these discussions the Government of the United States and His Majesty’s Government consider it as most desirable that a Conference should be summoned at an early date to replace the Conference which, under the terms of the Washington Treaty, is to be held in the year 1931. It is our earnest hope that the (blank) Government will agree as to the desirability of the Conference being antedated in this manner and will be willing to appoint representatives to attend a Conference which it is suggested by the United States as well as ourselves should be held in London at the beginning of the third week in January 1930. The Conference, it is further suggested, should be constituted in the same way as was the Washington Conference in 1922.

A similar invitation is being addressed to the Governments of (blank) and the United States. I should be grateful if Your Excellency would cause the above invitation to be addressed to the (blank) Government.

In the same way as the two Governments have kept Your Excellency informally au courant of the recent discussions so now His Majesty’s Government will be willing in the interval before the proposed Conference to continue informal conversations with Your Excellency on any points which may require elucidation. The importance of reviewing the whole naval situation at an early date is so vital in the interests of general disarmament that I trust that Your Excellency’s Government will see their way to accept this invitation and that the date proposed will be agreeable to them.

It is hoped that at this Conference the five principal naval powers may be successful in reaching agreement as between themselves on all outstanding problems of naval disarmament and that by this means a text can be elaborated which will facilitate the task of the League of Nations Preparatory Commission and of the subsequent general disarmament conference. I should like to emphasize that His Majesty’s Government have discovered no inclination in any quarter to set up new machinery for dealing with the naval disarmament question; on the contrary there is a very general desire to look upon these negotiations as an effort on the part of the five naval powers to carry out the invitation given to them by the President of the Preparatory Commission to try to come to a naval agreement amongst themselves and thus facilitate the work of the Preparatory Commission of the League of Nations.”

I have notified the Prime Minister that I am forwarding this to you and will let him know your views upon the same as soon as received. His letter indicates that he is anxious to have an answer soon.

Dawes

61. Telegram in three sections.