500.A15a3/1098: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:25 p.m.]
87. [Paraphrase.] Referring to my telegrams No. 80, September 10, 4 p.m., and No. 83, September 19, 3 p.m.40a I went to Geneva yesterday where I talked with British, French, Italian, and Japanese delegates attending the current League session. [End paraphrase.]
[Page 134]On the 19th instant Massigli made a further counterproposal to Rosso. The proposal provided for two categories of surface craft not covered by the Washington Treaty40b: (a) 8-inch-gun craft; (b) less than 8-inch-gun craft of which an unspecified percentage shall not exceed 3,000 tons. Submarine two classes: (a) above 2,000 tons; (b) less than 2,000 tons of which not more than an unspecified percentage to be over 800 tons. Neither party to build units which exceed in tonnage any unit constructed by them within that category since 1924. Parity in numbers of ships but without mention of tonnage. The entire contract to be covered by a clause reading somewhat as follows: “If either high contracting party contemplates the construction of units exceeding by an unspecified percentage the maximum displacement of a unit of the same class [of] cruiser constructed by it since 1924, that Government will advise the other of its intention one year in advance and the other will have the right of denunciation.”
[Paraphrase.] This French proposal is regarded by the Italians as a retrogression and they are, or purport to be, full of disillusionment. They call attention to the 6-inch-gun cruiser of approximately 7,800 tons which the French have built since 1924, whereas their maximum has been 4,400 tons. Estimating construction between present date and 1936 on basis of the maximum unit permitted under French proposal, France would have superiority in tonnage of approximately 3 to 2 in the 6-inch-gun class, whereas at present there is a practical equality.
The French offer was, nevertheless, transmitted to Grandi, who replied with an abrupt order to end the discussions; and Rosso so notified Massigli. Later on, Briand40c consulted Scialoja41 and persuaded him to agree that both parties should state that the conversations had been temporarily interrupted.
The situation is now completely the reverse of that which existed ten days ago. The French are in some degree optimistic, and indicate that they have made a very generous offer, also hinting that there will be an immediate resumption of conversations. The mood of the Italians is the exact opposite.
It appears unlikely that any improvement in the situation is to be hoped for during present session of the Assembly. Massigli is going on a vacation very shortly, and unless the conversations are resumed soon by reponsible Cabinet officers the appearances are that we shall enter the Preparatory Commission with this irritating point still unsettled. [End paraphrase.]
- Neither printed.↩
- Signed February 6, 1922, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 247.↩
- Aristide Briand, French Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Vittorio Scialoja, Italian member (substitute) of the Council of the League of Nations.↩