500.A15a3/1165
The Ambassador in France (Edge) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 20.]
Sir: I have the honor to report as follows on that portion of a conversation which I had last evening with the President of the Council dealing with naval disarmament, particularly from the Franco-Italian angle.
I told M. Tardieu that I was returning to the United States on a visit and that I would like to be in a position to inform you and the President, knowing how great your interest was in the matter, of the present status of the Franco-Italian negotiations regarding naval disarmament.
M. Tardieu answered that at Geneva, as I had perhaps heard, a new proposition had been made by the French representatives, based on a five years program, but that this proposal had been rejected by the Italians who have always in the final analysis continued to insist upon parity with France. (He apparently had reference to the proposal of Massigli, set forth in Mr. Hugh Wilson’s telegram from Berne to the Department No. 87, September 26, 5 P.M.) M. Tardieu said that he himself was somewhat relieved that the negotiations had broken down on the basis of this offer as he was convinced that the French Parliament would not have agreed to the proposal as a basis for settlement. In any case, the Italians had turned it down and now the situation was perhaps even less favorable than it had been at London. M. Tardieu then went on to discuss the general question. He said that he felt that the position of no country on any question could be clearer and more unassailable than France’s position on the question of naval disarmament. All she asked was a navy sufficient to protect her communications with her outlying colonies, dispersed as they were over all parts of the globe. The United States and Great Britain were at liberty, so far as France was concerned, to build as many thousand tons as they desired, but he did not see why the mere fact of the United States and Great Britain having agreed between themselves upon a certain maximum tonnage should serve as a basis for establishing an arbitrary figure as representing the needs of France. He was afraid that, as a result of the Washington Conference,—he did not wish to criticize the handling of France’s case there as that was a thing of the past,—the impression seemed to be general that France was willing to accept parity with Italy. This was most emphatically not the case. France could not accept parity with Italy and every unprejudiced student of the question with whom he had spoken was in agreement. He mentioned the British Prime Minister, Mr. MacDonald, yourself, Mr. Morrow, Mr. Gibson and [Page 136] others with whom he had spoken. But, he added, no one of the American or British delegates at London seemed to be willing, in the final analysis, to put it up squarely to the Italians: in other words, to bring pressure to bear on Italy to recede from the impossible position she had taken. He said that during the Conference, on one of the occasions when he had been forced to return to Paris, the British Ambassador had paid him a hurried visit and had insisted upon his returning to London as they had everything prepared for an agreement: that the American and British delegates were prepared to tell the Italians that they would have to accept reasonable terms and no longer insist upon parity with France. As a result of this, M. Tardieu had gone to London, spent a day at Chequers, but had found that no such pressure was to be brought to bear upon the Italians, as he had been led to believe, through the representatives of Great Britain and the United States at Rome.44 He said that you had intimated to him that the British message, as transmitted to him through Lord Tyrrell, had been sent without your knowledge or approval.
M. Tardieu then went on to speak of the general situation of chaos that existed in Europe to-day. He said that France and Czechoslovakia were the only two countries that seemed to be weathering the storm; that they were oases in the desert. All of which would seem to justify the French Government in continuing with the policy which it had been pursuing. He said that in the forty years during which he had been a student and observer of international affairs he had never seen such a state of moral decomposition as existed in Europe today. So far as reaching an understanding with Italy was concerned, he reiterated that there was nothing that he desired more: that one had only to study the present situation in Europe to realize how important it was from France’s point of view to reach such an agreement, but that it could not be accomplished at such a sacrifice as Italy demanded.
I did not attempt to argue with him, merely explaining that I had raised the question with the sole idea of being in a position to report the latest developments.
Respectfully yours,