500.A15a3/1200: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Armour) to the Secretary of State
341. From Gibson. I called on Tardieu with Armour at 5 o’clock this afternoon. We found him in a very irritated state of mind, obviously caused by Claudel’s failure to understand the character and the real purpose of your original proposal. As a matter of fact, Tardieu manifestly in no way realized that a definite proposal for a solution of the problem had been made by the Italian Government. In introducing my statement I said that I had a rather long communication to make to him and that I hoped he would hear me through to the end before giving me his comment, in order that my message might be delivered clearly and accurately. Tardieu agreed to this and made a successful effort not to interrupt during the following quarter of an hour.
[Page 154]At the end of my statement65 he said that some of the objections he had intended to raise had already been anticipated by me and that it had been his feeling that by this method nothing could be accomplished; he said the suggestion for unilateral declarations had been put forward by him very early in the London Conference but had been turned down by Henderson as negligible. The French Government, he continued, had repeatedly suggested this method but it had never been given favorable consideration. He felt, moreover, that the resolution of the Fascist Grand Council to the effect that no further negotiations would be undertaken until their claim to parity had been accepted, had blocked all hope of agreement effectively.
In reply, I pointed out how the proposed unilateral declarations would avoid this difficulty and leave both Governments free, without any loss of face, to announce restricted building programs, adding that I was going to repeat to Grandi in Rome the substance of what you had told the Italian Ambassador at Washington and to urge upon him that Italy defer until 1936 the idea of a diplomatic victory on parity. When I had explained this latter point to Tardieu in various ways, he at last showed his first favorable reaction and stated that this method might prove the means toward a solution.
On repeated occasions I expressly disclaimed any intention on our part to mediate or to lay down the figures which France was to have, saying that, up to the point where French construction might upset the London Treaty levels, her building program was a matter of indifference to us.
When he had heard all I had to say, Tardieu’s irritation vanished and by successive stages he arrived at a point where he expressed definite approval of the idea I had laid before him and voiced the belief that the problem might be solved in this manner. Tardieu promised to give the possibilities of the situation immediate study in order to be prepared when he heard how Grandi received the suggestion.
Upon answering his question as to the opening date of the Preparatory Commission meeting, I was surprised to find that he considered the period up to November 6th left ample time for an agreement, provided Italy reacted favorably. In explanation he said that the two Governments had discussed figures exhaustively and that if agreement as to this method of avoiding the parity problem were reached, they should be able “within an hour” to come to a satisfactory understanding.
He also asked me to see Massigli and Berthelot66 before leaving [Page 155] Paris tomorrow and to give them the whole story, in view of the misapprehension in regard to the character of our proposal. Owing to the possibility of further developments during the next few days, Armour and I have requested Wilson to remain in Paris at least until I can get in touch with him after seeing Grandi in Rome.