500.A15a3/1239: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 6—2:25 a.m.]
2. We have been turning over in our own minds various possible ways of reconciling the French desire for naval superiority in auxiliary craft with Italian desire for the appearance of parity, and we should like to submit the following for your consideration as one possible means of achieving this. If you approve the suggestion, it might be held in reserve to be put forth informally in the event that the pending French-Italian negotiations are deadlocked again.
In view of the French ships which are still in commission, a considerable portion of any French naval construction program could be described as “replacement.” It might be possible, therefore, for the French to declare a program of replacement to end in 1936, which might amount practically to a holiday on “construction.” Besides this, the French might announce a unified program of construction, and if any question were to be raised in the Fascist Grand Council, Grandi could say that he had obtained full parity in “construction” and that Italian replacements obviously were not governed by French “replacements” but by age and condition of Italian ships.
Of course, we have not tried any suggestions of this sort while the efforts of France and Italy to reach an agreement in their own way are continuing, but if we were in a position to offer an informal suggestion at the right moment we might promote agreement.
The statement made by Grandi that Italy would feel obliged to duplicate France’s construction in capital ships is due, in our opinion, to present acute disagreement over auxiliaries, and it may well turn out that, if agreement is reached on auxiliaries, the Italians will no [Page 172] longer feel that they must duplicate French building under the Washington Treaty in view of fact that their parity in this heavier craft is clearly recognized.
In any event, we assume that construction under the Washington Treaty does not concern us directly, as we are not in a position to question it. Wholly apart from this, as participation by France and Italy in the 1936 conference is essential, we believe that we must be careful to avoid at this time any action which will leave either power with the feeling that treaty rights of either were called into question, and thereby make for a reluctance on their part to undertake further decrease in 1936.
We should find it very helpful if you would let us have your views on the feasibility of suggested division of programs into two parts, and if you would give us any alternative suggestions which might, in case of need, be advanced informally.