500.A15a3/1266: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:10 a.m.]
17. This evening I received a call from Rosso, who stated that he wanted to tell us about his conversations with Craigie and Massigli, so as to explain his own thoughts to us and to ask our opinion in the matter.
Rosso stated that he had, in his talk with Massigli, very frankly explained the Italian political situation, one element being impatient of any efforts to conciliate France, an attitude tending to throw them into the camp of those who desire existing treaties to be revised; and another element, which included Grandi, being sincerely anxious that a more farsighted course, which involved finding a solution of the existing difficulties with France, should be followed; that even on questions of naval figures he felt that, in order to strengthen the element which favors a saner course, this should be borne in mind.
In reference to the possibility of unilateral declarations, Rosso had told Massigli that naturally any figures used by France must be forwarded to Rome, and that undoubtedly the Admiralty would press for duplication of France’s program, presumably in disguised form to render it more difficult of comparison. It would in its essence, however, have to contain equality in construction tonnage, a policy which for six years had already been followed. This would enable Italy to justify the declarations, yet it must not be forgotten by France that this would involve approval of France’s present superiority until 1936, clearly postponing the thesis of acknowledging full parity with France held “by the Admiralty.
[Page 178]In his talk with Craigie, Rosso said that he had been concerned by Craigie’s insistence that our suggestion envisaged an agreement upon the levels to be achieved in 1936, and not a statement of programs for the next 5 years. The readiness of Italy to consider unilateral declarations, Rosso said, was based on the fact that the virtue of this expedient for Italy lay in its avoidance of the question of levels which could be compared. Italy would be left in a visibly inferior position, which Grandi would have difficulty in justifying, by specification of levels.
It was further stated by Rosso that the good understanding as a result of satisfactory unilateral declarations might, of course, subsequently render possible that some formula for entering the treaty between now and 1936 would be found. I stated, in reply to a direct question as to my views, that I felt it was important that unnecessary complications should not disturb the present hopeful atmosphere; that it was the present desire of the French and the British, so far as I knew from my conversations with them, that they should devote themselves to finding a possible agreement with the Italians, regular French adherence to the treaty not being pressed at this time; that our suggestions had been made, so far as we were concerned, with the desire that both France and Italy should reach some sort of agreement that would carry forward the idea of a five-power understanding; and that we were anxious, in our rather detached position as regards figures, that all the parties to the London negotiations should be able to reach a general agreement in a contented frame of mind, so that in 1936 they would be disposed to come back willingly to a conference.
Rosso expressed his intention to have a further talk with Massigli. He proposed to state that, if the French would declare their program up to 1936, he would transmit the figures to Rome, and would recommend, in order to make comparison as difficult as possible, the distribution of the tonnage of the Italian program in a different way among the categories; fruitful exploration, he hoped, might be made along these lines.