It also goes into the reasons why a four year agreement of the kind
concerning which the United States Ambassador made enquiries of the
First Lord of the Admiralty on May 2nd could not be accepted.
Meanwhile there are one or two points arising out of the subject matter
and our conversation yesterday20 which I should much like to have
an opportunity of discussing with you.
[Enclosure]
Aide-Mémoire
The difference of opinion between the Italians and Great Britain on
the one hand and the French on the other regarding the
interpretation of the bases of agreement for a settlement of the
problems left outstanding by the London Naval Conference relates to
the date at which France may start replacement of a certain
proportion of the overage tonnage which it had been agreed by all
three parties should remain overage for the period of the agreement.
France now maintains that the limitation that she has accepted in
respect of new construction relates only to tonnage to be completed
by December 31st, 1936, which means that she would be free to start
the replacement of her retained overage tonnage in 1935 and 1936.
His Majesty’s Government and the Italians maintain on the other hand
that it was clearly agreed between all parties that the last
sentence of Article 19 in Part III of the Treaty of London: (which
reads, i. e. “Nevertheless, replacement tonnage may be laid down for
cruisers and submarines that become over age in 1937, 8 and 9, and
for destroyers that become overage in 1937 and 8.”) was to be
incorporated in the new agreement as one of the “provisions which
are of general application” mentioned in paragraph C. a. 2 of the bases of agreement. The effect of
this understanding would be that the tonnage which France and Italy
could lay down in 1935 and 1936 would be limited to tonnage in
replacement of ships becoming overage in 1937, 38 and 39. The
correctness of the British and Italian point of view is borne out by
the last sentence of the bases of agreement: i. e. “It is understood
that the present arrangement establishes no permanent ratio in any
category of ship as between the members of the British Empire,
France and Italy. In
[Page 413]
particular no precedent is being created for the final solution of
the question whether and if so in what manner tonnage remaining over
age on December 31st, 1936 may be ultimately replaced”.
The proposal for a settlement made in the last French memorandum was
in effect no advance at all on the French position explained above,
since it would be still possible for France to complete in the first
four years the agreed whole construction which under the British and
Italian interpretation should be spread over six years, and thus be
free to lay down any tonnage she pleased in 1935 and 1936 failing
agreement at the 1935 conference. The fact that in their last
memorandum the French Government undertook not to start laying down
any of this replacement tonnage before July 1935 would not affect
France’s capacity to lay down a whole year’s programme between July
and December, 1935.
The tonnage of new construction accorded to France under the
agreement is 165, 304 tons made up as follows: tonnage to be
completed by December 31st, 1936, 136, 438 tons. Tonnage which may
be laid down but not completed before December 31st, 1936 (A)
capital ships:—23, 333 tons. (B) Tonnage in replacement ships
becoming overage in 1937 and 1938 and 1939: 5,533 tons.
According to the Anglo-Italian view the above total, amounting to
165, 304 tons, is the total that France would have the right to lay
down in the six years, making 27, 500 tons a year. Under the last
French proposal France would be able to concentrate this tonnage
into four years, making 41,000 tons a year.
In the British reply to the French memorandum His Majesty’s
Government have suggested a formula making it clear that it would be
for the conference of 1935 to consider whether France and Italy can
be authorized to lay down further tonnage in the year 1936; failing
agreement by the conference on that point however the laying down of
new construction by France and Italy would remain limited for six
years to the 165,000 tons above mentioned.
The Italian reply to the French memorandum was on May 3rd expected
shortly at the Foreign Office. Meanwhile they had been informed
semi-officially that the Italian Government agrees to the compromise
proposal put forward by His Majesty’s Government.
It will be seen that acceptance of the French proposal would have
involved the construction by France during the first four years of
the Treaty of 13, 500 tons a year more than His Majesty’s
Government, who had gone to the utmost limit of concession in the
bases of agreement, had agreed to thereunder, and that in addition
France would have been able to lay down what she pleased in the
years 1935 and 1936 while His Majesty’s Government remained bound
under Part III of the London Treaty. It is clear that His Majesty’s
Government could not have been expected to accept this proposal.
[Page 414]
On May 2nd the United States Ambassador in London informed the First
Lord of the Admiralty that he had had an enquiry from his government
as to whether any suggestion had been considered in London to the
effect that the bases of agreement might be re-worded so as to
provide for limitation of the laying down of tonnage instead of
providing for limitation of completed tonnage, the entire agreement
to be made to end in July 1935.
In the above connection it must be borne in mind that the idea of
limiting construction programmes purely and simply, was tried during
the negotiations at Geneva last November and, as will be remembered,
had to be discarded for following reasons:—
- 1.
- The Italians held that in any such plan they would have to
demand an annual construction programme which would be at
least as high as the French programme for fear of
compromising the principle of parity. This the French would
not concede.
- 2.
- The annual programme demanded by France was too high to
make it worth while for Italy to enter an agreement on such
a basis.
To revert to this idea now would mean abandoning that part of the
bases of agreement on which all sides are agreed (namely tonnage
which may be completed by December 31st, 1936) without getting us
any nearer to a settlement of the difficulty concerning the amount
of tonnage which may be laid down during that period.
In reply to General Dawes enquiry moreover the First Lord gave His
Excellency his purely personal opinion as to the feasibility of the
suggestion from a British point of view. It was as follows:—
[Here follows the text of the statement transmitted in telegram No.
131, May 2, 9 p.m., from the Ambassador in Great Britain, printed on
page 406.]
The First Lord of the Admiralty added to General Dawes that an actual
agreement to give France such a large construction in such a short
period would greatly encourage all the smaller powers to ask for
more tonnage at Geneva and that these had in certain instances
already indicated that their demands would represent expansion.
