500.A15a3/1630: Telegram
The Ambassador in Italy (Garrett) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 5:20 p.m.]
160. With reference to my No. 159 of August 31, noon, I have received from Grandi, since my talk with him, a copy of a memorandum outlining his personal views in the matter. He takes the following position:
The new French proposals of August 21 constitute a notable step backward from the Bases of Agreement of March 1, in the opinion of the Italian Government.
The Bases of Agreement had in view an annual building program comprising all categories of naval vessels amounting to 27, 500 tons for France and 26, 500 for Italy; the bases of agreement sanctioned a naval holiday in the building of 8-inch gun cruisers and left the controversial question of the ultimate replacement of pre-Washington cruisers unprejudiced.
The new program submitted by France, leaving aside the construction of capital ships and aircraft carriers which are regulated by the Washington and London treaties, would permit France to lay down annually about 24,000 tons and Italy about 16,000 tons of light surface craft and submarines. The two nations would have the right in addition, of laying down 8-inch gun cruisers, although not putting them into service.
In the event of construction of larger vessels in the same proportions envisaged by the new constructions, the result would be that the total annual new construction would reach for France 38,000 tons and for Italy 31,000 tons. France could substitute for all her old cruisers modern light craft and at the end of 1936 have a total of 256,000 tons of light craft in service plus 73,000 tons building (all of which could be in 8-inch gun cruisers) with 81,000 tons of submarines (under-age). This tonnage would not include the new construction of aircraft carriers and battleships.
These are the criticisms to be made from the point of view of general armaments reduction. Moreover, the Italian Government finds in particular that inasmuch as the result would be a notable retrogression of the position of the Italian fleet in comparison with the French fleet, the French proposal contravenes the understanding that the positions of the two Governments as to principle (that is, the question of the ratio) were to be left unprejudiced. This retrogression would be arrived at through taking the annual average of the past 9 years as a basis, including the 3 years 1922 to 1924, during [Page 430] which period Italy constructed a total of only 8,000 tons for reasons of internal conditions, as against 75,000 tons of French construction. If the last 6 years are taken as a basis, on the other hand, complete parity in construction would be arrived at, namely, 197, 380 for France and 197, 754 tons for Italy. From every standpoint the Italian Government would prefer an agreement for a complete naval building holiday, such holiday to run even to the end of 1936, for all categories of vessels.
Repeated to Brussels, Paris, and London.