500.A13A4 Steering Committee/143: Telegram

The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

453. From Davis. Simon who returned today told me that the British did not intend to submit any definite plan but that on Wednesday he expects in the Bureau to repeat in substance what he said in his speech in Parliament on November 10th with regard to disarmament and the German demands. In addition he will advocate strongly the abolition of submarines and suggest a thorough consideration of the abolition of aerial warfare which they are prepared to agree to provided it can be made effective. He said that he would then make known that if their views as to general reduction and to the abolition of submarines are accepted Great Britain will in spite [Page 379] of the reductions which she has heretofore made be prepared to accept reductions in line with the American proposal. Upon questioning him more specifically regarding the latter reference to a conditional acceptance of the President’s proposal he said that he did not want to bring in the naval question yet or agree specifically now to the reductions proposed so I do not know just how far he will be willing to go. He then said he thought the most important and urgent thing to do now was to get Germany back into the Conference and that the French plan and his statement accepting in theory the German claim for equality of status would probably serve as a bridge for Germany’s return but that he hoped I would be willing to give some indication of the American attitude and say something at the Bureau as it would be helpful. I told him that we would not wish to engage in a discussion of the German claim for equality but that I would be glad to consult as to the advisability of our saying something in appreciation of the spirit in which France was endeavoring to meet German views and effect a real reduction and also of the efforts of Great Britain to reconcile differences and contribute to a solution of the problems that face the Conference; and also to state that we are here to get a reduction in armaments and not an increase and that we hope that Germany will see fit to return and collaborate in the working out of a general convention. Please let me know if you think it advisable for me to say anything along the above lines if, after delivery of Simon’s speech and study of full text of Herriot’s, we feel that such a statement would help along the work here.

In this connection I may say that although Wilson is handling the work of the Bureau he thinks that if we are to make any statement as indicated it would be better for me to do so.

I told Simon that I agreed with the importance of getting Germany back but that it was still more important to be prepared to carry through some accomplishment if she did return. I also told him I felt that we should at once make every effort to get France and Italy into the naval treaty and that this is the best time to do so because France will have the incentive to reach an agreement with Italy before the Germans are brought in because this would also have a tendency to make the Germans more reasonable. He agreed with this and said he would cooperate in every possible way.

He then asked how a French-Italian naval agreement would affect Japan. He said that he feared we would soon be faced with the Japanese demand for an increase in the naval ratio question. Since they would not agree to this and he assumed we also would not agree he was wondering how best to deal with the matter. I told [Page 380] him that we would never consent to any increase in the Japanese ratio and that if we could get the French and Italians into the treaty it would weaken pressure for a change—to which he agreed.

Simon explained that his suggestion in the House of Commons speech, that in consideration of meeting the German demand for equality in status the European states should join in a solemn affirmation not under any circumstances to attempt to solve any present or future differences between them by resort to force, was with a view to avoiding a situation such as that in the Far East where Japan claimed that the use of force was not in violation of treaty since there had not been a resort to war. [Davis.]

Wilson