Office of the Historian

763.72119 Military Clauses/75: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Edge)57

Washington, September 16, 1932—1 p.m.

325. For your guidance.

1.
The following is a brief summary of the attitude of this Government in respect to the German demand for arms equality as I have explained it in informal conversation to the interested Ambassadors here.
2.
Our immediate concern in the German demand is twofold: (a) its effect upon the course of disarmament, and (b) its relation to international regard for treaty obligations.
3.
We have for many years taken an active part in the work of disarmament through its various stages and are now engaged in negotiations at the Geneva Conference looking toward a general treaty for the reduction and limitation of armaments. We have viewed such a reduction as imperative not only to give the world economic relief, but to remove the menace of competitive armaments to world peace. We do not feel that in spite of its slow progress the disarmament Conference has failed; on the contrary, our negotiators have reported that they look forward to concrete measures of success. They do not go so far as to anticipate immediate disarmament on the part of all Powers to the present German level, for disarmament is bound to be a continuous process, marking by successive stages one reduction after another in existing armaments. This was clearly the development contemplated by the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as by the United States when it incorporated into its bilateral Treaty of Peace with Germany signed in 192158 all the rights and advantages defined in Part V of the Treaty of Versailles. In our opinion a decision by Germany to seek equality by increasing her armaments would reverse the process we are now engaged in, of lowering armaments, and would seriously jeopardise the success of the Conference.
4.
This Government does not, for the present at least, desire to commit itself with respect to the justice of Germany’s juridical claim for “equality of rights”. I am taking the position that it seems regrettable to us that this point should be emphasized by Germany at the present time, when the question of real importance to all nations concerned, including Germany, is rather the practicable one of securing the greatest general reduction of armaments possible.
5.
In addition to the foregoing, we are deeply interested in the vital character of certain treaty obligations which the nations of the world have entered into since the Great War with a view to promoting the peace of the world and rendering future wars impossible. We are not parties to all the treaties that have been concluded for this purpose, as for instance the Treaty of Versailles which includes the Covenant of the League of Nations, but we are a party to the Pact of Paris59 and we are also a party to the so-called Nine Power Treaty relating to the Far East.60 All of these treaties rest on the basis of good faith between nations when they assume obligations. Whenever it becomes necessary to modify a treaty in the interest of justice and fairness, this modification should be made not by violence or by threats, but by consultation among the interested nations. This basic principle underlies all treaties, and if it is disregarded in the case of one treaty, it will necessarily affect the good standing of other treaties. It explains, in short, why in the interest of world peace, we attach especial importance to having any changes or modifications which may be made in the Treaty of Versailles brought about by methods of conciliation and mutual agreement rather than by threats or precipitate action.

Please repeat by telegram to London, Berlin, Rome, Berne, and Madrid, and by mail to Brussels.

Stimson
  1. See last paragraph for instructions to repeat to London, Berlin, Rome, Berne, Madrid, and Brussels.↩
  2. Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. ii, p. 29.↩
  3. Treaty for the Renunciation of War, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 153.↩
  4. Ibid., 1922, vol. i, p. 276.↩