Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, General, Volume I

500.A15A4 Plenary Sessions/4½

Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation²⁵

February 8, 1932, 11:10 a.m.

Secretary: Hello, is that you Hugh?

Mr. Gibson: Good-morning, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to report to you on the opening session today and make a proposal from the delegation. We have this morning a statement by Sir John Simon²⁶ and by M. Tardieu,²⁷ both of whom presented a rather complete program of definite proposals. We, independently in our delegation, came to the conclusion that we ought to make an addition to the speech we have prepared tomorrow and this afternoon we have given very careful study to the preparation of an addition which we would like to submit to you and recommend for insertion before the last two paragraphs.

Secretary: Just one minute, Hugh. I am familiar with the French proposition. You mean that was the one about the League police force and international armaments,²⁸ but I am not familiar with Sir John Simon’s.

Mr. Gibson: His speech was on the basis of the proposal he made the other day. Sir John Simon had a number of different points which he brought out in his speech. He wanted to adopt the draft convention which we drew in the Preparatory Commission as the basis of the work. He supported the establishment of a permanent disarmament commission; he urged the abolition of gas and chemical warfare; the abolition of submarines. He touched upon construction, but said that was a controversial subject and generally drew attention to French prohibitions or limitations which will weaken the attack. He spoke about the reduction in the size of ships, their maximum gun calibre and the heavy guns above a certain calibre. That was about the substance of what he brought forth.

Secretary: Yes.

Mr. Gibson: As we open tomorrow morning, we feel that we ought to say something rather specific about what we are prepared to do, and we have prepared a draft to be inserted before the last two paragraphs in the speech as you have approved it, and if you have a stenographer there I should like to dictate it. This is the way it reads:

The American Delegation has listened with interest to the speeches of Sir John Simon and M. Tardieu and has been interested to note that each of them has begun this general discussion by concrete proposals, setting forth at the very beginning of the Conference the contributions which their Governments can make to the cause for which we are assembled. These proposals and any others which they may put before the Conference will be examined with an open mind by my Government and we feel that the best road to success lies in a similar statement from every delegation that has something very positive to lay before us so that we may out of this discussion evolve something which it is felt possible to bring forward at the outset.

The American Delegation has not attempted to formulate or submit any comprehensive plan for overcoming all of the obstacles that exist in the way of achieving a general limitation and reduction in armaments. In the first place, we do not desire to raise new questions which will increase the points of difference and thus delay taking the forward step which could otherwise be taken. In the second place, we do not believe the human mind is capable of so projecting itself into the future as to devise a plan which will adequately provide for all future developments and contingencies.

As practically all the nations of the world have now pledged themselves not to wage aggressive war, we believe this conference should and can successfully devote itself to the abolition of those weapons which are devoted primarily to aggressive war and we are prepared to give earnest and sympathetic consideration to any plans or proposals which seem to furnish a practicable and sound basis upon which we may effect a general limitation and reduction of armaments and establish a more healthy and peaceful state of affairs. It is my purpose today to lay before you certain points which the American Delegation advocates. Let me say that this list is not explicit [exclusive?] and contains merely some of the thoughts which we feel will carry on some of the propositions of the Conference.

1. The American Government advocates consideration of the draft convention as containing the outlines of a convenient basis for discussion, while expressing its entire willingness to give full consideration to any supplementary proposals calculated to invoke the end we all seek.

2. We suggest the possibility of prolonging the existing naval agreements concluded at Washington and London, and we advocate completing the latter as soon as possible by the adherence of France and Italy.

3. We advocate proportional reduction from the figures laid down in the Washington and London agreements on naval tonnage as soon as all parties to the Washington agreement have entered this frame work.

4. We advocate, as we long have done, the total abolition of submarines.

5. We advocate the prohibition of bombing of land objectives from the air except within the national territory and for its defense.

6. We advocate the total abolition of lethal gases, bacteriological warfare, or if this is impracticable, similar restrictions as those already stated for bombing, namely, the utilization solely within the national territory and for its defense.

7. We advocate, as I have already stated, the computation of the number of armed forces on the basis of the effectives necessary for the maintenance of internal order and an additional increment necessary for defense.

8. We agree in advocating special restrictions for tanks and heavy mobile guns, in other words, weapons of a military offensive character.

9. We are prepared to consider a limitation of expenditure on matériel as a complementary method to direct limitation, feeling that it may prove useful to prevent a qualitative race, if and when quantitative limitation has been effected.

As I have already said these nine points are in no sense explicit [exclusive?] but I mention them merely in order to focus attention upon the method in which we have the greatest hope of early practical realization. That is the end of the draft.

I want to say, under No. 8, Dr. Woolley wrote up a very sound objection to that and she feels in a way that it is a step backward from our signature of the draft protocol and Senator Swanson says that he feels entirely safe in assuming that we can get a total prohibition through the Senate.

Secretary: A total prohibition on heavy tanks and guns—what did the Senator say?

Mr. Gibson: The Senator says he is convinced that the total prohibition can be put through the Senate. We drafted this in such a way that we could either use the first phrase or go on with the qualifying phrase if you think it is wiser.

Secretary: Yes.

Mr. Gibson: There is only one other point that we want to call your attention to. Under Number 9 we drew very carefully a clause about budgetary limitation, contingent upon a satisfactory expenditure for matériel direct limitation. We feel that we are adequately safeguarded by that and that it is the one thing calculated to save us from the position of being the obstructionists and, furthermore, it will give the most force to what we have to say.

Secretary: Have you submitted that to the Army and Navy?

Mr. Gibson: Everyone on the Delegation, but General Simonds says to remember your conversation with the Secretary of War.²⁹ He feels that it should be checked with the Secretary of War and that he would put in a reservation until that is done. Admiral Hepburn said in that case may be he should be consulted by telephone also, although he sees no objection to it as it stands.

Secretary: I don’t remember that there is any objection to it.

Mr. Gibson: We put in the other matériel because we wanted to avoid the objection the Secretary of War had raised—that this was going to reduce our standard of living. It does avoid his objection as I understand it.

Secretary: It is pretty hard to understand his objection, but I guess you are right.

Mr. Gibson: The General was very reasonable about it, only he felt he ought to tell the Secretary of War in view of a doubt existing in his mind. We are slated to speak tomorrow morning at ten o’clock but we would be very grateful if you could let me have the earliest possible decision on this because we must arrange for our translations and all that.

Secretary: The only thing that will cause delay is that reference back to the War Department.

Mr. Gibson: Don’t you think that could be done by telephone by somebody.

Secretary: Gibson, I am very pessimistic about my getting any affirmative assent to anything which involves budgetary limitation from the War Department unless I take it up with the President. The Secretary of War says that when this became a national matter, the Secretary would withdraw his objections.

Mr. Gibson: Don’t you think the President’s proposals would cover that fully. We all feel it is the essential part of the statement.

Secretary: All right, I will try to get it and telegraph you.

Mr. Gibson: I shall stay here and could you telephone back as soon as convenient?

Secretary: It is pretty hard. I shall try to call you as quickly as I can.

25. Between Mr. Gibson in Geneva and Mr. Stimson in Washington, February 8, 1932, 11:10 a.m.
26. For text of the statement, see Records of the Conference, Series A, Verbatim Records of the Plenary Meetings, vol. i, pp. 55–59.
27. For text of the statement, see ibid., pp. 59–64.
28. League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, 1932, Conference Documents, vol. i, p. 113 (Official No: Conf. D. 56.)
29. Patrick J. Hurley.