List of Papers

(Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.)

Participation of the United States in International Negotiations for Disarmament

i. the conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments, geneva, february 2–july 23, 1932

(1) The Nine-Point Proposal of the American Delegation, February 9

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Jan. 19 To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation
Delegation of authority to Hugh Gibson as Acting Chairman, and expression of the Secretary’s views on some of the questions which will come before the Conference.
1
Jan. 21 (16) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information obtained from the Secretary General of the League of Nations that first session of the Conference will be confined to general declarations and will be of short duration.
12
Jan. 22 From the British Ambassador
Memorandum (text printed) concurring with U. S. views on naval disarmament and advocating agreement among the signatories of part III of the London Naval Treaty upon entering the Disarmament Conference.
12
Jan. 26 (19) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Opinion that failure to set up technical commissions at the plenary session of the Conference and suspension of all negotiations for 2 or 3 months will have an unfavorable effect on public opinion.
16
Jan. 31 (2) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of opening speech suggested by the Secretary; insertion by the delegates of an introductory paragraph, and an additional brief paragraph.
16
Jan. 31 (3) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Extract from amended text of opening speech.
17
Feb. 1 (4) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Plans for opening sessions of the Conference, and indication that general discussions are expected to begin February 8; information that Secretary General of the League and President of the Conference are in sympathy with the necessity for work continuing without long adjournments.
18
Feb. 3 (1) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Disapproval of introductory paragraph of opening speech because of principles involved, and instructions to begin speech as originally cabled.
19
[Page XXXVIII]Feb. 8 Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Report by Mr. Gibson of British and French opening speeches, and request for approval of an insertion (text printed) in the opening statement of the American delegation.
20
Feb. 8 Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Department’s approval, with certain changes, of American proposals to be inserted in opening address.
24
Feb. 8 (6) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Reference to Mr. Gibson, for his subsequent action, of British recommendation that London Naval Treaty powers be in agreement with respect to naval problems.
25
Feb. 9 Address Delivered by Mr. Hugh S. Gibson, Acting Chairman of the American Delegation, at the General Disarmament Conference, Geneva
Full text of opening speech containing American 9-point proposal.
25
Feb. 9 (17) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of favorable comment on the American address, with particular attention given to points 7 and 9 of the 9–point proposal.
30
Feb. 9 (18) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Meeting of representatives of American States for consideration of a joint declaration in favor of limitation and reduction of armaments and of pacific settlement of international disputes.
31
Feb. 10 (19) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.) Report of Italian, Japanese, and Polish opening addresses. 31
Feb. 11 (22) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of Russian opening speech proposing total general disarmament and criticizing French plan for League of Nations army.
32
Feb. 11 (9) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggestions by the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations of certain criteria for limitation of expenditure on matériel.
33
Feb. 12 Memorandum by Mr. Norman H. Davis, Member of the American Delegation
Conversation with Tardieu, French delegate, regarding American opinion of the French plan and the part the United States would play in upholding the peace of the world.
34
Feb. 16 (29) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of Argentine opening address proposing that countries not signatories of Washington and London Naval Treaties undertake not to build or acquire capital ships of more than 10,000 tons and that the Conference lay down essential principles on contraband of war.
39
[Page XXXIX]Feb. 16 (30) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for guidance as to delegation’s attitude toward Argentine proposal regarding contraband and free shipment of foodstuffs.
40
Feb. 16 (31) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Message for War and Navy Departments from General Simonds and Admiral Hepburn requesting studies as to effect on national defense of certain aviation limitations.
40
Feb. 17 (14) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Authorization to express approval in principle of the substance of the Argentine proposal.
41
Feb. 17 (36) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that only the German delegation will make a second speech, therefore American delegation will reserve further statements for later.
41
Feb. 18 (37) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of Germany’s second speech submitting proposals based on the theory of one system of disarmament equally applicable to all countries.
42
Feb. 18 (39) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request by Simonds for instructions from the War Department regarding the delegation’s attitude toward German proposals and for approval of the policy that coastal guns must equal the calibre of naval armament that might be used against them.
44
Feb. 18 From the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs
Transmittal of copy of Italian opening speech, and indication of agreement in general spirit with the American and British delegations.
45
Feb. 23 (45) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of Bureau meeting and transfer of authority for setting up committees and handling procedure to the General Commission over protest of American delegate.
46
Feb. 24 (47) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Explanation by Drummond, Secretary General of the League, that the transfer of Bureau authority to the General Commission was to expedite work of the Conference, and that return to regular procedure can be expected once elementary decisions as to order of work have been taken in the larger body.
47
Feb. 25 (23) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions for General Simonds that the War Department is unalterably opposed to any limitation on coastal gun calibers but is prepared to accept limitations of calibers of mobile artillery generally agreed to by all other great powers.
48
[Page XL]Feb. 25 (50) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Rejection by the General Commission of Soviet proposal for complete disarmament, and acceptance of British proposal to carry on discussions within the framework of the draft convention; Commission’s determination to establish five committees.
48
Feb. 28 (52) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of Bureau meeting and reversion to normal procedure; notification made to the Secretariat of the American members of the five committees.
49
Mar. 2 (54) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that work on major problems of the Conference will be postponed until after the French and German elections; that it is believed expedient to refrain from insistence on immediate action.
50
Mar. 3 (27) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of American delegation’s conclusions regarding method of procedure.
51
Mar. 11 (33) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Navy Department’s instructions for Admiral Hepburn relative to questions on aviation limitations, and opinion that a clear definition of objectives to which all weapons should be limited will prevent their misuse most effectively.
52
Mar. 11 (34) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
War Department’s instructions for General Simonds relative to aviation limitations, and its opinion that the total abolition of military and naval aviation is the most acceptable proposal.
52
Mar. 16 (80) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
General Commission’s adoption of American delegate’s resolution for continuous session (beginning April 11) of the Commission or the Political Committee until sufficient decisions on principle have been reached to enable technical committees to function usefully. Decision to have study made by technical experts defining aggressive weapons for memorandum to be introduced before end of recess.
53

(2) The American Proposal of April 11

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 17 (85) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of a conversation with Tardieu, who explained the French position and indicated a realization of the advantages to be derived from cooperation with the American Government.
54
Mar. 26 (93) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that United States should present to the Conference a plan of procedure; suggestion that the address dealing with a formula for the computation of effective forces continue by advocating the abolition of all offensive weapons, as they are the key to the question of security.
59
[Page XLI]Mar. 30 Memorandum of Conversation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State
Résumé of the principal problems confronting the delegates to the Disarmament Conference and their possible solution; discussion of the U. S. position.
62
Mar. 30 (95) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the Italian Government is interested in some measure of Disarmament Conference success before the convening of the Lausanne Conference and is of the opinion that the British should take the initiative, particularly on the question of abolition of aggressive arms.
67
Mar. 31 (48) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of suggestion in telegram No. 93, March 26, for addition to next address of American delegation; information that the President is considering making a speech on the disarmament question.
68
Apr. 1 (99) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that a statement by the President at this time would be disadvantageous.
69
Apr. 2 (52) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Agreement of President and other officials on the abolition of tanks, mobile land artillery over 155 mm. in caliber, and all toxic gases.
70
Apr. 2 (53) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that the plan for abolishing aggressive weapons would be more effective if presented in a separate speech; instructions that speech on formula be temporarily withheld.
70
Apr. 4 (102) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Acquiescence in decision to present proposals in separate speeches; request for reconsideration of instructions concerning speech on computation of effectives.
71
Apr. 4 (55) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Agreement of Government officials on abolition of bombardment aviation, if submarines are also abolished.
73
Apr. 5 (58) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Postponement of final decision on speech dealing with the computation of effective forces pending further discussion.
73
Apr. 7 (107) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that speech on abolition of aggressive weapons will not stress bombardment aviation question.
74
Apr. 9 (111) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for approval of a suggested statement (text printed) of American attitude toward inclusion of capital ships in aggressive weapons to be abolished.
75
Apr. 11 (66) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Disapproval of suggested statement on abolition of capital ships, and instructions to discourage any attempt to liken treatment of naval and aerial weapons to proposals for land weapons.
76
[Page XLII]Apr. 11 Address Delivered by Mr. Hugh S. Gibson, Acting Chairman of the American Delegation, Before the General Commission of the Conference, Geneva
Complete text of speech on abolition of aggressive weapons.
76
Apr. 11 To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval in general of speech on abolition of aggressive weapons except for overemphasis on American initiation of the plan.
83
Apr. 11 (114) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Favorable reception of speech except by the French.
84
Apr. 12 (115) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of French speech attacking American proposal, and information that Tardieu believes plan to be the result of British and American collaboration.
86
Apr. 12 (116) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that effort to exclude discussion of air and sea weapons until complete agreement has been reached in regard to land weapons is not within the power of a single delegation.
87
Apr. 13 (117) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Discussion by other delegations on the various proposals; Uruguayan surprise support for a League of Nations force along the lines of the French proposal.
88
Apr. 13 (68) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that American public opinion demands contribution of Land Powers equivalent to that of Naval Powers, and instructions to refuse to be drawn into agreement extending abolition principle to other categories pending affirmative action on the part of Land Powers.
89
Apr. 13 (119) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Continuation of discussion of various proposals.
90
Apr. 15 (259) From the Minister in Uruguay
Memorandum of a conversation with the Uruguayan Foreign Minister on April 14 (text printed) in which he stated that it was Uruguay’s policy to support any proposal that might strengthen the League of Nations, but that any member of the Uruguayan delegation indicating opposition to the U. S. point of view would be immediately disavowed by the Government.
92
Apr. 20 (131) From the Acting. Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Statement before the General Commission postponing American proposal on computation of armed forces because of uncompleted studies.
95
[Page XLIII]Apr. 20 (132) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of (1) Commission’s acceptance of draft resolution concerning the determination of criteria for the limitation and reduction of armaments; (2) British resolution approving the principle of qualitative disarmament; (3) Yugoslav resolution embodying the abolition of warships and the prohibition of aerial bombardment, chemical and bacteriological warfare.
96
Apr. 21 (138) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Speech in support of British resolution, with the understanding that it does not exclude other means to achieve the desired end.
98
Apr. 21 (139) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
British delegate’s appeal, in vain, to French delegate to abandon opposition to the British resolution in order to help restore world confidence in Conference proceedings.
99
Apr. 21 (140) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of debate on British resolution noting that the only direct opposition came from France.
100
Apr. 22 (145) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Commission’s acceptance of British resolution in amended form, and its acceptance of new British resolution relative to procedure.
102
Apr. 24 (150) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the General Commission will adjourn until the land, air, and sea commissions have reported their selections of those weapons most specifically offensive, efficacious against national defense, or threatening to civilians.
103

(3) Secretary Stimson’s Visit to Geneva and the First Phase of Private Conversations, April–June

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Apr. 19 (129) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
From the Secretary: Information that conferences have been held with various delegates and there is some hope of a solution of difficulties.
104
Apr. 21 (136) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
From the Secretary: Further report of interviews with delegates; opinion that the French will agree to no reduction or limitation until their demand for security has been met in some way.
104
Apr. 25 (151) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
For Castle and the President from the Secretary: Results of further discussions with delegates, particularly the British, who are strong for an agreement, and the French, who have admitted they will concede little.
106
[Page XLIV]Apr. 26 Memorandum of Conversation Among Members of the American, British, and German Delegations
Discussion of German problems and suggestions for their partial solution.
108
Apr. 29 (161 bis) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
For Castle and the President from the Secretary: Opinion that a start has been made toward French and German compromise through direct discussions between the chief delegates of the leading powers. Information that these conversations will continue within a fortnight; that the Secretary intends to sail for the United States May 4.
112
Apr. 30 (93) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
For the Secretary: Opinion of the President that the Secretary should remain in Geneva if there is the remotest chance that his presence at conversations might be helpful.
114
May 1 (165) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
For Castle and the President from the Secretary: Opinion that it would be unwise to remain longer at Geneva since negotiations will relate to questions peculiarly European and political.
114
[May 7?] (176) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the American formula for military effectives was explained to the French, who have referred it to the Council of National Defense; suggestion that an explanatory speech be presented as soon as the General Commission reconvenes.
115
May 7 (177) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that informal discussions will be held in Paris and London on the situation presented by MacDonald’s illness and the possibilities of resuming early conversations between the great powers.
117
May 10 (165) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversations with British officials in which the Franco-German conversations were discussed briefly and a decision made to examine the situation more thoroughly at another meeting.
117
May 10 (166) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversation with Vansittart, British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, reiterating the U. S. belief that greatest Anglo-American usefulness in Franco-German conversations lay in being present in a friendly capacity and facilitating the approach to difficult problems; Vansittart’s opinion that Conference should set certain limited objectives.
119
May 10 (167) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversation with Malcolm MacDonald, who expressed the opinion that his father would favor continuing Franco-German conversations but someone else would have to represent Great Britain, as the Prime Minister could not deal with disarmament questions until after the Lausanne Conference.
120
[Page XLV]May 10 (182) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for instructions relative to the abolition of chemical warfare.
120
May 13 (169) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversation with Baldwin and Simon during which Gibson stated that the American position would be one of trying to adapt itself to the situation created by such agreements as might be reached by European Governments among themselves; and Baldwin unofficially suggested a drastic disarmament plan with the hope that it would be referred to the U. S. Government for consideration.
121
May 13 (170) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversation with the Prime Minister, who expressed the opinion that political upheaval in France would delay Franco-German conversations, but that informal discussions among other interested powers might be carried on, keeping the French informed.
125
May 14 (103) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions to the effect that any agreement on chemical warfare must be universal; that refraining from peacetime preparation or manufacture of toxic gas would be of little value in view of the impracticability of interfering with civilian industry; that some service department must be retained until abolition of gas warfare has been shown to be an accomplished fact.
126
May 14 (319) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
From Gibson: Conversation with Tardieu, who was pessimistic of early progress in disarmament because of the confused French political situation, and who stressed the fact that the German situation and the irresponsible attitude of the Hitlerites who dominate the German army constitute a genuine problem for France.
127
May 16 (104) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for further information relative to Baldwin’s disarmament plan, and the position taken by the American delegation on the question of abolition of capital ships.
129
May 16 (188) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the treaty envisaged for abolition of gas warfare is universal; that Senator Swanson believes refusal to refrain from peacetime preparation and manufacture of toxic gas would show mistrust of international agreements. Request for further instructions.
129
May 17 (189) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Further report anent Baldwin’s plan, and information that the American viewpoint on the abolition of capital ships was clearly explained but Baldwin argued that their abolition might overcome other opposition to abolishing the submarine.
130
May 21 (193) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that a meeting has been arranged between Davis and Herriot (who will head new government in France).
132
[Page XLVI]May 22 Memorandum by Mr. Norman H. Davis of a Conversation With M. Edouard Herriot
Herriot’s conviction that British, French, and American cooperation is essential, and that the accomplishment of something tangible on disarmament in the near future is necessary.
132
May 23 (199) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Plan to inform Bruening of possible forthcoming conference with Herriot and MacDonald, and necessity for his attendance to counteract effect of Stresemann letters upon the French.
139
May 24 (202) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Possibility of the General Commission’s being reconvened to discuss effectives; necessity for redrafting speech to emphasize the consultation and cooperation which have preceded its presentation; inquiry as to willingness of the President to have authorship ascribed to him.
140
May 24 (109) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Memorandum (text printed) indicating views of Chief of Staff as to why the United States should maintain original position on chemical warfare, as set forth in telegram No. 103 of May 14.
141
May 24 (110) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of meeting with MacDonald, Herriot, and Bruening; suggestions concerning several points of procedure.
142
May 24 From Mr. Norman H. Davis of the American Delegation
Information that Baldwin’s plan was influenced by possible necessity for economy; therefore consideration might be given to satisfactory counterproposals.
142
May 25 (208) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Reply to the Secretary’s No. 110, May 24, relative to suggestions for informing Bruening of the meeting with MacDonald and Herriot.
144
May 28 (219) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that no general discussions will be permitted before the General Commission until the French Cabinet has been formed and has received a vote of confidence. Transmittal by mail of revised version of the speech on effectives.
(Footnote: Information that discussion of the effectives formula was subordinated to conversations on President Hoover’s disarmament plan following its announcement on June 22.)
145
May 28 (220) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Résumé of American proposals and American attitude toward other plans or suggestions; request for instructions on the future position to be taken by the American delegation.
145
May 31 (224) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for Department’s suggestions as to rules to be adopted for control of aerial warfare, with possibility of using Report of Commission of Jurists (1923) as basis for elaboration.
150
[Page XLVII]May 31 (225) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of meeting of Land Commission in which American delegate criticized the Technical Committee’s failure to distinguish between tanks and armored cars.
150
June 1 (119) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Permission to regard Report of Commission of Jurists as basis for elaboration of rules for control of aerial warfare.
152
June 5 (231) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the change of government in Germany has tended to reunite opinion on maintaining a firm attitude until the line Germany will take can be foreseen.
152
June 7 (122) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Advice that U. S. position is limited by responsibility to prevent spread of war in the Pacific, therefore Baldwin’s proposal to abolish battleships is impossible, although tonnage might be reduced; suggestions for other minimum reductions and limitations of land and sea forces.
153
June 7 (233) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Understanding that Sir John Simon has come out wholeheartedly for Baldwin’s plan and that the Cabinet is considering it.
157
June 7 (172) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Message for Baldwin and Simon reminding them of U. S. policy concerning capital ships and of the serious consequences that might result from a proposal by Great Britain for their abolition.
157
June 8 (198) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Explanation by Simon and Baldwin that they had merely expressed personal views, and that there was no question of the abolition of capital ships, but that the financial advantage of limiting their size had been mentioned.
158
June 9 (203) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Baldwin’s desire that it be a matter of record that no proposals had been advanced by a member of the British Government in discussions with Gibson and Davis, and that if the Cabinet reached any decision on disarmament proposals for formal presentation at Geneva which in any way affected U. S. interests, the U. S. Government would be consulted beforehand.
100
June 9 (125) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Caution not to make counterproposals nor to permit Department’s minimum concessions to become known without further authority, since evidently no comprehensive proposal containing the radical features previously reported will be made by the British Government.
161
June 10 (127) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggestions as to method of presentation of speech on military effectives, and opinion that President Hoover might be referred to as the originator of the plan.
161
[Page XLVIII]June 10 (239) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
American delegation’s concern over possible impairment of relations with other delegations by making private, unofficial conversations the subject of official diplomatic representations.
163
June 11 (131) To the American Delegation (tel.)
Explanation of the Secretary’s use of diplomatic channels in delivering message to Baldwin, and opinion that effect has been to lift a cloud from the situation; belief that the British plan will be much more moderate than Baldwin’s.
166
June 11 (242) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation with Cadogan, of British delegation, who said that the British proposal would be subject to possible modification after talks with Herriot and U. S. delegates.
168
June 12 (243) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Appreciation of Secretary’s telegram of explanation and encouragement (No. 131 of June 11).
168
June 14 (244) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation with MacDonald and Simon in which an agreement was made to collaborate in trying to persuade Prance and Germany to include in the new treaty the military clauses of the Treaty of Versailles applying to Germany.
169
June 14 (247) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Decisions of the Bureau of the Conference (1) to defer consideration of the reports of the special commissions on qualitative disarmament until after private conversations; (2) to place the Soviet proposal on private manufacture on the agenda; (3) to appoint a committee to discuss the terms of the resolution setting up the effectives commission.
171
June 15 (248) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion in regard to possible French, British, and Italian support of effectives proposal.
171
June 15 (249) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Unofficial release of effectives story by the French in press conference and scathing criticism of the plan in French papers; Herriot’s apology and attestation of ignorance of colleague’s action.
172
June 15 (250) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation with a French delegate reporting conference with the British June 14 in which MacDonald proposed a 5-nation conference on qualitative disarmament, and the French refused to discuss the political question of German equality before disarmament measures had been accomplished.
174
June 15 (253) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation with Paul-Boncour in which he agreed to the resumption of informal conversations June 20, and indicated readiness to consider suppression of certain aggressive weapons but inability to assume responsibility for reduction in effectives.
175
[Page XLIX]June 15 (251) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation with MacDonald and Simon in which it was apparent that the Prime Minister was anxious to keep in touch with disarmament problems; Simon’s suggestion that consultations might be resumed June 17.
177
June 18 (254) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conference with the British during which positions on land armament were defined, but discussions on air and naval armament were inconclusive.
178
June 20 (263) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Informal memoranda (texts printed) dealing with aviation and chemical warfare, resulting from meetings between members of French, British, and American delegations.
178

(4) President Hoover’s Plan of Disarmament, June 22

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 24 From President Hoover
Memorandum (text printed) read by the President at Cabinet meeting suggesting a change in American policy in relation to the Disarmament Conference, and enumerating a 10-point proposal for the abolition and reduction of land, sea, and air forces.
180
May 25 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Opinion that some of the points suggested in the President’s proposal are highly controversial; itemized summary of comment on the 10-point proposal.
182
May 25 From the Under Secretary of State to the Secretary of State
Opinion that the President’s proposal has certain advantages, since America will appear to be a mere obstructionist if nothing more is done than to oppose the piecemeal action now in progress.
185
June 18 (136) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Rough draft of statement to be made publicly by the President (text printed) calling for a proportionate reduction of land, air, and sea forces which will result, over a 10-year period, in a 10-billion dollar cut in world expenditure for arms.
186
Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Trans-Atlantic telephone conversation, June 19, between the President, the Secretary, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Davis in which it was decided to consult with the British and French in regard to the President’s proposal, and the suggestion was made that it be presented to the Conference simultaneously with the release of the statement in Washington.
189
June 19 (138) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Revision of paragraph on aviation in President’s statement to include retention of military aviation for scouting purposes over land as well as sea.
191
[Page L]June 19 (257) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggestions for changes to be made in the President’s statement in line with the feeling at Geneva.
191
June 20 (258) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
MacDonald’s agreement with the President’s proposal for land and air armaments, and his concern over attempt to modify the London naval agreements.
194
June 20 (262) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggested paragraph on reduction in the cruiser class of ships to be inserted in the President’s proposal.
194
June 20 (141) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Transmittal of revised text of President’s statement indicating increased cruiser reduction and restoration of absolute parity between Great Britain and the United States; permission to use paragraph suggested in telegram 262, June 20, if deemed advisable; approval of suggestion for simultaneous presentation of proposal.
195
June 21 (265) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that arrangement for General Commission meeting is impossible before 4:30, June 22; that a 24-hour delay has been requested by Sir John Simon, who is anxious to have MacDonald attend Conference to give his unqualified support.
196
June 21 (142) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of suggestion to postpone President’s statement until June 22.
197
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Discussion by the President, the Secretary of State, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Davis, June 21, of the procedure to be followed in the presentation of the President’s proposal and of the possibility of getting British support.
197
June 21 (266) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggested paragraph on American policy for incorporation in the President’s statement.
202
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Report by Davis to the President and the Secretary of State (June 21, 2:10 p.m.) of his conversation with Simon, who was very much disturbed that the proposal would be presented before the Prime Minister could discuss it with his Cabinet; President’s opinion that the statement would have to be given at once or not at all, but that it need not be presented to the Conference at this time.
202
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Report by Davis to the President and Secretary of State (June 21, 5 p.m.) of telephone conversation with MacDonald, who said he would do his best to support the President. Decision to release the statement on the morning of the 22d as information to the American people. Disapproval by the President and Secretary of insertion suggested in telegram No. 266 of June 21.
207
[Page LI]June 21 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Inquiry of Italian Ambassador if United States had offered to trade debt cancellation for armament reduction; Under Secretary’s reply that no such proposition had been made.
210
June 21 (145) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Transmittal of final text of President’s statement (text printed), and instructions on technical considerations to be presented by the delegation.
211
June 22 (146) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the President’s statement was issued to the press, together with certain background information.
214
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Gibson’s report to the Secretary and the President (June 22, 3:30 p.m.) of the warm reception given the President’s proposal by the various delegations.
215
June 22 (147) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Messages of appreciation (texts printed) to be delivered to British, French, Japanese, and Italian delegates for their consideration and support of the President’s proposal.
218
June 22 (48) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Message of appreciation (text printed) to Mussolini for Italy’s wholehearted support of the President’s proposal.
219
June 22 (268) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Text of Gibson’s remarks in presenting the President’s proposal.
220
June 24 From the Ambassador in Italy
Information that Mussolini had inquired whether the President intended to hold to his statement and what the prospects were of agreement by England and France.
221
June 25 (275) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Sir John Simon’s reply (text printed) to the Secretary’s message of appreciation, stating that the British delegates would do their utmost to promote the acceptance of concrete proposals covering the whole field.
222
June 25 (394) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Press statement by Herriot in which he promised to continue to give serious study to the President’s plan, but reaffirmed the French position on international control of military forces.
222
Undated Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Italian Ambassador, June 28, 1932
Ambassador’s reference to newspaper stories to the effect that (1) disarmament and debts were separate topics, and (2) America would not make a consultative pact, but might agree to consultations and conferences whenever the international peace was threatened; Assistant Secretary’s reply that this was substantially the American attitude.
223
[Page LII]

(5) The Second Phase of Private Conversations Leading to the Resolution of Adjournment, July 23

Date and number Subject Page
1932 June 24 (272) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Summarization of the general situation after presentation of the President’s proposal showing the possibility of drawing up a treaty of limited objectives; opinion that United States should not urge the adoption of a minimum program. Request for instructions.
225
June 24 (273) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
French inquiry if United States would be willing to sign a treaty of limited scope and adjourn to consider the President’s plan.
227
June 24 (274) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for instructions and comments on questions pending in private conversations on the President’s plan, including limitations the French are willing to consider on artillery and tanks, proposals for reduction in expenditures and for a convention on the private manufacture of arms.
228
June 25 (391) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that the New York Herald, Paris edition, carried a story concerning a bilateral agreement between Great Britain and the United States; that a denial of the story is being sent to the French Foreign Office.
232
June 25 (151) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Department’s views on (1) the importance of the Conference committing itself on the President’s plan as a whole, creating a small standing committee to prepare a draft agreement and subsequently adjourning for further study of the plan; and (2) the disadvantages of concluding a treaty of limited scope.
233
June 25 (276) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation between De Jouvenel and Davis regarding French attitude toward the Hoover plan, with particular attention to questions of security and consultation; Davis’ opinion that part 6 of the draft convention furnishes the idea of consultation; that collaboration with the United States and Great Britain in disarmament would mean more for the security of France than European treaties of mutual assistance.
234
June 25 (277) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Apprehension of the Japanese delegation that their Government will feel that the President’s plan for reduction of fleets bears more heavily on the weaker than on the stronger powers.
23
[Page LIII]June 26 (278) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Confidential conversation between MacDonald, Davis, and Gibson in which the Prime Minister requested advice as to the next step the British Government should take in regard to the President’s proposal; American delegates’ opinion that no immediate statement by the British is necessary, but a conference might be held between Cabinet Ministers now in Geneva and the American delegation and the matter taken up with the Cabinet on MacDonald’s return to London.
237
June 27 (279) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
British disclosure to the press of the meeting with MacDonald.
240
June 27 (152) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Acquiescence in American delegation’s position in respect to next steps to be taken by the British. Instructions to convey to MacDonald the Secretary’s appreciation of his attitude; also the information that maintenance of naval ratios with Japan is vital and unalterable.
240
June 28 (281) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for approval of a short visit to Geneva by Mr. Kellogg, who is enthusiastic about the Hoover plan, and whose comments would receive wide publicity, especially in Europe.
241
June 28 (154) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of Mr. Kellogg’s visit to Geneva.
242
June 28 (282) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Conversation at Lausanne with MacDonald, who said that the Secretary’s message strengthened his hand for the next steps. Accidental meeting with Herriot, who said that after further study of the President’s plan he liked it better than at first.
242
June 29 (283) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of meeting of Davis and De Jouvenel, who said that the entire French delegation were conferring in the hope of finding a way to accept the President’s plan in principle.
243
June 29 (158) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Disagreement with Davis’ interpretation (as set forth in telegram 276, June 25) of part 6 of the draft convention, and disapproval of encouraging the French to enter a disarmament treaty in reliance upon any form of agreement for consultation; approval of Davis’ opinion that the increased strength of defense given to France by disarmament would be more important than any covenants for assistance.
244
[Page LIV]June 29 (284) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of interest in and approval in principle of the President’s plan by certain groups of small states.
246
June 29 (285) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Amendment to article 52 of the draft convention proposed by the French (translation printed) providing for local investigation in the case of certain complaints; Italian agreement to such a right in the event of a treaty of real reduction; request for Department’s views.
247
June 30 (160) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Agreement with Davis’ argument that it should mean a great deal to France to have the signature of the United States and Great Britain to a disarmament treaty which fixes the armaments of all nations.
248
June 30 (163) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of possibility of accepting right of inspection along the general line of French proposed amendment if a treaty of real reduction can be concluded; opinion that such reversal of American opinion might be used as trading point with the French.
249
June 30 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the French Chargé in which the Secretary summarized events leading up to the President’s plan and the conversations between French and American delegates, and explained the American position on a consultative pact.
249
July 1 (293) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Inquiry relative to the Department’s intention to eliminate German naval effectives from the calculation of military effectives, in which case it would be necessary to modify the draft speech on effectives and the accompanying quantitative chart.
251
July 1 (165) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that it would not seem necessary to modify draft speech on effectives or recalculate quantitative chart, as the point is one of detail suitable for adjustment in Geneva.
251
July 1 (294) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Indications that the British are seeking Japanese cooperation in opposition to the naval portion of the President’s proposal.
252
[Page LV]July 1 Memorandum by Jay Pierrepont Moffat of the Division of Western European Affairs
Conversation with Jules Henry of the French Embassy, who pointed out Herriot’s precarious political position in France and indications that his successor would be Caillaux, a protagonist of Franco-German rapprochement; also the reports from French Ambassador in Berlin that the German conservative leaders are making a real effort to reach an agreement with France.
252
July 2 (295) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Indications that a move will be made to sidetrack the President’s proposal; belief, therefore, that a draft resolution for presentation either in the Bureau or at the conclusion of the consideration of the President’s plan in the General Commission would be most effective.
253
July 2 (296) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Text of draft resolution suggested in telegram No. 295 of July 2.
255
July 2 (166) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions not to risk precipitating a general discussion of the President’s proposal if it might have certain disadvantageous results; to consult with Great Britain and France before taking any action.
258
July 2 (300) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggestion that those states whose total effectives are less than 40,000 be exempted from application of the President’s plan for a one-third cut of the defense contingent in effectives.
258
July 2 (168) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of draft resolution when modified to eliminate references to numbers of airplanes and limitation of their maximum unladen weight, and the expenditures limitation which is still unacceptable to the Department.
259
July 3 (169) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Agreement that effectives formula should be modified in favor of the smaller countries, but disapproval of delegates’ suggestion; counterproposal to exempt the first 10,000, or possibly 15,000, of every defense component. Instructions from the President that no change should be made in original plan unless modification would increase support of the plan and the possibility of its adoption.
261
[Page LVI]Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Report by Davis to the Secretary (July 5, 10:05 a.m.) of: (1) a confidential conversation with a British official who stated that a disarmament plan had been adopted by the Cabinet but not announced; that passage of a resolution on the Hoover proposal seemed possible; (2) an invitation from the Prime Minister to discuss at Lausanne British procedure on the President’s proposal.
263
July 5 (304) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Bureau’s decision for a meeting of the General Commission July 7 to give certain states the opportunity of expressing their views on the Hoover proposals; suggestion by Simon that a resolution be introduced at the close of the declarations.
266
July 5 (305) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request that Secretary reconsider his decision of July 2 (telegram No. 168) inasmuch as point 9 of opening statement of American delegation favored a limitation of expenditure and other delegations will want this point included in resolution.
268
July 6 (170) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of the inclusion in the resolution of a paragraph on limitation of expenditure on matériel; any further limitation unacceptable.
269
July 6 (171) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Views of the War and Navy Departments on certain questions pending in private conversations on the Hoover proposal.
269
July 6 (306) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of conversation with MacDonald and Simon in which it was agreed that a copy of the statement to be made in the House of Commons by Mr. Baldwin with regard to the Hoover plan be transmitted to the President of the Conference rather than presented orally before the General Commission.
271
July 6 To President Hoover
Transmittal of memorandum of the telephone conversation with Norman Davis on July 5; opinion that relations with the British are improving.
272
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Information from Gibson (July 7, 9:40 a.m.) that the British statement includes an unacceptable proposal for an international naval agreement; Secretary Stimson’s instructions to express confidence in the ability of Great Britain and the United States to work out any differences. Davis’ report of a conversation with Simon.
272
[Page LVII]Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Gibson’s report to the Secretary (July 7, 3:35 p.m.) of speeches in favor of the President’s program, and information that a letter explaining Baldwin’s statement was read and copies circulated to the delegates; Gibson’s intention to urge Simon to give stronger support to the resolution in order to correct any impression that Britain and the United States are at odds.
277
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Gibson’s report to Under Secretary Castle (July 8, 4 p.m.) of further speeches in support of the President’s proposal and of decision to circulate draft resolution and then call a meeting for its adoption. Davis’ report of conversation with MacDonald and Simon and their decision to support the President’s plan, and insist on substantial disarmament.
279
July 8 (314) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
More detailed account of speeches reported in Mr. Gibson’s telephone conversation with Mr. Castle.
283
July 8 (315) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Text of draft resolution prepared by Sir John Simon.
284
July 9 (316) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of changes in the draft resolution agreed to by Sir John Simon in order to bring it into closer conformity with the American proposal.
287
July 9 (317) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request that some expression of the Department’s appreciation be given to the Latin American States for their support of the President’s proposal.
(Footnote: Dispatch of letters to the representatives in the United States of the particular countries.)
290
July 9 (318) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for Department’s views on the preliminary draft of the resolution for use in working with the other delegations in private conferences.
290
July 9 (174) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Suggestions for strengthening and improving the draft resolution.
291
July 10 (320) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that most of the Secretary’s suggestions have been incorporated in the draft resolution; that paragraph on contingent character of naval reductions, if not adopted for inclusion in the resolution, may be included in identic letters to be sent to the Chairman of the Conference by the British and American delegations.
292
[Page LVIII]July 13 (179) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Considerations to be kept in mind in connection with naval proposals.
293
July 13 (325) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that revised text of resolution resulting from attempt to coordinate the several drafts presented is weaker than previous draft and as such is unacceptable to the United States and Italy.
293
July 14 (330) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Acknowledgment of Department’s telegram No. 179, July 13, and assurance of delegation’s awareness of importance of the problem.
294
July 15 (333) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Transmittal of a paragraph to be included in the resolution on the subject of limitation of expenditures (text printed) acceptable to the French and American delegations.
295
July 17 (183) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Disapproval of paragraph on limitation of expenditures because it seems to be inconsistent with the American position as indicated in Department’s No. 170 of July 6.
295
July 19 (343) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Transmittal of revised text on limitation of expenditure acceptable to Italians, French, and British; opinion that this version can be accepted without prejudicing the American position.
296
July 19 (187) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Opinion that new version of paragraphs on limitation of expenditure still unacceptable; instructions to devise some phraseology that will specifically exempt the United States from an acceptance of the principle of global limitation of expenditure, if the subject cannot be avoided altogether.
297
July 20 (350) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request that the text on limitation of expenditure be re-examined, since it omits any mention of global limitation and has the approval of the entire delegation, as well as of the Italian and British delegations, who are even more intransigent than the United States on this question; suggestion that Gibson’s speech might specifically except the United States from acceptance of the principle of global limitation.
298
Undated Memorandum of Trans-Atlantic Telephone Conversation
Discussion (July 20, 9:55 a.m.) between Gibson and the Secretary, who reiterated his disapproval of paragraph on limitation of expenditure, and gave instructions for a statement to be made by Gibson specifically objecting to the principle of global limitation. Davis’ report on discussion of the formula on artillery.
299
[Page LIX]July 20 (188) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Congratulations to delegation for its achievement in retaining elements of strength in the resolution and direct relationship with the President’s plan.
304
July 20 (352) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of presentation of the resolution to the General Commission, and of Gibson’s delivery of speech, which was apparently well received.
305
July 20 Address Delivered by Mr. Hugh S. Gibson, Acting Chairman of the American Delegation, Before the General Commission of the Conference, Geneva
Complete text of speech in explanation of the XJ. S. attitude toward the resolution presented to the General Commission.
305
July 21 (359) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of conversation with German delegate in which Gibson explained what a bad effect a German veto of the resolution would have on world opinion.
309
July 21 (360) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of discussion on resolution and amendments proposed by various delegations.
310
July 22 (361) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that text of resolution as originally drafted was maintained, except for the inclusion of State manufacture of arms with private manufacture in the section on subjects for study; report of comments and reservations.
311
July 22 (362) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that German veto will prevent adoption of resolution, but expected majority vote will permit procedural sections of the resolution to be carried on.
312
July 23 (363) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Decision to delay presentation of memorandum and charts on effectives formula until Bureau meeting in September.
314
July 23 (198) To the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of conversations with the German Ambassador concerning the position taken by the German delegation at the Conference and its probable effect on public opinion.
315
July 23 (366) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Results of the vote on the resolution in the General Commission in which 41 delegations voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative, and 8 abstained from voting; and on the extension of the armaments truce in the plenary session in which 49 delegations voted in the affirmative and China abstained from voting.
316
July 23 Resolution Adopted by the General Commission
Complete text of the resolution.
318
[Page LX]

ii. work of the bureau of the general disarmament conference, september 21–december 13, 1932

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Aug. 15 Memorandum of a Meeting of Representatives of the State, War, and Navy Departments
General discussion of preparations for future developments at Geneva in which it was decided that Hugh Wilson, U. S. Minister in Switzerland, would be the U. S. representative at the Bureau meeting; that naval conversations should be conducted first with the British; that United States should not be represented at the budgetary committee meeting on September 26.
322
Sept. 14 (79) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Receipt of information that Germany would not send a representative to the Bureau meeting, since no satisfaction in its claim to equality of treatment had been obtained. Opinion that the Bureau should continue its work without Germany; suggestion that some action might be taken in Washington.
327
Sept. 14 (82) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Request for instructions relative to a proposal that Henderson inquire as to what progress has been made or what steps are contemplated for the naval conversations.
828
Sept. 15 (63) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information that naval conversations have been postponed; suggestion that British and American colleagues consult and prepare an identic answer to be made to Henderson.
328
Sept. 16 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs
Conversation between the Secretary, the French Chargé, and Mr. Moffat in which the Chargé said that because of the German démarche the British were anxious to postpone the Bureau meeting, but the French could not consent for reasons stated in a memorandum (text printed); the Secretary replied that it would be unfortunate if the meeting were delayed, and that Germany’s activities should not prevent the continuation of the work of the Conference.
329
Sept. 21 (379) From the American Delegate on the Bureau of the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Suggestion made at opening sessions that the Bureau could work on a number of questions simultaneously through committees.
332
Sept. 21 (380) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion for reconsideration of the American position on the question of preparation for gas warfare in time of peace to bring it into line with the views of the other great powers.
333
Sept. 22 (207) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions to avoid commitments on peacetime preparation either for or against gas warfare until more specific information has been received.
333
[Page LXI]Sept. 22 (381) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Information that discussions on procedure have been concluded.
334
Sept. 24 (384) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Understanding that Henderson intends to propose that a meeting of the General Commission be summoned about November 10 in order to have a body competent to handle larger political questions; disagreement with this proposal, and decision to urge that provisions of the Resolution be carried out step by step; request for Department’s opinion.
335
Sept. 24 (385) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for instructions in regard to artillery limitations and maintenance of the distinction between fixed and mobile guns.
336
Sept. 25 (209) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Emphasis on the importance of cooperation between the three principal members of the Bureau, and subordination of minority opinions on questions of procedure; approval of Wilson’s arguments for not reconvening the General Commission at this time, and instructions to follow out his suggestion if Simon and Paul-Boncour cannot agree with one another.
337
Sept. 26 (388) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Postponement, upon Wilson’s suggestion supported by Paul-Boncour and Simon, of consideration of Henderson’s proposal until about October 10, when Bureau shall have had opportunity to determine progress.
338
Sept. 29 (211) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Opinion that U. S. views on the artillery question should be adapted to fit within the framework of the resolution, since United States voted for its adoption. Specific instructions concerning coastal guns.
338
Oct. 6 (402) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Discussion by the Committee for the Regulation of Trade in and Manufacture of Arms in which France advocated total abolition of private manufacture, and Spain suggested a tripartite system of control with a central office in Geneva; Wilson’s opinion that Spanish suggestion merits consideration as a means of conciliating different points of view.
340
Oct. 8 (403) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for further instructions on the regulation of traffic in and manufacture of arms for use in discussion of specific points in the Committee.
340
Oct. 9 (404) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Information that Beneš intends to discuss with Herriot a plan for informal conversations by the four great powers on major political problems; opinion that the plan has certain advantages, but that Germany should be apprised and invited to attend.
341
[Page LXII]Oct. 13 (409) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Henderson’s efforts to bring the French and German delegations together to discuss their difficulties; Bureau’s decision that the General Commission should meet during the week beginning November 21.
342
Oct. 14 (410) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Information that the arms committee has made no substantial progress toward a settlement of the different points of view on manufacture; that the traffic in arms convention will be the next subject for discussion. Request for instructions.
343
Oct. 17 (219) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions that abolition of only private manufacture of implements of war is unacceptable; that the prohibition of the manufacture of prohibited types of weapons is a necessary corollary of the President’s proposals although Congress and the Courts must be the final arbiters of the constitutionality of such an arrangement.
344
Oct. 21 (416) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Opinion that it would be inadvisable to agree to any prohibition or control of private manufacture by the Federal Government when there is doubt as to its constitutionality; that explanation of such a change in attitude would be necessary.
346
Oct. 29 (631) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Davis: Conversation with Herriot on the plan to be presented by Paul-Boncour. Information that Paul-Boncour intends to present the French plan November 3, although Davis requested that it be postponed until after the German elections.
348
Nov. 1 (426) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion for a statement on the subject of control (text printed) to be made at the Bureau meeting.
351
Nov. 1 (227) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Opinion that avoidance of a discussion on the supervision and control of the manufacture of and traffic in arms would be preferable until more positive progress is made toward the reduction and limitation of armament; that a conventional arrangement prohibiting all manufacture of prohibited types of weapons would be justified; that such agreement would not imply any obligation to agree to the international control of the manufacture of arms.
351
Nov. 1 (228) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion for rewording of sentence in proposed statement on control to avoid implying acquiescence to further measures of supervision and control.
353
[Page LXIII]Nov. 2 (428) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Explanation of strategy involved in wording of the sentence, and request for reconsideration of its use.
354
Nov. 2 (229) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Approval of Wilson’s suggestion for handling the problem of control.
355
Nov. 3 (429) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for further instructions on the subject of chemical warfare, and acquiescence in Department’s suggestion to refrain from entering this debate as long as possible.
355
Nov. 3 (430) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Further details on the French plan; French delegate’s desire that the obligation for consultation envisaged in Secretary Stimson’s speech of August 8 be formalized, and that a negative commitment on the part of the U. S. Government not to obstruct action taken by other states under article 16 of the Treaty of Versailles be incorporated in the treaty.
356
Nov. 3 (432) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Information that the report of the rapporteur for the arms committee will refer to Wilson’s reservation to the draft convention of 1929. Request for instructions on the constitutionality of the Federal Government’s supervising or controlling the manufacture of war implements within the States of the Union.
358
Nov. 4 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the French Ambassador in which the Secretary explained the U. S. position on a consultative pact, and the Ambassador promised to explain to his Government that insistence on this point would be retrogressive.
359
Nov. 4 (434) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Summarization of Paul-Boncour’s explanation of the French plan envisaging a plan for disarmament and control applying specifically to continental nations rather than to all powers.
360
Nov. 4 (435) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Bureau discussion of question of investigation on the spot; Wilson’s suggestion that he propose that (1) investigation be exceptional rather than periodical, that it be used only after formal complaint by a state and a vote by a substantial majority of the Disarmament Commission, but that (2) the state complained against may request an immediate investigation.
361
Nov. 5 (232) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions to request the rapporteur to delete from his report the section referring to Wilson’s reservation to the draft convention of 1929, and in future discussions to avoid any reference to constitutional questions.
363
[Page LXIV]Nov. 5 (233) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Approval of Wilson’s suggestion for a statement on spot investigation, except that further clarification of the necessity for a formal complaint is required.
364
Nov. 7 (438) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion that the American reservation to the draft convention of 1929 should remain in the rapporteur’s report, but should be withdrawn with an explanatory statement (text printed) when the report comes up for discussion.
364
Nov. 8 (234) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions in regard to chemical warfare indicating that the agreement should be universal in scope, but permitting certain alternatives, and pointing out the difficulties inherent in the prohibition of preparation or training for chemical warfare in peacetime.
366
Nov. 8 (440) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Concluding discussion of the report on control, and the tentative adoption of part I of the report on chemical warfare.
367
Nov. 9 (441) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Continuation of the debate on chemical warfare, and general agreement on the universality of the treaty by the Bureau members; establishment of a technical committee to study the abolition of preparation and training.
368
Nov. 10 (236) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Objection to method of procedure suggested by Wilson in his No. 438 of November 7, and reiteration of Department’s suggestion for the deletion of the American reservation with possibly a brief, informal statement of explanation.
370
Nov. 11 (446) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Agreement to delete reservation from the rapporteur’s report and explain this change in position privately in order to forestall emphasis on it in Bureau discussions; request for approval of a statement (text printed) for presentation to the Bureau should the occasion arise.
371
Nov. 11 (240) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion for an extemporaneous explanation (text printed) of American withdrawal of reservation, should such a statement appear to be necessary.
372
Nov. 12 (241) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions to make a statement in the Committee or Bureau to the effect that the United States is prepared to support the inclusion of measures of supervision and control of the private manufacture of arms, provided that these measures also apply to state manufacture and that a substantial reduction and limitation of armaments is agreed upon.
373
[Page LXV]Nov. 12 (448) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Proposed text dealing with sanctions to be used against states which have used chemical, incendiary, or bacteriological weapons.
374
Nov. 12 (449) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Postponement of action on the proposed text dealing with sanctions; request for Department’s criticism of the document.
375
Nov. 12 (242) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Further instructions in regard to the position of the United States on the use of chemical warfare.
376
Nov. 14 (452) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Report of technical committee’s proposals for the control of private and state manufacture of munitions, to which the delegation is opposed; opinion that a sympathetic attitude might be shown toward the proposal regarding publicity.
377
Nov. 14 (453) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that Simon intends to repeat in the Bureau a speech he made in Parliament on November 10 with regard to disarmament and the German demands; that he feels that an indication of the American attitude would expedite Germany’s return to the Conference; request for Department’s opinion.
378
Nov. 15 (455) From the American Delegate (tel.)
French proposals (text printed), contained in Conference Document 146 entitled “Memorandum by the French Delegation”.
380
Nov. 15 (245) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Agreement with delegation’s opposition to technical committee’s proposals relating to control of private and state manufacture of arms, and instructions to support proposal that any system of publicity of manufacture should apply also to material in stock, both private and state. Request for information on developments anent the convention of 1925.
380
Nov. 15 (247) To the American Delegate (tel.)
For Davis: Nonobjection to a statement to be made by Davis if it would be helpful in assisting Germany’s return to the conference.
387
Nov. 15 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with Recouly, French journalist, during which the Secretary explained his method of trying to develop cooperation with the nations of Europe and stated that he has never feared American interference in League action toward an aggressor; Recouly replied that an American pact not to interfere might influence French disarmament.
387
[Page LXVI]Nov. 16 (458) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis and Wilson: Opinion that the French plan is disappointing in that emphasis is laid on complicated theses rather than on disarmament; belief that the French should be informed of this opinion in conversation.
388
Nov. 16 (459) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis and Wilson: Comment on French proposals, and request for instructions on how to proceed when the plan comes up for discussion.
890
Nov. 16 (460) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Information that certain suggestions concerning the method of handling the situation created by the French plan will be submitted to the Department after the presentation of Simon’s statement and subsequent private conversations.
393
Nov. 17 (461) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Speech made by Davis at Bureau meeting (text printed) reiterating the necessity for the successful outcome of the Conference, the incentives induced by the various proposals, and the hope that Germany will join with all other nations in the task at hand.
393
Nov. 17 (462) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Résumé of address by Sir John Simon advocating the return of Germany to the Conference and containing certain suggestions regarding disarmament; comments of other delegations.
395
Nov. 18 (221) From the Chargé in Germany (tel.)
Antagonism in Germany toward the French plan as not realizing Germany’s equality claim and not being a disarmament plan but merely a political organization of Europe to safeguard French security by maintaining the status quo; more favorable reaction to Simon’s speech.
397
Nov. 21 (465) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis and Wilson: Criticism of the too-ambitious objectives of the French and other proposals which would require too long a period of time for accomplishment; general suggestion for a convention of limited duration (details to follow).
398
Nov. 21 (466) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis and Wilson: Detailed suggestions for a convention of limited duration as a method of preventing the situation from growing worse and as an earnest of the real desire to achieve a more far-reaching general disarmament treaty; description of the functions of a Permanent Disarmament Commission to be set up immediately; suggested inducements for German cooperation.
401
[Page LXVII]Nov. 22 (249) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Concurrence in estimate of French plan and inadequacy of Simon’s speech; complete approval of suggested convention of limited duration.
404
Dec. 1 (470) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for information on Federal and State licensing systems for manufacture of and traffic in arms.
405
Dec. 1 (254) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for any pertinent information and for comments in connection with Department’s intention to urge favorable action on the convention of 1925.
406
Dec. 2 (255) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Information in reply to telegram No. 470, December 1; assertion that any international system of licensing or control would likely arouse strong opposition in the Senate.
406
Dec. 2 (471) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Suggestion that the Department withhold its efforts to urge favorable action on the 1925 convention until the committee concerned has made more progress.
407
Dec. 3 (258) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to restrict to European states the provisions of the report on chemical warfare relating to violations, sanctions, etc., since it is American policy to avoid being drawn into the “inner concentric circle” of the French project with its elaborate organization, rules, and plans for joint action.
408
Dec. 5 (473) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that text of Japanese naval proposal has been received and requires study for complete understanding; suggestion that text can be cabled to Department if desired.
408
Dec. 6 (259) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for telegraphed summary of Japanese naval proposal and transmittal of full text by mail.
409
Dec. 8 From Mr. Norman H. Davis of the American Delegation
Transmittal of complete text of Japanese naval proposal (text printed).
409
Dec. 13 (492) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Report of secret session of the Bureau in which It was proposed that the Bureau reconvene January 23 and the General Commission January 31.
415
Dec. 14 (496) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Report of session of the General Commission in which a declaration of the Five Powers was discussed, the method of private conversations was criticised by smaller powers, and Germany was welcomed back to the Conference; adjournment until January.
415
[Page LXVIII]

iii. demand of germany for equality of armaments

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Aug. 17 (97) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Request for confirmation of United Press story from Berlin that France and Germany are about to start negotiations concerning the limitations placed on German armaments by the Treaty of Versailles.
416
Aug. 18 (162) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Confirmation by Foreign Office official of report of imminent Franco-German conversations. Information from French Embassy that no official negotiations are expected to take place, but that it had recommended to its Government a more conciliatory attitude toward the German demands.
417
Aug. 29 (502) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Confirmation that Franco-German conversations will take place on the insistence of the German Government. Information that the French are unwilling to grant the increases and changes the Germans are demanding because of the uncertain attitude and state of mind in Germany. Request for instructions on possibility of supporting the French position.
417
Sept. 2 (311) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information concerning (1) conversation with the German Chargé who was told that America favored disarmament, and would look with disfavor upon anything which resembled a move in the opposite direction, as did Germany’s present demands; (2) conversation with the French Chargé who was authorized to inform his Government of the conversation with the German Chargé. Authorization to explain the U. S. position to the Foreign Minister if he should bring up the subject.
419
Sept. 7 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the British Chargé, who presented an aide-mémoire (text printed) concerning Simon’s representations to the German Government against Franco-German conversations at this time, and asked if the United States intended to make any similar representations; Secretary’s reply that he intended to investigate, but that in general he sympathized with Simon’s attitude.
421
Sept. 8 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the German Chargé, who delivered a copy of a paper presented to France (text printed) and explained the history of the situation; Secretary’s message to Germany that the utmost patience and forbearance should be exercised and German influence used in seeking to stabilize the world.
424
Sept. 10 (525) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with Herriot in which he explained France’s need for security in the face of reports of secret stores of German arms and purchases of forbidden categories of weapons from Russia and Holland, and stated that France would refuse to enter into confidential conversations with Germany.
429
[Page LXIX]Sept. 16 (325) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Advice that the American attitude toward the German demand for arms equality concerns (1) its effect upon the course of disarmament, which would be jeopardized by an increase in German armaments, and (2) its relation to international regard for treaty obligations, which would be affected if the basic principle of treaty modification through consultation among the interested nations is disregarded.
431
Sept. 18 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the British Chargé, who presented a copy of a statement (text printed) on questions arising out of the notes exchanged between the German and French Governments; Secretary’s opinion that the phraseology was too diplomatic to impress German psychology and refute the current opinion that Great Britain is backing German demands.
432
Sept. 19 (274) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Conversation with Simon, who inquired if the Department had commented on the British statement on disarmament; Chargé’s reply that any comments would probably be transmitted to Simon through the British Embassy.
437
Sept. 19 (542) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation between French and U. S. officials in which French apprehension of German and Italian aggression was reemphasized, and the Americans pointed out that other nations had similar fears; that armament would never end if it was felt necessary to arm against every possible alliance or contingency.
437
Sept. 20 (205) To the American Delegate to the Bureau of the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Instructions not to take the initiative in the matter of the German démarche, but, if Simon should inquire, to explain that America has a deep interest in general disarmament, but is unwilling to take sides in any legal European questions preceding or involved in it.
439
Sept. 21 (190) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Report of news story giving President Hoover’s statement of the American position on Germany’s claim for equality and Von Bülow’s interpretation of it as definitely approving the German thesis; request for instructions for reply to German Secretary of State’s inquiry whether this was the official American attitude.
439
Sept. 22 (191) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Further report of conversation with Von Bülow, who said that he was deeply impressed with the President’s appeal to Germany to rejoin the Conference, but that Germany would be forced to maintain her refusal unless the Conference would agree first to discuss and settle Germany’s rights to equality.
441
[Page LXX]Sept. 22 (115) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Secretary’s personal conclusion, based on a study of the documents, that the German contention is without legal foundation; instructions to point out U. S. concern lest Germany fail to cooperate in working out and evolving a wide measure of general disarmament.
442
Sept. 23 (383) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Conversation with Simon, who analyzed the German situation and listed four methods of approach, on some of which concessions might be made, although he said he suspected that Germany was more interested in justifying a renunciation of the Versailles military clauses.
444
Sept. 24 (194) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Presentation to Von Bülow of U. S. attitude, with emphasis on concern as to the consequences of the action taken by Germany.
445
Sept. 26 (389) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Request for the Secretary’s opinion on conceding Germany “sample types” of prohibited weapons which may be permitted to other powers as a result of the treaty.
446
Sept. 26 (390) From the American Delegate (tel.)
Receipt of information concerning conversations between Simon and Von Neurath in which the latter stated that Germany’s attitude was a waiting one, and Simon brought up the question of “sample types”, raising many objections.
447
Sept. 28 (198) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Conversation with Von Papen in which the Chancellor stated that he saw no way out of the impasse with regard to Germany’s claim for equality of armament and her non-attendance at the Disarmament Conference, and the Ambassador explained U. S. concern at Germany’s position.
448
Sept. 30 (212) To the American Delegate (tel.)
Comments on Simon’s four methods of approach toward solving the problem of Germany’s demand, and opinion that subject should be approached from the point of view of the policy of other nations in determining what they are willing to do in the Disarmament Convention (1) to modify or supplant part V of the Treaty of Versailles, and (2) to carry out their legal and moral obligation to reduce their own armaments.
449
Oct. 3 (393) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Report of a conversation in which Simon suggested a meeting in London under the Consultative Pact of July 13, and wondered what would be the best procedure to facilitate American attendance; Davis’ suggestion that the Secretary of State be consulted.
450
[Page LXXI]Oct. 3 (394) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that Simon is sending instructions to Vansittart to propose the London conversations as within the framework of the Disarmament Conference and as a continuance of the informal conversations previously carried on.
452
Oct. 3 From the British Chargé
Message from Simon indicating that invitations to the London meeting have been sent out, and suggesting that Norman Davis be authorized to attend for the United States.
452
Oct. 3 (213) To the American Delegate (tel.)
For Davis: Information that Simon’s invitation has been received, but the answer is being postponed until the Secretary can be assured that the plan will be acceptable to France and Germany and that all the participants are convinced that the conversations offer the best means of persuading Germany to continue her cooperation in disarmament; suggestion that the conversations be held within reach of Geneva.
453
Oct. 4 (399) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that Simon and Herriot are meeting in Paris regarding the London conversations; initial French reaction seems unfavorable to meeting in London, although conversations in Geneva within the scope of the disarmament discussions would apparently be acceptable.
454
Oct. 5 (283) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office statement (text printed) announcing possibility of the meeting in London.
455
Oct. 6 (582) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Davis: Receipt of information that Herriot was reluctant to refuse to attend the London meeting but thought the chances of failure were great.
456
Oct. 6 (583) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Davis: Further information that Herriot has expressed willingness to enter the proposed discussions but believes they should take place in Geneva.
457
Oct. 7 (585) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Report of conversation between Davis and Herriot in which the latter elaborated on his attitude toward the proposed London conversations, and stated that at present he was studying a disarmament project forwarded to him by Paul-Boncour.
457
Oct. 8 (203) From the Chargé in Germany (tel.)
Summary of the German acceptance of the British invitation, and information that Germany preferred London as a meeting place but would not necessarily object to Geneva.
460
[Page LXXII]Oct. 10 (288) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Account of long discussions with Simon regarding disarmament, in which Simon emphasized importance of U. S. participation in the proposed London meeting.
461
Oct. 14 (296) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that Herriot had reached an agreement with the British for conversations at Geneva, that Italy had accepted, but that Germany had refused to consider Geneva as a meeting place; that Von Neurath had suggested The Hague as a compromise or, as a last resort, Lausanne.
462
Oct. 15 (207) From the Chargé in Germany (tel.)
Conversation with Dieckhoff, of the Foreign Office, who explained Germany’s change of position on the location of the disarmament discussions.
464
Oct. 17 (297) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Conviction that U. S. active collaboration is essential to the success of the Disarmament Conference and that the fate of the Conference will depend on the forthcoming conversations among the leading powers.
465
Oct. 20 (273) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Norman Davis: Opinion that the preservation of the world’s peace machinery is of more immediate concern than a limited agreement on disarmament; authorization for Davis’ participation in preliminary discussions.
467
Oct. 21 (306) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Appreciation of guidance contained in the Secretary’s telegram No. 273.
468
Oct. 22 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation with the Italian Ambassador, who outlined Mussolini’s disarmament plan, which included recognition of Germany’s right to juridical equality.
469
Oct. 29 (849) From the Chargé in Czechoslovakia
Conversation with the Foreign Minister, whose impressions on recent developments in matters relating to disarmament were distinctly pessimistic.
470
Nov. 1 (427) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Conversation with Secretary General of the League, who is convinced that Germany sincerely desires to reach an early agreement with France. Information that the new French plan (text on page 380) has been favorably received in Berlin.
472
[Page LXXIII]Nov. 22 (467) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Conversation with Von Neurath during which he outlined Germany’s meaning of “equality of rights,” and Davis emphasized U. S. interest in general armament reduction and the fact that Germany and France have more to gain from the success of the Disarmament Conference and more to lose from its failure than any other country, to which Von Neurath agreed.
473
Nov. 25 (469) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that 5-power conversations are expected to begin December 2 if Von Neurath, after consultation with Hindenburg, agrees; that Davis is leaving for Paris to secure French agreement for an early preliminary convention.
475
Nov. 28 (3117) From the Chargé in France
Transmittal of a memorandum (text printed) of a conversation between Davis and Herriot on various aspects of the disarmament problem.
476
Nov. 29 (3122) From the Chargé in France
Transmittal of a memorandum (text printed) of a conversation between Davis and Herriot covering certain aspects of the French plan, and the program to be followed in the 5-power conversations at Geneva; Davis’ outline of the idea of a preliminary convention, which Herriot said he found immensely interesting and would discuss with Paul-Boncour.
481
Nov. 29 (679) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that MacDonald and Simon are expected at Geneva, where the Prime Minister would like to discuss the situation in regard to the proposed world economic conference.
486
Nov. 30 (683) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that Herriot and Paul-Boncour both stated they were convinced of the wisdom of formulating a preliminary convention, and that Simon’s preliminary reaction was favorable.
487
Dec. 1 (685) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Conversation with the British Ambassador, who recounted a conversation in which Herriot expressed apprehension that Germany would seek U. S. support in getting France to accede to her demands; Davis’ reiteration of U. S. desire merely for the greatest measure of disarmament immediately possible.
488
[Page LXXIV]Undated Memorandum of the Five-Power Conversations at Geneva Regarding Disarmament and the Return of Germany to the Disarmament Conference, December 2–12, 1932
Record of preliminary conversations between the British, French, and Americans on draft preliminary convention, December 2–4; and of the formal conversations, December 5-12.
Annexes A–M (texts printed), including drafts of preliminary convention and of five-power declaration, memoranda circulated by the German representative, and final text of the Five-Power Declaration signed December 11.
489

iv. conversations on naval questions

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Sept. 9 (237) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Sir John Simon from Norman Davis: Information that Davis will be prepared to discuss naval questions (as suggested earlier by Simon and MacDonald) with a view to resolving Anglo-American differences, if Simon still thinks such discussion would be desirable.
528
Sept. 10 (260) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Norman Davis: Information that Simon would be happy to discuss naval matters with Davis.
529
Oct. 3 (397) From the American Delegate to the Bureau of the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
From Davis: Information that Simon has invited Davis to London for naval conversations.
529
Oct. 11 (292) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Discussion of naval matters with the First Lord of the Admiralty, including questions of the need for reconciling U. S. and British proposals, of taking up technical matters, and of talking with the Japanese.
529
Oct. 19 (301) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Information that Hepburn and Dulles, of the American delegation, have been holding informal conversations with the Admiralty and Foreign Office on technical questions, and that a memorandum was prepared (text printed) upon which agreement might be reached. Comment by Hepburn and Dulles on various points of the memorandum.
531
Oct. 19 (302) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Request for Department’s opinion on the importance of pressing the British to go further than the memorandum, and also as to whether the memorandum presents a possible basis for collaboration between the two Governments.
534
[Page LXXV]Oct. 20 (305) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Information that U. S. representatives have stressed the need for further naval reduction and the inadequacy of British programs in this respect.
535
Oct. 25 (308) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Conversation with MacDonald and other officials in which Davis emphasized the necessity of examining the possibility of further naval reductions along the lines of the Hoover proposal. Later conversations in which questions regarding the scrapping of battleships and the abolition of submarines were discussed.
536
Oct. 26 (309) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Request for instructions as to the possibility of making further progress with the negotiations before leaving London, and for advice on several suggestions for further action.
539
Oct. 26 (277) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Norman Davis: Information that due to unavoidable circumstances the guidance requested in cable No. 309 cannot be given at the present time; that the situation should be explained to MacDonald and Simon, and that Davis will be authorized to communicate with them later.
540
Oct. 27 (311) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Information that the Prime Minister and others have been informed that a more detailed study of the naval questions is necessary than is possible before Davis’ departure; suggestion that conversations might be continued at Geneva on the basis of instructions from the Department.
541
Oct. 28 (314) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Information that the Japanese have formulated a naval plan which, according to Matsudaira, is a compromise between the American and British plans.
542
Oct. 28 (315) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Davis: Transmittal of certain information gleaned by Hepburn in his talks with the Admiralty which he believes may prove useful in interpreting British attitude on technical points that may arise later.
542
Nov. 1 (175) From the Ambassador in Japan
Information that Japan is expecting a 5-power conference to develop from the naval discussions in London and has instructed Matsudaira accordingly. Comment that Japan’s purpose might be to wreck the conference by rejecting the Hoover proposal, opposing the Baldwin plan on most points, and introducing a counterproposal which will be entirely unacceptable to the United States and Great Britain, resulting in an impasse.
543
[Page LXXVI]Nov. 3 (431) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Davis: Information that both Italy and Prance would welcome U. S. cooperation in effecting a naval agreement between the two countries; request for advice on accepting Mussolini’s invitation to Rome.
545
Nov. 4 (231) To the American Delegate (tel.)
For Davis: Criticism of the memorandum transmitted in telegram No. 301 of October 19; instructions to regard the completion of the London Naval Treaty (by bringing in Prance and Italy) as an immediate and concrete objective; reply to the questions outlined in telegram No. 309 of October 26.
546
Nov. 8 (101) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
From Davis: Comments on the Secretary’s criticism of the London memorandum and on his views on the general picture of the naval and diplomatic problems; disagreement on the relative importance of completing the London Naval Treaty.
548
Nov. 8 From Mr. Norman H. Davis of the American Delegation
Transmittal of two memoranda (texts printed) covering conversations with Mussolini and Italian officials concerning the disarmament conversations and the prospects for France and Italy to reach an agreement on naval questions, including a general outline by the Italian representatives as to how the problem might be approached.
550
Nov. 9 (104) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
From Davis: Further comment on the Secretary’s views on naval problems.
556
Nov. 12 (244) To the American Delegate (tel.)
For Davis: Opinion that efforts to conclude a long-term naval treaty might be unsuccessful now, but that completion of the London Treaty would facilitate subsequent negotiations and ensure the stabilization of the relative positions of all five powers before the convening of the 1935 conference.
558
Nov. 15 (457) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that Davis has told the British that, pending further progress toward bringing France and Italy into the London Treaty, the U. S. representatives prefer to postpone further conversations regarding joint U. S. and British naval problems.
559
Undated Memorandum Respecting Naval Conversations, October 7 to December 11, 1932
Relation of the London conversations to the subsequent negotiations respecting a Franco-Italian accord. Record of the Geneva conversations looking toward completion of the London Treaty: Proposal formulated by Italian naval experts; principles acceptable to the French experts; British position with respect to the French and Italian proposals; memorandum prepared by the British and Americans and presented to the French and Italians outlining basis for Franco-Italian settlement; analysis of the memorandum and of its probable reception.
560
[Page LXXVII]

The Pact of Paris: Three Years of Development

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Aug. 8 Address Delivered by the Secretary of State Before the Council on Foreign Relations at New York on August 8, 1932
Appreciation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which has illegalized war, relies upon the sanction of public opinion to make it effective, represents a new world viewpoint as illustrated by the action of the United States and the Assembly of the League of Nations in refusing to recognize Japan’s subjugation of Manchuria, and to which discussion and consultation are necessary and implied adjuncts.
575

Efforts of Interested Governments To Achieve a Readjustment of War Debt Payments to the United States

i. negotiation of agreements legalizing the hoover moratorium

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Feb. 26 To the Ambassador in France (circ. tel.)
Instructions to inform the Government to which accredited that the Secretary of the Treasury is now prepared to proceed with negotiations toward postponing the payments due during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1931, and requests that a representative duly authorized to confer with him at Washington be designated.
(To be repeated to diplomatic missions in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, and Yugoslavia.)
584

Austria

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 9 Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State
Information that the Austrian Minister was given a copy of the moratorium agreement and that authorization to sign would be requested from his Government.
585
May 23 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation with the Austrian Minister, who indicated that he would report to the Treasury as soon as instructions from his Government had been received.
585
June 29 (187) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Treasury is prepared to sign an agreement with Austria similar, mutatis mutandis, to the U. S. British agreement of June 4, 1932; request for comment or suggestions from Leith-Ross or his assistant.
586
[Page LXXVIII]July 1 (188) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Transmittal of comment (text printed) by Pinsent, British Treasury Assistant, on the debt postponement agreement between the United States and Austria.
586
Sept. 19 (189) To the Minister in Austria
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Austrian agreement signed September 14.
588

Belgium

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 24 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Belgian Ambassador
Belgian Ambassador’s fear that the intransigent attitude of Congress might result in its maintaining its position whatever the situation might be; Under Secretary’s reply that a nation literally unable to pay its debt would be treated in the usual broadminded, friendly American manner.
588
Apr. 21 (14) To the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Instructions to inquire into and report on the status of the draft moratorium agreement which was handed to the Belgian Ambassador some time ago.
589
Apr. 22 (34) From the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Information that the Treasury draft agreement is now under consideration by government officials.
589
May 12 (18) To the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Belgian Government that failure to put its acceptance of the President’s proposal in legal form would have serious consequences.
590
May 14 (38) From the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Conversation with the Belgian Under Secretary of State, who stated that negotiation on the moratorium agreement had been placed in the hands of the British Government; that when Great Britain signs the agreement, or gives definite assurance of signing, Belgium will follow.
590
May 18 (40) From the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Information from the Belgian Under Secretary of State that the Cabinet crisis would delay action on the moratorium agreement.
591
May 23 (20) To the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
For the Ambassador: Instructions to advise the Belgian Government of the intention of the British and Italian Governments to sign immediately; also of the increasing danger in the United States of misunderstanding and recriminations against those nations who accepted the debt postponement but have failed to put it into legal effect.
592
[Page LXXIX]May 24 (42) From the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Information from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that a new Cabinet is being organized and the debt postponement agreement will be the first question to come before it.
592
May 26 (43) From the Chargé in Belgium (tel.)
Information from the Foreign Office that full powers are being forwarded to the Belgian Ambassador to sign the agreement.
593
June 27 (610) To the Chargé in Belgium
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Belgian agreement signed June 10.
593

Czechoslovakia

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Apr. 23 (15) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Instructions to inquire into and report on the status of the draft moratorium agreement which was handed to the Czechoslovak Minister some time ago.
593
Apr. 25 (15) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Czechoslovak Government’s designation of the Minister at Washington as its representative in negotiating the moratorium agreement.
594
May 24 (19) To the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Advice that the Czechoslovak Legation is still without authority to complete the moratorium agreement; instructions to inform the Czechoslovak Government that failure to sign will be regarded by the American people as a repudiation of the agreement.
594
May 28 (21) From the Chargé in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Information from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Government is disposed in principle to sign, but for reasons of internal politics prefers to wait until other powers have agreed.
595
June 27 (165) To the Chargé in Czechoslovakia
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Czechoslovak agreement signed June 10.
595

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 16 (1) To the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Instructions to inquire into the status of the draft moratorium agreement which was handed to the Estonian Vice Consul in April, and to urge that action be expedited so that the agreement may be signed by May 25.
595
[Page LXXX]May 20 (361) From the Minister in Latvia
Information that the Lithuanian Government has made no budgetary provision for payment of interest upon expiration of the moratorium inasmuch as it was hoped that an agreement might be reached for postponement of the December 15 interest payment.
596
May 24 (1) From the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Memorandum received from the Estonian Government (text printed) stating that the moratorium agreement signature would be delayed while the Government is investigating its ability to pay.
598
May 26 (2) To the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Instructions to reply to the Estonian memorandum that the agreement does not represent a new obligation but the method of paying an old one; that a refusal to put the terms of the postponement into legal form will be regarded as repudiation of the agreement.
598
May 28 (2) From the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Estonian counterproposal that the debt be distributed over a period of 52 years at 3½ percent interest rate to correspond with the terms of the original debt-funding agreement.
599
May 31 (3) To the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Instructions to reply to the Estonian counterproposal that there can be no deviation from the terms of the Joint Resolution of Congress of December 23, 1931.
599
June 2 (409) From the Minister in Latvia
Information that the moratorium agreement will probably be signed by Estonia and Latvia; observation that the signing of the agreement by the British Government removed the last vestiges of opposition.
600
June 3 (423) From the Minister in Latvia
Letter from the Chargé in Estonia (text printed) containing information that the Estonian budget for the current fiscal year does not provide for the making of normal payment on December 15; also that the Foreign Minister hopes the United States will agree to the reduction, if not the complete cancellation, of Estonia’s debt.
601
June 6 (4) From the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
Receipt of Foreign Office note verbale agreeing to sign the postponement agreement, preferably at Tallinn, and suggesting an exchange of notes assuring for Estonia the benefit of any preferential treatment which the United States might give to any other country; request for instructions.
604
June 7 From the Secretary of the Treasury to the Acting Consul General of Estonia at New York, in Chargé of Legation
Notice of amount due on debt payable June 15, 1932, since Estonia has not entered into the agreement authorized by the Joint Resolution of Congress.
604
[Page LXXXI]June 7 (4) To the Chargé in Estonia (tel.)
U. S. desire that the signing take place at Washington, and instructions to request that full powers be sent to the Estonian Vice Consul at New York: instructions to inform the Foreign Minister that there can be no deviation from the terms of the Joint Resolution.
605
June 14 (7) To the Chargd in Lithuania
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Lithuanian agreement signed June 9.
605
June 28 (8) To the Chargé in Estonia
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Estonian agreement signed June 11.
606
June 28 (72) To the Chargé in Latvia
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Latvian agreement signed June 11.
606

Finland

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 4 From the Finnish Minister
Request that the following information be forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury: No Government of any foreign country is indebted to the Government of Finland in respect of war, relief, or reparation debts.
606
May 9 To the Finnish Minister
Acknowledgment of Finnish Minister’s note of May 4, a copy of which has been transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury.
607
May 31 (90) To the Minister in Finland
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Finnish agreement signed May 23.
607

France

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 26 (119) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the Treasury draft of the moratorium agreement has been handed to the French Ambassador; instructions to inquire informally whether prompt action can be expected.
607
Apr. 19 (239) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the French Government will take action on the draft agreement as soon as the German Government has replied to their note inquiring whether interest at the rate of 4 percent will be paid on the deferred reparations obligation.
608
[Page LXXXII]May 11 (311) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with French Minister of Finance, who stated that France was ready to sign the agreement as soon as advice was received that the 4 percent interest arrangement was acceptable to Germany.
608
May 23 (202) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to advise the French authorities of Italian and British plans to sign; and of the danger of misunderstanding and recriminations in the United States against those nations who accepted the Hoover agreement but have failed to put it into legal effect.
609
May 24 (329) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Germany has accepted the 4 percent interest rate and that France is now prepared to sign the postponement agreement but desires first to know the method of calculation adopted for repayment.
609
May 26 (333) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with Minister of Finance, who indicated Ministry’s willingness now to sign the agreement, but its opinion that paragraph 3 is unnecessary; Ambassador’s explanation that the clause is customary and that failure to approve it might be misconstrued in the United States.
610
May 27 (205) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that paragraph 3 is included in all Hoover debt postponement agreements; that no new obligation is created; that war debt payments have been calculated on the London Conference actuarial method of computing annuities.
611
May 28 (209) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to see Tardieu, the Foreign Minister, and urge him to facilitate his successor’s understanding of the matter, looking toward early conclusion of negotiations.
611
May 28 (339) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with Tardieu, who promised to see his successor as soon as the new Cabinet was formed and urge the conclusion of the agreement.
612
June 7 (213) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that British and Italian representatives have signed the moratorium agreement, and that the French payment due June 15 must be requested unless France signs at once.
613
June 8 (365) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Expectation that authorization to sign the agreement will be telegraphed to the French Ambassador before June 11.
614
June 27 (1180) To the Chargé in France
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-French agreement signed June 10.
614
[Page LXXXIII]

Germany

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 19 (60) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Aide-mémoire from the German Foreign Office (text printed) requesting the postponement of the interest due the end of March, because of budgetary difficulties and because other countries would consider such a payment a breach of the Hoover moratorium.
614
Mar. 23 (31) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Instructions to inform the German Chancellor that German obligations to the United States are of two kinds: army of occupation payments which are postponed under the President’s proposal, and the Mixed Claims Awards which cannot be suspended under that agreement; and to formally ask the German Government to take the necessary steps to sign the agreement and to pay the March 31 interest installment on the mixed claims in accordance with its formal undertaking of June 23, 1930.
615
Mar. 24 (62) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
From Wiley: Presentation of memorandum in accordance with the Secretary’s telegram of March 23.
618
Mar. 30 (66) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information that Germany will pay the interest installment on the mixed claims, but attaches great importance to protracting negotiations dealing with army costs until after the general reparations conference.
618
Apr. 5 (36) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
German Ambassador’s assertion that his Government is prepared to discuss the agreement with the Treasury Department immediately and to sign promptly; that his Government indicated a reservation would be made analogous to that made regarding the report of the London Conference.
619
May 11 (50) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Instructions to inquire about Germany’s attitude toward changing the interest rate in the postponement agreement with France and Italy from 3 to 4 percent, as the signing of the agreements with the United States is being delayed pending notification of Germany’s compliance.
619
May 12 (95) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Opinion that the postponement agreement will be submitted to the Cabinet after the adjournment of the Reichstag, and that a favorable solution can be expected.
620
May 12 (52) To the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Request to clarify the meaning of the phrase “favorable solution” in telegram No. 95 of May 12.
620
May 18 (98) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
German aide-mémoire (text printed) indicating willingness in principle, as soon as the agreements between the United States and Germany have been concluded, to increase the interest rate for France and Italy.
621
[Page LXXXIV]May 26 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Receipt of note (text printed infra) constituting reservation Germany makes in signing the agreement with the Treasury.
622
May 26 (St. D.A. 11) From the German Ambassador
German Government’s declaration that, in signing the agreement with the Treasury, it expresses no opinion as to whether or not the obligations named therein, or similar obligations adjusted elsewhere, can actually be fulfilled.
623

Great Britain

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 26 (98) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Treasury draft of the moratorium agreement has been handed to the British Ambassador; instructions to inquire whether prompt action can be expected.
623
Mar. 29 (122) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Advice that the British have delayed designating a representative because of the postponement of the Lausanne Conference; that negotiations would be easier if delayed until after the Conference.
623
Apr. 30 (133) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Ogden Mills (Secretary of the Treasury): Opinion that failure of debtor countries to sign the Hoover agreement by May 20 will be regarded by the American people as repudiation of the agreement; that every effort should be made to make the British Government realize the importance of prompt legalization of the agreement.
624
May 3 (161) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British note (text printed) advising that British Ambassador in Washington will be designated to confer with U. S. Government!
624
May 14 (172) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Secretary Mills: Transmittal of Foreign Office inquiry as to the significance of May 20 date mentioned in telegram 133 of April 30.
625
May 16 (144) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
From Secretary Mills: Information that May 20 represents the date on which notice of payment due should be sent; understanding that other countries have left the matter in Britishhands as negotiator and spokesman; importance of prompt action.
625
June 10 (74) To the Ambassador in Great Britain
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-British agreement signed June 4.
625
[Page LXXXV]

Greece

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 15 (12) From the Chargé in Greece (tel.)
Information that the Greek Minister in Washington has been authorized to conduct negotiations regarding the moratorium agreement.
626
May 12 From the Greek Minister
Greek reservation to the effect that if more favorable terms should be granted to other governments after Greece has signed the agreement, these should be extended also to the Greek Government.
626
May 18 From the Secretary of the Treasury to the Greek Minister
Explanation that there can be no deviation from the terms of the Joint Resolution of Congress approved December 23, 1931.
626
May 31 (893) To the Chargé in Greece
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Greek agreement signed May 24.
627

Hungary

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 17 (243/Res) From the Hungarian Minister
Receipt of authorization to sign the moratorium agreement with the reservation that if more favorable terms are granted to another debtor nation the same terms will be extended to Hungary.
627
June 3 To the Hungarian Minister
Explanation that there can be no deviation from the terms of the Joint Resolution of Congress dated December 23, 1931.
628
June 6 (98) To the Minister in Hungary
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Hungarian agreement signed May 27.
629

Italy

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 26 (25) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that the Treasury draft of the moratorium agreement has been handed to the Italian Ambassador; instructions to inquire whether prompt action can be expected.
629
Mar. 31 (29) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Advice that the Italian Government is consulting with other governments and that action may be expected shortly.
629
June 14 (652) To the Ambassador in Italy
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Italian agreement signed June 3.
630
[Page LXXXVI]

Poland

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Apr. 23 (16) To the Ambassador in Poland (tel.)
Instructions to discuss the status of the Treasury draft moratorium agreement which was handed to the Polish Ambassador some time ago, and upon which the Treasury requires prompt action.
630
Apr. 26 (1481) From the Chargé in Poland
Information that action on the draft agreement will be delayed until the return from Paris of Finance Ministry officials; that unless the Hoover Moratorium is extended or a foreign loan can be obtained to offset temporarily Poland’s serious fiscal situation, Poland may not be able to continue debt payments.
630
May 10 (1508) From the Chargé in Poland
Information that Vice Minister of Finance has resumed his duties and has stated that certain points in the suggested agreement require close study; indication that prospect of action before the Lausanne Conference is slight, but that signature by any other European power might have a favorable effect on Poland.
632
May 23 (21) To the Ambassador in Poland (tel.)
Instructions to advise Polish authorities of British and Italian preparations to sign immediately; and of the danger of American misunderstanding and recriminations against those nations who accepted the Hoover proposal but have not expressed a willingness to sign the agreements.
633
May 24 (28) From the Ambassador in Poland (tel.)
Information that the Polish Ambassador has been given full powers to negotiate and sign the agreement if such action is consonant with the attitude of other signatories of the London protocol.
633
June 28 (333) To the Chargé in Poland
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Polish agreement signed June 10.
633

Rumania

Date and number Subject Page
1932 June 28 (248) To the Minister in Rumania
Transmittal of a copy of the U. S.-Rumanian agreement signed June 11.
634
[Page LXXXVII]

Yugoslavia

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Mar. 18 (1286) From the Minister in Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia’s designation of a representative to confer with the Secretary of the Treasury, although reiterating its position in rejecting the original debt recess plan, and declaring its unwillingness to assume any obligations which would result from acceptance of the plan.
634
May 31 From the Yugoslav Legation
Yugoslav Government’s refusal to accept the moratorium agreement, and protest against the putting into effect of the agreement for Yugoslavia without its consent.
635

ii. the lausanne conference, june 16–july 9, 1932

Date and number Subject Page
1931 Dec. 29 To the French Ambassador
U. S. reasons for not participating in the conference on reparations to be held January 18, 1932.
636
1932 Jan. 5 (4) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information that the Reparations Conference will be held at Lausanne January 18 or 20; advice given to Baldwin, the Consul at Lausanne, to take no initiative to obtain information regarding the conference.
637
Jan. 7 (5) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information that a proposal was made by the French Ambassador to arrange a 6-month extension of the Hoover Moratorium on the convening of the Lausanne Conference and adjourn until after the French elections.
638
Jan. 8 (5) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Approval of Wilson’s advice to Baldwin, and instructions to inform him that he is not to allow anyone at the Lausanne Conference to put him in the position of being a medium of communication between the Conference and this Government.
640
Jan. 11 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the German Ambassador, who explained Chancellor Bruening’s statement to the effect that complete elimination of reparations would be to the best interest of everybody; Secretary’s reply that no solution could be achieved by Germany’s escaping all future reparations payments.
640
Jan. 12 (1397) From the Ambassador in Germany
Information that the domestic-political situation and German policy toward reparations have been developing along parallel lines; that German expectations seem to be that the Conference will serve as the stage for a German move for entire cancellation of reparations.
643
[Page LXXXVIII]Jan. 16 (41) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s desire to suggest to Parliament an extension of the Hoover Moratorium if acceptable to the United States; Ambassador’s reiteration of U. S. position that until the countries interested in German reparations have reached an arrangement, the United States can do nothing.
647
Jan. 18 (28) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Authorization to say to the Foreign Minister that the policy of the U. S. Government is that debts due to the United States remain individual questions between the United States and the debtors separately and are not to be dealt with otherwise.
649
Jan. 18 (42) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s intention to present to Parliament a proposal for the moratorium extension if such prolongation has the approval of the United States.
650
Jan. 20 (13) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s opinion that the Lausanne Conference had better be postponed unless some preliminary understanding is reached; his nonconeurrence with the French thesis that America should agree to cancel war debts before German reparations are cancelled. Request for Department’s views.
651
Jan. 20 (14) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Minister sent instructions to Berlin in accordance with a British suggestion that the Italian Government represent to Germany the danger of failure of the Lausanne Conference and suggest a preliminary agreement to extend the Hoover Moratorium.
652
Jan. 20 (15) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information from Foreign Office official that the British Ambassador formally urged Chancellor Bruening to agree to a 1-year continuation of the moratorium under existing conditions, and that the German Government had declined on the ground that it was politically and economically impossible; German intimation that if the Conference were delayed until May conditions might by then have altered sufficiently to permit a compromise.
653
Jan. 21 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Conversation with the French Ambassador, who expressed opinion that the Hoover Moratorium had killed the Young Plan and that Germany would not now pay, and asked if the Secretary had heard of the proposal of German railway bonds as a form of settlement; Secretary’s opinion that some form of commercialization would be the best solution.
654
Jan. 23 (18) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information that work of the Standstill Committee has been completed and its proposed report contains a résumé of the German economic situation, gives the substance of the new Standstill Agreement, and formally recognizes that German payments to other countries are intimately connected with interallied debts.
655
[Page LXXXIX]Jan. 23 (8) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Reply to the Ambassador’s telegram No. 13 of January 20 informing him that the Department’s views are contained in the aide-mémoire of December 29 and telegram No. 28 of January 18.
656
Jan. 25 (2214) From the Ambassador in France
Chronological résumé of events since the aide-mémoire of December 29. Impression that France is unwilling to contemplate the possibility of reparations cancellation, but that Great Britain appears willing to cancel them, leaving debt negotiations with the United States for future consideration.
656
Jan. 25 (1436) From the Ambassador in Germany
Information that (1) all political factions are convinced that Germany will not be able to resume reparations payments after the expiration of the Hoover Moratorium, and deny the French contention that Germany would then be in a more favorable position than other countries; (2) the Nazi and Nationalist groups may use the failure to obtain cancellation of reparations payments as proof that only a government dominated by Hitler and Hugenberg can hope to achieve foreign political results.
662
Jan. 27 (1438) From the Ambassador in Germany
Transmittal of copies of the German Credit Agreement of 1932 and the signed report of the Foreign Creditors’ Standstill Committee; résumé of German press comment.
665
Feb. 8 (26) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
For the Secretary and the President: Opinion that the reparations question has become a stalemate; that France believes delays are working in her interest since America’s economic problems are so dependent on stability in Central Europe. Ambassador’s suggestion that an authoritative statement be made to the effect that American finance is immune to danger resulting from European failure to act.
666
Feb. 10 Memorandum by the Counselor of Embassy in Germany, Temporarily on Duty in the Department
Endorsement of Ambassador’s suggestion in his telegram No. 26 of February 8 that an unequivocal statement be made on America’s strong financial position.
669
Feb. 13 (97) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Communiqué from the French Government (text printed) embodying an agreement among the interested governments that the purpose of the Lausanne Conference should be to settle the reparations question and remedy other economic and financial questions. Information that the “other financial and economic question” with which the French Government is chiefly concerned is customs duties.
670
Feb. 17 (65) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Inquiry as to what the French have in mind on the question of customs duties.
671
[Page XC]Feb. 19 (116) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that the communiqué of February 13 was not based on a precise understanding of the exact extent to which the matters under reference would be dealt with by the Conference; that the French favor a simultaneous examination of and agreement on European tariffs, but that the British prefer individual negotiations.
672
June 1 (163) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Secretary sent for the British Ambassador and discussed with him (citing a statement by the French Finance Minister) the British Treasury’s evident misrepresentation to France of American views on cancellation of German reparations, and explained to him the American viewpoint; instructions to convey these views to the British Treasury.
(Footnote: Discussion on the same subject with the French Ambassador; copies of the memoranda of conversations sent to the Embassies in France, Germany, and Great Britain.)
673
June 8 (196) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Assertion by Sir Warren Fisher of the British Treasury that he knew of no basis for the French Finance Minister’s writing such a note as that quoted in the Department’s telegram No. 163 of June 1; Fisher’s outline of certain aspects of Franco-British conversations.
675
June 4 (171) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to correct any misapprehension that Fisher may have that the quotation in Department’s telegram of June 1 was from a formal note, as the statement was made orally.
677
June 15 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation with the German Ambassador, who presented the German attitude that there are two matters before the conference at Lausanne: a negative one, how to bring about the cancellation of reparations, and a positive one, the discussion of world economic difficulties.
677
June 23 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle, Under Secretary of State: Information that little progress is being made at Lausanne; that various delegations are split. Outline of a relief pool plan recommended by the liberal French wing, whereby, after a limited moratorium, Germany would pay a certain balance into a general fund to help reconstruction in Eastern Europe.
678
June 27 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle: Report of British proposal that Germany pay 50 million dollars annually for 15 years beginning after a complete moratorium of 3 or 5 years. Elaboration of French relief pool plan, to which other European countries, as well as Germany, would contribute, and whose funds would be partitioned by B.I.S. for monetary reconstruction and debt liquidation; British disapproval of the plan.
679
[Page XCI]June 29 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle: Information that the Reichsbank has stated Germany will not declare a general moratorium and has not contemplated any plan for scaling down German private indebtedness. Understanding that the Lausanne Conference is seeking agreement upon a formula presenting the position of the various delegations in such a manner that the Conference may appear to be a success.
681
June 29 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the German Ambassador
Ambassador’s repetition of a statement made by Herriot to Von Papen to the effect that he could not agree to cancel German reparations because of the U. S. Government’s declaration that there could be no rearrangement of Allied debts; the Secretary’s reply that he knew of nothing on which Herriot could have based this statement; that the United States would not be ungenerous in the case of general liquidar tion, but was unwilling to assume the entire burden.
682
June 30 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle: Outline of a plan which the Finance Ministers have agreed to recommend to their Premiers that Germany be granted an absolute moratorium for from 3 to 5 years, final payment to be made through German bond issue.
683
July 2 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle: Information that the plan discussed in telegram of June 30 is progressing; that the B.I.S. has been invited to advise whether it would be willing to certify that German economy at the time of the prospective marketing would permit such a bond issue. Report of a proposal that a final reparations settlement now be reached, but that no parliament ratify it until U. S. attitude on war debt payments has been ascertained.
684
July 6 (307) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Conversations (1) with MacDonald, who said that an agreement at Lausanne would be difficult without some attempt to make it conditional upon a subsequent settlement of debts; (2) with Grandi, who stated that he had advocated a wiping clean of the slate in Europe without any reference to the debts to the United States but England had demurred; (3) with Herriot, who seemed hopeful about reaching a settlement at Lausanne.
685
July 12 (217) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Excerpt from a statement by Chamberlain on the Lausanne Conference.
686
July 12 (323) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Refutation of a statement in the Paris edition of the New York Herald to the effect that all delegations at Lausanne consider readjustment of war debts inevitable and imminent, since the British and French kept in close touch throughout negotiations with Washington through conferences with Davis and Gibson.
687
[Page XCII]July 12 From the Consul at Basel (tel.)
For Castle: Text of Gentlemen’s Agreement of July 8 which states that the Lausanne Agreement will not come into final effect until after ratification, and that ratification will not be effected so far as the creditor governments are concerned until a satisfactory settlement has been reached between them and their own creditors.
687
July 13 From the Consul at Basel
Comment on the Gentlemen’s Agreement of July 8; information that the Lausanne Agreement is looked upon as a big move forward, and that the outlook for acceptance by Germany appears favorable.
688
July 14 (225) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Text of statement issued by the British Treasury to clear up a misunderstanding regarding Chamberlain’s reference to conversations with U. S. representatives.
690
July 14 From President Hoover to Senator William E. Borah
The President’s explanation that the United States was not consulted regarding any of the agreements concluded at Lausanne and that it was not a party to, nor in any way committed to any such agreements.
691

iii. the anglo-french declaration of july 13, 1932

Date and number Subject Page
1932 July 13 (422) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Information that an important statement is about to be issued by the Foreign Offices of London and Paris; that a British official said that any impression that this is in the nature of a Franco-British entente is to be avoided.
691
July 14 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador
Ambassador’s presentation of a paper containing the Franco-British Agreement plus some additional declarations; his assurance that no combination between the French and the British against the United States was intended; the Secretary’s reply that the difficulty was not with this agreement but with the “gentlemen’s agreement,” which seemed to be an attempt to compel the United States to give up the method of individual debt settlement.
692
July 14 From the British Embassy
Text of Franco-British accord and additional declarations.
694
July 14 (329) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Conversation between Norman Davis and Sir John Simon during which the latter explained the accord with France, and Davis suggested that there was danger of its degenerating into a political combination; Davis mentioned Chamberlain’s statement in the House of Commons which had been construed to imply that American representatives had acquiesced in the Lausanne Agreement. Information from Simon later that statements would be issued rectifying Chamberlain’s comment and explaining more fully the true import of the Franco-British understanding.
695
[Page XCIII]July 14 From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Letter from Simon (text printed) transmitting copies of two statements which were issued simultaneously in London and Geneva to correct any misunderstanding about the Anglo-French declaration and the “Gentlemen’s Agreement.”
698
July 15 (219) From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Advice that at the convening of the League Council Simon read the text of the Franco-British accord and explained that it is not concerned with extra-European matters, that Italy and Belgium have signified their adherence, and that the invitation is addressed to any European state.
698
July 22 (1496) From the Ambassador in Italy
Information that while Italian public opinion is favorable to the accord, it is rumored that high officials were displeased that it was announced from London and Paris almost simultaneously, indicating a certain disregard for Italy’s importance in European affairs.
699
Aug. 10 (1870) From the Ambassador in Germany
Foreign Minister’s assertion that Germany found no difficulty in adhering to the declaration, since the disparity between the French and British conceptions of the scope and meaning of the pact and its unwieldiness resulting from the adherence of so many small powers had rendered it meaningless.
700

iv. bequests for suspension of wab debt payments pending a review of the question

Belgium

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 15 From the Belgian Embassy
Request for extension of the debt moratorium for the period required for a reexamination of the intergovernmental debt problems in accordance with the principles adopted during the Lausanne Conference.
700
Nov. 23 To the Belgian Ambassador
Explanation of the American position on the debt question; opinion of the President that some agency similar to the World War Foreign Debt Commission should be created to consider the question individually with each government concerned. Information that the Executive has no authority to suspend the Belgian installment due December 15, and that no new facts have been presented for consideration by Congress; opinion that the prospects of a satisfactory approach to the whole question will be greatly increased if the payment is made when due.
701
Dec. 6 From the Belgian Embassy
Reasons why the Belgian Government believes an extension of the debt moratorium would be justifiable.
704
Dec. 9 (86) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Verification of Belgium’s economic crisis; information that there are a few encouraging signs, however.
707
[Page XCIV]Dec. 13 To the Belgian Ambassador
U. S. readiness to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
708
Dec. 13 (92) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Conversation with the Foreign Minister, who explained the necessity for Belgium’s default of its December 15 debt payment and declared that the new government proposed to study the financial problem with a view to getting back on a sound basis.
709
Dec. 14 From the Belgian Embassy
Inability of Belgian Government to resume the payments suspended under the agreement of July 1931.
710
Dec. 21 (98) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Information that the Belgian default was a result of the machinations of one man, the Minister of War, who because of it was left out of the new Cabinet.
711

Czechoslovakia

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 21 From the Czechoslovak Legation
Request for the extension of the debt moratorium for the period required for the reconsideration of the intergovernmental debt problem.
711
Nov. 26 To the Czechoslovak Minister
Information that the Executive has no authority to suspend the Czechoslovak installment due December 15, and that no new facts have been presented for consideration by Congress; opinion that the prospects of a satisfactory approach to the whole question will be greatly increased if the payment is made.
712
Dec. 5 From the Czechoslovak Minister
Reasons why the Czechoslovak Government believes an extension of the debt moratorium would be justifiable.
714
Dec. 13 To the Czechoslovak Minister
U. S. offer to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
717
Dec. 15 From the Czechoslovak Minister
Czechoslovak decision to pay the December installment, and conviction that the present situation can be alleviated only if negotiations for reconsideration are entered into at the earliest possible date.
718
Undated Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Czechoslovak Minister, December 29, 1932
Minister’s inquiry concerning the debt situation and assertion that the French and Belgians appear to be in a better position than the countries who paid because they have a bargaining point; the Under Secretary’s assurance that neither Congress nor the Executive would discuss the debt question with the nations who had defaulted.
718
[Page XCV]

Estonia

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Sept. 29 (158 Dipl.) From the Chargé in Estonia
Information of Estonia’s intention to request the postponement of interest due to the United States December 15; and of a press report that U. S. Treasury had announced the receipt of Estonia’s request for the postponement of the principal.
719
Nov. 28 (6–R) From the Estonian Minister for Foreign Affairs
Request that the United States enter into a friendly exchange of views with Estonia regarding the change in Estonia’s capacity to pay, and agree in the first place to suspend the payment due December 15.
720
Dec. 15 To the Acting Consul General of Estonia at New York, in Chargé of Legation
U. S. offer to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
722
Dec. 15 (Nr. 844–W) From the Estonian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Chargé in Estonia
Transmittal of a memorandum (text printed) setting forth the circumstances preventing payment of the amount due December 15 and justifying the request for a friendly exchange of views.
723

France

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 10 From the French Embassy
Request that, in accordance with the process followed at Lausanne, an extension of the debt moratorium be granted to the French Government in order that the study of the serious problems now under discussion may be continued and completed in the necessary atmosphere of mutual trust.
727
Nov. 11 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the French Ambassador
Ambassador’s assertion that there was danger of a conflict between the French Parliament and the American Congress; his suggestion that disarmament might be legitimately connected with debts as a quid pro quo to be offered to Congress; also that a “lump sum” settlement would have a marked beneficial effect on the world.
728
Nov. 12 (647) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Assertion by a French Treasury official that there had been complete exchange of information between the British and the French, and that Norman Davis had been au courant for some time of their intentions to request postponement of the December 15 payments.
730
Nov. 13 (37) From the American Delegate to the Bureau of the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Davis’ comment that neither the British nor French intentions were known to him; that he had been under the impression that they would make the December 15 payments.
731
[Page XCVI]Nov. 13 (38) From the American Delegate (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Receipt of information as to the French decision; expression of surprise at the decision, since Prance had withdrawn in a few months enough gold from the United States to pay 10 annual installments.
731
Nov. 23 To the French Ambassador
Information that the Executive has no authority to suspend the French installment due December 15, and that no new facts have been presented for consideration by Congress; opinion that the prospects of a satisfactory approach to the whole Question will be greatly increased if the payment is made when due.
732
Dec. 1 From the French Embassy
Explanation of the French Government’s request for a reexamination of the problems arising from the intergovernmental debts and an extension of the moratorium.
734
Dec. 8 To the French Ambassador
U. S. readiness to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
739
Dec. 9 (704) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with the British Ambassador who stated that Herriot has decided to wage a fight before Parliament for authorization to make the December 15 payment providing the debt situation is reviewed before another payment is required; that assurance of U. S. approval would be helpful; that Franco-British consultation should not be interpreted as collusion.
741
Dec. 13 (713) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the fall of the Herriot government seems imminent; that informal assurances of the acceptability to the United States of a reservation to the effect that the December 15th installment would be the last before satisfactory reconsideration of the problem might be helpful. Request for instructions.
742
Dec. 13 (435) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Disapproval of any understanding or commitment, however informal, as to any statement or reservation by the French Government.
743
Dec. 13 (714) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Chamber of Deputies rejected a draft note to the United States (text printed) in which the French Government agreed to pay the installment due.
743
Dec. 14 (717) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the Herriot government fell following adverse vote on the proposal to pay the December 15th debt installment; that the Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution (text printed) advocating a general conference connected with the World Economic Conference.
744
[Page XCVII]Dec. 14 From the Secretary of the Treasury
Report of events culminating in the transmission of a statement (text printed), approved by the Secretary of State and the President, to Herriot reaffirming the President’s intention of examining the relationship of intergovernmental debts to world economy and the problem of recovery.
747
Dec. 14 From the French Ambassador
Message from Herriot to the effect that as his government was overthrown he would be unable to continue the negotiations entered into with the U. S. Government.
748
Dec. 23 (745) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Conversation with Paul-Boncour, the new Foreign Minister, who expressed his desire to find a solution of the difficulties now facing the two countries. Opinion that it would be most desirable at this stage if some plan could be devised to help Boncour make a new presentation to the Chamber of Deputies.
749
Dec. 27 (455) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that letters have been informally exchanged between the French Ambassador and the Secretary on Herriot’s suggestion that such a step might move the Chamber to reconsider its vote; that the President’s message to Congress announced the disposition of the Administration to discuss debts with any of the nondefaulting debtors; that both the President and President-elect, although not in accord as to method, are ready to have discussions begin.
751

Great Britain

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 10 (354) From the British Ambassador
Suggestion that intergovernmental financial obligations be reviewed, discussions beginning in Washington; that meanwhile the payment due December 15 on the British war debt be suspended.
754
Nov. 23 To the British Ambassador
Information that the Executive has no authority to suspend the installment due December 15, and that no new facts have been presented for consideration by Congress; opinion that the prospects of a satisfactory approach to the whole question will be greatly increased if the payment is made when due.
756
Dec. 1 From the British Embassy
Reasons for British request to suspend the December installment; belief that a discussion of the whole intergovernmental debt situation might be helpful in reviving world prosperity.
758
Dec. 5 (531) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Report of a telephone call to Washington informing the Secretary of the Treasury that inquiry had been made relative to a tentative suggestion by the British Government to meet its debt payment by 1-, 2-, and 3-year British Treasury notes; and of a second call notifying the Secretary of the Treasury that the British Government is unwilling to do so.
770
[Page XCVIII]Dec. 7 (337) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain to the French Government that should Great Britain pay the debt installment to the United States on December 15 the question of the French debt payment to Great Britain will not be reopened.
770
Dec. 7 To the British Ambassador
Reply to the British note of December 1 disagreeing with certain statements but welcoming the suggestion for a reexamination of the subject of intergovernmental debts in preparation for the International Economic Conference; also indicating that Congress will be willing to consider any reasonable suggestion to facilitate payment of the December 15 installment.
771
Dec. 12 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador, December 11, 1932
Ambassador’s presentation of a note (text infra) outlining certain conditions attached to the debt payment, and the Secretary’s indication that it is impossible for the Secretary of the Treasury to accept a conditional payment.
775
Dec. 11 From the British Embassy
Text of British note accompanying payment of the amount due December 15 stating that the payment is not to be considered a resumption of the annual payments contemplated in the existing agreement, but rather a capital payment of which account should be taken in any final settlement, and urging an exchange of views before June 15 in order to obviate a general breakdown of existing intergovernmental agreements.
776
Dec. 11 To the British Ambassador
Explanation that the Secretary of the Treasury has no authority to accept payment except as provided under the terms of the funding agreement, therefore acceptance of the December 15 installment cannot constitute concurrence in any policy inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.
778
Dec. 12 From the British Embassy
Explanation that note of December 11 accompanying the payment of December 15 relates to the British position only, and they reserve the right to recur to these considerations in the examination of the whole question to which the United States has agreed.
779
Dec. 13 Memorandum of a Conversation Between President Hoover, Secretary Stimson, and Secretary Mills, Held at the White House, December 13, 1932, 11:45 a.m.
Consideration of Chamberlain’s speech clarifying the meaning of the British note accompanying the debt payment; decision that Secretary Stimson would make a verbal statement to the British Ambassador, and hand him an aide-mémoire of it, referring to the Chamberlain speech and saying that, in view thereof, Stimson is satisfied that acceptance of the payment by the Secretary of the Treasury cannot be interpreted as acceptance of an amendment to the debt funding agreement.
780
[Page XCIX]

Hungary

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 1 From the Hungarian Legation
Explanation that the Hungarian Government does not have at its disposal the necessary foreign exchange and regrets its inability to make the payment due December 15.
780

Italy

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Nov. 15 (108) From the Chargé in Italy (tel.)
Information that the Italian Government has decided to withhold payment of the December debt installment, but is waiting to learn what reception the United States accords to the British and French declarations. Opinion that the Foreign Office decision may be influenced by opinions or pronouncements from the United States.
781
Dec. 15 From the Italian Chargé
Advice that the Italian Ministry of Finance has remitted to the U. S. Treasury the amount due December 15.
782

Latvia

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Sept. 14 (66) From the Chargé in Latvia (tel.)
Latvian Government’s desire to postpone for 2 years the payment and, if possible, the interest due December 15 in accordance with the provision in article 2 of the 1925 debt agreement.
782
Sept. 23 (34) To the Chargé in Latvia (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Latvian Government that the payment due on Bond No. 10 is being postponed, but that Bond No. 2–A does not come under the authority of the debt funding agreement and must be paid, with interest on entire debt, December 15.
783
Nov. 23 From the Latvian Consul General at New York
Renewal of the request of the Government of Latvia for the postponement of the principal and interest payable on December 15.
783
Dec. 2 (947) From the Minister in Latvia
Report of a conversation during which the Latvian Foreign Minister stated that no reply had been received to the second request for postponement of the amount due December 15, and the Minister replied by showing him a newspaper copy of the reply to the French Government. Opinion that the payment will be made on the due date.
785
Dec. 3 From the Latvian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister in Latvia
Detailed explanation of the Latvian situation and reasons for renewed request for postponement of the payment due December 15.
786
[Page C]Dec. 15 (R. 763.00–25882) From the Latvian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister in Latvia
Latvian decision to make payment of the unpostponed amount of the Latvian debt; advice that this payment is not regarded as a resumption of the annual payments contemplated by the agreement of 1925, but is made because there has been insufficient time to discuss with and explain to the United States the financial and economic situation of Latvia.
788
Dec. 22 To the Latvian Consul General at New York
Acknowledgment of the payment made by the Latvian Government, and explanation of U. S. policy with respect to the debt funding agreement; advice that the President is disposed, through whatever agency may seem appropriate, in cooperation with the Latvian Government, to survey the entire situation.
789

Lithuania

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Dec. 9 From the Lithuanian Legation
Request that the United States consent to reexamine the question of Lithuania’s indebtedness, and that the payment due December 15 be postponed or an adequate relief from strict compliance with the terms of the funding agreement be arranged.
790
Dec. 13 (22) From the Chargé in Lithuania (tel.)
Information that preparations for payment by Lithuania of interest due December 15 are being made despite the request for revision or postponement.
797
Dec. 15 To the Lithuanian Minister
Reply to the Lithuanian note of December 9 expressing readiness to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
797
Dec. 15 From the Lithuanian Minister
Lithuanian Government’s decision to pay the installment due December 15, and hope that by making this payment it is not placing itself in a less favorable position than that which may result to any of the other countries from the eventual reconsideration of the general question of intergovernmental debts.
798

Poland

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Sept. 14 (537/32) From the Polish Chargé
Note postponing for 2 years the payment of principal falling due on December 15 in conformity with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the debt funding agreement of 1924.
799
[Page CI]Sept. 26 To the Polish Chargé
Acknowledgment of the Polish Government’s note, and notification that the principal of Bond No. 3–A and the semiannual interest on the entire indebtedness will be due December 15.
799
Nov. 22 From the Polish Embassy
Request for postponement of the payment due December 15, and suggestion that the Polish and U. S. Governments confer regarding the conditions of the postponement and the reconsideration of the agreement of 1924.
800
Nov. 26 To the Polish Ambassador
Reply to the Polish proposal of November 22 explaining the American attitude and giving the opinion of the President regarding the creation of an agency to consider the question individually with each government concerned; information that the Executive has no authority to suspend the Polish installment due and that no new facts have been presented for consideration by the Congress; opinion that the prospects of a satisfactory approach to the whole question will be greatly increased if the payment is made when due.
800
Dec. 8 From the Polish Embassy
Reasons prompting the Polish Government to request postponement of the installment due December 15.
801
Dec. 15 To the Polish Ambassador
Reply to the Polish note of December 8 expressing readiness to cooperate in surveying the situation but unwillingness to postpone the payment due December 15.
806
Dec. 21 From the Polish Embassy
Information that the Polish Government holds itself fully at the disposal of the U. S. Government for the survey of the problem of Poland’s war debt to the United States with a view to safeguarding the general interests of both countries.
807
Dec. 22 Memorandum by the Secretary of State
Comment to the Polish Ambassador, when he presented the note of December 21, that if the United States took any initiative toward discussion of the settlement of any nation’s war debt, it would probably be with those nations which had met their December 15th installment.
807

Preliminaries to the International Monetary and Economic Conference To Be Held at London in 1933

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 26 (154) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Department’s views on the possibility of convoking an international monetary and economic conference were presented to the Prime Minister by telephone, and it was agreed that certain limitations be set for such a conference and that the silver question might be discussed. Instructions to discuss the matter with British officials.
808
[Page CII]May 31 (188) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Conversation with Sir John Simon, the Foreign Secretary, who said that he would welcome suggestions and emphasized the connection between the proposed conference and the Lausanne Conference, and suggested that the experts at Lausanne might be instructed to prepare data for later use at London.
811
May 31 (159) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to suggest to Simon, in view of misleading press reports from London, that he explain to the French and Italians that the British had merely inquired if the United States would participate in a conference; statement for the press (text printed).
812
June 1 (164) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
U. S. agreement in general with Simon’s suggestions for the conference; decision to defer suggestions for the agenda until after consideration by interested Government Departments.
813
July 13 (217) From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Information from the League Secretariat as to present plans on the organization, location, and title of the Conference.
814
July 14 (100) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Conversation with Drummond, Secretary General of the League, who pointed out that the Organizing Committee of the Conference is expected to invite the United States and Belgium to become members of the Committee, and that he would appreciate advice as to the more convenient course to pursue in issuing the invitation.
816
July 15 (218) From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Adoption by the League Council of resolution for the convoking of the Conference, which provides for Organizing Committee and the Preparatory Committee of Experts.
816
July 16 (99) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to inform Drummond that the United States requires assurance that the Conference will not consider questions of debts and reparations, or tariff rates, before it can accept participation in the Organizing Committee; also that the invitation should specifically state that the Conference will deal with “monetary matters, including silver”.
817
July 25 (372) From the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation to the General Disarmament Conference (tel.)
Information that the U. S. conditions for participation in the Organizing Committee were made known to Simon, who promised to give the desired assurances before dispatching the invitation.
818
July 28 (238) From the British Chargé
Transmittal of two notes from British Government inviting the United States to be represented on the Organizing Committee, and to appoint two experts to sit on the committee charged with the preliminary examination of financial and economic questions.
818
[Page CIII]Aug. 2 To the British Chargé
Acceptance of the invitations to be represented on the committees of the Conference.
819
Aug. 13 From the British Embassy
Request for U. S. approval of British proposed course of action in arranging for meeting of the Preparatory Committee of Experts.
819
Aug. 15 (220) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to discuss informally and confidentially with Simon the possibility of appointing Sackett (U. S. Ambassador to Germany) as U. S. representative on the Organizing Committee and Norman Davis as an associate or alternate.
820
Aug. 15 To the British Chargé
Approval of British proposal relative to the Preparatory Committee of Experts, and suggestion that the second half of September would be a suitable time for its first meeting.
821
Aug. 20 (245) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Advice from Simon that nomination by the U. S. Government of a representative and an alternate or associate would be quite in order.
821
Sept. 2 (232) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Atherton: U. S. preference for London as place of meeting for the Conference; preference also that the Conference not meet before November 15.
822
Sept. 10 (260) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Norman Davis: Information that Simon is going to Geneva, and will attempt to have the Organizing Committee assemble October 3.
822
Sept. 12 (77) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Request of League Secretariat for U. S. opinion as to date for meeting of the Organizing Committee.
823
Sept. 14 (61) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Authorization to inform the Secretary General of the League that Sackett and Davis have been appointed as representatives on the Organizing Committee, and that the United States prefers that the first meeting of this Committee be held not before the first week of October.
823
Oct. 3 (16) To the American Representatives on the Organizing Committee for the International Monetary and Economic Conference (tel.)
Information that the title “Economic and Financial Conference”, understood to have been adopted by the League Secretariat, might be embarrassing since appropriations were voted by Congress for a “monetary” conference. Instructions to explain to the Organizing Committee that it appears advisable to the Department to restore the word “monetary” to the title.
824
[Page CIV]Oct. 3 (18) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Sackett and Davis: Report of action taken by the Organizing Committee; information that Sackett is leaving for Washington immediately and will discuss with the Department the idea of leaving to the Experts Committee the entire work of preparing the agenda.
824
Oct. 5 (20) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Davis: Information that the Conference title can be reconsidered by the Organizing Committee when it meets in November.
826
Oct. 6 Memorandum by the Consul at Basel
Résumé of qualifications of various European experts on the Preparatory Committee; opinion that the American experts will be under certain handicaps, since many of the others have worked together at important conferences and understand one another’s problems, history, and policies. Information on the attitudes of various powers.
827
Oct. 7 (152) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Instructions to discuss the possible change of the Conference title with the Secretariat, as omission of “monetary” may cause embarrassing congressional criticism.
833
Oct. 10 (294) From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Secretariat’s assurance that name “Monetary and Economic Conference” will immediately be resumed.
834
Oct. 12 (158) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Secretary General that Edmund E. Day of the Rockefeller Foundation and John H. Williams of Harvard University have been appointed American representatives on the Preparatory Committee of Experts and will sail for Geneva October 18.
834
Oct. 18 To the American Representatives on the Committee of Experts for the International Monetary and Economic Conference
Notification of appointment as American representatives on the Committee of Experts, and authorization to participate in an expert capacity in the discussions of the Committee but not to bind the Government in any way nor to act as spokesmen of definite official policy.
834
Oct. 29 (2750) From the Chargé in Switzerland
Transmittal of League’s invitation to the United States to be represented at the proposed Monetary and Economic Conference to be held in London.
836
Nov. 15 (40) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Davis: Request for instructions as to attitude to be taken regarding date of the Economic Conference; opinion that the Conference should not be held until April or May, as preparatory work has barely begun.
836
Nov. 16 (33) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
For Davis: Suggestion that decision on the Conference date be postponed, if possible, until after the President has conferred with Mr. Roosevelt.
836
[Page CV]Nov. 22 (46) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Davis: Meeting of Organizing Committee at which it was decided, at Davis’ suggestion, to propose that China, the largest silver-using country, be added to the membership of the Preparatory Committee; and at which Davis suggested that a statement (text printed) regarding the agenda for the Conference be included in the minutes of the meeting and brought to the attention of the Preparatory Committee.
837
Nov. 22 (47) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Davis: Request for instructions on the most satisfactory date for meeting of the Preparatory Committee, and confirmation of American agreement on the inclusion of a Chinese expert.
838
Nov. 26 (418) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Mr. Norman H. Davis: Advice that American experts agree to the inclusion of a Chinese member on the Preparatory Committee; and that they would prefer some delay in fixing actual date of next meeting.
838
Dec. 1 From the American Representatives on the Preparatory Committee of Experts for the International Monetary and Economic Conference
Transmittal of report on work of the Committee.
839
Dec. 3 (54) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Davis: Request for early advice as to convenient date for next meeting of Preparatory Committee of Experts.
840
Dec. 7 (46) To the American Representatives on the Organizing Committee for the International Monetary and Economic Conference
For Davis: Desirability that meeting of the Committee of Experts be held as late in January as is acceptable to the other members, since American policy has not been formulated.
841
Dec. 8 (60) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
From Norman Davis: Information that notices calling the Preparatory Committee meeting for January 9 are being sent out; that this is the latest date which would permit the Committee to prepare the agenda for the Organizing Committee meeting.
841
Dec. 9 (47) To the American Representatives on the Organizing Committee for the International Monetary and Economic Conference
For Davis: Advice that the American representatives will be present at the Preparatory Committee meeting January 9.
842
Dec. 29 (456) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Understanding that the Chinese expert was appointed in a full aid regular capacity; information that if this is confirmed, the American experts will consent to the addition of an Indian representative.
843
[Page CVI]Dec. 29 (190) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain whether the appointment of a Chinese expert in full capacity is settled, and, if so, to inform the League Secretariat that the American representatives have no objection to the appointment of an Indian representative.
843
Dec. 30 (372) From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Secretariat’s understanding that the Chinese expert is entitled to full membership, although reversal of the British and Japanese reservations was never put in writing. Request for further instructions.
844
1933 Jan. 4 (2) To the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Authorization to inform Secretariat that the Americans on the Organizing and Preparatory Committees are agreeable to inviting a representative of the Indian Government on the same terms as those extended to the Chinese representative.
845

Proposal for an Economic Confederation of Danubian States

Date and number Subject Page
1931 Oct. 21 (397) From the Minister in Austria
Report of conflicting statements by Austrian, Hungarian, and Czechoslovak officials relative to a rumored customs union.
846
1932 Jan. 27 (10) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Understanding that the British Ambassadors in Germany and Italy have inquired as to what the attitude of those countries would be toward an economic federation of Danube States.
(Footnote: Information on distribution of this telegram to the interested missions.)
848
Feb. 11 (1264) From the Minister in Yugoslavia
Conversation with Acting Foreign Minister, who said that the Yugoslav Government hopes that an economic agreement between the six Danube States can be effected provided political entanglements can be avoided.
848
Mar. 9 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Italian Ambassador
Ambassador’s information that Italy reserved judgment on the plan for a federation of Danube States, being apprehensive of its effect on commercial relations with other states.
849
Mar. 14 (168) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the Foreign Ministers of France and Great Britain conferred on the question of the economic position of Central Europe and the Danube region and agreed that the four powers, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, should invite the five principal Danubian countries to participate in an economic conference in the near future.
850
[Page CVII]Mar. 24 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Czechoslovak Minister
Minister’s assertion that he was not optimistic of an early successful conclusion of the negotiations concerning proposed Danube Confederation, but he felt it was important that the matter was being considered in a friendly way by the various governments.
851
Apr. 4 (864) From the Minister in Rumania
Indication that Rumania favors the Tardieu Plan for a Danube union but is doubtful as to what degree it can be carried out. Finance Minister’s opinion that an agreement must be reached by the four great grain-consuming countries before negotiations can usefully begin between the Danubian countries.
851
Apr. 5 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Italian Ambassador
Under Secretary’s comment that the U. S. Government could not take a strong stand on the matter of the Danubian Confederation, but looked upon it benevolently; Ambassador’s assertion that Italy feared French financial domination of the region.
852
Apr. 5 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Polish Ambassador
Ambassador’s expression of fear that a Danube Confederation would create trade barriers; Under Secretary’s reply that increased prosperity in the Danubian countries would result in stimulated trade with all outside nations.
853
Apr. 5 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Rumanian Minister
Under Secretary’s indication, in reply to queries by the Minister, that a good understanding economically would lead to better political understanding; that tariff agreements would be acceptable provided that all great powers were treated alike; that the U. S. Government would not oppose private loans if the scheme proceeded in the hoped-for way.
853
Apr. 5 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs of a Conversation With the Czechoslovak Minister
Discussion of the proposed confederation in relation to the principle of unconditional most-favored-nation treatment. Favorable attitude of the Minister toward the idea of the confederation.
854
Apr. 6 (1433) From the Chargé in Poland
Information that Poland approves of and would assist an arrangement which would increase the purchasing power of the Central European States, but could not approve of the formation of a self-sufficient group.
855
Apr. 7 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Austrian Minister
The Secretary’s summary, in reply to Minister’s inquiries, of the American attitude toward the Danubian Union and U. S. policy on loans; Minister’s opinion, with which the Secretary agreed, that the proposed 10 percent reciprocal concession was insufficient to offset the competition of powerful industries in larger outside nations.
856
[Page CVIII]Apr. 7 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Italian Ambassador
Ambassador’s comment that Italy would favor the Danubian Union if it were purely economical and not a strengthening of the Little Entente. U. S. position that no preferences should be given to outside powers.
856
Apr. 8 From the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs to the Under Secretary of State
Conversation with the Bulgarian Minister, who said that his Government was disappointed at Tardieu’s exclusion of Bulgaria from the proposed Danubian Union.
857
Apr. 8 (137) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the four-power Danube Conference ended without reaching an agreement, but each country is to address to the other three a statement of its views, which might result in further discussion.
858
Apr. 13 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Sioedish Minister
Minister’s opinion that a Danubian Confederation would be disastrous for Germany; Under Secretary’s response that anything which would increase the prosperity of Europe should be useful to Germany.
858
Apr. 13 (721) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia
Information that the collapse of the four-power Danube Conference caused no surprise in Prague; that some such economic federation is believed inevitable, but the success of later conferences cannot be expected until Germany changes its attitude.
859
May 19 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Rumanian Minister
Minister’s opinion that the inclusion of Germany in a customs union is important.
860
Aug. 29 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Bulgarian Minister
Minister’s comment that he hoped the World Economic Conference would work out a solution of the Danubian situation, for otherwise the Danubian States would be driven to turn to Germany for an economic arrangement, which would lead to German domination and increase the instability of the political balance in Europe.
860

Tension Arising From German-Polish Relations With Respect to the Polish Corridor and Danzig

Date and number Subject Page
1932 May 26 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Polish Ambassador
Ambassador’s explanation of elements of tension in the Danzig situation, giving as an example the excitement created in Poland by the public reading of order at time of disbandment of the Hitler troops, particularly since the troops in Danzig have not disbanded and are making trouble.
861
[Page CIX]June 9 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Polish Ambassador
Ambassador’s advice that an aide-mémoire (text infra) is being sent to several countries to combat German propaganda accusing Poland of having aggressive intentions against Danzig.
861
June 7 From the Polish Ambassador
Statement refuting German propaganda and explaining that the propaganda continues in spite of Polish representations to the German Government in March and April.
862
June 23 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Polish Ambassador
Information that the German fleet is proceeding to Danzig without prior notification to Poland; that Polish marines have been fired on by men wearing the Hitler insignia.
863
Sept. 22 Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Polish Chargé
Chargé’s report that the Danzig situation has improved, that apprehension has subsided but has not passed.
864

Participation of the United States in the International Radiotelegraph Conference, Madrid, September 3–December 9, 1932

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Aug. 13 To the Chairman of the American Delegation
Instructions to Eugene O. Sykes as chairman of the American delegation to the International Radio Conference and as chairman of the American representatives to participate in the International Telegraph Conference, both scheduled to convene at Madrid on September 3.
(Footnote: Information that some sessions were joint meetings, others were separate.)
865
Oct. 4 (21) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Request for instructions relative to the possible invitation for the next conference to be held in the U.S.S.R.; also as to whether, at time of signature of convention, the delegation should make a statement relative to unrecognized regimes.
871
Oct. 13 (29) To the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions not to attempt formally to prevent the Soviet invitation from being extended or accepted, but to communicate with the Department for further instructions in such case; also to make no statement regarding unrecognized regimes.
872
Dec. 10 (147) From the Chairman of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that the convention, general radio regulations, and final radio protocol were signed December 9, and that telegraph regulations, telephone regulations, and the final telegraph protocol will be signed December 10.
872
Dec. 9 Convention Between the United States of America and Other Powers
Text of International Telecommunication Convention, signed at Madrid.
873
[Page CX]

Desire of the United States for Early Implementation of the Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, Concluded at Geneva, July 13, 1931

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Aug. 4 To Certain Diplomatic Officers
Instructions to urge the ratification of the Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs by a date which will admit the deposit of the ratification before April 13, 1933, and to report the attitude of the Government to which accredited in regard to (a) ratification or accession by it, and (b) the possibility of its urging upon other Governments the desirability of ratification or accession by them.
897
Oct. 31 (396 Political) From the Consul at Geneva
Conversation with Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League, during which he was advised of the American Government’s desire that the Convention be made operative in 1933, of its hope that the League will endeavor to bring about early implementation, and of its willingness to defray its proportionate share of the expenses.
899
Dec. 10 To the Consul at Geneva
Department’s disapproval of the suggestion of certain League officials that the Consul’s conversation with Drummond regarding U. S. position on the Narcotics Limitation Convention be made the subject of a League communiqué, since it would set a precedent and other Governments have already been informed through diplomatic channels.
900

Conditional Promise by the United States Not To Object to the Adhesion of the Soviet Union to the Spitzbergen Treaty of February 9, 1920

Date and number Subject Page
1931 Nov. 17 From the French Ambassador
Inquiry relative to the attitude of the U. S. Government concerning the possible adherence of the U.S.S.R. to the Spitzbergen Treaty.
901
Dec. 21 To the French Ambassador
Advice that the U. S. Government would raise no objection to the adherence of the Soviet Union to the Spitzbergen Treaty, provided it is clearly understood that the absence of such an objection should not be construed as constituting U. S. recognition of the Soviet regime.
901
1932 Feb. 20 From the French Ambassador
Inquiry relative to the willingness of the United States to subscribe to an arrangement drawn up by all the signatory powers which would permit the U.S.S.R. to accede to the Treaty of February 9, 1920.
(Note: No record of a reply to this note found in the files.)
902
[Page CXI]

Suggested Amendments to the Regulations Proposed by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1929

Date and number Subject Page
1931 Dec. 31 (455) From the British Ambassador
Transmittal of copy of a memorandum (text printed) embodying suggestions for the amendment of the revised text of the collision regulations proposed by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1929; request for the views of the U. S. Government by March 1, 1932.
903
1932 Apr. 19 (138) From the British Ambassador
Observations on the effect upon various dates specified in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of the simultaneous ratification of the convention and the date upon which it will be brought into operation.
907
Apr. 19 (139) From the British Ambassador
Request for an early reply to note No. 455 of December 31, 1931.
908
Apr. 29 To the British Ambassador
U. S. views regarding the suggested amendments to the revised collision regulations of the Convention for Promoting Safety of Life at Sea.
909
June 14 (200) From the British Ambassador
Request that the United States reconsider its opinion on the amendment to article 2 of the revised regulations, since it has been accepted by all other principal maritime powers; inquiry whether the date January 1, 1933, is acceptable for putting the amended regulations into operation.
910
June 25 To the British Ambassador
Information that the United States is not prepared to set a date as to when it will be ready to adopt the revised collision regulations, inasmuch as any change in the present regulations may be made only by treaty or by act of Congress; that the amendment to article 2 of the revised regulations is acceptable to the U. S. Government.
911
Aug. 8 (247) From the British Chargé
Postponement of the date on which the revised collision regulations are to go into force.
912
Nov. 5 (350) From the British Ambassador
Information that the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea has been ratified by the requisite number of countries and will come into force in accordance with the provisions of article 65 thereof on January 1, 1933.
913

Representations by Foreign Governments Regarding Certain Congressional Shipping Bills Dealing With “Tourist Cruises” and “Fighting Ships”

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Feb. 11 (60) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
British anxiety at the effect the passage of bills H. R. 8874 and H. R. 8875 would have on international commercial relations.
914
[Page CXII]Feb. 11 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the German Ambassador
Ambassador’s opinion that the bills which have been introduced in Congress seem very unfair interference with foreign shipping and would be a great blow to German shipping interests.
916
Feb. 15 From the British Embassy
Explanation of Great Britain’s disapproval of the bills dealing with “Tourist Cruises” and “Fighting Ships”, and request that the State Department take what measures are possible to prevent the enactment of these measures.
916
Feb. 16 (536) From the Netherlands Minister
Netherlands protest against the enactment of H. R. 8875.
(Footnote: Supplementary note of March 2, stating that objections to H. R. 8875 applied “in equal measure” to S. 3502.)
919
Feb. 16 From the Netherlands Minister
Netherlands protest against the enactment of H. R. 8874.
(Footnote: Supplementary note of March 2, indicating that objections to H. R. 8874 applied “in equal measure” to S. 3501.)
920
Feb. 24 From the Swedish Minister
Swedish Government’s hope that H. R. 8875, if enacted, may be so worded that it does not extend the coastwise trade of the United States beyond the meaning accorded to the term by international law.
(Footnote: Advice from the Swedish Minister, March 18, that his Government considered H. R. 8874 also objectionable.)
921
Feb. 25 From the French Ambassador
French Government’s opinion that the adoption of S. 3501–H. R. 8874 and S. 3502–H. R. 8875 would be susceptible of causing a serious prejudice to French merchant marine interests and would mark a profound modification in maritime international law.
922
Feb. 27 From the German Embassy
German protest against the enactment of the shipping bills based on considerations of international law and treaty rights.
924
Mar. 2 From the Canadian Legation
Canadian representations that the shipping bills, if enacted, would have a seriously detrimental effect on Canadian shipping interests and on travel facilities between nations.
926
Mar. 2 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador
Assistant Secretary Bundy’s observation that the energy behind the shipping bills seemed to be the result of Cunard’s action on the Cuba Line; suggestion that the Ambassador consult with the British interests to see if the matter could be settled among themselves.
931
[Page CXIII]Mar. 3 From the Italian Embassy
Opinion of the Italian Government that H. R. 8874 and H. R. 8875 would injure the principles of international law and reciprocal treaty rights.
931
Mar. 30 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador
Ambassador’s complaint that after he conferred with the British shipping interests in an attempt to reach an amicable arrangement, the American interests were unreasonable in their terms; Bundy’s reply that he would confer with the Secretary of Commerce to see if anything could be done to help in the situation.
933
Apr. 7 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador
Information that negotiations between various shipping interests have broken down. Bundy’s assertion that, although he could not commit the Administration to any future action, he did not feel inclined to support the pending legislation.
934
Apr. 11 From the British Ambassador
Transmittal of a memorandum (text printed) putting on record that the objections previously urged against H. R. 8874 apply with equal force to the redrafted bill H. R. 10674; and copy of a letter (text printed) summing up the conference between the shipping lines.
(Footnote: Information that the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Germany, Canada, and Italy also lodged formal representations against H. R. 10674.)
934
Apr.15 From Mr. Franklin D. Mooney, Chairman of the Committee of American Steamship Lines, to Mr. Joseph Mayper of the Trans-Atlantic Passenger Conference
Explanation of the position of the American flag Lines in their decision to insist upon a minimum duration for cruising voyages by foreign flag Lines.
938
Apr. 25 (14) To the Ambassador in Great Britain
Information concerning the status of the shipping bills, and opinion that an agreement still may be reached among the shipping interests. Request that any information on the attitude of Cunard or other interests in Great Britain be forwarded to the Department.
(Footnote: Substance of this instruction sent, on April 25, to the American representative at the capital of each of the countries that lodged representations against H. R. 8874 and H. R. 8875 and identic S. 3501 and S. 3502.)
940
May 7 From the Danish Legation
Danish protest against the enactment of the shipping bills on the grounds that they are not in accordance with the international principles generally recognized or with U. S. Danish treaty provisions.
941
May 11 (78) From the Ambassador in Great Britain
Transmittal of information gained through discussions with representatives of American shipping in Great Britain as to the resentment felt by British shipping interests against U. S. mercantile shipping policy.
942
[Page CXIV]

Representations by Foreign Governments Regarding Congressional Bills for the Deportation of Certain Alien Seamen

Date and number Subject Page
1931 Dec. 22 (4385) From the Netherlands Minister
Reiteration of the Netherlands protest against the King Bill—Senate Bill No. 7 (same as S. 202 in preceding session of Congress).
944
Dec. 23 From the Stvedish Legation
Swedish objections to S. 7.
945
Dec. 24 (St. D.A. 48) From the German Embassy
Reiteration of the German protest against S. 7, and request that the Department use its influence to the end that the bill may be given a thorough reexamination.
945
Dec. 28 From the Norwegian Minister
Reiteration of Norwegian objections to S. 7.
946
Dec. 28 From the Italian Embassy
Italian objections to S. 7.
948
1932 Jan. 2 (8) From the Netherlands Legation
Reassertion of the Netherlands objection to S. 7, and request that full consideration be given by the U. S. Government to the Netherlands interests which would be endangered by the enactment of the bill.
949
Jan. 5 From the British Embassy
British protest against the enactment of bill H. R. 4648 and identic bill S. 7.
951
Jan. 9 (96.E. a/4) From the Danish Legation
Danish objections to identic bills S. 7 and H. R. 4648, and request that they be brought to the attention of the proper Committee of Congress.
954
Jan. 15 From the Belgian Embassy
Belgian protest against S. 7, as it seems to go contrary to certain customs generally accepted in international law and would create serious difficulties for Belgian ships.
955
Jan. 22 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador
Information, in reply to a British inquiry, that the State Department and the Department of Commerce will be represented at the hearing before the Committee of the Senate.
956
Jan. 27 From the Canadian Legation
Canadian objections to S. 7 and identic H. R. 4648, and earnest hope that the bill will not become law.
956
Feb. 15 From the French Ambassador
Note referring to previous representations against the King Bill and stating further that its provisions are in opposition to French legislation relative to the composition of the crews of French vessels, since the Indo-Chinese are considered to be French, whether they are French subjects or protégés.
957
[Page CXV]

Representations by Foreign Governments With Respect to Senate Bills Relating to Payment of Advance Wages to Seamen on Foreign Vessels

Date and number Subject Page
1932 Jan. 14 From the Swedish Legation
Representations that Senate Bill No. 1559 would have the effect of extending the limits over which a law-making power has jurisdiction and would be contrary to international comity and to the fundamental principles of international law.
959
Jan. 29 (36) From the British Embassy
Reference to previous memoranda on British objections to S. 314, which is identical to the present bill No. S. 1559.
959
Apr. 4 From the Swedish Legation
Application to Senate Bill No. 1558 of the same arguments set forth in memorandum of January 14 concerning S. 1559.
960
[Page [CXVI]]