500.A15A4 Steering Committee/346: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 15—10:18 p.m.]
747. 1. At the invitation of Henderson two long meetings were held this morning and this afternoon to determine the future procedure of the Conference in the light of Germany’s withdrawal. There were present the officers of the Conference including Beneš and Politis; Wilson and Dulles accompanied me; for Great Britain Simon, Eden and Cadogan; for France Boncour and Massigli; for Italy Soragna and Ruspoli. The 6 hours’ debate can be generally summarized as follows:
2. First, that it was too early to determine the wisest course of procedure to be followed as this would require consultation by the [Page 268] delegates here with their governments and possibly consultations between governments.
3. Second, that any appearance of abandoning the work of the Conference should be avoided and that at most at the present time a brief adjournment of say 10 days would be desirable, after the termination of tomorrow’s meeting of the General Commission.
4. Third, that no effort should be made at tomorrow’s meeting to force through acceptance of the report of the Bureau including Simon’s declaration quoted in my 742, October 14, 1 p.m.,75 as this might call for exceptions or arouse differences of opinion on details which would defeat the impression of unified purpose achieved last Saturday by the action of the Bureau.
5. Fourth, that a reply76 should be sent to Von Neurath’s77 message in courteous form but categorically refuting the reasons alleged by the German Government for its withdrawal from the Conference at this time.
6. In connection with the foregoing the following tendencies were disclosed in the course of our discussions: The Italian representative,78 while not modifying his support of Simon’s statement, nevertheless made it clear that the position of Italy was modified by Germany’s withdrawal. While Italy was quite prepared to work along the lines of the Bureau decision so long as there was a possibility of securing an agreement with Germany’s collaboration on that basis, Germany’s withdrawal had raised the question in the mind of the Italian delegate whether the immediate acceptance of the Bureau decision was now the wisest method of procedure under the new conditions. Italy could envisage other bases on which a treaty was possible. The French representatives were disposed to proceed immediately with the discussion of the Bureau report and apparently envisaged the possibility of proceeding promptly to the preparation of a convention even in the absence of the Germans. This seemed to be also Henderson’s definite determination while Politis was sceptical as to the wisdom thereof. The British favored a long enough adjournment to permit full consideration of the situation with their Government and are sceptical of the possibility of proceeding with the elaboration of a treaty. While not taking part in this phase of the debate I expressed the view privately that if it appeared possible to write a treaty quickly and without undue difference of opinion it might be advisable to do so but that we should find out among ourselves if such agreement was possible and then consider carefully how best to proceed. Concerning the adjournment, [Page 269] we took the position that certainly sufficient time should be given to consult the respective governments but that the period should not be unduly prolonged because this would certainly give the impression that the Conference was in agony.
7. While there was full recognition of the gravity of the situation everybody stressed the point the decisions should be taken calmly and after mature deliberation, that nothing should be done to indicate that the German action had thrown the rest of those into a panic or could prevent accomplishing such useful work as after full consideration the situation might seem to render possible. The very gravity of the situation made all the delegates present especially appreciate the difficulties of their colleagues and the predominating thought in the minds of all appeared to be to avoid appearance of differences among ourselves.
- Ante, p. 260.↩
- For text of reply, see League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Records of the Conference, Series B, Minutes of the General Commission, vol. iii, p. 646.↩
- Konstantin von Neurath, German Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Marquis A. Meli Lupi di Soragna.↩