500.A15A4 General Committee/662: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received November 20—1:48 a.m.]
789. My 788. 1. The meeting this afternoon at Henderson’s invitation was attended, in addition to the host, by Avenol,24 Beneš, [Page 311] Aghnides25 for the Bureau, Simon and Eden for England, Boncour for France, Soragna for Italy, each accompanied by a colleague. I was accompanied by Mayer.26
2. Henderson reviewed recent conditions and expatiated upon the necessity of agreement among those powers, whom he had called together otherwise there would be no convention. He stated repeatedly the need to work with Germany and laid emphasis on the importance for present decision with respect to the Conference’s ability to go forward. In fact he brought the situation pretty well back to where it was, when Germany withdrew and the problem of continuing the Conference was uppermost. How were we to proceed; what kind of a convention should be drawn up, et cetera? Simon then spoke after a long pause which became so awkward that Henderson had to cover the silence by serving tea.
2. [sic] Simon took a more guarded position than he had indicated to me yesterday. He said there was no misunderstanding as to the relation between the discussions leading up to the October 14th position and the British draft convention. The British draft was the basis and must remain the basis on which we were proceeding being the basis to which Germany had adhered and on which we were trying to build. The October suggestions were an effort to develop and adjust this draft. There was no question of going back to March or June but we must face the fact that the October 14th position was not likely to lead to general agreement. We should not adopt a rigid or pedantic attitude of standing on that position but should carry on more elastically and in not too precise a manner. He was unreservedly a partisan of the view that work must continue and the result be “enshrined at Geneva.” It was not clear that the present method of day by day work would lead to results. Was there not an intermediate stage of useful “parallel” work designed to get at the diplomatic and political questions involved? For instance, there was talk of direct negotiations between France and Germany. Perhaps there was also something to be done at London or Rome.
3. Boncour then spoke showing himself strongly in favor of maintaining the present procedure. There was no doubt that if the Conference could succeed the importance of Franco-German relations regarding disarmament would necessitate conversations between France and Germany.
Boncour then spoke at some length to the effect that the reason for the understandings arrived at in Paris culminating in the October position were the events which were taking place in Germany. The attitude there has not altered. Therefore he could see no reason for a change of position among the powers who had joined in the October [Page 312] 14 statements.27 Whatever form of work was decided upon France basically could not but maintain the essentials of the discussions made manifest on October 14. The facts which demanded the precautions envisaged in the modifications to the British plan still dominated the European situation. A disarmament convention was the best way to solve this difficulty but the League must take the present situation into account and if a convention was impossible the only alternative was to put the League face to face with these responsibilities. France was prepared to confront this state of affairs.
4. Soragna generally subscribed to Simon’s position. He emphasized especially Italian disquietude with the present method of carrying on the work here at Geneva which he felt was not conducive to success. Soragna threw out a hint of an adjournment as short as possible but sufficient to permit the success of “parallel” efforts as suggested by Simon. He felt that the Conference must be saved at any cost and favored the maintenance of the present community of view which he considered as existing basically. The departure of Germany came as a surprise and a shock to his Government which felt there was nothing in the October position to warrant this. Perhaps there had been a misunderstanding on Germany’s part which could be cleared up.
5. I then spoke much more briefly than any of the other speakers, introducing my remarks with the statement that while all others present had had a chance to consult their governments I had had no such opportunity. In view of the present fluid and complex condition of affairs I could not get instructions in time to speak authoritatively. Speaking therefore in a personal capacity only I could say that the problem to my mind was world wide. The United States was as eager as any other power to find a positive and successful result. However the present phase was peculiarly European, as the discussion this afternoon showed, and I wished to recall Mr. Davis’ statement of October 16th28 which I need not go into in detail as all present would have it in mind. I would therefore limit myself to saying that the work done and the considerations given to the modifications of the British draft, culminating in the statements of October 14th had been in order to find if possible a way to general agreement on a convention. This had proven illusory. If Germany had stayed at Geneva and had not refused to agree to the propositions then expressed, would we not have tried to negotiate with her? Did not the principle underlying such a procedure hold good for the present state of affairs? In the business world if a solution was not arrived at [Page 313] effort was made to reexamine the matter and try to find a more promising path.
6. In view of the lateness of the hour Henderson at this stage of the meeting suggested that we adjourn until tomorrow afternoon. It was decided to continue the session at that time with the indication that there might be additional meetings. I then brought up the idea of enlarging the participation in view of the interest so many governments had in the successful termination of our work in line with the suggestion in your 390.28a Henderson objected to this as leading inevitably to general participation. As there was no support for my suggestion I dropped it for the time being.
- Secretary General of the League of Nations.↩
- Chief of the Disarmament Section of the League of Nations.↩
- Adviser to the American delegation.↩
- See telegram No. 743, October 14, 4 p.m., from the Chairman of the American delegation, p. 264.↩
- For text of statement, see telegram No. 377, October 16, to the Chairman of the American delegation, p. 277.↩
- November 17, 6 p.m., p. 307.↩