740.0011 Four Power Pact/20

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Moffat)1

The accounts we have had to date of the origin and contents of the Mussolini proposal are not altogether clear and are in part conflicting.

The idea for a Four Power grouping appears to have originated not with Mussolini but with MacDonald. Prior to the latter’s departure for Rome he discussed the idea in confidence at Geneva, notably with certain Polish officials of the League Secretariat, who subsequently told Mr. Gibson1a about it (telegram No. 581 of March 21, from Geneva2).

According to these informants, MacDonald’s main preoccupation was the setting up of a small super Council of the four principal European Powers which would sit almost continuously and take decisions to be carried out by the regular Council of the League, thus remedying the latter’s unwieldiness and lack of policy and continuity.

A more far-reaching organization3 of this sort is already in existence among the Little Entente States who have for some time been acting as a unit at Geneva, but who nevertheless are protesting against the Four Power project as spelling the ruin of the League.

Just how MacDonald’s conversations at Geneva link up with the Mussolini proposal is not clear. At all events, Mussolini, on the morning of March 18, shortly before the arrival of the British Ministers,4 transmitted a tentative proposal to the British,5 French6 [Page 397] and German7 Ambassadors. The exact contents were kept secret and were withheld from our Ambassador at Rome,8 although in conversations with the diplomats concerned and with the Italian Foreign Minister he was able to obtain piecemeal some of the constituent elements. (Rome’s telegrams Nos. 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19).9

In general, Mussolini’s plan was one for a Four Power Pact among Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany, to be concluded for a period of ten years and designed to bring about collaboration of these Powers in preserving European peace. The draft not only recognized the need for revision of the peace treaties but made such specific suggestions as a revision of the Hungarian peace settlement and of the frontiers of the Polish Corridor10—including the return to Germany of a strip of territory which would connect East Prussia with the rest of the Reich; the return of Danzig to Germany; a provision for collaboration among the Four Powers regarding their extra European, particularly their Colonial, interests. Apparently certain as yet undetermined advantages in Colonial territories were contemplated for Germany in return for a relaxation of her attitude toward the Corridor; similarly, some fulfillment of Italy’s Colonial aspirations in the Near East or elsewhere, was envisaged. (London’s No. 47 of March 2111).

This draft proposal was submitted to and discussed with MacDonald and Simon in Rome. They found parts of it unacceptable and a new draft was consequently prepared. It was this second text which the British Ministers took with them to Paris for discussion with the French Government. Exactly what changes were made is not certain. While the Italian Government, according to the German Ambassador at Rome, takes the view that there are no essential differences between the two texts, Mr. Garrett understands that the references to the Polish Corridor, Danzig, Hungary and the Colonies were omitted at the request of the British.

The German and French reaction toward the first draft is reported by Garrett as follows (the attitude toward the second draft is not available):

Germany. The German Ambassador at Rome was instructed by his Government to inform the Italian Government that Germany can accept the text in principle. The Ambassador considers that the chief importance of such a pact would lie in the recognition by France that conditions have changed and that there should consequently be certain revisions of the peace treaties.

[Page 398]

France. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs13 informed the French Ambassador at Rome that some change in the first text would certainly be necessary. The Ambassador thought that, in place of a bald statement of revision, a formula upholding the sanctity of treaties but recognizing changed conditions which might call for revisions, should prove acceptable to his Government.

In yesterday’s debate on foreign policy in the House of Commons, the most interesting points made by the Government were:

1.
The Prime Minister’s success in securing active Italian cooperation towards Franco-German reconciliation.
2.
A scheme is suggested of peaceful approach to the revision of the peace treaties within the framework of the League of Nations.
3.
Consultation with smaller States where their interests are involved.
4.
No consideration has been entertained for surrender of British mandates in general and Tanganyika in particular.

A purported text of the proposal was given in London’s No. 48 of March 21,14 but it is not clear which of the two drafts it represents. A copy is attached, as well as a copy of telegram No. 18, March 22,14 from Rome, giving the text of a memorandum sent to Mr. Garrett by the Italian Foreign Office, which purports to describe the Pact.

P[ierrepont] M[offat]
  1. Submitted to the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State.
  2. Hugh S. Gibson, Acting Chairman of the American delegation to the General Disarmament Conference; Ambassador to Belgium and Luxemburg.
  3. Not printed.
  4. A Pact of Organization providing for a standing council, permanent secretariat, coordination of policies, and economic collaboration was concluded at Geneva, February 16, 1933; for French text, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cxxxvi, pp. 630–632.
  5. Prime Minister J. Ramsay MacDonald; Sir John Simon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  6. Sir Ronald William Graham.
  7. Henry de Jouvenel.
  8. Ulrich von Hassel.
  9. John Work Garrett.
  10. None printed.
  11. For correspondence concerning the Polish Corridor, see pp. 448 ff.
  12. Not printed.
  13. Joseph Paul-Boncour.
  14. Not printed.
  15. Not printed.