500.A15A4 General Committee/243: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson)
311. Your 569, March 17, and subsequent telegrams commenting on the British proposal. The following paragraphs represent the views of the War and Navy Departments regarding the British proposal other than Part I, which has already been covered in our 308 of March 20.
As the two Departments find themselves in general accord with your comments, a detailed statement of their views seems unnecessary except in so far as they take a somewhat different approach from yours.
Effectives. Inasmuch as the table appearing at the end of Chapter 1 relates only to continental Europe, the War Department considers it unnecessary to submit any views regarding the figures other than to state that it considers the numerical limitations arrived at by the Hoover formula to be far superior to the arbitrary figures used in the British proposal. The former, moreover, more adequately safeguards the interests of the United States (exclusion of the National Guard, et cetera). As regards the application of Chapter 1 to the United States, the views expressed in your 5714 have the approval of the War and Navy Departments.
The Navy Department, moreover, believes that the primary method of limitation of naval forces (including air forces assigned to the Navy) should be the limitation of material which affords the only [Page 73] reasonable basis for the limitation of personnel. It also desires it to be understood, as regards Clause (b) of Article 13, that all personnel of the Marine Corps except the Marine Corps Expeditionary Forces, are assigned to or destined for service afloat (see your 418 of October 25, 19325).
Land Material. With respect to the general question of abolition of aggressive weapons, it is the War Department’s position that there should be no obligation to destroy material. In its opinion this applies for example (a) to mobile guns exceeding 155 mms. which the War Department is willing to emplace on fixed mounts, (&) to tanks which should be brought within adopted limit by attrition, (c) to airplanes scheduled for abolition, which the War Department desires to be able to convert to non-prohibited military purposes or civil uses. The War Department further considers that there should be no time limit for the conversion of heavy mobile artillery in view of the fact that to place them on fixed mounts will require large appropriations which may not be forthcoming within the required period. The purpose of any provisions for abolition of material might, in the War Department’s view, be strengthened by the additional agreement that, pending a final disposal, such material shall not be used in war for any prohibited purpose.
The War Department cannot agree to fixing the maximum caliber of mobile land guns for the future at 105 mms. Aside from the arguments against the British proposal cited in paragraph 1 of your 575,6 the War Department points out that the 155 mm. gun is practically the only type we have in medium artillery for the field forces and is, moreover, best suited to our purposes. On the other hand, it is prepared to accept a maximum limit of 16 inches (406.4 mms.) for Coast defense guns, with the proviso that should any nation project naval guns of greater caliber, the limitation should terminate. It holds, however, that no agreement to reduce calibers of naval guns should affect the calibers of our Coast defense guns.
Articles 20 and 21 regarding tanks, are satisfactory.
If any reservations be made by another Power to the principle of abolition of mobile artillery above 155 mms. in caliber, the War Department considers that the American Degelation should make a reservation at least in favor of the continuance of the use of heavy mobile guns in the Canal Zone and Oahu, where this artillery can be used only for the purposes of defense.
The War Department considers your remarks regarding the absence of a quantitative limitation on artillery in the British proposal as well taken since it has always held that the real solution of the problem of limiting artillery lies in this field.
[Page 74]Naval Armaments. The Navy Department considers Sub-Chapters 1 to 3 as acceptable, provided annexes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 agree in substance with the corresponding provisions of the London Naval Treaty. Articles 31 and 32 of Sub-Chapter 4 are also acceptable. As regards Article 33, the Navy Department recognizes that among the many questions that must be settled and which should be examined by the Permanent Disarmament Commission, that of qualitative reduction is important. It considers, however, that the prominence given to it by making it the only specific question to be examined is not warranted; it therefore is of the opinion that the second sentence of Article 33 should read:
“It will also examine and report on all questions relating to the limitation of naval armaments which the Commission may consider could appropriately come before the said Conference.”
Air Armaments. War and Navy Departments agree that abolition of bombardment from the air is acceptable provided it is universal and complete. They oppose the British reservation in Article 34 relating to “outlying regions” and concur in the remarks contained in paragraph 1 of your 577.7 If it should prove impossible to delete the British exception, however, the War Department believes that the United States should insist on the following proviso: “except in defense of outlying possessions”.
Both Departments are in accord with the comments contained in your 577 regarding Article 35. While the Navy regards the complete abolition of military and naval aviation as impracticable, it shares the Army’s view that it is unnecessary to present the position of the United States on the subject at this time. Both Departments support your comments on Articles 36, 37 and 39–41 inclusive. As to Article 38, they are prepared to accept the status quo in dirigibles, with right of replacement in case of loss or accidental destruction during convention.
While both Departments favor numerical limitation of aircraft, they cannot accept the figures contained in the table8 which follows Article 41. They regard as essential the sub-division of aircraft into military and naval aviation; the total of 500 suggested for the United States is inadequate, under present circumstances, for the Navy alone. It is impossible to accept parity among the principal Powers as suggested by the British. The actual number to be allotted the several Powers must be the subject of further discussion. The Navy, moreover, considers that it is impossible to fix the number of planes necessary for naval defense until a final naval limitation has [Page 75] been settled and that naval aircraft ratios average principal maritime powers should correspond to tonnage ratios.
Exchange of Information. The inclusion of Article 34 of the Preparatory Commission Draft Convention is acceptable. The Navy, however, recommends the omission of Article 35 of the Draft Convention inasmuch as the data required in connection with notification of the modification of merchant vessels for mounting guns would be difficult to collect and are not of great importance.
Chemical Warfare. The two Departments interpose no objection to Article 47, provided it be understood that no set of impractical conditions on retaliation in kind be agreed to. This could best be insured by omitting the last clause of the third paragraph beginning “subject to such conditions as may hereafter be agreed”. Articles 48 to 51, inclusive are acceptable provided it is understood that Article 48 does not prohibit the use of lachrymatory gases for domestic police purposes. Both Departments believe every effort should be made to eliminate Articles 52 and 54 but if necessary to a general agreement will not oppose them. They consider that Articles 53 and 55 should be rejected unconditionally.
No comment as to the remaining Articles of the Plan.
Full texts of letters containing more detailed comments of the two Departments9 are being forwarded by the next pouch.