500.A15A4 General Committee/736
The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Acting Secretary of State 2
[Received January 10.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No. 346, December 29, 1 p.m., 1933,3 in which reference was made to the first Cabinet meeting to be held in the new year on January 10th, when important decisions regarding disarmament policy must be reached. Opinion in the Cabinet on this question is very divided, in the first instance the most general division being between a small group who do not favor officially recognizing German rearmament, as against the majority of the Cabinet who believe that if German rearmament is not officially recognized England must embark upon an unpopular course of increasing her own armament, and therefore it is better in unofficial conversations at Berlin to endeavor to establish the minimum rearmament with which, as a basis of discussion, Germany would [Page 2] return to Geneva. On both these important topics, allegedly, Mr. Baldwin4 is silent. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, favor a policy of isolation from the Continent. The Prime Minister5 and Sir John Simon6 still hope, through international negotiation, to achieve something that may be called disarmament; while the warrior members of the Cabinet, including outstandingly Lord Hailsham, Secretary of State for War, Lord Londonderry, Secretary of State for Air, and Sir Bolton M. Eyres-Monsell, First Lord of the Admiralty, are frankly in favor of an increased armament policy for England. Indeed, the recent rise in aviation shares on the stock market is allegedly because the orders placed by the Air Ministry far exceed the appropriation which has been made to this Service.
There are some facts, however, which must influence the Cabinet’s decision at its meeting tomorrow week. Public opinion in Great Britain stands solidly behind the League of Nations and it is therefore probable that British policy will insist upon rigid adherence to the Covenant.7 Furthermore, the Foreign Office is unwilling that England should take a passive attitude in regard to the League since, with the adoption of any such policy, European leadership in Geneva would automatically devolve upon France. Both these considerations, I understand, were in Sir John Simon’s mind when he made his trip to Paris before Christmas; as well as an intention tactfully to point out on his subsequent visit to Rome that, while England was not eventually opposed to considering arguments for a revision of the League Covenant, it could not enter into any discussions of this nature today which might weaken the force of united action in Geneva in meeting the German policy of rearmament at this crucial period. I am told that some time in December the French Ambassador8 questioned Sir John Simon as to the truth of a report published quite recently in the Times that a questionnaire had been forwarded to Rome as to possible changes in the Covenant of the League. The Foreign Secretary allegedly informed the French Ambassador that he regretted to state that the Times these days contained many inaccuracies, and that this was one of them, since the Foreign Office, in the first instance, had not considered any revision of the League Covenant possible now. I understand that the French Ambassador, [Page 3] in reply, pointed out that any attempted revision of the Covenant of the League at this time would involve Europe in endless negotiations at a moment when such stability as the present status quo offered was vitally needed, and that the League could not function again after the proposed revision with even its present efficiency short of ten years.
The reports of Sir John Simon’s visit to Paris just before Christmas, although somewhat contrary to press predictions, have been entirely in line with well informed political opinion here. In connection with my telegram first above mentioned, I venture to refer to telegram No. 575, December 25 [24], 1 p.m., from the American Chargé d’Affaires in Paris,9 in which he avers that Sir John Simon makes it clear that England stands by the League, and that England’s position against unlimited German rearmament is very definite, while any question such as League reorganization could not be considered at the moment. The Paris telegram would further tend to confirm that Sir John Simon, in his Paris conversations, did lay the basis for a Franco-British accord on the question of German rearmament. If this accord is accepted by the Cabinet, I am told it will entail informal diplomatic negotiations with Berlin through British and French representations acting separately in an endeavor to draft an equitable disarmament convention on the basis of which the Germans will agree to return to Geneva for final discussions. However, if Germany is unwilling to return to Geneva, the members of the Disarmament Conference will nevertheless complete a disarmament convention without Germany very much as reported in my telegram No. 346, December 29, 1 p.m. In this latter eventuality Germany will be invited by the League of Nations to adhere to this convention when it is completed, with the implication that if it is not accepted Great Britain and France, together with the other League Powers, must consider their joint actions under the Treaty of Versailles.10
In view of the importance of the forthcoming League meetings and the general dissatisfaction that is currently expressed in England as to the handling of the disarmament question in Geneva by Sir John Simon, the New Year Honors List published yesterday is of extreme interest, since in particular it transfers Mr. Anthony Eden, now Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the position of Lord Privy Seal, with the understanding that he is to be “Minister to the League of Nations”. The office of Lord Privy Seal does not hold Cabinet position but it is high in rank, the holder taking precedence over the Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon. It may be assumed, [Page 4] therefore, that in the future, should Sir John Simon proceed to Geneva, Great Britain will have two representatives there, with Mr. Eden in no way subordinate to Sir John Simon.
Respectfully yours,
- The Secretary of State was attending the Seventh Pan American Conference at Montevideo from November 11, 1933, to January 21, 1934. During his absence Mr. William Phillips was Acting Secretary.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. i, p. 352.↩
- Stanley A. Baldwin, Lord President of the Council.↩
- J. Ramsay MacDonald.↩
- British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.↩
- Covenant of the League of Nations, Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1910–1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), vol. iii, p. 3336.↩
- André Charles Corbin.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. i, p. 349.↩
- Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3329.↩