500.A15A4 General Committee/921: Telegram

The Ambassador in France ( Straus ) to the Secretary of State

392. From Norman Davis.

1.
In about an hour’s conversation this afternoon with Barthou he reiterated the position outlined by the French note of April 17th,44 and reaffirmed the statements that he had made yesterday afternoon in the Chamber of Deputies, with particular emphasis on the fact that none of the statements closed the door to negotiations for disarmament but merely made clear the impossibility of accepting or legalizing in any way rearmament. He said that he was going to Geneva with hope that something could be done and that he had received information that since the note of April 17 the attitude of England had moderated and that even in Germany there was a slightly better disposition. He said that the point of view of the French Government represented the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet which meant that it represented the opinion, beginning with Marzp [Marin?],45 on the extreme right through Marquet,46 the Neo-Socialist, which was consistent with all French policy on disarmament and that it did not cancel any of the offers which France had ever made towards disarmament, in particular Paul-Boncour’s note of January first47 which set forth the actual steps in disarmament which France would be willing to take in return for adequate security.
2.
With regard to procedure at Geneva Monsieur Barthou said that he did not have any calculations as to how it would work out. But should the General Commission fail to make any progress he felt that it could appropriately return its mandate to the Council of the League which had given it and that it would then be up to the Council to find a way of continuing the work, although it would be no more confined in any new effort to states members of the Council than it had been in setting up the Disarmament Conference.
3.
I told him this would raise difficulties for the United States and he said that he had been for 4 years Chief of the Reparation Commission on which the United States had collaborated without being a member and so he knew how such things could be worked out in practice.
4.
As for Russia, which would be faced with the same problem, he felt it would be essential to associate it perhaps more closely as probably [Page 72] the principal task of any such new organization would be to attempt to organize the peace of Europe through an interlocking system of regional European conventions. He said that he was at work at the present, actively with M. Litvinoff and Rosenberg48 on a draft of an Eastern Locarno destined to include Russia, Germany, France, the Baltic States, Poland and Czechoslovakia.49 He had discussed this project in his late visits to Warsaw and Prague. Should this succeed it would be complemented by a Mediterranean Locarno attached to the Balkan Pact,50 and including Italy, Turkey, Greece, Spain and France to which England would be impressed upon to give a kind of moral support in view of its control of the Straits.
5.
I told him that I was glad to learn from him that France has not changed her position as to the desirability of disarmament and that she is still prepared to agree upon disarmament if it is possible to achieve it in accordance with the conditions which she previously indicated.
6.
I also told him that about a year ago we were given to understand that Europe could organize for peace and agree upon disarmament provided there were some assurance that the United States would not interfere with legitimate measures that might be taken by the European powers to enforce peace, and that the statement which I made in Geneva last May51 as to the policy which the United States would adopt under certain circumstances was all that could be expected of us and would be sufficient to enable them to get together. In Simon’s last speech, however, he seemed to indicate that Great Britain will not join states in economic sanctions without the definite cooperation of the United States. He agreed that this seemed to be demanding more of the United States in the way of pledges than had been done heretofore, but intimated that England was taking this position as a pretext. He seemed rather bitter towards the British, stating that while it was easy to talk frankly with Eden it was not the same with Simon. He said that we would have to see if it were possible to have a frank talk with Simon at Geneva.
7.
Barthou said that although he knew that the United States could give no guarantees it would seem that England had gone backwards since last October with regard to useful collaboration in the organization for peace. He, however, stressed that the effect of the April 17th note had been to bring them to a firmer realization of the situation in Europe and to the threat to her own security, of German rearmament particularly in the air.
8.
I asked Barthou whether he thought it was desirable and possible to get Germany back once more into the framework of the negotiations. He replied that he was in full agreement as to the desirability and that France would do nothing in any way to offend German susceptibilities in the hope that it might be possible, which, however, in view of the present German attitude he felt was very unlikely.
9.
It was evident that he was eager to know just what attitude we would take at Geneva. I told him that I was considering a reiteration and full statement of the American views with regard to disarmament and that while we could not participate in European settlements we were desirous of cooperating in getting a disarmament agreement. [Davis.]
Straus
  1. Négociations rélatives à la réduction et à la limitation des armements, p. 72; for English text, see Great Britain, Cmd. 4559, p. 20.
  2. Louis Marin, Minister of Public Health.
  3. Adrien Marquet, Minister of Labor.
  4. Négociations rélatives à la réduction et à la limitation des armements, p. 19; for English text, see Great Britain, Cmd. 4512, p. 3.
  5. Marcel Rosenberg, Soviet Chargé in France.
  6. For correspondence concerning an “Eastern Locarno” Pact of Mutual Guarantee, see pp. 489 ff.
  7. Signed at Athens on February 9, 1934, by representatives of Greece, Rumania, Turkey, and Yugoslavia, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cliii, p. 153.
  8. May 22, 1933, Press Releases, May 27, 1933, p. 387.