500.A15A4 General Committee/956: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 5—10:05 p.m.]
873. 1. The presentation of Henderson’s resolution this afternoon drew the lines of divergence even more bitterly than in any previous session.3 He had hoped thereby to reconcile the two theses of security and disarmament and to provide for the possibility of negotiations for Germany’s return, using the four basic notes as a starting point. [Page 105] When an effort was made by Madariaga in the hope of conciliating the French and gaining their adherence to the resolution to omit reference to this basis for negotiations the British declined to accept any procedure which did not mark its importance. Soragna,4 going beyond his instructions in an effort to gain agreement stated that he would likewise have been willing to adhere to Henderson’s original proposal but could not accept any modification which would not underline the importance of securing Germany’s return.
2. In a speech full of insinuations that Henderson had relegated security to the background thus departing from that impartiality which should characterize the chairman Barthou declined vehemently to accept his suggested method of procedure. While he said that the door was still open for Germany to return he emphasized that Germany must return to the League and Conference without any conditions and that solution of the security problem must be the condition precedent to France’s signature to any disarmament convention. He brought out very forcibly France’s unwillingness to accept any parallel arrangement of security and disarmament. He said that the guarantees of eventuality to which France attached prime importance a few months ago no longer had any value in view of the publication of the German military budget. It is clear from his speech that France is being very strongly influenced by their new alignment with the Russians who are outspoken in their opposition to any efforts directed toward bringing Germany back into the negotiations.
3. Henderson declared vehemently that he could not permit Barthou’s insinuations of partiality to pass unchallenged and in a magnificently courageous reply he repudiated any charge of partiality explaining that because of the failure of the Bureau yesterday to agree on any program of work in order to save the Conference he had undertaken to offer a reasonable compromise. Not only had he given security an equal place with disarmament but it was given prominence in his proposals. He showed that the two theses must be considered parallel and he could not accept the French contention that security was paramount nor could he submit to the adoption of any program which could not permit Germany’s return to the discussions. This attitude of France he explained was blocking any hope of agreement and unless the French would agree to present a program of their own which must take into consideration the views expressed by all delegations and provide reasonable hope of success he saw no hope for the future work of the Conference. Furthermore he was so determined to be fair and impartial that he would not submit to the framing under the auspices of the Conference of any pacts of mutual assistance which constituted the encirclement of any country. He said that Barthou [Page 106] had made more insinuations in 2 days with his impartiality and action as chairman than had happened during more than 2 years when he had been President of the Conference.
4. So extreme was the clash between Barthou and Henderson that no useful purpose could be served by any further interventions in the debate and Henderson adjourned the meeting until tomorrow without program, without agenda and with no indication of what will result.
5. I took no part in the discussions as I felt that nothing that we could have said today would have been wise or helpful.