500.A15A5/466: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in France (Marriner)
348. Your 717, August 20, 5 p.m.65 and 722, August 22, 5 p.m. Mr. Henry, of the French Embassy, came in to see Mr. Dunn today to inquire as to this Government’s views in connection with the present naval situation, particularly the British Memorandum to the French and their reply. He was in substance informed as follows:
This Government had not as yet definitely formulated its position with regard to details, but certain tentative general observations might be communicated to the French Government with the understanding that they were preliminary and might require modification in the light of further developments. On this assumption, Mr. Henry [Page 104] was told that the United States continued to support the principles and major provisions of the Washington and London Treaties as the most practicable means of limiting and reducing naval armaments; that this Government nevertheless recognized the apparent impossibility of continuing the present Treaties; that it reluctantly found itself obliged to agree with the French Government’s view as to the difficulty of coming to a general agreement regarding quantitative limitation; that it nevertheless had not abandoned all hope of achieving some kind of quantitative limitation; that it had been agreed at the conclusion of last year’s conversations in London that the British Government should explore the possibilities of an indirect quantitative limitation through the limitation of building programs; that these explorations on the part of the British Government had apparently not as yet been concluded, and that we would wish to await the final results of these explorations before determining our own position with regard to the possibility of further quantitative limitation.
Mr. Henry was further informed that this Government was anxious to preserve as many of the principles and provisions of the Washington and London Treaties as could be saved; that it was therefore in agreement with the French Government’s view that, if quantitative limitation proved impossible, there should at least be sought an agreement as to qualitative limits. On the other hand, this Government was of the opinion that any attempt substantially to modify existing qualitative limits, as embodied in the naval Treaties, would complicate an already difficult situation in that each country would advocate limits best suited to its own particular naval purposes; and that it would be much wiser to continue the present treaty types for as long a period as possible.
With respect to the French proposal for advance notice of laying down (préavis), Mr. Henry was advised that no full consideration had as yet been given to this idea, but that it seemed primarily in the nature of a minimum achievement in the event that all other means of limitation should fail; that it therefore seemed premature to lay down a position respecting this proposal at the present time; and that our ultimate views regarding it would have to depend on later developments and on the manner in which it would fit into the general picture.
In conclusion Mr. Dunn expressed our appreciation for the French Government’s desire to keep us informed of developments and hoped that it would be possible, when occasion arose, to continue this informal exchange of views.
You may use this information in any conversations on the naval question you have with officials of the Foreign Office. We are giving [Page 105] no publicity to the naval exchanges which have been proceeding either with the British or with the French, and hope that it may be possible to keep these preliminary talks confidential since we do not believe that the prospects of ultimate agreement would be advanced by a detailed public discussion at this time.
Send copy to Amembassy at London for Atherton’s information.
- Not printed.↩