500.A15A5/532
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State (Phillips)
[Washington,] November 1, 1935.
I told the British Ambassador that I would be grateful to him if he would
check with his Government with regard to one matter connected with the
naval situation; I would not hand him a memorandum or even an aide-mémoire on the subject, but I would read to
him a statement and give him a copy thereof so that he could use it if
he so desired in communicating with his Government; I then read him the
accompanying statement and handed him the paper. In doing so I said that
I assumed there had been no change in the attitude of the British
Government in this connection, but I would be glad to have an answer to
the question merely for my own information.
The Ambassador said that he would be very glad to communicate at once
with his Government on this subject.
[Annex]
Text of Statement Read to the British
Ambassador (Lindsay)
The American Government would appreciate learning whether the
information of the British Government confirms its own understanding
that the principal claim advanced by Japan last year continue[s] to
constitute the basic aim of that Power and is likely again to be put
forward during the conference, namely, the claim for “a common upper
limit” in such a form as to amount to an increase in the Japanese
ratio and ultimately designed to bring about parity with the Fleets
of the United States and the British Empire.
When this claim was brought forward by the Japanese Delegation during
last year’s conversations, it was the view of both the British and
American Governments that, regardless of the form in which a
quantitative agreement might be cast for the sake of meeting
Japanese preoccupations, the two Governments must reject
unconditionally the Japanese demand for parity, in whatever name and
in whatever guise, and that they could not agree to a settlement
which would in effect alter to the advantage of Japan the relative
fleet strengths resulting
[Page 139]
from the Washington and London Treaties. This Government continues
to adhere to this position and intends to maintain it during the
forthcoming conference. It would appreciate being informed whether
it is correct in assuming that this is and will also be the position
of the British Government.
