500.A15A5/598
Memorandum of Conversation at the Admiralty, London, Between Messrs. Norman H. Davis, William Phillips, and Admiral Standley for the United States, and Viscount Monsell, Admiral Sir Ernie Chatfield, and Mr. R. L. Craigie for the British Government98
The First Lord, Viscount Monsell, stated that although the British Government was playing down the Conference and serious difficulties standing in the way of agreement, such as the situation in Europe and the attitude of Japan, he was very hopeful of eventual agreement; that no nation wanted a naval race; and that while Japan had so far refused [Page 157] to consider qualitative limitation without quantitative, he felt that once they were convinced that their claim for a common upper limit will not be acceptable to any of the powers, it would be difficult for them to refuse at least to accept qualitative limitation.
The American Delegates were informed that the French and Italians had both assured the English that they would not support the Japanese claim for parity or a common upper limit, which it was at one time feared they might do. Once Japan realizes she is thus isolated it may lead to a change in her attitude. Mr. Craigie said that the Japanese had not as yet realized what difficulties were raised by their claim for a common upper limit. When the French realized that the Japanese were claiming parity and a common upper limit for themselves with Great Britain and the United States, but not for France and Italy, who in fact were not making such claims, the Japanese position became more untenable.
Viscount Monsell said that since Anglo-American cooperation is essential if there is to be any naval agreement, it was important to clear up the few remaining questions with regard to our navies. He then brought up the question of battleships, saying, in effect, that although they had urged and still were in favor of reducing the size of battleships below the present limit of 35,000 tons, they were prepared, out of deference to our wishes and views, not to urge this reduction further now, and referred to the proposal which had been made to hold this question in abeyance until the various signatories have had the experience of their first replacement. He stated that they might use this as a means of answering questions which will be raised in Parliament in regard to their stand, which they have previously taken on battleships. He also remarked on the side, that since a reduction in the calibre of guns to a maximum of 14" would represent an appreciable economy it would help to satisfy public opinion.
Lord Monsell then said in effect: “And now, in order to eliminate any possible points of conflict, we hope that you can see your way clear to meet us on the cruiser program; that is, we hope that if we get an increase over 50 cruisers in our contemplated building program that you will not insist upon building the ships that you will build to match this tonnage in 10,000–ton ships.” After verifying the proposition and ascertaining that what they proposed to do was to increase the number of cruisers to 60, included in which would be 10 over-age cruisers which they would retain, we informed them that within the limits of this proposition we could agree to match their tonnage in types of ships. In other words, that we would not insist upon building 10,000–ton ships. However, we would not scrap any of the 10,000-ton ships already laid down, pointing out that we had 9 of these ships under contract and that they, the British, already had 8, whereupon Admiral [Page 158] Chatfield stated that they would probably build 2 more, making 10 in all.
We stated that from a purely naval standpoint there would be no objection on our part to the additional 10 Class B cruisers as we did not question the British needs in this respect, but that from a political standpoint we were in favor of a reduction rather than an increase; but that if this were the only stumbling block in the way of an agreement we were satisfied we would be able to see eye to eye with them on this question. We pointed out, however, that if there is to be no agreement for quantitative limitation but only for qualitative limitation with advance notice of building programs, the increase in cruiser tonnage which the British demand would merely be an academic one. The British expressed themselves as fully satisfied at what they deemed to be a most reasonable attitude on the part of the American Delegation.
There was then a general discussion as to the procedure of the Conference and as to the tactics which should be adopted with a view to working for an agreement. It was finally agreed that in the meeting of the full Committee that would begin on Tuesday the 10th, the British would state their views more fully, the Americans could reiterate their position and the Japanese would then undoubtedly bring up their proposals which would have to be discussed and dealt with. With regard to a formal discussion of the Japanese attitude they were opposed as we were to accepting in any way the Japanese thesis for a common upper limit and to discussing as a principle any change in ratio. In substance, however, we should be tactful and patient with the Japanese and give them an opportunity to try to justify their position.
- Copy transmitted to the Department as an enclosure to the delegation’s despatch of December 23, 1935; received January 7, 1936.↩