500.A15A4 General Committee (Arms)/318
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Under Secretary of State (Phillips)
[Received April 17.]
Dear Mr. Phillips: I learned the other day through roundabout channels that the French naval delegate at Geneva suggested “personally” on March 1st to the Italian naval experts, and afterwards to Admiral Bellairs, in the sense of Geneva’s telegram to the Department of State No. 1020, March 21, 4 p.m. On April 3rd, in the course of a visit to the Admiralty, the Naval Attaché learned the British attitude in regard to this important question, as expressed in my No. 158, April 3, 7 p.m.
I am, of course, in accord with the Department’s instruction to Geneva No. 492, March 29, 6 p.m., stating that the Navy Department is favorable in principle to such an idea, but, in so far as proceeding [Page 43] with the development of this suggestion, I believe that we should conform to what we now know is the British attitude; that is, one of sympathy with the proposal, but that it should be held in abeyance for reasons which I venture to set forth.
The French proposition is an amplification of a clause in the American proposed draft convention. This clause is, at the same time, Article 10 of the London Treaty.66 A discussion of a modification of this clause then becomes a discussion of the modification of one of the existing naval treaties which has not yet lapsed. The countries concerned, and definitely Great Britain and the United States, who, in the last analysis, probably see eye to eye, envisage something to replace these treaties when they do lapse which will be as comprehensive as is attainable. I believe the attainable is probably considerably greater than the proposition now under discussion as proposed by the French at Geneva. The naval conversations intermittently in progress, initiated by the British, in whom rests the initiative for their continuance, naturally center in London. Presumably they will culminate in a naval conference, and I read in today’s press that Secretary Swanson67 has stated his belief that there will be a London naval conference this year.
I feel the more comprehensive results hoped for here may be jeopardized by possible misunderstandings if explicit changes in existing treaties be now taken under discussion by Geneva in addition to London. Therefore I venture my opinion, for your consideration, that the policy to hold in abeyance development of the French Geneva proposal seems sound.
As reported in my telegram No. 121, March 19, 7 p.m.,68 the Germans will be coming to London for naval conversations shortly after Easter. When he was in Moscow, Eden told the Russians that if they wished to have naval conversations any delegation they might send to London would be welcome, so there may be, subsequent to the German, Russian conversations. There are, however, definitely scheduled, after the Germans leave, discussions between the French, Italians and British. These will probably take place in early May in London. With the Italian 35,000-ton battleships under construction, and the French ones authorized, the British proposition for the reduction of the size of battleships will probably not be the most immediate point at issue in these conversations. The question of 14-inch guns, however, will loom very large. I believe the British, from opinions expressed by members of the American delegation last October, understand that we would agree to 14-inch maximum guns provided all other countries [Page 44] would agree. If this is correct, and they could have such an assurance from the United States, the British would be able to stress the desirability of such a limitation agreement with the French and Italians, and point out as a further argument that they had been assured that the United States would agree to such a proposal provided all other countries agreed. Eventually such a limitation would affect Japan as well.
The Foreign Office has pointed out to this Embassy that the matter is urgent, since, if the Italians provide mountings in their naval construction for larger guns than 14-inch, it will be very difficult to get them to reduce, and likewise what the Italians build the French will insist upon duplicating, and then the race in the size of guns will become universal. The Foreign Office has stressed more than once the hope that before the British-Franco-Italian naval conversations take place in early May they may have some American assurance in regard to this 14-inch gun limitation. If this 14-inch maximum gun be the Navy Department view and our accepted policy, could I be definitely informed and authorized to advise the British. In this way it would seem to me that we might make a real contribution towards limitation in these forthcoming British-Franco-Italian conversations provided the United States policy favors a 14–inch maximum gun.
I have written this letter direct to you rather than as an official despatch, since it carries many personal opinions, and I have assured the Foreign Office that the matter of the 14-inch maximum gun would have urgent attention.
Sincerely yours,
- Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, p. 107.↩
- Claude Swanson, Secretary of the Navy.↩
- Post, p. 66.↩