811.04418/457: Telegram
The Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 5—9:47 a.m.]
247. Your circular July 2, 2 p.m. I have not heard the matter discussed thus far by any important Italian officials or others nor could I provoke any useful discussion on the subject in view of the extreme reticence observed by Italians generally when speaking with foreign diplomatic representatives in regard to international politics.
However, the responsible press may be accepted as reflecting the official view on matters of this kind. While all newspapers here reported the vote of the House of Representatives as a definite set-back to the President’s policy and as having caused much disillusionment in London and Paris only the Turin Stampa has to date commented at length on the subject. That newspaper on July 2nd remarked that Bonnet10 had been too hasty in assuming “he had the United States in the bag” since Congress only a few days after the British royal visit11 had “perhaps irreparably” defeated the amendment desired by the President in neutrality legislation with a view of helping France and England. Opposition to excessive administrative powers and dislike for a venturesome foreign policy had united “in dealing a perhaps decisive blow to Franklin Roosevelt’s dictatorial pushing”. This set-back, the newspaper added, should not be over-estimated; certainly it did not mean a friendly attitude toward the totalitarian powers. It did however check the plans of the democracies. It was safe to predict that between now and the next elections the United States would be absorbed in the “eternal struggle” between executive and legislature. “International questions will also be agitated in the background but barring most unexpected developments practical policy will consist in avoiding complications and restricting responsibilities. [Page 664] The Anglo-French idea of setting forth to war with the open immediate backing of the United States is irremediably compromised”.
Gayda in the Giornale d’ltalia wrote on July 3 that “the United States does not appear, according to the responsible sagacity of a notable portion of its political representatives and people, to be that easy servant and supplier of Franco-British war planes which London and Paris had taken for granted.”
In my opinion the action of the House is most unfortunate. The President’s recent message to Mussolini12 made a profound effect in all circles here although it was naturally criticized in the Italian press. The fact however that it was followed by such widespread support in both the Democratic and Republican press throughout the United States left no doubt in the minds of Italians that the country stood unitedly behind the President in his foreign policy. This was of first importance because Italians in high positions had come to believe that the United States was a negligible quantity in international relations because of its divided opinions.
The House vote is now regarded as proof again that the United States need not be taken seriously in the event of war. And yet this is the moment above all moments when the President’s prestige should be upheld throughout the world and any weakening of it such as that entailed by the recent action of the House unless corrected may have far reaching and disastrous consequences because undoubtedly it would stiffen the attitude of Germany and Italy against the democracies.