500.A15/462 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, April 5, 1927—6 p. m. 109. Course you outline in your telegram No. 214, April 4, 8 p. m., is approved, and I authorize statement along lines indicated at time you deem most opportune. Begin statement at point reading "I therefore venture to recommend." I suggest that it might be desirable to omit portion beginning "that of course we could not become a party” and ending "which might be achieved by their agreement." This portion might be open to misinterpretation and does not seem to be necessary. KELLOGG 500.A15/464: Telegram The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory GENEVA, April 5, 1927-9 p. m. 216. Commission in this morning's session took up question limitation of naval effectives. After general discussion in which I briefly stated our position, the question was reserved as Cecil declared that he could take no further part in discussion until he received an answer to his request for instructions. While he in no way committed himself, this tends to indicate that he may go some distance in meeting French thesis. Remainder of morning session and entire afternoon session devoted to discussion comparative methods of limitation of naval units by classes or by total tonnage. The majority of delegates set forth their views on the general subject without deviation from the position taken by them in subcommittee A. Paul-Boncour, however, at the end of a speech delivered with what seemed clearly deliberate moderation of tone stated that France might be prepared to envisage the publication of its naval building program within the total tonnage to be allocated to her. Having purposely refrained from speaking until after PaulBoncour, I took occasion, after making a statement as to our attitude on this question, to observe that the suggestion made by Paul-Boncour and the general spirit of the remarks in which he had couched it, opened up most interesting and hopeful possibilities and that we should be glad to examine any proposal he might bring forward. Cecil expressed himself in the same sense and requested Paul-Boncour to put his suggestion precisely in writing. This the latter agreed to do. Marinis 38a then said that as regards publicity respecting naval building programs he thought the pertinent provisions of the Washington treaty might afford a basis of agreement. He also will submit his proposal in writing. These two written proposals will probably come before the Commission tomorrow and I shall then be able, if necessary, to ask for instructions thereon. GIBSON 500.A15/465: Telegram The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State GENEVA, April 6, 1927-5 p. m. 221. Cecil informs me his Government is prepared under certain conditions to yield to the French in regard to the limitation of naval effectives. He is informing Boncour that he will be prepared to discuss acceptance of such limitation provided (1) that acceptable agreement can be reached in regard to some compromise such as that outlined in my 216, April 5, 9 p. m., and (2) that limitation of effectives is accepted by the United States and Japan. He feels that while limitation of naval effectives is not a sound method he can see no vital objection to it and is disposed to make certain concessions to the French if this will lead them to reciprocal concessions on naval tonnage. Although we believe that the method of limitation by limiting effectives unnecessarily complicates the problem and have so represented to the Conference, we are not prepared to contend that it is wholly inadmissible. The views of the Navy Department are especially desired on the subject in view of the fact that the effectives of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard will necessarily be included in naval effectives. Due consideration of the fact that our air effectives are integral components of the naval effectives also is necessary. This latter not being the case with Great Britain or Italy will naturally affect the number of effectives necessary for us in comparison with those two countries. GIBSON Italian delegate on the Commission. 500.A15/465: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, April 7, 1927-6 p. m. 110. Your telegram No. 221, April 6, 5 p. m. Navy Department does not find acceptable the principle of limitation of naval effectives. KELLOGG 500.A15/480: Telegram The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory GENEVA, April 9, 1927—10 a. m. 225. Department's 110, April 7, 6 p. m., and my 221, April 6, 5 p. m. Cecil repeats that his Government is prepared to yield to the French on naval effectives, providing that acceptable agreement can be reached with respect to limitation of tonnage. While fully realizing that limitation of naval effectives is not a good or even a practical method I feel that the question has now reached a brighter phase where you may feel it advisable to consider making concessions if by so doing an acceptable compromise agreement can be reached on the more fundamental important question of tonnage limitation. Department will of course bear in mind situation created if British yield and leave us alone in opposition. The possible effect of any agreement on the contemplated three-power conversations will be watched and you will be kept fully advised of progress. I therefore request the Department's instructions at its earliest convenience. 500.A15 a 1/171: Telegram GIBSON The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] LONDON, April 9, 1927—4 p. m. 83. Text of memorandum from naval attaché of Embassy follows: First Lord of Admiralty informally requested naval attaché to see him, and attaché called last evening. Bridgeman emphasized that he was speaking only for the Admiralty not for the Government but expressed his views as follows: He feared that divergent positions might be taken by the United States, Japan, and Great Britain as a result of certain proposals now being made at Geneva and thought that an effort was being made to prejudice the success of the Three-Power Naval Conference by causing discord among the powers concerned at the present time. The French proposals he considered clever though impossible of acceptance and was confident that the present discussions at Geneva would yield nothing tangible. He trusted that unanimity in replying to questions raised at the present session of the Preparatory Commission might always be preserved among the three delegations. While deeming it best that no change be made in the attitude adopted last summer as regards opposition to theory of total tonnage or personnel limitation, he believed that modifications in details might for diplomatic reasons be made and that he would have no objection to them on the condition that the United States and Japan acted identically. Bridgeman laid emphasis, however, on fact that no pressure was being exerted by the Admiralty upon either of these powers to make them depart from agreements in principle already arrived at. It was the naval attaché's opinion that the First Lord appeared hopeful of results which the Three-Power Naval Conference might yield but that he also appeared to think that a prerequisite to its success was that the three powers should not enter upon it committed to different engagements arising out of the present negotiations. Bridgeman stated that he expected to head the British delegation, accompanied by naval officers including Vice Admiral Field. He added that the British delegation would present to the Conference proposals of an easily comprehensible kind. Commenting upon this, the naval attaché thought that the British scheme that has been formulated is not in accordance with some of the recent proposals at the present session of the Preparatory Commission which have been partially approved by some of the powers. As Bridgeman felt that cooperation in the matter was of importance he emphasized the fact that he would be grateful if his views were communicated to the appropriate American authorities. HOUGHTON 500.A15/480: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) WASHINGTON, April 10, 1927-6 p. m. 113. Your 225, April 9, 10 a. m. The Navy Department feels that, while the French method of limitation of naval effectives is not acceptable, if a workable form of limitation of total strictly naval personnel, unhampered as to assignment or employment at home or abroad, could be devised some compromise on this subject might be accepted, possibly in exchange for some other concession. Should Great Britain and Japan consent to limitation of naval effectives as one of the elements to be taken into consideration in the limitation of naval armaments, you are authorized to yield on this point as a matter of conciliation, after restating our opposition to the principle and after outlining the difficulties of estimating the number to be used as a basis for such limitation in the United States, as the Navy includes the Marine Corps and also aviation units. Furthermore, the position of the coast guard, which comes under the Treasury Department, would have to be especially considered. You should likewise inform the Conference that you will be compelled to insist on the exclusion of the above mentioned classes of naval personnel from consideration in the total for purposes of limitation when the question shall arise. KELLOGG 500.A15/483: Telegram The Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] GENEVA, April 10, 1927-6 p. m. 227. I have been informed that instructions to state that the French proposal is quite unacceptable have been received by Cecil today. Unless and until some agreement is reached on naval matter, Boncour holds that it is futile to continue discussion of the other phases of the draft convention under consideration. In strict confidence I was told this afternoon by Loudon, chairman of the Commission, that he believes these facts will be announced to the Commission tomorrow during the morning session. It is believed that the French and British will recognize each other's honest effort towards compromise and will come to an agreement that the best course to pursue will be to adjourn immediately, in order to give the Governments time to negotiate some form of agreement, in the hope that it may be possible sometime in June to reconvene the Preparatory Commission. The belief is held by Loudon that every effort will be made on both sides to leave the door open for eventual compromise and he seems confident that there will be no recriminations. GIBSON 500.A15 a 1/171: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, April 11, 1927—2 p. m. 71. Your No. 83, April 9, 4 p. m. The Department appreciates Bridgeman's frank statement of his views. You may inform him |
