61
765.84/2747
Memorandum
by the Secretary of State Regarding a Conversation With the Italian Ambassador
(Rosso)
[WASHINGTON,] November 22, 1935.
The Italian Ambassador called by his own
request and after some preliminary exchanges of the usual nature he said that
he called upon instruction of his Government to lay before me two views which
his Government supports; that he was not handing me a note or any other formal
instrument of writing; that he had reduced to writing the oral conversation
that he is proposing to conduct. The Ambassador thereupon proceeded to read to
me the typewritten copy of his proposed oral conversation:
"l- The various official
declarations and public statements issued from the Federal Government during
the last two months with regard to the Italo-Ethiopian conflict, and
particularly the statement of the Secretary of State of November 15, cannot be
interpreted otherwise than an exten-
293
DOCUMENTS
sion and aggravation, to the principal
detriment of Italy, of the meaning of the Neutrality Act of August 31, 1935.
"Although these
declarations and statements apply, formally and theoretically, to both the
contending parties, it is well known that their practical result would be
actually to impair the freedom of trade only with respect to Italy.
"Such an assumption has
been confirmed by the fact that the statement made by the Secretary of State on
November 15 specifically mentions certain commodities which Italy has been used
to buy in the United States and which, being largely employed for non military
purposes, are essential to the needs of the economic and social life of any
civilized country.
"We maintain that any measure
or policy aiming at, or resulting in, imposing restrictions which actually are
detrimental to only one of the contending parties, goes against the spirit of
neutrality.
"2- We maintain also that
the above mentioned statement of the Secretary of State is contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the Treaty signed between the United States and Italy
in 1871—and still in force—which reciprocally guarantees each contracting party
a 'complete freedom of commerce and navigation.
"No justification whatsoever
for the limitation of the freedom guaranteed by the Treaty can be found in any
international Act dealing with the status of neutrals. Reference is made in
this respect to the Hague Convention of 1907.
"Such a limitation, if and
when applied, is bound to assume the meaning of a 'sanction' and therefore the
positive character of an unfriendly act.
NOVEMBER 22, 1935."
The Ambassador paused briefly here and there
in the course of the reading to elaborate with one or two sentences, but they
did not change the purport of the instrument of writing. He then indicated his
desire to answer any question or listen to any comment I might see fit to offer
in case I desired to do so. I addressed the Ambassador and said that, of
course, he and his Government should keep in mind all of the essential phases
of the situation as it relates to this country; that in all of the past the
most cordial and friendly relations have existed between the people of this
country and those of Italy; that the people of this country today do not feel
personally unfriendly towards the people of Italy, but that they are vigorously
and almost wildly against war and are at all hazards in favor of keeping out of
the present war; that, if those participating in the war were double cousins
and twin brothers of the American people, the people of this country would be
just as violently and eternally
294
DOCUMENTS
against the war and in favor of peace and, above all considerations, in
favor of keeping away from and out of the war as would be possible. I said that
it was in these circumstances and in this highly wrought up state of the public
mind of this country that the Neutrality Act of last August was enacted and the
Executive Department was directed to pursue the policy of neutrality which it
provided; that this mandate of Congress was promptly put into effect when the
President declared a state of war to exist between Ethiopia and Italy and
declared an embargo on the shipment of arms, ammunition and implements of war
to either of the belligerents; that at the time heavy pressure was brought to
bear upon the State Department also to include a number of prime and essential
war materials out of which finished arms, ammunition and implements of war
might be made in large quantities over night; that since that time insistent
demands representing large groups of sentiment in this country have been made
upon the Executive Department to include these war materials in the embargo
issued under the Neutrality Act against arms, ammunition and implements of war.
I added, in this connection, that I hoped that the Ambassador and his
Government would recall the experience of the people of this country in ways
that will shed much light upon the state of mind and the viewpoint of the
people and of this Government in accordance with it, and that is that our
country sent 2,000,000 men to Europe to fight for Italy and other countries at
an enormous cost to this Government and this country; that we likewise loaned
Italy much money at the time and afterwards; that we later made almost a
nominal settlement with the Italian Government at twenty-five cents on the
dollar, all of which, with interest, is due and unpaid, to say nothing of other
vast indebtedness in Europe; that I have been besought during past months to demand
aggressively, if necessary, payment by the Italian Government of this
indebtedness instead of its spending hundreds of millions in this Ethiopian
conquest. I said that I had not done so thus far, but until this time I had
been willing, on a suitable occasion, to sit down with the Ambassador and seek
a satisfactory adjustment of the indebtedness. I then said that with the
extremely disastrous and unsatisfactory experience of the American people in
going to Europe and aiding Italy and other countries to the extent they did,
they are almost wild in their demand that we not only avoid being drawn into
the war but that we stay entirely away from the same; that the people of this
country are in no state of mind to engage in any activities or steps except those
primarily looking towards keeping out of the war and in a secondary or sub-
295
DOCUMENTS
ordinate sense manifesting proper interest in peace and the shortening of
the duration of the war in the light of our obligations under the Kellogg Pact;
that it is in this highly wrought up state of mind of the American people that
the Government of Italy now arraigns this Government upon both a charge of
unneutrality and of violating the provisions of the treaty between the United
States and Italy of 1871 pledging complete freedom of commerce and navigation.
I said that these are surprising as well as serious complaints in the
circumstances. I said I might remark here that from the outset this Government
has pursued its own separate, independent course and initiative with respect to
all phases of the controversy between Ethiopia and Italy; that we have had no
agreements whatsoever, directly or indirectly, with Geneva or London or Paris;
that they did not know of any of the steps this Government had taken until they
read about the same in the press; that this Government believes that it has
been consistent in its course and policies and naturally feels constrained to
adhere to them; that the Government, as stated, placed in operation its
embargoes and at the same time the President warned all Americans against any
business or economic contacts with any of the belligerents, except at their own
risk. The President and myself in public statements during the weeks that
followed made it clear that this warning statement of the President was
intended, generally, to discourage any business or economic relationships
between our nationals and the belligerents; that nothing further was said by
the President, myself or the Government officials relative to business dealings
with the belligerents until some days ago when the official statistics showed
that some five essential war materials were being exported from this country to
belligerents in abnormal quantities compared with similar shipments during any
recent period, and that I thereupon made a further official statement, in which
I said that this class of business was directly contrary to the policy of the
Government in opposition to selling war materials to belligerents, which policy
was held and believed to be strictly within the spirit of the Neutrality Act;
that nothing further has been said by the President or myself with respect to
trade relations between this country and the belligerents. I then said that the
Ambassador must realize that just as soon as the American people discovered
that abnormal quantities of essential war materials were being shipped on an
increasing scale to belligerents without protest but with the silent
acquiescence of the proper Government officials, there would probably be a
storm of criticism and a loud demand for the immediate convening of Congress to
take
296
DOCUMENTS
adequate steps in the premises, and that the result scarcely beyond any
question would be a swift passage of a drastic act dissolving every possible relationship
with the belligerents pending the war. I repeatedly expressed surprise that the
Italian Government would make a complaint against this Government in all the
circumstances in the severe language that it does. I inquired whether and what
the Italian Government had said to Germany in the light of a more sweeping and
inflexible prohibition of business relations with the belligerents than this
Government has taken. The Ambassador replied that he did not know whether his
Government had made any representations to Germany. I commented rather
emphatically and stated that I had seen no published account of any complaint
whatsoever, and that it was therefore all the more strange to me to read this
rather harsh complaint against this Government, that it seemed all the more
surprising when both the Ambassador and I know that the bitterest critics of
the Executive branch of the Government and the most extreme isolationists who
are demanding that all Americans stay entirely away from the war zone do not in
the slightest question the integrity of the neutrality policies of this
Government as they are being carried out in accordance with the letter or the
spirit, or both, of the Neutrality Act. I said that it was really astonishing
to find that a government cannot be neutral without being attacked and a demand
made to supply war materials to a belligerent under penalty of being charged
with an unfriendly act. The Ambassador emphasized the view that the manner in
which this Government is conducting its policy of neutrality operates as a
discrimination against Italy. I replied that under the law of neutrality in the
past any belligerent controlling the high seas was usually at an advantage over
its enemy with respect to obtaining goods from neutral countries, that a poor
belligerent without means of purchasing and paying for supplies from neutrals
was at a disadvantage under the operation of neutrality laws, and likewise
where one country has or can produce its military supplies and another is
without such facilities or equipment, the latter suffers under the operation of
the neutrality law. I then pointed out that, in fact, under the policy this
Government is now pursuing neither Italy nor Ethiopia should be securing war
materials with the result that both countries are as nearly on a parity in this
respect as it is possible for them to be. The charge of discrimination,
therefore, does not apply. I repeatedly inquired of the Ambassador why his
Government does not sit down with others and work out this difficulty in a peaceful
manner. He made very slight and casual comment
297
DOCUMENTS
in reply. The Ambassador sought to emphasize the idea that the attitude
of his Government was not fully understood in this country and that it had been
misrepresented to a considerable extent. I commented that his Government might
well have thought of all of these and other unsatisfactory phases before
getting into the war. I stated as emphatically as possible that these trading
incidents to which the Italian Government refers and about which it complains
are entirely trivial compared with the real problems and deep concern which the
Ethiopian-Italian war causes this Government that the Ambassador must realize
the awful repercussions that make their immediate appearance in far and remote
parts of the world, but which are calculated to give this nation and perhaps
others, including Italy, unimaginable troubles for a generation. The Ambassador
immediately indicated that he knew the Far East was in mind. I added that the
second condition which is giving this Government immense concern relates to the
possible spread of the war to any number of other countries at almost any time
with unimaginable troubles and injuries and consequences to this country as
well as others; that it is, therefore, all the more deplorable to see the
Italian nation moving forward with the war, which it must realize threatens to
create these terrific problems and conditions so far-reaching that the
imagination cannot grasp their possibilities. I inquired why these
considerations were not in the mind of the Italian Government before it went
into the war and again reiterated my surprise that the Italian Government, on
the contrary, is upbraiding this Government virtually because it is thus so
deeply concerned and is striving in every possible way to keep entirely away
from and out of the war. I remarked then that the Ambassador well recalls that
the President and I pleaded with and almost prayed with Mr. Mussolini to keep
out of the war but that he ignored our plea and now seems to expect us to
furnish him with war supplies while he prosecutes the war ad libitum. I added
that regardless of anything or anybody this nation proposed to stay out of and
as far away from the war as possible, and that we feel most deeply the
indifference with which the world is subjected to the threat of a general war
and with the frightful repercussions in the Far East; that this Government is
keeping its attitude flexible under the Neutrality Act and the spirit of that
Act which is being carried out in connection with the policy of opposition to
the supplying of certain war materials to the belligerents; that if the war
should spread, for example, this Government will be in an attitude to take
further steps relative to both miscellaneous trade and the five war materials
which I recently re-
298
DOCUMENTS
ferred to in a statement opposing their shipment to the belligerents;
that this Government cannot think of any course or any precautionary plans
short of these, in view of the fact that aeroplane bases, naval bases and
submarine bases dot the entire Mediterranean section with the result that
almost at any time a conflagration might be touched off; that it is in the
light of these dangerous possibilities, which to the American people seem to be
probabilities, that this country is almost madly opposed to our Government
taking the slightest risk of being drawn into the war by permitting its
nationals to trade promiscuously with belligerents in and about this dangerous
war zone, especially in essential war materials. I stated that during the past
three years I had almost worn myself out physically in an effort to aid in
world economic rehabilitation so that Italy and other countries would have an
adequate amount of international trade to afford contentment to their
respective populations, and that the Ambassador could not begin to imagine the
deep disappointment I feel at the effort to renew the practice which all
nations have recently undertaken to abandon, relating to that of military
aggression by any and all countries at any and all times, and that, of course,
if one country is to be allowed to violate this new policy of the pacific
settlement of disputes, then every country may do so with consequences that one
shudders to contemplate. I pointed out to the Ambassador the fact that the
League of Nations organization at Geneva solemnly adjudged an aggressor in this
war, while the United States did not; that the Geneva agency seeks to aid
Ethiopia, which the United States does not; that the Geneva agency seeks to
embargo all imports from Italy, which this Government does not; that this
Government, as stated, is pursuing its own separate course without
understanding or collaboration with other governments or peace agencies, and
that in these circumstances it is not only difficult to understand the Italian
complaint but I repeat that it is surprising to contemplate it; that the mere
fact that there are some concurring acts on the part of the League of Nations
in pursuing sanctions and of the United States in frankly carrying out its
policy of neutrality is, in the circumstances, no basis whatever for a charge
against the United States of unneutrality and of unfriendliness. This makes a
mere coincidence or its absence determine the question of whether the United
States is or is not neutral, in the eyes of the Italian Government. In other
words, if there were no attempted sanctions at Geneva the United States would
be entirely neutral in carrying out its present policies of opposing the sale of
war materials to belligerents. I added that when I issued my statement on
299
DOCUMENTS
the 15th of November, about which complaint is now made, I not know and,
in my opinion, no one here knows yet what the League of Nations may or may not do
regarding concerted action to curb exports to Italy of oil and other prime war
materials, and yet here is a charge that this Government is engaged in an
unfriendly act as stated. The Ambassador said that this step, in his opinion,
would be taken on the 28th of this month at Geneva. I commented that, of
course, that remains to be seen. I inquired of the Ambassador why his
Government had not taken $100,000,000 to Ethiopia and brought back a key to the
entire Empire instead of expending several hundred million dollars in its
military conquest with all of the worry and threat of danger to the balance of
the world. He replied that Italy had been attempting for forty years to effect
colonizations in Ethiopia, but without success. I repeated that the people of this
country are as yet entirely friendly to the Italian people but added that if
his note should be made public in the United States, an inflamed public that
nobody could control or curb would be almost instantly aroused and that, of
course, the pressure of a surprising charge such as he is bringing against this
Government will in due time make the American people personally hostile to the
people of Italy, and naturally it would endure long in their minds. I took up
the complaint of violation by this Government of the treaty of freedom of
commerce and navigation of 1871 with Italy and at once stated that I was
satisfied that international and all other law makes it possible for either
country a party to this commercial treaty to remain neutral in the event the
other country becomes involved in war; that it is inconceivable that either
Italy or the United States in an ordinary commercial treaty signed away its
right to remain neutral in case of war on the part of the other and that that
is the precise reason this Government is undertaking to pursue and has no other
idea than to pursue it; that, furthermore, with both Italy and America
signatories of the Paris Peace Pact with the solemn obligations it imposes upon
each, it is not possible to understand how Italy can go to war and announce to
the United States Government that despite the Paris Pact it must supply Italy
with materials of war under penalty of being guilty of an unfriendly act, as
stated. I remarked further, without discussing the merits, that the American
people cannot be convinced that the Italian Government is not under most solemn
obligations to keep the peace under three or four treaties, and it is
incomprehensible to them to find Italy demanding of this Government that to be
neutral it must furnish war supplies and that if it fails to do so it is guilty
of an
300
DOCUMENTS
unfriendly act. I repeatedly emphasized my great surprise and
incomprehension and repeatedly inquired why his Government had not thought of
these phases before it went into the war. I finally aid that, while entirely
satisfied as to the lack of interference of the treaty of 1871 with the present
course of this Government, I would, as a matter of courtesy to the Ambassador,
again give some further attention to the authorities, although I have no doubt
hat I have examined them fully and accurately. The Ambassador id not attempt
any aggressive utterances and I endeavored throughout the conversation to make
the impression upon him that our nation and most other peace loving nations
were greatly pained and hurt to find their traditional friends, the Italian
people, in involved in this war despite the numerous treaties of peace to which
the Government is a party, and despite the awful menace to the peace of the
world which this war creates.
C [ORDELL] H [ULL]