President signs Neutrality Act

Congress passed the neutrality act and the President signed it yesterday.

The act would prohibit sales of arms and materials to any party if war should break out in Europe. It also stipulates that American citizen travelling does so at his or her own risk.

President Roosevelt said that the new law would require American vessels to obtain a license to carry arms, would restrict Americans from sailing on ships from hostile nations and would impose an embargo on the sale of arms to "belligerent" nations.

It provides the strongest language yet warning other countries that the U.S. would increase its patrol of foreign submarines lurking in American waters. This stated neutrality is mostly a response to Germany's insistence on rebuilding her forces despite the Treaty of Versailles prohibiting such.

The President lobbied congress for the Executive ability to impose economic sanctions on nations at the Presidential discretion. Congress did not take this option and has chosen a complete neutrality.

The act will expire in six months on February 29th.

Debate over Neutrality Act

Today was an exciting day on Capital Hill. Senate Joint Resolution No. 173 was debated by both chambers of Congress and later voted on. This controversial legislature was finally passed.

There of course was criticism of Roosevelt and this course of action. Senator Tom Connally, Democrat from Texas went on Congressional record on the saying

Is it an expression of neutrality to say to two warring nations, one of which has ambitions for territorial conquest, the other unprepared, the other weak, the other trying to pursue its own destiny—is it neutral to say to those nations, "We shall give arms to neither of you," thereby insuring the triumph of the prepared nation, the covetous nation, the ambitious nation, the nation which seeks by force of arms to impose its will on a weaker and defenseless nation?

Mr. President, that is not neutrality; that is a form of unneutrality. That is a form of declaration which announces that the United States will take the side of the strong and powerful against the weak, the unprepared, and the defenseless. Why not leave that determination to the President of the United States when and if, in his conduct of our foreign relations, it becomes a sound American policy for him to take a position in a crisis of that kind?

We cannot now put the United States into an international strait jacket and thereby keep out of war. We cannot by an act of Congress put the United States into a concrete cast internationally which will fit all future occasions and solve all future problems

Across the Atlantic Ocean in Great Britain there has also been critics. Liberal member David Marshall Mason remarked that the Neutrality Act was pre-emptive. He said "No act of war so far has been committed by Italy against Ethiopia, therefore the resolution is premature."

Later, he seemed to go back on this statement when he said "...it is a direct encouragement to Italy to proceed with her war of aggression against Ethiopia by proclaiming to the world that in such an event the United States intends to remain neutral. I trust the powers composing the League will carry out the resolutions of the League and that powers outside the League, such as Germany and Japan, will act sympathetically."

Mister Mason continued his statement with a conditional: "Should the powers stand up to the their covenant, I pray and trust peace will be preserved, and such a decision does not rule out the possibility of still meeting the just aspirations of Italy for an honorable settlement."

It's a provocative statement on the times but the fate of a sovereign nation is still within the hands of those duly elected to serve it. The League has not the power to force a nation to create war when it wishes not to.

Update on Abyssinian Crisis

The League of Nations continues to do nothing to avert a looming war. When a deadline they selected came they noted that no fifth power had been selected to join in the talks with Italy and Abyssinia. Then the body limited talks between Italy and Abyssinia to anything except the sovereignty of Walwal.

Abyssinia has pled for a lifting on the arms embargo and officially did so today. They, unlike Italy, are poorly equipped for war with a European power.

Great Britain steps in

As the Abyssinian Crisis continues, Abyssinia asks for neutral observers on June 19th and Great Britain moves in to stop a possible war. They sent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden to negotiate peace in late June.

However, Mussolini is bent only on conquest of Abyssinia. Eden returned to Britain with nothing accomplished.

The response from Great Britain is that the Royal Navy will be clearing all of its ships from the Mediterranean Sea in the event war breaks out.

The League of Nations has also imposed a ban on armaments to both nations.

Italian-Abyssinian talks crumble

The two states have been talking in the Hague since June 25th. But the past weeks have been for naught: the talks have dissolved as of today. Both countries are exactly where they were when they started the talks.

Abyssinia and Italy meet

The two nations have quarreled now for months. Today they are meeting in the Hague to come to some agreement that will not being them to outright war.

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement

After two weeks of negotiations, Germany and Great Britain have finalized an agreement between the two nations regarding Naval building. It is now known as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (A.G.N.A.)

The Germans will be limited to only 35% of the British Royal Navy. In addition, Germany would have to build a balanced fleet so as not to concentrate their materials into one class of ship.

The agreement as it has been agreed to:

"Exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the German Government regrading the Limitation of Naval Armaments-London, June 18, 1935.

(1)

Sir Samuel Hoare to Herr von Ribbentrop Your Excellency, Foreign Office, June 18, 1935

During the last the last few days the representatives of the German Government and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been engaged in conversations, the primary purpose of which has been to prepare the way for the holding of a general conference on the subject of the limitation of naval armaments. I have now much pleasure in notifying your Excellency of the formal acceptance by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the proposal of the German Government discussed at those conversations that the future strength of the German navy in relation to the aggregate naval strength of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations should be in the proportion of 35:100. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard this proposal as a contribution of the greatest importance to the cause of future naval limitation. They further believe that the agreement which they have now reached with the German government, and which they regard as a permament and definite agreement as from to-day between the two Governments, will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on the subject of naval limitation between all the naval Powers of the world.

2. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom also agree with the explanations which were furnished by the German representatives in the course of the recent discussions in London as the method of application of this principle. These explanations may be summarised as follows:-

(a) The ratio of 35:100 is to be a permanent relationship, i.e. the total tonnage of the German fleet shall never exceed a percentage of 35 of the aggregate tonnage of the naval forces, as defined by treaty, of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or, if there should in future, be no treaty limitations of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

(b) If any future general treaty of naval limitation should not adopt the method of limitation by agreed rations between the fleets of different Powers, the German Government will not insist on the incorporation of the ratio mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph in such future general treaty, provided that the method therein adopted fo the future limitation of naval armaments is such as to give Germany full guarantees that this ratio can be maintained.

(c) Germany will adhere to the ratio 35:100 in all circumstances, e.g. the ratio will not be affected by the construction of other Powers. If the general equilibrium of naval armaments,as normally maintained in the past, should be violently upset by any abnormal and exceptional construction by other Powers, the German Government reserve the right to invite His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to examine the new situation thus created.

(d)The German Government favour, the matter of limition of naval armaments, that system which divides naval vessels into categories, fixing the maximum tonnage and/or armament for vessels in each category, and allocates the tonnage to be allowed to each Power by categories of vessels. Consequently in principle, and subject to (f) below, the German Government are prepared to apply the 35 per cent. ratio to the tonnage of each category of vessel to be maintained, and to make any variation of this ratio in a particular category or categories dependent on the arrangements to this end that may be arrived at in a future general treaty on naval limitation, such arrangements being based on the principle that any increase in one category would be compensated for by a corresponding reduction in others. If no general treaty on naval limitation should be concluded, or if the future general treaty should not contain provision creating limitation by categories, the manner and degree in which the German Government will have the right to vary the 35 pe cent. ration in one or more categories wil be a matter for settlement by agreement between the German Government and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in the light of the naval situation then existing.

(e) If, and for so long as other important naval Powers retain a single category for cruisers and destroyers, Germany shall enjoy the right to have a single category for these two classes of vessels, although she would prefer to see these classes in two categories.

(f) In the matter of submarines, however, Germany, while not exceeding the ratio of 35:100 in respect of total tonnage, shall have the right to possess a submarine tonnage equal to the total submarine tonnage possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government, however, undertake that, except in the circumstances indicated in the immediately following sentence, Germany's submarine tonnage shall not exceed 45 per cent. of the total of that possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government reserve the right, in the event of a situation arising, which in their opinion, makes it necessary for Germany to avail herself of her right to a percentage of submarine tonnage exceeding the 45 per cent. above mentioned, to give notice this effect to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and agree that the matter shall be the subject of friendly discussion before the German Government exercise that right.

(g) Since it is highly improbable that the calculation of the 35 per cent. ratio should give for each category of vessels tonnage figures exactly divisible by the maximum individual tonnage permitted for ships in that category, it may be necessary that adjustments should be make in order that Germany shall not be debarred from utilising her tonnage to the full. It has consequently been agreed that the German Government and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will settle by common accord what adjustments are necessary for this purpose, and it will be understood that this procedure shall not result in any substantial or permament departure from the ratio 35:100 in respect of total strengths.

3. With reference to sub-paragraph (c) of the explanations set out above, I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have taken note of the reservation and recognise in the right therein set out, on the understanding that the 35:100 ratio will be maintained in default of agreement to the contrary between the two Governments.

4. I have the honour to request your Excellency to inform me that the German Government agree that the proposal of the German Government has been correctly set out in the preceding paragraphs of this note.

I have. & c.

SAMUEL HOARE

---

(2)

(Translation)

Herr von Ribbentrop to Sir Samuel Hoare

Your Excellency, London, June 18, 1935

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of to-day's date, in which you were so good as to communicate to me on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the following:-

(Here follows a German translation of paragraphs 1 to 3 of No. 1.)

I have the honour to confirm to your Excellency that the proposal of the German Government is correctly set forth in the foregoing note, and I note with pleasure that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom accept this proposal.

The German Government, for their part, are also of the opinion that the agreement at which they have now arrived with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and which they regard as a permanent and definite agreement with effect from to-day between the two Governments, will facilitate the conclusion of a general agreement on this question between all the naval Powers of the world.

I have, & c.

JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP,

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Germany

Britain agrees to Germany's demand

Despite the initial hostility between the two delegations, owing Ribbentrop's blunt demands, a change of opinion came over the British delegation. In a report to the British Cabinet, that they “definitely of the opinion that, in our own interest, we should accept this offer of Herr Hitler’s while it is still open...If we now refuse to accept the offer for the purposes of these discussions, Herr Hitler will withdraw the offer and Germany will seek to build to a higher level than 35 per cent...Having regard to past history and to Germany’s known capacity to become a serious naval rival of this country, we may have cause to regret it if we fail to take this chance...”

during talks between Sir Robert Craigie, the British Foreign Office’s naval expert and chief of the Foreign Office's American Department and Ribbentrop’s deputy, Admiral Karl-Georg Schuster, the Germans conceded that the 35:100 ratio would take the form of tonnage ratios, during the Germans would more or less build their tonnage up to whatever the British tonnage was in various warship categories.

In the afternoon, the British Cabinet voted to accept the 35:100 ratio, and Ribbentrop was informed of the Cabinet’s acceptance in the evening.

Ribbentrop demands a new ratio

Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German representative in talks to increase German Naval re-armaments, has demanded that the British accept a ratio of 35:100. This would mean that for every 100 tonnes that the British had, the Germans could build 35 tonnes.

British Foreign Secretary Sir John Simon was visibly angry with the opening demand made by the German delegates. He remarked “It is not usual to make such conditions at the beginning of negotiations”. He promptly left the talks.

Britain talks to Germany

After Germany began to re-militarize, nothing but official protests came from the Western European powers of Great Britain and France. It appears the are less concerned with the military restrictions within the Treaty of Versailles than economic ones in the form of reparations. It is these reparations that Germany has been burdened with that has led to political upheaval with the cash strapped Germany.

Great Britain has had many who have believed that the restrictions placed on Germany were too harsh. They were the ones that France, a country that suffered greatly during the Great War, had pressured the other allies for during the Peace talks after armistice.

As such, the British have elected to talk to Germany about their military situation. Joachim von Ribbentrop, formerly a champaigne businessman, has arrived in London today to discuss the details of an agreement between the two nations. More as this story develops.

League of Nations resolves to do nothing much

The League of Nations met during a special session from May 21-22 to discuss the Abyssinian Crisis. Though much was said, nothing is being done.

At this time, the League has resolved to meet if no fifth arbitrator has been selected by June 25, or if a settlement was not reached by August 25. They can offer little hope to Abyssinia which finds itself with a knife to its throat.

Great Britain accepts Hitler ovetures

After Hitler's speech in Berlin yesterday, the British cabinet met today and voted to formally take up Hitler on his offer. Advice had come from Sir Eric Phipps, the British Ambassador to Germany, that no chance at a naval agreement with Germany should be lost “owing to French shortsightedness”. In addition, Admiral Chatfield also informed the cabinet that they should not oppose Hitler's offer but what the reactions of the French will be to it are more uncertain and its reaction on our own battleship replacement still more so."

The two countries will meet in the coming days to negotiate the details of an agreement between the two nations. It is unknown if Great Britain has had any communications with Italy or France regarding this new development.

Hitler defines German Naval future

Chancellor Hitler, in a speech in Berlin today, made overtures toward discussing German militarization with Great Britain. He said "The German Reich government recognizes of itself the overwhelming importance for existence and thereby the justification of dominance at sea to protect the British Empire, just as, on the other hand, we are determined to do everything necessary in protection of our own continental existence and freedom".

In the speech he also noted that Germany has no intentions of returning to the Naval Arms Race that dominated the Atlantic ocean in the years proceeding 1914 and the outbreak of the Great War. The speech carried an air of quid pro quo. The Germans would like to assume a superiority of the continental Europe while offering their respect of Great Britain's mastery of the seas.

Abyssinian protests

Though it seemed the crisis was subduing, the Italians are unwilling to stop the military buildup in their colonies bordering the Empire of Abyssinia. Abyssinia is protesting the buildup considering the mixed message it sends.

Simon visits Hitler

Sir John Simon, the British Foreign Secretary, is in Germany today to speak with Chacellor Hitler of that country's efforts to re-arm. Though this is a violation of the Treaty of Versailles, there seems to be room for diplomatic wrangling.

Recently, Hitler has declared that all articles in the Treaty of Versailles relating to Germany's militarization have been rejected. As a completely new government than the one that signed the Treaty, this is possible. However, it is quite unusual.

Italians yield

After three and half months of appeals by the Abyssinian Empire to the League of Nations, something has finally happened. Italy has finally yielded to the League of Nations on arbitration of the Walwal Incident that occurred December 5th.

Abyssinia makes another appeal

The Abyssinian Crisis continues. On February 23rd, the Italians began to increase the troop level in the neighboring colonies of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. With little international protest to these actions, Mussolini continued undeterred.

On March 8, Abyssinia again requests arbitration and notes Italian military build-up that no one seems to care about.

On March 13, Italy and Abyssinia agree on a neutral zone in the Ogaden. Yesterday, Abyssinia again appealed to the League due to continued Italian build-up that shows no sign of decreasing.

Germany violates Treaty of Versailles

In clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's Chancellor Adolf Hitler has ordered the rearmament of Germany. Germany was limited to only 100,000 men in its armed forces with even fewer arms. Military Conscription was also reintroduced to facilitate a better military.

Germany's Air Force

Yesterday, Germany announced the existence of the Luftwaffe. Unofficially, this has been known since February 26th.

In clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the government of Germany has been producing planes for two years. There has been no reaction from Great Britain or France.

At this time, Great War Ace Pilot and President Hermann Göring is the Minister and Oberbefehlshaber of the Luftwaffe.

Abyssinia makes second appeal

The Government of Abyssinia makes a second appeal to the League of Nations for arbitration in the Walwal incident. This was a skirmish between Abyssinian and Italian troops in Abyssinian territory that took place on December 5th.

The League of Nations has done nothing at this point prompting the Abyssinians to ask again for arbitration.