Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, The British Commonwealth, Eastern Europe, the Far East, Volume III

861.24/1369½

Memorandum by Mr. Elbridge Durbrow of the Division of European Affairs⁵³

[Washington,] December 8, 1943.

Mr. John Russell⁵⁴ of the British Embassy called yesterday to make inquiry as to the latest developments in the matter of exchanging technical information of a military nature between the United States and the Soviet Union.⁵⁵

Mr. Russell stated that the British Embassy had recently received requests to expedite, if possible, United States agreement on this question and stated that the British hoped we could press this matter and draw up a tripartite agreement for the exchange of information.⁵⁶ Mr. Russell promised to bring me informally a proposed draft of this agreement.

Last evening Mr. Russell introduced me to a civilian expert of the Admiralty⁵⁷ who is in the United States for the purpose of discussing with the Combined Chiefs of Staff the working out of an agreement for the exchange of technical information of a military nature with the Soviet Union.

Both the expert and Mr. Russell expressed the hope that immediate consideration could be given to this question by the Department and indicated that they are also pressing for immediate consideration by the Combined Chiefs of Staff. They explained that because of the political implications and postwar trade matters involved in the exchange of technical information they felt that this question should receive the approval of the political branch as well as the military branch of the Government.

In explaining the reasons for the desire to reach an agreement as soon as possible the expert showed me a paper he had drawn up indicating the advantages to be gained by giving technical information to the Soviets. In this connection he indicated that since the Moscow and Tehran Conferences⁵⁸ the British Government felt that the chances of the Soviet Union joining in the war against Japan had been increased but that they could not take this step until they had built up their technical military equipment in the Far East which could be done most rapidly by the United States and Great Britain furnishing them some of our latest technical developments. Furthermore, he indicated that it was felt that if we should make available to the Soviet authorities all technical and military information except certain specified items which for security or other reasons could not be disclosed, it was hoped that the Soviet authorities would make available to the American and British Armies detailed information on their experience gained in large land operations. He felt that this information was most necessary in connection with the invasion plans.

I promised to take the question up immediately and inform him in the matter.

Elbridge Durbrow

P. S. Since dictating this memorandum I have found the attached memoranda⁵⁹ indicating the reasons why this matter was not followed up last year.

In view of the friendly atmosphere of cooperation now prevailing after the Moscow and Tehran Conferences I feel it would be advisable to make a serious effort to reach an agreement with the Soviets regarding the exchange of technical information whether we immediately receive concrete information from them or not. I understand that a lot of the information which was considered to be secret a year ago has already fallen into the hands of the enemy but as yet we have not released this information to our Soviet Allies and there is no reason now why we should not make this available to them. This question is closely related to postwar use of patents and possible licensing arrangements with Soviet organizations for the manufacture of American products. Heretofore the Soviet authorities have been reluctant to sign licensing agreements and have, as a rule, endeavored to copy American equipment after purchasing a few models. It might be appropriate in connection with the exchange of military information to drive an opening wedge for an agreement covering licensing in connection with postwar trade. E. D.

53. Addressed to H. Freeman Matthews, Chief of the Division of European Affairs, and James C. Dunn, Adviser on Political Relations.
54. John W. Russell, Second Secretary of the British Embassy.
55. For previous correspondence on this matter, see despatch No. 6107, October 28, 1942, from the Ambassador in the United Kingdom, and memorandum of December 17, 1942, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs, Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. iii, pp. 738 and 753, respectively; also telegram No. 208, January 8, 1943, midnight, from the Chargé in the United Kingdom, ante, p. 738.
56. See aide-mémoire of October 6 from the British Embassy, vol. i, p. 544.
57. Patrick M. S. Blackett, Director of Naval Operational Research at the Admiralty.
58. For documentation on the Tripartite Conference in Moscow, October 18–November 1, 1943, see vol. i, pp. 513 ff.; on the Tehran Conference, see Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943.
59. Memorandum of December 17, 1942, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs is printed in Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. iii, p. 753; others not printed.