File No. 763.72112Sa/32

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain ( Page)

[Telegram]

753. For Sheldon [from War Trade Board]:

No. 1029. Your 1190, Embassy 930, August 8, 7 p.m. We are very much surprised at the reversal by the Foreign Office of their previous decision to join with France, Italy, and United States in making announcement to neutral governments concerning German “safe conducts.” The reason for this change as given by your cable does not seem to us to be convincing. It has, of course, been obvious from the beginning and it was clearly set out in our 926, Department 403, July 25, 7 p.m., that there was a certain amount of danger lest the Germans claim that they were attempting to facilitate and the Allies to tie up neutral shipping. The necessity of taking effective steps through newspaper propaganda to combat this was set out in our cable referred to. We also for this reason proposed a form of declaration which would not commit us to any definite course of action, but which would constitute in effect but an express reservation of rights conceded us by international law. The British Government in accepting the policy advocated by us seemed, however, desirous to go even further than we had thought fit by adding to the declaration a statement relative to the possible detention of all vessels bearing German “safe conducts” and, we understand, by favoring making public officially the action taken. It is therefore with very great surprise that we note the British reversal of what we had assumed was a maturely considered decision reached by them. You do not indicate any new or special objections urged by their ministers in the European countries. We have heard from the American diplomatic representative in all of the neutrals affected, and their opinion on the whole is as favorable as could be expected in the case of a uniform course of action to be taken in several different countries. Of course, conditions are not identical in all of the neutral countries and it must be expected that each legation will desire our action to be especially adapted to the special conditions of its own country. We feel, however, that the advantage of simultaneous and uniform action more than outweighs the advantage of attempting to deal with each neutral as a special case.

The Ambassador to Spain expresses his approval of the suggestion which he thinks cannot fail to impress the Spanish Government. His only suggestion is that the announcement be not made public. The Legation at Christiania appears to be heartily in favor of the proposed course of action and desires that the Allied announcement [Page 1097] be made public. Recent cables shown us by French here indicate that ministers at Christiania are anxious to be authorized at once to take the proposed action. The Legation at Copenhagen suggests only a modification of the procedure, recommending that announcement be made publicly at Allied capitals rather than to neutral governments. The Legation at Sweden [Stockholm] agrees that vigorous action should be taken in view of German control being exercised to bring about a breach by Sweden of the recently concluded agreement. Legation at The Hague appears to disapprove of announcement but apparently is under a misapprehension as to the real purport thereof, the Legation assuming that it definitely commits the Allies to preventing all Dutch boats carrying German “safe conducts” of whatever character. The Minister seems apprehensive lest our declaration would operate to make void the assurances heretofore given covering the Nieuw Amsterdam and the Dutch vessels in Dutch ports on March 20. The French communicated to us the views of their representatives in the neutral countries concerned and these views correspond in general to those of our own representatives.

Taking into account these expressions from the neutral capitals, we still adhere to the views heretofore expressed by us unless there are presented against the proposed course of action arguments which are stronger than any yet disclosed to us. We note that the British Government is in favor of making a declaration to the Swedish Government and proposes to send a similar note to any other neutral governments as soon as information is forthcoming that conditions imposed by German “safe conducts” warrant such action. As pointed out in our No. 962 [926], it seems to us almost inevitable that unless the Allied position is promptly and forcibly expressed the German Government will develop its “safe conduct” system, as in the case of Sweden, to a point where the Allied Governments must take notice thereof. One of the primary reasons for advocating the proposed course of action is to forestall such development of the “safe conduct” system by Germany and to assist those neutrals, such as Norway, who are negotiating with Germany to secure the elimination of the most obnoxious features of German control. If the British are prepared to make the proposed announcement to the Swedish Government, and if, as appears to us to be the case, there is every reason to believe that similar action will at some future time have to be taken by the Allies in respect of the other neutral countries, we do not see the advantage of waiting and dealing with these situations in an isolated manner when they arise. We feel that the effect upon Germany and upon the neutrals will be far greater if at the outset the four Associated Governments communicate an identic [Page 1098] statement to the neutral governments concerned. We would prefer, however, for reasons heretofore expressed, to eliminate the last sentence which the British Government desired to add to the text of the statement proposed by us, and we would also prefer not to make public in any formal manner the text of the statement or the action of the Associated Governments in making the same.

As an instance of the control which Germany is beginning to exert over neutral shipping, even in western Atlantic waters, we call to your attention the case of the Swedish ship Ceylon. This ship was to have taken a cargo of merchandise to Montevideo, but the Swedish Legation asserted very vigorously that this Swedish vessel could not be allowed to carry cargo to Uruguay which had broken relations with Germany. It is inconceivable to us that Germany will not attempt to extend this control and apply it to all neutral shipping, and we accordingly reiterate our opinion that the Associated Governments should take immediate action in respect of the neutral government concerned, at a time when German control by “safe conduct” is still a novelty and when on this account it can perhaps be most effectively met. You will please at once lay before the British officials with whom you have discussed this matter, the foregoing views of the War Trade Board.

Lansing