File No. 658.119/601
The Ambassador in Great Britain ( Page) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 7, 10.45 a.m.]
1679. War Trade Board [from Sheldon]:
No. 1386. Referring to your No. 1156, Department’s 1169, September 4, 3 p.m.,1 and your No. 1376 [1161], Department’s No. 1191,2 September 5, and Stockholm Legation’s 2694, August 22, 10 a.m. [p.m.]
The following telegram has been approved for transmission to the I[nter-]A[llied] T[rade] C[ommittee] at Stockholm and is being sent to-day.
The following is for your information but not for official action by you. We have carefully examined the communication from [Page 1288] M. Wallenberg, reported in Sir E. Howard’s telegram No. 2352 of Aug. 20, regarding various exports to the enemy, to which the Swedish Government claim to have committed themselves, and the communication which the Allied representatives at Stockholm propose to make to the Swedish Government on the subject. The serious situation which has now come to light would not in our opinion adequately be met by the demands for reparation which have been suggested. These in themselves appear to us unlikely to afford any strong material advantages, and, in the case of the proposed demand for copies of the Swedish Government’s agreements with German Government, to lay the Associated Governments open to undesirable requests for reciprocity which it might be difficult to meet, but we are principally opposed to putting forward specific demands for reparation on the ground that there is more to be gained by holding our hand, and giving the Swedes to understand that such serious breaches cannot be atoned for by mere compensation.
As regards the specific breaches, we make the following proposals:
- (a)
- Animal hair and impregnated canvas. We have great difficulty in believing the canvas is of local origin and should be glad if further inquiries could be made and details furnished.
- (b)
- Pulp and paper. Swedish Government should be asked for a list of the licenses issued and of the shipments made thereunder giving the date both of the issuance of the licenses and of the shipments. They should also be required to give an understanding that pending the production and examination of these statistics, the issue of licenses and shipments under existing licenses will cease.
- (c)
- Ores and slag. We await further information promised.
- (d)
- Pyrites. We regard the Swedish Government’s conduct in this matter as a most serious contravention both of the spirit in which the agreement was negotiated and of the express terms of 2(A) (4). We are quite unable to accept Swedish Prime Minister’s suggestion that the export of pyrites is covered by the terms of letters 9 and 10, attached to the agreement. Incidentally this is also incompatible with M. Wallenberg’s attitude of disapproval. Information as to the pyrites contract ought certainly to have been imparted to the representatives of the Associated Governments at the time of the negotiations, yet no indication whatever of what was proceeding in Sweden was allowed to reach us. This [omission] is aggravated by the fact that a list of exports to the enemy since the conclusion of the agreement, which was furnished by the Handels Kommission to the American Minister at Stockholm, discloses no particulars of the pyrites exports, which are now admitted to have taken place. The whole transaction throws a most unpleasant light on the general attitude of the Swedish authorities. We consider that strong representation should be addressed immediately to Swedish Government, on the above lines, with a demand for a categorical undertaking that the export of pyrites shall cease definitely and permanently, at once. Each of the delegates of the A[llied] B[lockade] C[ommittee] is recommending to his Government that their Legation in Stockholm be instructed to make those representations collectively.
Since writing the foregoing I have received your 1161, Department’s 1192 [1191], September 5, 3 p.m. On discussing with the [Page 1289] Foreign Office here as to whether it would be advisable to ask for the text of any agreement that Sweden might have with Germany, the decision was in the negative. It was felt that if Sweden agreed to this, it might later be necessary for her or other neutrals to communicate texts of agreements with the Associated Governments to Germany, and further, we feel we are in a stronger position if we rely on the specific terms of our own agreement.