123 Davies, Joseph E./47
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union ( Davies ) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to report a conversation which I had with Mr. Litvinov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, on February 15th, on the occasion of a luncheon at this Embassy, extended to Mr. Litvinov [Page 373] and his staff—a return courtesy to the formal luncheon extended to us upon our arrival.
In the conversation had between the two of us alone, Litvinov commented upon the Runciman visit to the President and asked directly whether discussions were had with reference to participation in economic aid to Germany. To this I replied that I was not informed except through the press. He appeared to be very much disturbed about it and again voiced his almost bitter attitude that France and England should be engaging in discussions at all with Germany. My rejoinder was that, without any express knowledge of the facts, my opinion would be that both the President of the United States and the Secretary of State would be concerned with any plan that would look to the establishment and restoration of normal international trade and stabilized conditions that would preserve peace in Europe, but I felt sure that they would exact reasonable assurances that any plan proposed would involve a more or less permanent solution which would consider not only the economic and trade conditions but a mutual disarmament program as well. I then asked him whether he did not see an indication in Hitler’s speech of a differentiation between the Russian people and the Russian Government and an opening that would permit some statement from an official spokesman of the Russian Government to the effect that it would engage itself not to project propaganda in Germany provided Germany would not project its propaganda into Russia and ventured the opinion that such a statement would deprive Hitler of his chief argument against Russia, which he is constantly hammering home. His reply was negative; that Germany was concerned solely with conquest and it was a mistake to magnify Hitler’s importance by engaging in discussions of the character which France and England were projecting. In that connection I wish to report that I have very carefully probed the opinion of some of the diplomats who have been here longest as to their views as to whether or not an arrangement between Russia and Germany was within the realm of possibility, despite their apparent bitter attitude at the present time, and the opinion is general that both sides would compose any difficulty if there were advantages to be gained.
The other matter which Litvinov brought up and concerning which he seemed much disturbed was the matter of pending neutrality legislation in the United States.17 He urged that all neutrality laws were designed as a protest against war; that at the present time such neutrality legislation from that point of view was misdirected and that it was not an agency of peace for, he urged, as in the present Spanish situation the effect of such neutrality legislation would be to project [Page 374] still greater dangers of war in Europe. To this I rejoined that the overwhelming public opinion in the United States, as I sensed it, was in favor of some form of neutrality legislation; that it was founded upon two ideas; one, to preserve peace, and the other to prevent the United States from being drawn into war; that I had not studied the various proposals in Congress but that undoubtedly the President and the Secretary of State were giving it very great attention and that I was confident that the Executive branch of the Government is provided with such measure of discretion as was reasonable and would be effective.
I did not project any topic of discussion as it was under my roof, and awaited his initiative.
Respectfully yours,
- Neutrality Act of August 31, 1935, as amended February 29, 1936; 49 Stat. 1152.↩