300.115(39) City of Flint/154
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs (Henderson)
Potemkin has, of course, failed to explain satisfactorily the treatment accorded the Embassy by the Soviet authorities. He gives nothing more than a brief account of events connected with the arrival, detention and departure of the City of Flint. He does say that the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs communicated to the Embassy all of the information at its disposal. This statement, if true, merely passes the blame on to other branches of the Soviet Government for failing apparently to keep the Commissariat informed.
Potemkin’s excuse for not enabling the Embassy to communicate with the crew of the vessel is not convincing. Even though the Soviet authorities may not have permitted the crew to come ashore, they could [Page 1012] easily have given and received from the members of the crew telegraphic or other messages if there had been any desire to facilitate communications.
The grounds advanced for failing to facilitate the flight of Bohlen from Moscow to Murmansk are also weak. If Bohlen had been permitted to leave Moscow on the morning of October 27, he could have arrived in Murmansk in the evening of the same day. The vessel, according to Tass, did not leave Murmansk until the evening of October 28.
Regardless of the inadequacy of Potemkin’s explanation, it is believed that it would serve no purpose to press the matter further at the present time. As the Ambassador points out, it is not to be expected that the Soviet Government will confess to any derelictions in writing. Further inquiries and representations will probably result merely in the prolongation of an unprofitable argument and useless recriminations. Statements already made to Washington [Moscow?] have undoubtedly made the feelings of this Government with respect to the matter abundantly clear.96
- Final notation by the Legal Adviser, Green H. Hackworth: “I agree.”↩