500.A15A4/2588: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bullitt) to the Secretary of State

340. I had a long conversation with Litvinov this morning and found him chastened and pessimistic. He said that as a result of his participation in the meetings of the Council of the League of Nations and his conversations in Geneva he was convinced that ultimate war in Europe was inevitable; that there was not one government in Europe, even the French, which was ready to do anything real to preserve peace; and that he felt that there was nothing for the Soviet Union to do except to strengthen the Red Army in every way possible and rely on the Army to protect the Soviet Union from attack. He added: “I think we had better even use the few millions that we might pay you on a debt settlement75 for tanks and guns.”

He said that he believed there might be some hope of preserving peace in Europe if the suggestion that he had advanced some months ago76 with regard to the establishment of a “permanent peace conference” in connection with the League of Nations should be adopted. He asserted that he had been able to arouse considerable interest in this proposal among the leading powers represented at Geneva because those powers ardently desired that the United States should be involved in the maintenance of European peace and the “permanent peace conference” would be a mechanism by which the United States could participate in the most important work of the League without becoming a member of the League. He asserted that he intended to draw up a constitution for a “permanent peace conference” which would be so framed that the Council of the League would be reduced to a [body?] which would occupy itself with minor questions only, questions of war, peace and disarmament being handled by the “permanent peace conference”. He said that he intended to propose that the “permanent peace conference” should have a Council composed of the present members of the Council of the League plus the United States.

Litvinov said that since the chief interest of the other powers in establishing such a conference would be to obtain the participation of the United States his task would be immeasurably lightened if he could know that the United States would participate. He asked me if [Page 155] I would obtain as soon as possible the views of my Government with regard to this proposal.

I replied that I would be glad to ask my Government for its views but that I should not be surprised if the answer were long in coming. I reminded him that the question of adherence to the League of Nations was still a question of major political importance in the United States and one which aroused violent emotions, that his proposal would certainly be criticized in the United States as a method of entering the League by the back door. He replied that the United States had already done so by accepting membership in the International Labor Bureau. I answered that membership in the International Labor Bureau in my opinion did not in any way involve us in the obligations of a member of the League but that membership in his proposed “permanent peace conference” might be viewed in another light.

There is certainly no need for immediate reply to this request for information but I feel sure that Litvinov in the course of the next few weeks will bring up the matter again and that it will be advisable to have a reply in readiness.

Bullitt
  1. For correspondence relative to Soviet-American debt negotiations, see Foreign Relations, The Soviet Union, 1933–1939, section on 1934.
  2. For text of Soviet proposal introduced at meeting of General Commission of May 29, 1934, see Minutes of the Bureau, vol. ii, p. 212. For Soviet project of a permanent disarmament organization, see enclosure to memorandum by the Secretary of State, December 19, post, p. 206.