740.00111 Armament Control/1141
Memorandum by the Chief of the Office of Arms and Munitions Control (Green)
The Turkish Ambassador called at my office by appointment this afternoon. He told me that his Government was on the point of entering [Page 179] into a contract with the Glenn L. Martin Company to purchase 20 bombers of the type 139 W to be delivered next summer. He said that the Company had assured him that this Government had no objection, on the ground of military secrecy, to the exportation of planes of that type, but that he would appreciate receiving confirmation of that statement from me before the contract was closed.
I told the Ambassador that the plane known as 139 W was essentially the same as that known as B–10–B; that these planes could be freely exported provided that the armament and other special items of equipment did not involve military secrets of interest to the National Defense; and that I did not suppose that the Glenn L. Martin Company would contract to sell the planes with armament and equipment which had not been released for export.
The Ambassador was unable to give me any definite information in regard to the types of bomb racks and machine guns which are to be installed in the planes which his Government proposes to purchase.
The Ambassador asked whether he was correct in his understanding that the recent decisions of the President, in regard to restrictions on the exportation of military secrets, did not involve any more stringent restrictions on exports than those which were already in effect.
I replied that his understanding was correct.
The Ambassador said that the provisions of Section 1 of the Neutrality Act of August 31, 1935, as amended by the Neutrality Act of February 29, 1936, caused him considerable anxiety. He said that his Government would be required to make a substantial down payment at the time the contract was signed and, therefore, stood to lose a great deal of money if it were to become a belligerent before the planes were delivered and delivery was prevented by an embargo. He asked whether exceptions could not be made in favor of deliveries pursuant to contracts already entered into.
I told the Ambassador that no such exceptions were possible under the law.
The Ambassador asked whether I could give him any information as to what new neutrality legislation might be enacted at the forthcoming session of Congress.
I replied in the negative.