124.516/361: Telegram

The Chargé in Germany (Morris) to the Secretary of State

1802. Department’s 1060, April 12, 3 p.m. and 1104, April 17, 6 p.m. In accordance with the Department’s instructions a communication was addressed to the Foreign Office on April 18 last in respect to communication facilities between Paris and Vichy. In a communication dated April 31 [30?] the Foreign Office has made the following reply to this mission’s representations.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honor to make the following reply to the Embassy of the United States of America in respect to the note verbale of the 18th of this month number 2086.

In the note verbale it was stated that large quantities of official correspondence which must be sent via Vichy to the State Department or other agencies abroad had accumulated in Paris, while in Vichy mail intended for Paris was being held. A large part of this correspondence consists of urgent communications concerning the protection in occupied France of British and other foreign interests, it was further stated that the forwarding of this correspondence was being hindered by the Germans.

These statements do not appear to be entirely understandable. As must be known to the Embassy of the United States of America the daily courier service between Paris and Vichy has been established by the German occupying authorities in Paris which is at the disposal of the foreign missions still remaining in Paris for the time being and which has also been taken advantage of by the majority of these missions. The same is the case with the corresponding daily service from Vichy to Paris. Contrary to the statement repeated in the note verbale of the 2nd of this month from the Embassy, No. 2036, the use of the English language has been permitted in this courier service for a considerable time. Furthermore transfer service is conducted in as obliging a manner as the special conditions in the occupied territory permit. The complaints expressed in the note verbale of the 18th of this month concerning the inadequacy of this service approximates [appears?] the more surprising in view of the fact that the courier connection in question, according to the reports of the German Embassy in Paris, has with one exception never been taken advantage of by those members of the American mission still remaining in Paris. This exception concerned a request for forwarding numbered telegrams intended for foreign countries which had to be refused since the official courier services intended only for the transmission of official communications between Paris and Vichy and vice versa. Therefore, it may not also be used for the forwarding of official mail to the State Department in Washington or to other destinations abroad. Similarly it may not be used for the forwarding of private mail from occupied France to the unoccupied territory or abroad.

[Page 518]

As to the statement in the note verbale of the 18th of this month that a large part of the correspondence being held in Paris and Vichy concerns the carrying out of the protection of British and other foreign interests in occupied France and that in the event of further difficulties concerning the postal connections between Paris and Vichy certain measures will be taken, it is to be remarked in this respect that matters concerning the protection of British and other foreign nationals in the occupied French territory which require diplomatic handling are to be presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Embassy of the United States of America in Berlin. The members of the American Embassy in France temporarily still remaining in Paris do not appear to be competent for these matters. It is therefore not quite understandable how urgent correspondence concerning the protection of foreign interests can have accumulated in Paris as well as in Vichy. Such delays can be avoided if in the future communications concerning the protection of foreign interests are sent only via the Embassy of the United States of America in Berlin and the route between Paris and Vichy and vice versa is avoided.”

While open mail communication with Paris is available to the Embassy it is subject to considerable delay and letters are of course liable, if not certain, to be opened. The Department will perceive that the German reply is fundamentally to reinforce its policy tending to strangle the activity and effectiveness of our Embassy at Paris with a view to bringing about its voluntary withdrawal. Not only in this long drawn out Paris question but in general it is becoming constantly more and more evident that the German Foreign Office has settled upon a policy of hampering our communications.

Morris