867.24/186: Telegram
The Ambassador in Turkey (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
Ankara, October 15, 1941—4
p.m.
[Received October 16—6:26 a.m.]
[Received October 16—6:26 a.m.]
383. Fact that Turks have definitely disappointed us on chrome issue now confronts us with question of justification for further material contribution to Turkey’s war potential in view of what is at least in appearance politically equivocal position of Turkish Government as between British Allies and German friends.
- 2.
- I assume that what we have already given and contemplated giving to the extent of some tens of millions of dollars has been for sole purpose of fortifying Turkey as bastion of Allied position in Near and Middle East. However much therefore we may resent timid and tepidly loyal attitude of that Government, question is not one of how much it deserves but how much is necessary or desirable for purposes we have in view—that is of what will best serve interests of British and Allies. There may indeed be question in the minds of British as to degree to which Turkey is essential to plans for eventual defense of this general area.… One may even hear whispers of military calculation whether defense against direct German thrust through Asia Minor could be most effectively made on line of Straits with full cooperation of Turkish Army or on that of Taurus Mountains regardless of Turks but free on almost insuperable problem of supplying any considerable forces by very inadequate available means of communication across Anatolia. This is not yet, so far as I know, an immediate question; but it might become factor in British calculations as to their attitude towards Turkey as a potentially active ally.
- 3.
- So far as I know, however, British plans still take account of Turkey as major factor even despite dualism of policy to which your 173, October 198 referred. And my own feeling is that so long as British think it necessary or desirable to strengthen Turkey as much as possible and to keep her convinced (even at expense of very onesided cooperation) of community of war purposes we should go on furnishing to her material she desires so far as it is politically possible for our Government to do so.
- 4.
- In view, however, of levity with which Turks accept what we give them as though it were their right yet refuse to recognize that we have any locus standi in their affairs (incidentally Foreign Minister in conversation with Hugessen has referred to my memorandum October 799 as “wholly unjustified”) I venture to suggest once more [Page 910] that we abandon policy of aloof and impersonal beneficence and take every possible occasion to make Turks conscious of fact that we are doing very great deal for them but only because and so long as we believe them to be making common cause with democracies and that we naturally reserve our right to decide whether at any juncture Turkish policy of placating Germans would make it not worth our while to go on giving. (Turkish authorities are now aware of fact that supplies for them have been at least partially withheld for certain period. In connection with any explanations that may be made on this would we be warranted in conveying (both in Washington and here) intimation that such misunderstanding or working at cross purposes as actually occurred could scarcely have taken place if warmth of interest in their behalf had not been made lukewarm by indefiniteness of their position as implied by their adoption of policy of appeasement.)
- 5.
- I should in this connection suggest that you ask Turkish Ambassador for precise details of arrangement which has been made with Germany concerning chrome as to which our representations have been ignored but which have obvious present and future relevancy to whole policy of defense production and Lend-Lease assistance; and make clear that if we are to continue furnishing war material to this Government we shall expect it to recognize privity of interest with United States.
MacMurray