711.60D/132
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. L. Randolph Higgs of the Division of European Affairs
Being unable to arrange an appointment with Mr. Atherton this afternoon, Mr. Vahervuori, Finnish Chargé d’Affaires came in to see me.
Mr. Vahervuori read me the attached aide-mémoire.11 After he had finished I inquired of him if his phrase in paragraph no. 2 of the aide-mémoire “member of the Finnish Government” was to be interpreted as it was in Finland, or in other words that the phrase referred only to members of the Finnish cabinet and did not include other Finnish officials. He replied in the affirmative and indicated on my pressing the point that he had information to the effect that a Finnish official had in fact congratulated the Japanese Minister on the occasion. He endeavored to pass the incident off, however, by saying that inexperienced minor officials occasionally phrased their remarks in such a way as to convey meanings which they had not meant to.
I then inquired of Mr. Vahervuori whether, in view of the point made in his aide-mémoire that the Finnish officials had not been aware [Page 119] of the character of the celebration at the Japanese Embassy [Legation], any of them had left the Legation when they did become aware that the Japanese were celebrating the attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Vahervuori replied that he had no information to that effect, but that he assumed that no one had left under those circumstances since it was contrary to Finnish character to create “demonstrations”. I commented that, for whatever reason, Finnish officials had gotten themselves into a position where they had created a demonstration against us by not leaving the party, I said that it seemed to me that under the circumstances that they were faced with the choice of “demonstrating” either against us or the Japanese and that they had chosen the former.
Mr. Vahervuori then stated that he had the impression that the Office of War Information “had it in for Finland”. I replied that I was unaware of any such situation. Mr. Vahervuori referred to the handling of the story under discussion and to recent newspaper accounts of the renewal of the Finnish-German Trade Agreement, and the headlines carried by the American press indicating a definite Finnish subservience to Germany. I said that with respect to the “Pearl Harbor” story, I could not comment on the validity of Constantine Brown’s information in his article breaking this story,12 as I had not discussed the matter before or after the publication of the article with Mr. Brown. I said, however, that it seemed to me on the basis of the information that I had in regard to the event in question and on the basis of the information just conveyed to me by Mr. Vahervuori that the sense, at least, of Mr. Brown’s article was more or less accurate in that it reported that a function had been held at the Japanese Legation in Helsinki on the occasion of the Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, that high Finnish officials had attended the function, and that the Japanese Minister had been congratulated by at least one of those officials.
Mr. Vahervuori then said that the Legation had received the previous night the Department’s note regarding the closing of the Finnish Information Center in New York and in general regarding the dissemination of Finnish propaganda in the United States and American propaganda in Finland.13 Since it was obviously in his mind, I told him that this move was in no way connected with the “Pearl Harbor” incident and that the move had been decided upon before that story [Page 120] appeared in the press and that the move would have been put into effect earlier had not Mr. Berle been unexpectedly delayed in returning to Washington.
Mr. Vahervuori then brought up certain details of the execution of the Department’s note in regard to this matter. (1) He inquired whether it was the Department’s desire that the Finnish Information Center in New York be definitely closed and I replied in the affirmative. (2) He then inquired what action the Legation could take in replying to the number of letters it was receiving in regard to the “Pearl Harbor story”; to which I commented that the Legation seemed already to have issued a statement to the press on the subject. I said that the Legation might answer these letters by referring to the Legation’s statement to the press and agreed with his suggestion that it might not be inappropriate also to refer the inquiries for further information to the Office of War Information. (3) Mr. Vahervuori then stated that the Legation received a rather large number of inquiries from schools, students, et cetera for basic information in regard to Finland and that it had been the habit of the Legation to reply to these inquiries by enclosing pertinent documents, booklets, et cetera. I said that it seemed to be the clear intention of the Department that the dissemination of pamphlets, booklets, et cetera would cease, hence I thought that in replying to inquiries of this type the Legation should confine itself to furnishing an appropriate bibliography on the subject in question. I assured him that the Department had no real desire to oppose adequate and pertinent replies to legitimate inquiries of this character but pointed out the difficulty in drawing a line between inquiries of this character and others; and hence that no printed documents of any kind should be disseminated by the Legation.
Mr. Vahervuori then jokingly inquired what new “blow” we had in store for Finland. I replied that I knew of none; but that we should be prepared for surprises so long as Professor Witting remained in office as Foreign Minister. Mr. Vahervuori interrupted to inquire whether the Department was opposed to Professor Witting on personal grounds and whether there had been any personal difficulties between Professor Witting and Minister Schoenfeld. I replied in the negative to both questions and continued by saying that any references to Professor Witting as Foreign Minister referred to his policies. I said that it was no concern of this Government whether Professor Witting remained in office or not, but that we did realize on the basis of past experience that Professor Witting’s personal policy was so closely identified with collaboration with our enemies that he might promote other measures in the field of collaboration with our enemies [Page 121] that would require action on our part. I said that as long as he remained in office, we had to anticipate under these circumstances a further deterioration in Finnish-American relations but that I could not forecast how this would come about since we had no idea, at this time, what new move Professor Witting would make.
- Not printed; this aide-mémoire was concerned with the happenings at the celebration at the Japanese Legation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.↩
- The article by Constantine Brown entitled “Finn Premier Reported Toasting Japs at Dec. 7 ‘Victory Party’” appeared in the Washington Evening Star for December 23, 1942, p. 1, col. 5. An Office of War Information radio broadcast to Finland about this incident had been made on December 17, and the text of it was printed in the Evening Star on December 24, 1942, p. 2, col. 2.↩
- See telegram No. 240, December 23, 8 p.m., to the Chargé in Finland, and footnote 97, p. 115.↩