Office of the Historian

548.G1/136: Airgram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)

Washington, June 7, 1943—6 p.m.

791. Reference Department’s 2631 of April 26, 3 p.m.

1.
Upon receipt your reply no. 3134, May 5, midnight, Department telegraphed Ambassador at Kuibyshev requesting him to obtain the views of the Soviet Government on the proposed joint declaration relating to the repatriation of refugees, in the language recommended at the Bermuda conference. The Ambassador was informed that the British Foreign Office had indicated its general approval of the text but that should objection be made by Soviet authorities to the second sentence of the final paragraph he might suggest a change providing specifically for reference to “enemy territories” and to “persons of whatever nationality displaced therefrom”.
2.
Ambassador now telegraphs British Ambassador informs him British Government desires associate itself with American approach to Soviet Government but that as it has not yet agreed upon wording last sentence of draft it suggests either no approach be made until full agreement reached between our two Governments on draft or that approach at this stage be confined merely to ascertaining whether Soviet Government would agree that a joint declaration should be made. British Ambassador stated further that his Government considered modified language proposed by Department to be too restricted and that it would like to see the words “enemy territories or territories in enemy occupation” substituted for the words “enemy territories”. American Ambassador accordingly has postponed taking up question with Soviet Government pending Department’s further instructions.
3.
The proposed joint declaration, in the wording recommended at Bermuda, first states, in the initial sentence of the second paragraph, that the Allied Governments named, upon the termination of the war, “will admit to their territories all their nationals who may have [Page 189] been displaced by the war into other countries”. The next and final sentence states that it is a part of the settled policy of those Governments “to ensure such conditions in the territories at present subject to disturbances caused by the war as will enable all such persons, of whatever nationality, to return to their homes at the end of the war”.
4.
The Department considered it possible that the Soviet Government might refuse to join in any declaration obligating it to receive in their former homes persons, other than Soviet nationals, displaced from territories now under enemy occupation. The Department therefore suggested that the final sentence refer only to “enemy territories”, leaving the first sentence to cover the occupied territories. It is now seen that that sentence only provides for the return of the “nationals” of the occupied territories and also, that French territory in occupation would not be covered. Presumably, British objection to the change arises from those considerations.
5.
The Department now proposes that the second paragraph of the declaration read as follows: “The above-mentioned Governments hereby declare that they will, at the termination of this war, admit to their territories all of their nationals who may have been displaced by the war into other countries. They further declare that it is a part of the settled policy of their Governments to ensure such conditions in the enemy countries and the countries under enemy occupation as will permit the return thereto of all persons, of whatever nationality, now displaced therefrom and who have sought refuge in other countries, because of persecution on account of their race or their religious or political beliefs.”
6.
The Department suggests this language because it promises the return of the persons in question to the “countries” of their former domicile rather than to their former “homes” which could mean the precise places where they had resided. Thus, there would be allowed a broader latitude of action in the resettlement of the displaced persons. This might particularly be more acceptable to the Soviet Government. Finally, the Department believes that the declaration should identify the persons to be repatriated as those who are refugees from persecution for racial, religious or political reasons, they being the only persons in whose behalf the declaration is to be made.
7.
Please take up the question with the appropriate British authorities and report their views as promptly as possible. Inform them that the Department is of the opinion that it would be advisable for the American Ambassador at Kuibyshev to approach the Soviet Government with a text of the proposed declaration to facilitate that Government’s consideration of the proposal.
Hull