740.0011 Moscow/188: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 11—12:20 p.m.]
1901. Personal for the Secretary. Last night midnight I received invitation from Litvinov to attend a meeting this afternoon at 2 o’clock at Foreign Office at which he intended to inform the Chiefs of Mission of the United Nations in Moscow of the results of the Conference.
At 2 o’clock this afternoon in Litvinov’s office in addition to British Ambassador and myself were present the Chinese, Mexican, Czechoslovak, Iranian and Belgian Ambassadors; the Canadian, Greek and Yugoslav Ministers; the Chargés d’Affaires of Norway and Australia; [Page 701] and Garreau, the representative of French National Committee.
With the exception of the most secret military protocol which he did not mention and the military plans discussed, which he said were secret, Litvinov gave full summary of decisions of Conference with particular reference to the position of the Soviet Government on various points on the agenda. He omitted only any reference to question of Iran. He stated that among the means of shortening the war the position [question?] of the entry of certain neutrals was discussed, in particular the question of Turkey into war, adding that since it was decided [to take up?] this question with Turkey first of all, Mr. Eden had been empowered to take it up with Turkish Foreign Minister at Cairo.
When he came to the question of confederations in Europe Litvinov read in full the exposition of the attitude of Soviet Government toward federations made to the Conference by Molotov. He added that no objection was raised by Conference to Soviet position on this question. He referred without specifying its exact nature to the general agreement in regard to treatment of Germany but did mention specifically Molotov’s observations as to the undesirability of giving any publicity to this attitude.
He gave brief but accurate description of functions and composition of the Italian Advisory Council and the European Advisory Commission in London. He likewise read text of agreement on peace feelers and stated no objection had been voiced at the Conference to Molotov’s statement that principle of unconditional surrender should be applied to satellites of Germany such as Finland, Rumania, et cetera, by the United Nations with which such satellites were at war.
Litvinov said relationship of Soviet Government to Polish Government in exile had been discussed and Molotov had reaffirmed the desire of the Soviet Government to see an independent Poland in friendly and neighborly relations with the Soviet Union but that to its regret there seemed little possibility of obtaining such friendly relations with Polish Government in London. He added that discussion of Poland had been confined to this brief exchange of views since no concrete proposals had been submitted.
Litvinov concluded by saying that despite press reports to the contrary no frontiers had been discussed at Conference and that the question had not even been raised. He then added on his own initiative that the Soviet Government considered Soviet frontiers to be inviolable and defended only by the Red Army.
After the meeting Litvinov asked British Ambassador and myself to stay on and inquired our opinion of his talk. Clark77a said he had [Page 702] grave doubts as to the wisdom of being so specific in regard to Turkey since it would be all over Europe in no time, to which Litvinov replied that he thought it would be a good thing if it were known. I told him that I did not want to make any comment on desirability of his talk but that I agreed with British Ambassador on his reference to Turkey and that I felt his reference to absence of any objection on the part of Conference to unconditional surrender in specific relation to Finland would leave impression had associate [that he had associated?] the U.S. Government with Molotov’s observation on this point. As he knew, this was not the case and such an impression might have unfortunate repercussions at home.
Although I disapproved of his uncalled for and belligerent reference to Soviet territorial claims I thought it unwise to embark on any discussion with him on this point.
It would obviously have been more appropriate if the Soviet Government had obtained agreement of British and ourselves before Litvinov held his meeting particularly as to what should or should not be disclosed; however apart from three undesirable statements mentioned above I believe that the talk to the Chiefs of Mission of the United Nations countries in Moscow served to allay suspicion in regard to the unpublished work of the Conference. I cannot however but be concerned over fact that he spoke in English to a group many of whom have only moderate command of the English language which perhaps may lead to misunderstandings and distortions in their reports.
- Sir Archibald Clark Kerr.↩