Office of the Historian

103.9164: Telegram

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

London, September 16, 1944—3 p.m.
[Received September 16—11:10 a.m.]

7633. For Berle and Land, WSA, from the Ambassador and Reed. ReDepts 7370, September 11, 9 p.m. The matter of a joint approach to Sweden has been discussed at length with Foreign Office and MWT, as well as with Stone78 of EWD and Dingle Foot of MEW, and there is still lack of agreement as to the timing of the joint approach.

EWD and MEW reiterate comments reported in Embassy’s 6821, August 23, 5 p.m. and point out that approach at this time would run counter to economic warfare objectives and would immediately raise in acute form the question of what portion of Swedish shipping could be reserved for Swedish domestic requirements thus posing the question of future supply quotas. In view of possibility of changed Swedish attitude after their elections on September 17, as reported in Stockholm’s 3515 to the Department,79 which was similarly reported to the Foreign Office by Mallet,80 MEW and EWD feel strongly that approach to Swedes should not be made for a week or 10 days after the Swedish elections.

MWT and WSA representatives here stress point that supply questions are outside scope of shipping agreement and that, as Department pointed out in its 6502, August 16, Swedish accession to Agreement does not mean that rights to control her imports are forsworn. They also point out that no supply commitments of any sort have been made to any of the contracting governments and that there [Page 693] would be no reason to take a different stand with Sweden. Their feeling that an early approach should be made to the Swedes is based on the following considerations:

(a)
The Planning Committee will convene formally on September 20 and it is expected that questions will be asked by several of the smaller powers regarding the position of Sweden.
(b)
MWT feels it is committed to place the Agreement before Parliament, in the form of a White Paper, when it reconvenes on September 26. Presumably the text of Agreement would be given to press at same time.
(c)
It is considered important to approach the Swedes and give them a copy of the Agreement prior to its publication in the press.

MEA concurs in the view of WSA and MWT that early approach should be made.

If Swedish Government should take some affirmative action shortly after the elections to meet Anglo-American demands regarding trade with Germany, then way would appear to be open for going ahead at once with approach on Shipping Agreement. The Foreign Office is inclined to feel that Swedes will take some such action. However, should no action be taken and the Swedish Government maintain the attitude taken in its reply to the Anglo-American démarche,81 the question arises of what action we are prepared to take. Would the extension of an invitation to the Swedes to accede to the Shipping Agreement cut across any contemplated action? If so, would you wish to leave them out of the Agreement under those circumstances and control their shipping through United States–United Kingdom ship warrant scheme, recognizing that such control might not be fully effective?

In view of divergency of viewpoint between MWT and MEW, Foreign Office hesitates to state an official British position. The Northern Department of the Foreign Office is inclined to feel that from political point of view it would be better to delay approach at least until a few days after the Swedish elections. The General Department of the Foreign Office, which handles the shipping matters, is inclined to favor the point of view of MWT and press for an early approach. However, both Departments would probably be willing to compromise on some date between September 21 and 23 inclusive.

If the Department feels nevertheless that an immediate approach to the Swedes should be made, the Foreign Office has indicated it will go along providing it receives definite assurance from the Department that it is satisfied an early approach is not inconsistent with the Department’s broad political aims respecting Sweden. The Department’s instructions are urgently requested. [Winant and Reed.]

Winant
  1. William T. Stone, Director, Economic Warfare Division, American Embassy at London, replacing Winfield Riefler, who had resigned his post.↩
  2. Telegram of September 6, 7 p.m., not printed.↩
  3. Sir Victor A. L. Mallet, British Minister in Sweden.↩
  4. For Swedish reply of September 4, see vol. iv, p. 635.↩