840.70/11–2944: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
Washington, December 1,
1944—midnight.
10087. For EITO Delegation. Department is disturbed by British unilateral action reported Embassy’s 10574, November 29. Department’s 10041, November 30, was on way before Embassy’s 10574 received. Department reserves comment until report of November 30 meeting received. Meanwhile, please clarify:
- 1.
- How does Noel-Baker justify omitting Ronald formula in amendments submitted to Soviets and including it in revised draft presented to November 28 meeting? This would seem to place Soviets, British and possibly ourselves in embarrassing position.
- 2.
- Presumably French not used as intermediaries to sound out continentals because of reasons given in VIII your 10574.
- 3.
- How do British propose that stop-gap organization should report to conference? Does this mean that conference will be in session indefinitely, possibly until EITO is set up, even though acceptable agreement might be reached shortly?
- 4.
- On basis of presently available information and pending clarification of modus operandi of British stop-gap organization, Department concurs with position taken by Hooker in not favoring formation of any interim body that would be affiliated with the conference. U.S. main interest in interim organization was to furnish military with satisfactory mechanism and only secondarily to assist continentals.
- 5.
- If proposed stop-gap organization reports to conference instead of governments represented on stop-gap organization, interim body may become cumbersome and of limited usefulness to military. The views of U.S. military on British proposal would be appreciated.
- 6.
- Because of changed circumstances (delay and possible early agreement on EITO) Department’s original position would be qualified by present need for interim body and whether it would serve useful purpose.
Stettinius