871.6363/12–144: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:45 p.m.]
4590. ReEmbs 4552, November 28, 6 p.m. Whether because it was finally realized here that a record was being built up which would [Page 273] eventually be awkward to explain or whether for other reasons my letter to Molotov of November 28 on the subject of American oil company equipment in Rumania drew forth an answer in the record time of 2 days. The reply dated November 30 and signed by Dekanosov76 is going forward in my next following message.77 The Department will note that the reply refers not only to my letter of November 28 but also to the letter of November 10 (see my 4319, November 11, 10 p.m. [a.m.]78 and to the aide-mémoire which I left with Vyshinski on November 3, thus covering all our representations to date.
I am acknowledging Dekanosov’s communication and informing him that its contents have been communicated to my Government.
With respect to the contents of the reply I should like to invite the Department’s attention to the following:
- 1.
- The reply makes no reference to the unilateral quality of Soviet action, the impossibility of which has been stressed in every one of our representations and ignores our expressed desire for a re-examination of the whole matter in common. It implies that the head of the ACC is implied [empowered?] to decide unilaterally what constitutes a military trophy even when Allied property rights are in question. It further implied his right to decide unilaterally without consultation of the views of the other members of the Commission what is of benefit and what is not of benefit to the rehabilitation of Rumanian economy.
- 2.
- If the principles of the Soviet reply be accepted, it means that equipment and supplies removed from the premises during the long period of enemy operation are the company’s loss but equipment and supplies brought on to the premises during that period and found there now are the Soviet Union’s gain.
- 3.
- Dekanosov implies (the obscure wording of the Russian text makes it impossible to say that he states) that all equipment now being removed is of German origin. Kirk’s 1139, November 13 [3], midnight, to Department79 cited British officials in Rumania as having categorically denied this. In Kirk’s 1225, November 18, 5 p.m.79 it was stated that equipment removed from American holdings was of mixed German and Rumanian origin. An infotel received here indicated that Berry when he first spoke with Vyshinski on this matter disputed the latter’s assertion that the equipment removed could properly be considered as war booty.
- 4.
- Dekanosov claims that sufficient equipment is being left to assure maintenance of productions. This is likewise denied in British reports. I find no record of any opinion on this point from American sources.
Sent Department; repeated to Caserta for transmission to Berry as 2.