740.00112 European War 1939/7–1844: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 18—11:25 p.m.]
4601. The following telegram has been sent to London:
1270. July 18, 5 p.m. (Reference MEW’s Arfar 1977, June 3 to British Legation, Bern; Embassy’s 162, June 9; my 1078, June 22 and MEW’s 2280 July 1.)
1. Upon receipt MEW’s 2280, British Minister saw Pilet-Golaz July 7 and handed him aide-mémoire suggesting continuance discussion between British CS, CA and Hohl. Hohl finally arranged meeting July 17.
2. Hohl started by expressing surprise that our memorandum of June 16 embodied (a) request for global restriction of all transit and (b) a request for further reductions of transit as areas cease to be under Axis control.
Hohl stated that in view of your comprehension Swiss geographical position you had agreed not press these two points and that letters exchanged confirmed this. Asked to read confirmatory letters, he gave us copies Mr. Dingle Foot’s letter June 27 to Keller, Keller’s letter June 29 to Foot and Foot’s acknowledgment to Keller July 1. CA and CS pointed out that while Keller’s letter stated he thought these two points had been settled by Swiss statements, your meetings April 5 [Page 750] and 14, Foot’s letter July 1 requests Hohl, during discussions to take place Bern to bear in mind views not only discussions latter meetings but views and wishes expressed in your telegram June 3 (Arfar 1977). We reemphasized your position expressed last sentence Foot’s letter July 1 and Arfar 2280. Hohl then admitted letters did not confirm his previous statement that these requests had been waived by you. Asked what measures Swiss had introduced for additional control during period while we awaited Hold’s meeting for us, Hohl answered that in view of unilateral Swiss declaration March 24 involving “very large” concessions and in view strong pressure from Germans with regard transit facilities through German occupied countries, Swiss were not in position impose additional control measures at this time. He reiterated throughout conversation that March 24 [23?] memorandum was unilateral Swiss declaration expressing Swiss additional effort to regulate transit in light Swiss neutrality, legality and geographical position and that this memorandum should not be regarded as “a promise”.
3. Hohl then referred to specific requests transmitted in memorandum from CA and CS. (Reference paragraphs in following are to numbered paragraphs Arfar 1977.)
Regarding Paragraph 3, he said to meet this request impossible as list included about half Swiss traffic categories and that refusal transit these goods on top those already prohibited or restricted would result in practical paralysis this transit traffic and would invite German retaliation on Swiss traffic. He said that certain items, i.e. telegraphic apparatus, were already forbidden under July 1938 decree and that many other items now subject to March 24 prohibition or control. He said even were Swiss in position consider our demands, presentation as made would make control impracticable as specific tariff items not mentioned. Asked whether, if this group were broken down into specific tariff items, Swiss would be willing to consider desired control, Hohl replied that on March 24 list went long way meet your desires and that he was not empowered to make any concessions on this group. We pointed out that according Hohl’s own statement, wide margin traffic still untouched. Hohl merely reiterated his statement he was not competent grant any further concessions on this group.
Paragraph 5. Hohl stated Swiss statistics showed 5 tons cotton transmitted February and 43 tons June and in view this was prepared reexamine question suspension this traffic but stated he was not empowered now assure suspension traffic.
Paragraph 5 [?]. Hohl stated sulphur transiting originated exclusively from Romagna mines refined Rimini and that Germany had since 1937 taken entire annual production of 123,000 tons whereas present transit assignments according Swiss statistics averages only 2,000 to 3,000 tons monthly.
Paragraph 6. Hohl reiterated Swiss could not accept limitation total volume traffic nor could they accede your request make appropriate reductions as areas cease to be under Axis control. Hohl endeavored argument on maltraffic mostly Northern Italy and therefore no reason for reducing global transit or imposing offset as Allied Armies take more territory. We pointed out large part transit traffic involved south Italian and Sicilian products and produce. Hohl then merely reiterated that he had no power agree your requests.
[Page 751]Paragraph 7. As at beginning discussions CA and CS emphasized considerable importance you attach to these questions and expressed their concern over Swiss failure to meet any of your requests. Hohl admitted only concessions he was authorized to make was reexamine transit cotton and give assurance that transit for all destinations was being thoroughly checked. He closed by stating that he was not empowered to meet our desires further than this as his status is only that of technician and that should we desire again press for these requests, approach should then be made by the American and British Ministers to Pilet-Golaz.
Repeated to Department 4601.