Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, Europe, Volume IV

740.00112 European War 1939/12–644: Telegram

The Chargé in Switzerland (Huddle) to the Secretary of State

Bern, December 6, 1944—9 a.m.
[Received 3:35 p.m.]

7964. 1. Swiss reply on transit traffic, summary of which was transmitted in Legation’s 7888^47a does not fully meet our demands.

2. However, while fully appreciating point of view stated Department’s 3787, November 7⁴⁸ and 3764, November 4 and recognizing justification of severe attitude from standpoint of war effort and moral issues involved, Legation has reached conclusion that a continuation of our present tactics in attempting to force Swiss hand by proposing minimum demands is not likely to obtain further concessions at this time. Legation believes Swiss now appreciate seriousness with which we view transit problem but they are apparently sincerely convinced that we are refusing to consider their position and problems. Legation believes that our objectives should be to obtain maximum concessions possible (Legation believes Swiss may not have gone as far as they could) and that we are more likely to reach our goal if at this point we alter mode of attack.

3. At Mixed Commission meeting November 4 transit problem (our 7888—2333–December 2 and 7924—2354–December 4) was for first time discussed at length (Department will recall that Swiss representatives on Mixed Commission are primarily from Division of Commerce and that they are not empowered to “negotiate” on question of transit). Keller expressed his discouragement and feeling that solution of present impasse was extremely difficult as long as we ruled out possibility of meeting of minds by assuming an inflexible and doctrinaire position which we required Swiss to accept in entirety before we would consider question of releasing part of Swiss stocks. He indicated that refusal of any concession on our part in return for concessions already granted by Swiss made it extremely difficult for Swiss to continue to make concessions. He urged us to understand that Swiss can not comply with demands which take form of an ultimatum. Legation believes Keller was sincerely expressing reasoned view of Swiss Government officials and that under circumstances if we hope for further concessions we must demonstrate that we are not ignoring altogether their arguments. This opinion has been reached with economic warfare objectives alone in mind but Legation suggests that overall political considerations also make it desirable that present impasse be satisfactorily resolved.

4. With these considerations in mind Legation has reviewed transit traffic problem and makes following comments on Swiss reply of November 30:

[a.] Legation does not believe that position taken by Swiss on south-north shipment of cereals, shoes and textiles is justified. Monthly quota on cereals including rice is 2,500 tons which is far in excess of 1938 average of 468 tons to say nothing of very large shipments made before imposition of quota. Therefore, Legation believes we should continue to insist on cessation of transit of this material.

b. Although Swiss have met us on fluorspar shipment in October of 15,000 tons of ores, metals and metal products and present quota of 5,000 tons can not be justified when compared with 1938 monthly average of 460 tons which included machines now forbidden transit, we should continue to insist on a nil quota.

c. Legation believes we should insist on Swiss imposing on transit of textiles and shoes quotas below 1938 monthly average. In 1938 all types textiles including raw materials averaged 2,500 tons; monthly average for leather products including shoes was 106. Since shipments leather products now consist exclusively of shoes monthly quotas should be fixed lower than this figure.

5. On other hand in interest of achieving concessions outlined paragraph 4 above, Legation believes it would be in our interest to accept certain arguments presented by Swiss:

a. Swiss statement that reasons for placing quotas on south-north traffic (possibility that goods are requisitioned) do not exist in case of north-south traffic is plausible.

b. That Swiss cannot suspend transit of coal from Germany to Italy without endangering shipments of coal from Germany to Switzerland (52,000 tons coal, coke, et cetera, in October) is probable, particularly since volume of coal shipped in transit in 1938 (108,017 tons monthly) exceeded recent transit (October 60,000 tons; November data not yet available). Kate of shipment likely to continue to decrease and if quota were to be fixed, we would probably find that future shipments actually were less than quota. Swiss distinction between coal as meeting civilian needs and liquid fuel as being for military purposes might be accepted although point is debatable.

c. Shipments of metals and metal products from Germany to Italy in October were 1100 tons. This well below 1938 average of 7064 tons and since direct (as opposed to indirect) connection with war effort difficult to prove and since shipments are relatively small and in any case likely to decrease, Legation believes this point should be dropped.

d. Swiss argument concerning transit of foodstuffs (other than cereals and rice) from south to north might be accepted since monthly average 1938 was 11426 tons compared with 2333 in October.

6. With regard to Swiss reply on exports undesirable items Legation believes that Swiss in fact, if not formally, have met or prepared to meet practically all our demands. Exports of arms and ammunition, fuses, ball bearings, airplanes and parts, telephone equipment and military radio equipment were suspended October 1. Having exported three shunting locomotives they are now prepared to guarantee informally that no further locomotives will be exported to Germany until armistice (such a promise is more useful to us than an export embargo which would be applied to all belligerents in case SHAEF or French desire to purchase Swiss locomotives). With regard civilian radios, exports to Germany in October were only 2,000 francs and none to other Axis; Swiss maintain that reason for not placing under export embargo (which would apply to all belligerents) is their desire to ship to Allied markets. Exports of M5 have for all practical purposes been stopped by Swiss acceptance of our position in case of Sulzer the major exporter (Legation’s 7164—2064 to London, October 28⁴⁹); in July through October exports this tariff item to Germany were 48,000 francs and to other Axis 65,000.

7. From practical views, Swiss have thus satisfied or are prepared to satisfy all of minimum demands on exports made in our notes on September 18 and October 30 except for 914A/G automobiles, tractors, parts, et cetera. Exports this item August through October were 659,000 francs to Germany and 55,000 other Axis. For this item Swiss hold out possibility of reducing “informality” and suggest that they will be prepared to extend similar “informal” reductions to other unnamed items.

8. Legation appreciates that anything short of minimum demands set forth in our communications of October 30 will be less than is considered justified. Legation is, however, convinced that no further concessions are likely to be obtained at present time by threatening reprisals in form of no-transit facilities across France and holding up Swiss stocks. Even if stocks were released now, Swiss would have no means transporting bulk of them across France and transit facilities across France are largely of symbolic importance as long as rail communications are not established and transport limited to a few trucks. On other hand, Switzerland is still receiving raw material from Germany (in October Swiss francs 25,268,506 imports from Germany compared with 15,900,660 francs exports) and Sweden (Swiss) 7,982,968 imports compared with 14,308,039 exports in October which must transit Germany. Swiss emphasize that they are prepared to recognize changed situation but they cannot anticipate changes; they suggest that they would now be in very difficult position if Legation [apparent omission] September they had prematurely anticipated an immediate Allied victory and consequently deprived themselves of all Swedish, German and other Axis imports.

9. Legation therefore proposes that as soon as possible, Swiss may be informed that although not completely satisfied with their replies, we are releasing a limited amount of selected items from list of stocks included in our September 18 offer and that we will release remainder if they comply immediately with revised demands outlined paragraph 4 above and apply the further restrictions on undesirable export (locomotives items 914A/G, et cetera, (foreseen in their aide-mémoire of December 2⁵⁰).

10. In submitting these proposals to Department and Embassy, Legation believes certain other aspects which up until now have not been discussed should be given consideration. SHAEF is apparently already anxious to obtain certain materials from Switzerland. Examples are orders for urgently needed replacement parts for damaged electrical installations in France and Belgium placed with Brown Boveri and Escher-Wyss by Irwin and Samways of London Committee of Public Utilities Department of Combined Resources Board during their trip to Switzerland on November 9–11; prospect that Brown Boveri and other firms may be called upon to supply similar parts for Italy (on November 29 Legation forwarded to Irwin for transmission to authorities in Italy a long list of Brown Boveri installations south of Po) negotiations of General Larkin of 7th Army with Swiss wood syndicate for 500 wooden barracks to be delivered in 6 weeks, and Department’s inquiry made in telegram 3885, November 15,⁵¹ concerning availability of locomotives. Legation believes it highly desirable that Swiss grant export permits without delay and that we do not encourage them to use such orders as bargaining weapons. Department may wish to consult SHAEF on this point.

Text of aide-mémoires with translations follows by current pouch.⁵²

Repeated London 2368.

Huddle

1. Dated December 2, p. 785.
48. Same as telegram 9326 to London, p. 782.
49. Not printed.
50. See telegram 7924, December 4, 11 a.m., from Bern, p. 787.
51. Not printed.
52. Despatch 10106, December 5, not printed; for text of aide-mémoire dated December 2, see telegram 7924, December 4, 11 a.m., p. 787; and for summary of aide-mémoire dated November 30, see telegram 7888, December 2, 9 a.m., p. 785.