810.20 Defense/8–2544
The Acting Deputy Director, Office of American Republic Affairs ( McGurk ), to the Ambassador in Mexico ( Messersmith )
Dear Mr. Ambassador: We were very glad to learn here from your despatch and letter of August 2520 that the Mexican Government is prepared to enter into staff conversations along the lines proposed in the Department’s instruction of August 5, 1944.21
In accordance with your request for as full information as possible, I am enclosing herewith five documents. That entitled “Instructions [Page 116] for Staff Conversations with Military and Naval Representatives of the Other American Republics”22 was prepared in collaboration by representatives of the War, Navy and State Departments and was approved at a meeting at which two representatives of this Department were present. I believe it will give you an accurate picture of the purpose of these conversations and the kind of topics which it is proposed to discuss. The “Army Ground Force Plan”, “Army Air Forces Plan”, and “Naval Plan”,23 were prepared by the respective services after the basic document was completed. At the request of the War and Navy Departments we prepared here brief statements on the foreign policies of each of the countries with which we propose to hold staff conversations, and it is my understanding that copies of these will also be supplied to the officers who are to conduct the talks. In addition those officers will be furnished with detailed factual information regarding the cost of maintenance of different kinds of equipment and of different types of military units. Army and Navy representatives have told this Department informally that one of their purposes in getting this information together has been to use the figures as a means of discouraging too ambitious desires on the part of military representatives of the other republics. For example, they have cited to us informally the fact that it costs over $3,000,000 a year to maintain at full fighting strength one infantry division, and that it costs $350 an hour, twenty-four hours a day, week in week out, merely to maintain one four-motored bomber whether it is flown or not.
The fifth document enclosed is a copy of a letter which the Secretary has written to Admiral Leahy24 regarding the relationship of the diplomatic missions to the officers holding staff conversations. This letter was written after it became apparent that our military and naval people here (for your own information, Spears25 was one of the most obdurate) felt that since these conversations are to be military, fact-finding ones dealing with military matters, the chief of mission should do no more than make the necessary preliminary arrangements and furnish guidance on political matters. We have had extensive and repeated discussions on this point, and have endeavored to emphasize to them that in Mexico, Cuba and Colombia, it is essential that the Ambassador play a larger role than that. No reply has yet been received to the Secretary’s letter, so that this question has not yet been definitely settled. Furthermore, the Army people here (and presumably the Navy people as well) do not intend [Page 117] to furnish copies of this letter to their representatives until a decision has been reached by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this matter.
I do not believe that the fact of this question remaining unsettled will cause any difficulties insofar as Mexico is concerned, because it is the plan to assign the task of conducting these conversations there to Admiral Johnson and General Henry as members of the Mexican-American Defense Commission. Your personal relations with them are such as to smooth over all difficulties. Incidentally, for your own information only, Admiral Johnson remarked recently to an officer of the Department that for his part he did not doubt that the purposes of the staff conversations could be successfully accomplished if the matter were left entirely to yourself, the President and Señor Padilla.26 I rather doubt that General Henry would feel quite the same way.
The question of the timing has been discussed informally here in the light of your letter of August 25. We are informed that both General Henry and Admiral Johnson would be unable to get to Mexico City before about September 18. As that date leaves very little time for the conversations before your departure on the twenty-fifth, it is our feeling that it would be best to put off the talks until after your return. Officers in the War Department have indicated that they do not see any reason why this should not be done. If this is agreeable to you, then you could have full discussions on the subject with Admiral Johnson and General Henry while you are up here, and full preparations could be made to begin the conversations immediately upon your return. Should you for any reason feel that it would be best to hold the talks in the week between September 18 and September 25, will you please let me know as soon as possible so that the necessary arrangements can be made here.
For you own information, it is hoped that the talks with Brazil will be begun the latter part of this month. If favorable replies should come from such countries as Colombia, Chile, etc., we shall probably go ahead with conversations in those countries during October despite the views expressed in the third from the last paragraph of the letter to Admiral Leahy.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours,