Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: The United Nations, Volume I

500.CC/2–2745: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State

London, February 27, 1945—5 p.m.
[Received February 27—1:30 p.m.]

2015. British Embassy Washington telephoned Foreign Office this morning and said that the French proposal (which was outlined in paragraph 2 of our 1970, February 26) had been turned down by the Department⁷⁷ and that the alternative proposal which had been made by Cadogan (and which was quoted in paragraph 3 of our 1970, February 26) had been turned down by de Gaulle. British Embassy added that a third proposal had now been worked out in Washington which was acceptable to the Department.⁷⁸ Under this proposal the present text for the invitations (that is, as quoted in the Department’s 1409, February 23) would be used but with the understanding that the French Government would be free to issue unilaterally a statement reserving the right to put forward amendments to the proposals for setting up a general international organization.

Foreign Office says it has put this third proposal to the French here who are communicating it to Paris. The French reply, according to the Foreign Office, may be sent here or communicated directly to Washington.⁷⁹

If this third proposal too is turned down by the French, Foreign Office says there would seem to be no other course open but for the American, British, Soviet and Chinese Governments to proceed with the invitations as sponsors of the Conference. The British position will be definitely confirmed as soon as the French have expressed themselves on this third proposal.⁸⁰

Sent Department as 2015, repeated Paris as 117, Moscow as 74 and Chungking as 4.

Winant

77. See telegram 780, February 25, 9 p.m., to Paris, p. 91.

78. A memorandum of February 27 by the Counselor of Embassy (Gallman) stated:

    “Mr. Dunn telephoned from Washington about a further proposal which has been drawn up with a view to bringing the French in as one of the sponsors of the San Francisco Conference.

    This proposal is as follows:

    After the word ‘charter’ in paragraph 2 of the text of the invitation, there is to be inserted ‘(but in no sense precluding full freedom of discussion and the right to propose amendments at the Conference)’.

    Foreign Office is transmitting this proposal to the French and will let us here know what reply they make. We will then notify the Department. The Department will notify the Chinese, while the Foreign Office will notify the Russians. W. J. G.” (London Embassy Files, Lot 56F28)

79. In a memorandum, of February 28, Mr. Gallman stated that the Counsellor in the British Foreign Office (Jebb) told him that morning “that he saw Massigli last night and that he was told by Massigli that he thought the French Government would agree to (a) the rephrasing of paragraph 2 of the text of the invitation so that the words ‘consider as affording a basis for such a charter’ would become ‘take as a basis for discussion’, together with (b) a separate declaration by the French Government to the effect that while the French associate themselves with the invitations they reserve the right to propose certain amendments to the text of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.

    “Jebb told me further that what Massigli had told him, as outlined above, had been communicated by the Foreign Office to the British Embassy in Washington and that a reply had been received to the effect that this French proposal would be acceptable to the State Department. W. J. G.” (London Embassy Files, Lot 56 F28)

80. In telegram 2044, February 27, 11 p.m., from London, Ambassador Winant reported that the French had asked for 24 hours’ postponement, and that the French Cabinet would meet the next morning to consider the proposals that were suggested (500.CC/2–2745).