Office of the Historian

500.CC/3–245: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman)98

Washington, March 2, 1945—7 p.m.

471. Your 605, March 2, 6 a.m. 1. At the request of the British Government, and after the greatest difficulties in view of commitments under previous plans to announce the text of the invitations on March 1 we are again postponing the issuance of invitations to the San Francisco Conference in order to allow the Provisional Government of France to present its case direct to the Soviet Government.99

[Page 104]

2. We have instructed Caffery1 to inform the French Foreign Office that we intend to issue and release the invitations on Monday, March 5, at 12 noon, Washington time, and that accordingly we must be informed by 12 noon on Sunday, March 4, whether or not the French will join in sponsoring the invitations.

3. Under no circumstances will this government agree to any further postponement.

4. Since we now regard this situation as one for action between the French and the Soviet Government, you should not associate yourself with the conversations between the French Ambassador and the Soviet Foreign Office. Therefore, you should not deliver the Acting Secretary’s personal telegram to Molotov (our 459, March 1, 1 p.m.2).

Grew
  1. Repeated on the same date as telegrams 851 to Paris, and 473 to Mexico City for the information of the Secretary of State.↩
  2. The Ambassador in the United Kingdom was informed of this Government’s agreement to the British request for a further brief postponement in telegram 1608, March 2, midnight, repeated as telegram 474 to Mexico City for the information of Secretary Stettinius (500.CC/3–245). The Ambassador in China was informed of developments to date on the issuance of invitations, in telegram 363, March 2, 10 p.m., repeated as telegram 475 to Mexico City for the information of the Secretary of State (500.CC/3–245).↩
  3. Mr. Dunn informed Secretary Stettinius in a telephone conversation of March 2, 6 p.m., that he had talked to Mr. Caffery on the telephone and had made it absolutely clear that we were issuing the invitations on March 5 (memorandum of conversation not printed).↩
  4. See footnote 97, p. 103.↩