740.00119 Council/11–3045: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 30—3 p.m.]
12525. Personal to the Secretary. This noon Bevin asked me to meet him at the Foreign Office. Cadogan50 was present. In going over your message 10352 of November 29, which I forwarded to him last night, he stated he realized that this message had crossed his message51 forwarded through Halifax the day before but he had by then [Page 592] received Halifax’s report of your conversation with him of last night.52 He also told me that the suggested conference at Moscow had been twice discussed with the Cabinet as well as with the Prime Minister personally. Bevin and Cadogan were both doubtful of the wisdom of a meeting of the three Secretaries of State in Moscow. Our interchange ended in their giving me an aide-mémoire which I am quoting verbatim. I have had no reply to my message to you which I forwarded last night (Emby’s 12509 [12505?] Nov 29).
The aide-mémoire reads as follows:
“The statement made yesterday by President Truman,53 if correctly reported, is rather bewildering. He is reported to have said that probably no further big three meeting would be required. He wished to see the United Nations organ, now being formed, take over and do its job. He was not in favor of special conferences and never had been.
“I cannot understand how Mr. Byrnes’ proposal for a big three meeting in Moscow can be reconciled with this.
“In regard to Mr. Byrnes’ agenda, I would observe that point 1 relates to the proposal for the establishment of a commission under the United Nations organ to consider the control of atomic energy. Seeing that this relates to the United Nations organ I am doubtful whether discussion of this subject could be confined to the three. I cannot understand how points 3, 4, 5 and 6 could be discussed without China, and if China is included I am sure it would be impossible to exclude France.
“In general, I am still not clear as to the nature of the meeting proposed by Mr. Byrnes. Is it to be an exploratory exchange of views or is it to endeavor to arrive at firm conclusions?
“I must emphasize that after President Truman’s statement in the form in which it has been made public here, the announcement of a meeting of three or five in the near future in Moscow would produce complete bewilderment both in Parliament and in the public here.
“30th Nov 1945.”