740.41112A/2–845: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom ( Winant )
1273. Second section Embassy’s telegram 1404, February 8, quite helpful. Department’s telegram 7489, September 14,20 is best prediction now possible regarding post-hostilities fate of Confidential List. Department’s view of published and secret lists as complementary to which Board of Trade objected is based on premise that as long as export and blockade controls operate to deny goods or facilities to specified persons there must be some way of getting at henchmen in twilight zones about them. The issue is really how long blockade controls will continue to operate and lists remain primarily an adjunct of the blockade. Obviously, secret lists will go when blockade controls go, and truncated published lists if they remain, will be directed to other objectives. Department differs from Board of Trade if latter proposes to maintain a blockade or export control system with only a published list and that about three-fourths its present size. Such a system would inevitably raise problems adumbrated in Department’s telegram 57, January 3,21 regarding which your report of British reaction is awaited by Department. No merit is seen in maintaining the control mechanisms but spoiling their reputation and effectiveness by eliminating or so drastically reducing the lists that the controls operate unfairly, sporadically and perhaps opportunistically. Similarly, regarding British tendency towards a static post-hostilities list, Department tends to favor a dynamic but progressively reduced Proclaimed List until export and blockade controls are lifted. British emphasis on post-hostilities rather than post-blockade as the key date regarding listing seems to be crux of problem. Certainly the freeze of Black List before either country was ready to modify blockade controls indicated a divergence on this point. This whole matter will be raised here with Bliss. You may discuss foregoing with British.