Office of the Historian

740.00119 EW/11–145: Telegram

The Ambassador in Italy (Kirk) to the Secretary of State

Rome, November 1, 1945—noon.
[Received 8:32 p.m.]

3365. London telegram 11344, October 30; repeated to Rome as 131. My offhand comments on British objections to provisional arrangement with Italy terminating armistice regime are as follows:

1.
Regarding obligation to United Nations with respect to separate armistice or peace a modus vivendi suggested my 1983, July 1598 and previous is a document which is neither an armistice nor a peace. Furthermore, there is no reason why USSR should not be consulted and included in any such interim arrangement.
2.
While it was once true that Supreme Allied Commander had actual as well as nominal responsibility for safeguarding United Nations interests in Italy this can hardly be considered case at present when all of major powers and many of other United Nations have direct relations with Govt of Italy and are in position to look after their own interests. Those that do not have direct relations can easily establish them. Furthermore, modus vivendi could contain provisions covering this point if essential.
3.
With regard to possibility that USSR will take unilateral action with respect to armistices with Rumania, Bulgaria, et cetera, I can think of no better way of terminating state of affairs in which our hands are tied by Russian interpretation of armistices with Balkan ex-satellites than by terminating these armistices and substituting therefore modus vivendi.
4.
That the conclusion of unilateral agreements would be admission of final breakdown of Big Three cooperation, I submit that this argument leads from a sense of weakness which no United Nation can. afford to admit.

Sent Dept 3365; repeated to Caserta as 931 and London as 288.

Kirk
  1. Not printed.↩