861.24/9–645: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 6—12:30 p.m.]
3182. ReDept’s 1265, June 9. Vyshinsky has written me under date of September 2 along following lines:
In connection with your letter of June 124 and Kennan’s letter of August 2,5 I would like to inform you as follows:
The acceptance of the proposal contained in these letters concerning goods, similar to those received under Lend-Lease, would mean making a substantial change in the agreement of June 11, 1942 between the USA and the USSR6 (Article 3) which merely provides that [Page 1038] the Soviet Govt without the agreement of the President of the US will not transfer defense materials receded under Lend-Lease to third countries. Kennan’s interpretation of this article in the sense that the Soviet Govt does not have the right, without the agreement of the President to transfer to third countries goods similar to those received under Lend-Lease is, therefore, unfounded and the USSR cannot agree to such an interpretation.
Taking into consideration the volume and character of Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union on the one part and the volume and character of Soviet exports on the other, the Soviet Govt finds no basis to introduce a change in the June 11 agreement.
Notwithstanding the importance of Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union, it should be kept in mind that the share of these deliveries in the over-all volume of resources and requirements of the USSR is comparably small.
Concerning Soviet exports during the war, these were very limited and were made to the degree necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. In exchange for goods exported, and in particular for goods similar to those received under Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union received from the countries to which these goods were sent raw material and produce which were greatly needed by the USSR in its wartime economy.
The fact that the Soviet Union exported materials similar to those received by it under Lend-Lease, therefore, cannot be regarded in any way as proof that the Soviet Union does not need to receive from the US materials or goods provided for in the Lend-Lease protocols.7
- Based on telegram 1265, June 9, 7 p.m., to Moscow, p. 1014.↩
- George F. Kennan, Counselor of Embassy in the Soviet Union, was Chargé during Ambassador Harriman’s absence when the latter was attending the Conference of Berlin. Mr. Kennan’s letter was a follow-up of the earlier one.↩
- Signed at Washington: for text, see department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 253, or 56 Stat. (pt. 2) 1500.↩
- In telegram 3098, August 29, 3 p.m., from Moscow, printed in vol. ii, p. 1022, Ambassador Harriman had stated: “Having observed carefully the effect on the Soviet Government of our generous Lend-Lease policy over the past four years I have not found that we have obtained any benefit in good-will on the part of the Soviet Government in connection with their actions which affect our interests. During the war we have obtained in my opinion full value for our Lend-Lease shipments through the strengthening of the Soviet war effort. However now that the war is over I see no gain to the United States in dealing with the Soviets on any other than a realistic reciprocal basis. I have found in my experience that such a policy is understood and respected by the Soviet Government and is more apt to obtain reasonably satisfactory results.” (840.50 UNRRA/8–2945)↩