Office of the Historian

740.0011 EW/2–1045: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Venezuela (Corrigan)

Washington, February 10, 1945—10 p.m.

106. It is now practically certain that Peru and probable that Chile40 will take action similar to that taken by Colombia by recognizing the existence of a state of belligerency. The Department was much encouraged by your telegram reporting your conversation with Escalante and is wondering whether with the impending Peruvian and Chilean actions Venezuela might have in mind similar procedure. For your information while the Chilean statement contemplates the use of the term “recognizes the fact of existing belligerency” this matter will after the declaration be submitted to the Congress. This submission to Congress would of course be without prejudice to the validity of the Chilean President’s unequivocal statement. It was not clear from your message when the Venezuelan Congress would convene so we would know whether Venezuela contemplates action similar to that taken by Colombia earlier or whether the Government contemplates a straight declaration of war after previous congressional approval. In cases where the Colombian formula41 is used we always require the submission to the Department of a confidential note not for publication stating that the “state of belligerency” is equivalent to “state of war”.

Please telegraph.

Grew
  1. For documentation on the entry of Peru and Chile into the war, see pp. 1312 ff. and pp. 755 ff., respectively.↩
  2. For documentation on Colombia’s entry into the war, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. vi, pp. 1 ff.↩