Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

501.BB/11–2146

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)

[Washington,] November 21, 1946.

Subject: Soviet Proposal for Reports on Disposition of Troops

Participants:	Senator Warren Austin (USDel-New York)
	Mr. John C. Ross (USDel-New York)
	Mr. Alger Hiss

Mr. Ross called me this afternoon on the above subject and said that Parodi had supported Molotov’s position that the subject of troops at home should be taken up under the subject of disarmament.⁸⁹ Molotov had then stated, in answer to Cadogan’s question of yesterday,⁹⁰ that the Soviets believe this information would be helpful in connection with the preparation by the Security Council of agreements for the supply of forces under Article 43. He also referred, although more indirectly than in the past, to the political aspects of the presence of troops in other countries.

Bevin had then spoken and had said that the British would be prepared to give information of this kind in connection with the negotiation of agreements under Article 43. However, he thought that the whole question of reporting on troops should be considered in connection with disarmament and he made a formal motion to this effect.

This morning the Turkish Ambassador⁹¹ had called on Senator Austin and had expressed great anxiety about our suggestion that members of the United Nations should report on the number of their troops at home as well as those abroad. The Turkish Ambassador said it would be most embarrassing for his country at this time to report on this subject.

Mr. Ross said that Senator Austin wished to propose to the Secretary that in order to avoid confusing the troop question with the more important question of disarmament we should tomorrow express our willingness to support the Soviet-French proposal.⁹² In order to meet the British position as far as possible, Senator Austin would propose an amendment to the Soviet motion which would recite that information on troops at home would of course be furnished by member states in connection with any disarmament program which might in the future be adopted by the United Nations. The Senator felt that in view of the fact that we would be differing from the British it would not be practicable for us to propose our own resolution along the lines of the Soviet-French proposal but differing in detail. He felt that this would confuse the parliamentary situation and he had been told that our proposal would get lost in the shuffle. Instead, therefore, he was going to suggest to the Secretary, unless we saw objection, that we support the Soviet proposals (the text of which is set out in New York’s telegraph 831 of November 21) with simply the amendment referred to above about information being given on troops at home in connection with any subsequent disarmament program.

Mr. Blaisdell discussed this suggested course of action with Colonel Giffen and Colonel Bonesteel and found that the Army would find it very burdensome to report as to what points in various countries our troops were located or the numbers at those points. Our present reporting system does not cover these matters and it would be necessary to ask for special reports in all cases. Colonel Bonesteel and Colonel Giffen felt that this effort was not warranted by the importance of the proposed resolution. They confirmed our feeling that reporting on specific locations would be particularly disagreeable to the British. They felt, however, that there was no real strategic disadvantage to the British or ourselves in this respect but they recognized that the British might disagree with their view on this. They did feel that the political question which we, of course, have been particularly concerned with was of major importance, namely, having it appear that the Soviets had succeeded in driving a wedge between us and the British. On the subject of our bases they said that they would prefer not to report on the size of our garrisons at particular bases and questioned whether the resolution was of sufficient importance to warrant such reports by us. They did not, however, feel that this was as important to them as the question of specific location of our forces in other countries.

After going over all the foregoing with Mr. Acheson I called Senator Austin and told him that Mr. Acheson thought it would be highly desirable for us to make every effort to get the British to agree to go along in support of a resolution asking for reports on troops both in friendly countries and in ex-enemy countries. However, he felt that it was more important to avoid confusing the troop reporting problem with the vital question of disarmament. He felt that if we pointed out to the British the great importance of emphasizing in the disarmament discussion the necessity for adequate international inspection they might agree with our position. In any event he thought avoiding confusion in the disarmament field was more important than avoiding a split with the British on the troop question.

I then pointed out the views of the Army as set forth above with respect to the difficulty of reporting on exact locations of our troops and pointed out that this would probably be particularly objectionable to the British. With British support it might be feasible for us to propose desirable amendments to the Soviet proposal. I said that if we could not get an amendment making express provision that reports need not be made on troops below 100 in any country, our representative should get an expression of the committee’s agreement that whatever resolution was adopted was not meant to cover such small units. I pointed out that we had military attaches with their staffs in practically every country in the world and that if we reported on all these units propaganda could be made that we had troops in a very large number of countries.

Senator Austin appeared to appreciate the importance of each of the points which I made.

89. The first two paragraphs of this memorandum relate to the 25th Meeting of the First Committee, November 21; for the record of that meeting, see GA (I/2), First Committee, pp. 131–137.
90. At the 24th Meeting of the First Committee, November 20, the United Kingdom Representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, had asked Molotov to explain the exact purpose of the Soviet proposal.
91. Huseyin Ragip Baydur, the Turkish Ambassador in the United States; Head of the Turkish Delegation to the General Assembly.
92. “Soviet-French proposal” refers to the fact that the French Delegation had expressed support for the Soviet resolution at the 25th Meeting of the First Committee.