Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

740.00119 Council/10–2346: Telegram

Mr. James C. Dunn, Member of the United States Delegation, to the Acting Secretary of State

secret

Paris, October 23, 1946—10 p.m.
[Received October 23—7:41 p.m.]

5337. Delsec 1090. From Dunn. Reference Secdel 1086, October 9.⁹⁶ US delegation in Balkan Eco Commission proposed amendment to Finnish Treaty, reducing reparations figure from 300 to 200 million. Matter came up at last meeting of Commission before consideration of treaties by plenary. Chairman refused accept amendment on ground it would interfere with completion Commission’s work within time schedule laid down by Secretary General. United States representative protested and stated ruling left United States no alternative except to vote against draft treaty provision. (See United States record of 45th meeting of Commission, October 4–5.)⁹⁷

Draft treaty text failed to obtain recommendation by two-third vote, either in Commission or in plenary. In plenary, 11 votes cast for, with 5 against and 5 abstentions. (For discussion, see United States summary for October 14, USdel(PC) (Journal)70.)⁹⁸

Final treaty text will, of course, be decided by USSR and United Kingdom in CFM. Our opinion is that, while Soviets might ease up on Finns in practical application of reparations program (and such a development can hardly be predicted under present circumstances), they are unlikely to recede from their position on treaty provisions. Molotov speech on Finnish treaty⁹⁹ and speech at closing session of Conference certainly do not suggest likelihood of change in Soviet position on treaty.

Finns have avoided USdel at Paris, but we have received roundabout report Finnish delegation was taken vigorously to task by Soviets for raising reparations issue at Conference. As further indication of Soviet viewpoint after completion of reparations discussion in Balkan Economic Commission, Gousev told Reinstein in informal conversation Soviets considered United States action not fair play and that United States should have raised question in CFM if it had views on subject. We have doubt whether British are likely to oppose Finnish reparation figure, in view of their apparent lack of willingness to oppose Hungarian reparation figure.

I assume Department’s second question is whether Finns should be given statement along lines of third paragraph reference telegram.¹ In view of the Soviet charge that our position on Finnish reparations was taken merely to stir up trouble, I think that some positive measures of economic assistance, which would indicate our serious interest in helping Finland to solve its economic problems, should be seriously considered.

[Dunn]

96. Not printed.
97. Vol. iii, p. 677.
98. Vol. iii, p. 840.
99. Presumably a reference to Molotov’s remarks at the 46th Plenary Meeting, October 14; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see vol. iii, p. 840.
1. The paragraph under reference stated that the Department was reluctant to have the Export-Import Bank consider any loan application from Finland while uncertainty regarding reparations existed (860d.51/9–3046).