811.91261/3–1946: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 19—4:29 p.m.]
870. ReDeptel 459, March 13. Spoke today with Vyshinski about censorship procedure. After I had stated views set forth in Dept’s message Vyshinski replied by referring to our recognition that censorship was a prerogative of a sovereign govt and said that Soviet Government had to be judge of its own necessities and could not take advice from any other govt on the policies it should follow in this respect. I stated that I had not come to give advice but only to make plain views of my Govt and to express hope that Soviet Govt, after due deliberation, would itself find it advisable to abolish this blind censorship and establish more tolerable system. Vyshinski then launched into a restatement of Soviet views on censorship as we have heard them on numbers of occasions in the past. Knowing from experience the futility of attempting to argue things out with Vyshinski on reasonable and factual basis, once he is basing himself on what he understands as his Govt’s position, I did not pursue this argument but merely said that I thought we had enough troubles these days without adding superfluous ones and that I very much hoped that the very near future would see some change.
Since Vyshinski at one point admitted that there might be deficiencies in the present system, and since he promised to raise this question with his Govt in pursuance to our conversation, I think there is reasonable chance that Soviet Govt may take some action to modify present system. In order to spare obvious oversensitiveness about “advice” from other governments, I merely stated to Vyshinski in parting that I hope some change would be introduced and that I would be hearing about it from correspondents here. Thus I do not expect any direct reply from Vyshinski. I think that our editors and publishers should give matter perhaps another 10 days before concluding Soviet [Page 719] Govt does not intend to modify procedure. I would be glad to learn reaction of Dept and of publishers to this suggestion.
If no improvement has set in within 10 days then question might well be examined of what further measures might be taken. I am told that Germans many years ago once broke similar attempt on part of Soviet authorities to enforce blind censorship by threatening that all German agencies and papers would receive their news about Russia exclusively from German FonOff until Russians desisted from this procedure. Another possibility that might be worth examining would be that correspondents here be instructed to remain in Moscow but not to file, or to file as little as possible, until further notice. I do not think this would be pleasing to Russians. On other hand, I do not think they would wish to take initiative in expelling correspondents as a body. They might therefore prefer to make concessions.