740.00119 Control (Italy)/4–1846: Telegram

The Chargé in Italy (Key) to the Secretary of State


2039. See Moscow’s 93993 and 940 March 25, repeated Rome as 23 and 24. AC’s comments on last two paragraphs of Vyshinski’s reply regarding Soviet participation in ACCs Italy and Balkans are that “credentials” of Soviet member of AC Italy were outlined in AFHQ’s letter of January 24, 1944 to AC which was implemented by Chief Commissioner’s memo of January 31.94 They briefly provide that Russian member of AC will attend weekly meetings of Vice Presidents of AC, that he will work on Vice President and directors “level”, that he have complete access to officers on that level, and that copies of AC correspondence and reports considered of interest to Russian member will be forwarded to him. AC comment continues that matters of policy are invariably discussed at Vice President meeting and Soviet member has full opportunity to join in those weekly discussions. Acting Chief Commissioner recalls that only on one occasion in past year has Soviet member (although always in attendance) joined in deliberations of these meetings and that was to protest against action of Allied Military Police who fired upon a Russian General when he broke a military police road block. Consultation requires cooperation in work and thought according to report [Page 99] of acting AC and this has not been found in Soviet members of AC, Italy. AC report concluded that there is no general restriction, on Russian member of AC visiting any part of Italy provided that permission be obtained from AC and AFHQ together with proper travel orders; that they are not encouraged to visit AMG territory which is described as outside scope of AC and that mention in Vyshinski’s note of 50 kilometer limit outside Rome on their movements is consequently entirely inaccurate.

From Embassy’s observation of workings of AC Soviet representatives thereon have not made effort to participate in activities of Commission where they are generally considered by Anglo-American members of AC as “observers”. While it is true that they have not been encouraged to take active part, it is felt that with a little effort they could display greater interest and make their influence felt. As example, when Chief Commissioner in weekly meeting recently announced receipt of Fan 65095 modifying organization and activities of AC in Italy, Soviet member did not even ask for copy of CCS directive although French representative did, and latter’s request was promptly complied with. Language, of course, has been considerable barrier since neither previous nor present incumbent of Soviet representation on AC understands or speaks English which is sole language of AC.

Soviet participation in AC Italy can only be properly considered in conjunction with establishment and existence of Advisory Council for Italy, which provides for full and equal Soviet participation therein, and which was expressly created to give Soviet and other Governments opportunity to observe, report on, and express their views concerning machinery of Allied control in Italy. An equivalent Allied body does not exist in the Balkans where Anglo-American participation is limited to ACCs.

Copies of AFHQ letter containing terms of reference for Soviet member and ACC memorandum based thereon (referred to above) are being forwarded by airmail for Department’s information and records.96

Sent Department 2039, repeated Moscow 87, Budapest 26, Bucharest 25, and Sofia 10.

  1. Not printed, but see footnote 80, p. 89.
  2. Neither of the communications under reference is printed. Rear Adm. Ellery W. Stone, U.S.N., was Chief Commissioner of the Allied Commission for Italy.
  3. Not printed.
  4. The documents under reference were transmitted to the Department with despatch 3376, April 18, 1946, from Rome, none printed (740.00119 Control-(Italy)/4–1846).