The Ambassador in Turkey ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 13—6 p.m.]
189. Deptel 121, February 6.31 I believe Turks consider (1) that US proposal for revision Montreux Convention is in general acceptable [Page 815] to UK and (2) that British note November 21 constitutes in effect UK action in accordance procedure agreed upon at Potsdam.32
Regarding (1), it will be recalled that British Ambassador said to me (Embtel 1412, November 333) he thought our proposal satisfactory with exception certain unessential points. He doubtless expressed similar views to Turks. At any rate, it is clear to me Turks consider British hold such views.
As regards (2), it is my impression that while Turks at first regarded British note of November 21 as simply a reply to Turk request for expression of UK views on US note and that it would later be followed by detailed proposals from British, they came to accept viewpoint that November 21 note constitutes all that UK considers advisable to put in writing under existing circumstances and that it therefore may be regarded for practical purposes as UK proposal under Potsdam procedure. I think it not unlikely Turks have been told something of this sort by British. In this connection, Department will recall British were opposed last October to our proposal to submit to Turks suggestions for revision Straits Convention, feeling it inadvisable to raise another controversial matter with USSR. Same line of reasoning might well lead them to feel it inadvisable to make detailed exposition of views. Furthermore, they could feel with good reason that a detailed note which in substance adopted our proposals would commit them while at same time permitting Soviets to raise ante from that point.
- Not printed; it asked for comment on whether Turks considered British had adopted U. S. proposals (761.67/2–146).↩
- See telegram 1475, November 21, 1945, 5 p.m., from Ankara, and British Embassy’s aide-mémoire, November 22, 1945, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. viii, pp. 1280 and 1281, respectively.↩
- Ibid., p. 1271.↩