767.68119/10–1146
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Jernegan)
| Participants: | Turkish Ambassador |
| Mr. Henderson (NEA) | |
| Mr. Merriam (NE)3 | |
| Mr. Jernegan (NE) |
The Turkish Ambassador called at his request and opened the conversation by saying that he was very pleased with the latest American note to the USSR in connection with the Soviet note of September 24 to Turkey. He was glad to see that it was short and to the point. He remarked that he had suggested to his own government that its reply to the Soviet note of September 243a should be brief and avoid lengthy debate of the points raised in the Soviet note. He felt that the Russians might be trying to draw Turkey into a public controversy which [Page 877] might result in dividing public opinion in Turkey itself and in other countries with regard to the merits of the case. Having already answered most of the Russians’ arguments in its note of August 22 to the USSR, the Ambassador believed that his Government need give only a very brief answer to the new arguments raised in the latest Soviet communication and content itself with rejecting the Soviet’s Points 4 and 5 while at the same time expressing willingness to attend the conference of the Montreux powers, plus the U.S., to discuss the other three Soviet points.
Mr. Henderson agreed that the Ambassador’s views had merit with regard to the avoidance of public controversy but at the same time expressed the opinion that it was desirable for some answer to be made to various Russian arguments to prevent public opinion from receiving the impression that there was no answer. He pointed out that the American note did not attempt to rebut the various arguments advanced in the Russian note of September 24, since we felt this was more properly the responsibility of the Turkish Government.