Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East, Volume VIII

740.00116 PW/2–2746: Telegram

The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State

secret
priority

Moscow, February 27, 1946—9 p.m.
[Received March 1—7:35 p.m.]

571. ReEmb’s 494, Feb. 20.⁵² Lozovski replied on Feb 26 to my letter of Feb 19 as follows:

“Acknowledging the receipt of your letter of Feb 19, I consider it necessary to inform you that on a number of points this letter elucidates the questions about which I wrote you Feb 5. However, two points remain unclear which require further definition.

1. In paragraph 5 of your letter it is written that each prosecutor shall have the right to present any evidence and to make any addition to specific charges brought against any defendant on condition that this will be supported by a majority vote of the prosecutors. This latter condition does not call forth objection insofar as the question concerns additions to the charges presented against any of the defendants. However, it is necessary to consider that the demand for the agreement of a majority of the prosecutors will not be applied when it is a question of evidence relating to criminal actions of any one of the defendants against a state, represented by the prosecutor in question. It would be correct if, in such case, the appropriate evidence were accepted upon the proposal of the respective prosecutor.

2. In paragraph 6 of your letter it is written that a decision on the question of just who will be included among defendants as well as those who will be interrogated, is the responsibility of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers ‘where matters of policy involving implementing the surrender or occupation of Japan may so require. This does not call forth objection if it is a question of the inclusion of this or that person among the defendants. But the considerations cited in paragraph 6 of your letter evidently cannot refer to the preliminary private interrogation of any of the defendants, suspects or witnesses. If this or that prosecutor were not permitted to conduct a preliminary interrogation of those persons, whom he considers necessary to question, such prosecutor could not fulfill the duties assigned to him. Therefore, the interests of the matter demand that the right be given to the prosecutors to conduct preliminary interrogations of these persons along with which it goes with [without] saying that preliminary interrogations of this sort must be conducted with observance of the rules established for this. I hold that the above remarks will not meet objections.”

Please repeat above to Tokyo for Acting Political Adviser for Keenan. Please instruct.⁵³

Kennan

52. See footnote 51, p. 416.
53. Mr. Bishop at Tokyo replied in telegram 136 (15 to Moscow), March 12: “There is no objection to the conditions set forth. … Have been holding up matters for Russian prosecutor’s review, advice and assistance. Now that apparently all inquiries have been answered and situation clarified, would greatly appreciate the immediate arrival of Russian judge and prosecutor.” (740.00116–PW/3–1246)