Office of the Historian

896.24/10–1146: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Consul General at Manila (Steintorf)19

Washington, October 11, 1946—4 p.m.

1450. From Connolly20 and Starr21 to Vogelback. Re Shanghai tel No. 89, October 7.22 It is our view that August 30th agreement supersedes all previous tentative proposals or agreements and is the controlling [Page 1088] document. Desired is your opinion and proposed action in the circumstances. What significance need be given to policy outlined your No. 3719, Vogelback to McCabe,23 2 July?24 Was this proposed policy presented to and orally agreed upon by Chinese officials and if so was it in your judgement superseded by August 30th agreement. [Connolly and Starr.]

Acheson
  1. Repeated to Shanghai as telegram No. 1816.↩
  2. Maj. Gen. Donald H. Connolly, Foreign Liquidation Commissioner.↩
  3. Col. Edward Starr, Jr., Special Assistant to the Foreign Liquidation Commissioner.↩
  4. This telegram repeated No. 1929 bis, October 7, 3 p.m., from the Consul General at Shanghai, p. 1084.↩
  5. Thomas B. McCabe, then Foreign Liquidation Commissioner and Special Assistant to the Secretary of State.↩
  6. Ante, p. 1043. The answer to this query was given in a teletype conversation between the OFLC Washington and Manila Offices on October 11. The Manila Office reported that “my radio of July second regarding earmarking of sales was a decision taken at meeting of field commissioners on June twenty ninth in which it was specifically understood and agreed that this decision would not be a commitment to China but would be used at the time in final negotiations as a spur to quick action and as trading material.”↩