893.60 Manchuria/4–2346: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union ( Smith ) to the Secretary of State

1307. Vyshinski replied on April 22 to Kennan’s letter of March 9 to Molotov on disposition of Jap industrial enterprises in Manchuria (ReEmbtel 738, March 943). The text in translation of Vyshinski’s letter follows:

[Page 1123]

The position of the Soviet Govt. on the question of war trophies was set forth in my letter of March 444 and the Soviet Govt. continues to maintain this position. The Soviet Govt. would consider it necessary to remark in supplement to the letter of March 4 that the position taken in this letter of the condition of war trophies fully corresponds to the definition of the conception of “trophies” which was given in the armistice agreement concluded by the Soviet Union, the USA and Great Britain with Bulgaria on October 28, 194445 and with Hungary on January 20, 1945.46 Thus the statement of the American Govt. that the claims of the Soviet Govt. exceed “by far the scope of war booty as generally recognized by international law” lacks foundation.

As regards reparations from Japan the point of view of the Soviet Govt. on this question will be set forth in a separate letter. At the present time the Soviet Govt. considers it necessary only to confirm that it is unable to agree with the view that the conclusion of an agreement between the USSR and China on the formation of Chinese-Soviet companies for the exploitation of a part of the Japanese enterprises which served the needs of the Japanese Kwantung army would be a violation of the principle of the “open door” in as much as the doctrine of the “open door” has no relation to the question of the utilization of war trophies. The Soviet Govt. likewise cannot agree that Soviet-Chinese agreements for the exploitation of a considerable part of Manchurian enterprises which have been concluded ( Zaklyuchennye) in the present circumstances would lead to a disregard of the interest of the United States and other Allies and to discrimination against them since neither these Soviet-Chinese agreements nor the circumstances in which they were concluded give any foundation for such a type of assertion.

Please repeat to Tokyo for Political Adviser as Moscow’s 26.

Sent Dept. as 1307, repeated Paris for Secretary 104, and Chungking 60.

Smith
  1. Not printed.
  2. See telegram No. 650, March 5, from the Chargé in the Soviet Union, p. 1112.
  3. Department of State, Executive Agreement Series (E.A.S.) No. 437, or 58 Stat. (pt. 2) 1498.
  4. E.A.S. No. 456, or 59 Stat. (pt. 2) 1321.