Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

864.00/7–2447: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State

secret

London, July 24, 1947—6 p. m.

4049. Yesterday we had lengthy discussion in Foreign Office with Warner, Assistant Under Secretary Jebb,¹ Wallinger² and Watson³ of Southern Department on Hungarian situation (See Deptel 2877, July 3⁴).

Re placing of Hungarian situation before UN, Foreign Office feels that General Assembly is a much better forum than the SC, as it is impossible to make out a real case that Hungarian situation is a menace to peace. Case could be taken to GA under Article 14, but there seems to be some uncertainty in Foreign Office thinking as to whether an approach to UN would be worthwhile.

Complications would arise immediately re admission to UN of satellite states including Albania. British feel that it would be inconsistent to admit these countries while making a strong indictment of them showing that in reality they are inadmissible.

Very careful consideration would have to be given to an indictment which would inevitably end up a first class arraignment of USSR. British think that nothing would be gained by “grudgingly” admitting these states, but in long run, Warner said, this course may have to be adopted, and its form should be severe criticism of countries in question, with admonition that they would have to behave better after being accepted in UN.

Foreign Office does not feel that abstention from voting on admission would have any effect, and Warner remarked that perhaps the best solution would be admission on assumption that these countries are “peace loving”.

British think that if any case involving Hungary is presented to UN the charges should include those against Bulgaria and Rumania. The indictment would be based possibly on the denial of human freedoms as set forth in peace treaties. Present actions of three govts in question amount to tearing up this article of peace treaties in advance, and British feel very strongly that this is perhaps the best ground to take in general on any future arrogant attitudes by these states, and that they should be pinned down on each breach of Treaties’ terms.

In general British feel that full publicity always should be given to every action taken by US and UK which insists on state’s obligation under treaties, as it would amount to education of world opinion as well as proof that US and UK are not abandoning basic principles.

Warner remarked that there seems to be some divergence of view between US and UK policy re presentation of notes to these three countries when flagrant breaches of their obligations occur. He said that Dept apparently is of opinion that continued representations are of little value, but British feel that such representations should be made and full publicity given to them. In this connection he said that this point is essential in Britain as newspapers, because of newsprint lack, are inclined to publish little news of occurrences in these countries but editors will always print texts of official exchanges with these govts. British believe it is necessary to refute at once any effort on part of three countries to dispute their dbligations under peace treaties. Re July 21 note to Rumanian Govt on arrests of Maniu and other peasant leaders, Foreign Office felt it necessary to take immediate action as previous Rumanian note was “truculent and very rude,” and Warner expressed hope that State Dept would back up this British action and, in general, would not stick closely to its policy of no further representations.⁵

In conclusion Warner said that British agree to Dept’s suggestions in final paragraph of telegram under reference that announcement be made of US–UK discussion on all aspects of situation. He stated that he hoped that fullest publicity would be given to such announcement. He added, finally, a warning that US and UK, after the announcement, should be prepared to take subsequent action, but he had no ideas on what lines this should be and said that it would require careful consideration.

Foreign Office has shown us draft of telegram to British Embassy, Washington, on this subject.

It will be seen from the above that by and large British thinking has not yet crystallized in the face of changing events.

Sent Dept as 4049, repeated to Paris at 421, to Moscow as 251.

Douglas

1. Hubert Miles Gladwyn Jebb, Superintending Under-Secretary, United Nations Department, British Foreign Office.
2. Geoffrey Arnold Wallinger, Head of the Southern Department, British Foreign Office.
3. John Hugh Watson, of the Southern Department, British Foreign Office.
4. Not printed, but see footnote 5, p. 332.
5. Regarding the British note referred to here, see the editorial note, p. 492.