840.20/11–2648: Telegram
The Ambassador in Sweden (Matthews) to the Secretary of State
1307. In compliance Deptel 812, November 22, 11 a. m., I conveyed to FonOff Secretary General Bech-Friis this morning, orally but officially, [Page 296] substance of Department’s statement that regional arrangement based on neutrality incompatible with intent Vandenberg Resolution,1 et cetera. I was careful to emphasize that we wish to avoid any appearance of pressure and indicated that we were really not much interested in Swedish defense policy. I said that our primary purpose was to avoid any possible misunderstanding in the light of the many confused statements appearing in the press and in the light of Ambassador Boheman’s recently expressed regret that Sweden has been encountering difficulties in obtaining military supplies in the US.2 I told Bech-Friis that I believed we were likewise informing the Norwegians and Danes in similar vein in view of the interest which both countries had expressed in obtaining American military equipment, I added that those two countries seemed important to the national security of the US within the meaning of the Vandenberg resolution.
Bech-Friis who is usually extremely cautious and reticent took careful note of my remarks and said he would bring them to the attention of Undén on his expected early return from Paris. He hesitated a few moments and finally made the following illuminating comment: “I understand your position. The problem for us is a difficult one. We had hoped that by making clear our determination to defend ourselves against attack we would be able to obtain the needed means to strengthen our defense and that our attitude would be sufficient to assure outside aid”. (See mytels 1256. November 8 re General Jung’s remarks3 also Boheman’s recent New York speech and 1267, November 12 and AGC 123 November 5).4 I said that the basis of our policy was the all-important Vandenberg resolution and that both the resolution and the committee report emphasized that the obligations and assistance must be mutual. I said that American public opinion would never support any one-way arrangement.
Sent Department 1307, repeated Oslo 56, Copenhagen 63, London 255, Paris 374.
- Ante, p. 335.↩
- Matthews is probably referring here to a memorandum by Hickerson dated November 5 recording a conversation he had with Boheman in which the latter commented on the difficulties increasingly encountered by Sweden in obtaining from the United States and Britain military supplies which it could not produce itself. (Memorandum not printed: 758.00/11–548.)↩
- In telegram 1256, not printed, Matthews reported on a conversation he had on November 6 with General Jung, Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish defense forces, during which Jung assured him that Sweden would defend itself by all possible means if attacked and that he was confident his government would order such defense (758.00/11–848).↩
- Telegram 1267 from Stockholm, not printed.↩