852.01/10–448
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
| Participants: | Secretary Marshall |
| Dr. Schuman, French Delegation | |
| Mr. Bevin, British Delegation |
Dr. Schuman opened the meeting1 with the subject of Spain. He had an agenda which I gathered had been proposed by Bevin at some earlier meeting, but which was entirely unknown to me.
I was asked to comment first and explained that the recognition of Spain presented no particular problem in the United States, that the problem of my Government was consideration for the reaction of the peoples in Italy, France, Belgium, Norway and England, while at the same time encountering the rapidly developing effort on the part of Latin American countries to cancel the resolution of two years ago which was introduced by Poland. I explained that through Dr. Fernandes of Brazil2 I had learned that the Latin Americans were very much concerned over the preferential position occupied by Argentina in having an ambassador in Madrid, and that their motions in this affair were directed entirely to correct that situation and lessen the prestige of Argentina accordingly. I had explained to Dr. Fernandes that that was a very minor problem compared to the tremendous importance of the reactions of the people of Western Europe, to which I had to give my first attention in the present crisis.3
I explained that the recent statement by Senator Gurney,4 which I had not yet read, was not inspired by the Government, but was purely his own reaction, and that the military officers who accompanied him to Madrid were the liaison officers from the Army, Navy and Air to the Congress, and evidently had accompanied Gurney since he was the Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee of the Senate. They were not representing serious military considerations so far as I knew. [Page 1054] I went on to explain that I did not know how we would proceed to a final solution of this question; that Spain offered important cooperation to the European Recovery Program and also the strongest military force in Western Europe, neutral Sweden being next in power.
Mr. Bevin then explained the situation of his Government, illustrating the delicacy of the matter by the unanimity and violence of the reactions in England to the resolution in the House of Representatives regarding the recognition of Spain.5 He said he was greatly surprised to find that all parties were unanimous in condemnation of such procedure involving the recognition of Franco. His hope was that we could play down any action on the Spanish question in the UN at this time. It was low on the agenda and we should conspire to get it in the last position. He stated that if it did come up, that is the Polish resolution, he could vote against it (Dr. Schuman stated he could vote against it). Mr. Bevin proposed that we individually endeavor to persuade influential Latin American leaders to drop this issue.
Dr. Schuman more or less repeated Bevin’s approach to the problem and stated that a recognition of the Franco Government would not only involve a public reaction but would involve serious complications in the coalition government. He thought that the border affairs were being adjusted so that matters were now proceeding in a normal manner, and that economic relations were gradually reaching normal. He was in accord with Mr. Bevin’s proposal.
It was agreed that we should follow the course outlined by Mr. Bevin.
- The three foreign ministers, who were also taking part in the sessions of the United Nations General Assembly at Paris, met at the Quai d’Orsay at 3:30 p. m.↩
- Dr. Raúl Fernandes, Foreign Minister of Brazil.↩
- For documentation on the Berlin blockade, see vol. ii, pp. 909 ff.↩
- Senator Chan Gurney, of South Dakota, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, conferred with General Franco at Madrid on September 30. At a meeting with the press following the talk with Franco Senator Gurney recommended the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Spain and the other great powers.↩
- See telegram 207 to Madrid, April 6, and footnotes, p. 1036.↩