Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

861.111/11–2648: Telegram

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

confidential

Moscow, November 26, 1948—11 a. m.

2735. Reimposition and extension of 1941 limitations on movements of members foreign missions by Soviet Government on September 30, 1948 is unprecedented in history of any nation in time of peace with possible exception treatment foreigners Japan before 1857 and China early Nineteenth Century. Travel restrictions are only part whole series extraordinary limitations under which foreign missions here must suffer and still attempt carry out representational and reporting functions. Whether policies Soviet Government severely limiting housing space and importation privileges accorded foreign missions, isolation of foreigners from native population and their treatment as spies and enemy agents in Soviet publicity and by implication in Soviet laws are aimed primarily at foreign diplomats or proceed from innate internal necessities this totalitarian regime, certainly in realm special diplomatic ruble rate where Soviet authorities could be helpful they have proved themselves reverse. In these matters other countries are poorly equipped adopt retaliatory measures while field of travel provides retaliatory opportunity through simple device announcing restricted areas applying Soviet officials abroad and declaring violators persona non grata.

Since reimposition travel restrictions little over month ago, members Embassy staff including service personnel have made trips Tbilisi, Astrakhan, Stalingrad, Kharkov, Odessa, Omsk and Chkalov after formally notifying Soviet authorities intention travel and details itinerary. This is first time since war service attachés have been permitted travel as their requests for travel permission 1945–1948 were invariably turned down or ignored by liaison office Ministry Armed Forces. It also represents improvement situation existing 1947–1948 for civilian members Embassy when Soviet authorities through indirect means such as denial railroad and accommodation facilities which they are free reemploy any time effectively prevented foreign mission personnel from traveling.

This happier situation is not necessarily permanent. I suspect as do many of my colleagues that after “honeymoon” period is over and sufficient trips of foreigners have been recorded and advertised to believing world as illustration absence “iron curtain” Soviets will clamp down on travel possibly through device indirect action. End of GA meeting would prove convenient time. However, whatever action or inaction we may take, it is unlikely influence course re foreigners USSR which Soviets have undoubtedly already decided upon.

I do not think we should absorb any longer the discourtesies and impositions of Soviet authorities without retaliation when such action is feasible. I firmly believe it is only language they will ever understand. At very least it may cause them pause for thought when contemplating additional restrictions. On other hand I am not deluded in thinking that retaliatory action will cause Soviets withdraw their travel restrictions. Possibly adoption retaliatory measures by all countries having representatives accredited Moscow might have salutary effect but this manifestly impossible expect from Satellites and of remaining missions here. Embassy understands only Canadians favor retaliation. British believe vigorous protest should be recorded FonOff leaving question retaliation in abeyance as long as Soviets continue permit travel on present basis.

I do not believe we should go through preliminary step of protest with threat retaliatory action. It could only delay end result and add nothing to justice or dignity of our position. On contrary I strongly recommend that we institute restrictive measures regard movements Soviet officials in USA as soon as possible and at least by January 1st which will parallel as closely as possible Soviet restrictions on foreign mission personnel here. That is, Soviet Embassy personnel Washington should be allowed freedom movement radius fifty kilometers by auto with exception certain highways leaving city (see Embassy’s despatch 801, November 13¹). As special privilege corresponding those granted us they might be permitted visit by auto Gettysburg, Williamsburg and some point on Chesapeake bay after preliminary notification 48 hours in advance. By means public conveyance they might be permitted visit New York (exchange for Leningrad) and certain states in south and midwest after notification itinerary and dates travel 48 hours beforehand Department. Amtorg officials should be restricted limits metropolitan New York by auto and same states by common carrier again after notification Dept. Border and coastal states should be prohibited except when notification given departure abroad. Soviet personnel assigned UN organization are, I realize, in different category and I do not think we can or should apply to them these restrictions.

In our note informing Soviet Embassy imposition restrictions can we not make clear our reluctance take retaliatory steps and desire remove them when reasonable regulations applied American Government personnel Moscow? Note should be written with view publication and maximum appreciation reasons behind our action by American and world public opinion. I should judge news our action would force Dept make statement or publish note.²

As regards Bulgaria’s mimicry,³ I suppose we may expect other satellites sooner or later to follow suit. Perhaps immediate retaliation might cause other satellites at least consider more carefully application such measures, if they now contemplate them. At any rate am inclined believe if retaliation decided upon this case, we should closely parallel Bulgarian restrictions even though differing from retaliatory measures imposed on Soviets in US in order uphold principle retaliation.

Military and Air Attachés concur. Naval Attaché absent.

Sent Dept 2735, Sofia 24. Dept pass Paris for Gadel 652.

Smith

1. Not printed; but see footnote 2, p. 929.

2. In telegram 7 to Moscow on January 5, 1949, the Department stated in reply that the whole subject of travel restrictions and possible retaliatory action would be reviewed, and that all arrangements were made to impose similar restrictions, if that should be the decision reached. The Department inquired regarding the status of the “honeymoon period.” (861.111/11–2648) The Embassy in the Soviet Union answered in its telegram 46 from Moscow on January 8 that the honeymoon had continued beyond the contemplated time, with trips still being made. (861.111/1–849)

   Retaliatory restrictions were not imposed at this time by the United States. When additional areas were closed to foreign travel by the Soviet Union in a note of January 15, 1952, accompanied by a map, then retaliatory restrictions on travel for Soviet officials in the United States were imposed in a note of March 10, 1952. See Department of State Bulletin, March 24, 1952, pp. 451–452.

3. Regarding the imposition of travel limitations by Bulgaria on November 6, 1948, see the editorial note, p. 387.