861.24/8–1049

United States Side Minutes of Meeting of Combined Working Group on Naval Craft 1

confidential

Present

U.S. USSR
Mr. R. G. Hooker, Jr. Adm. N. A. Piterski, Sov. Navy
Capt. W. O. Floyd, USN Capt. 2nd CI. M. I. Vanyukin, Sov. Navy
Lt. Comdr. J. C. Davis, USN
Mr. C. C. Matlock Mr. V. I. Bazykin, Sov. Emb.
Mr. M. H. Cardozo Mr. Y. V. Novikov,2 Sov. Emb. (Interpreter)
Mr. G. E. Truesdell

Mr. Hooker opened the meeting by referring to the various communications between the two Governments on the subject of the return of Naval craft, particularly the note from the Soviet Ambassador of July 22, 1949 wherein he advised the U.S. of the appointment of Adm. Piterski and Capt. Vanyukin as the Soviet experts to discuss the details of return of the frigates and icebreakers. He stated that the U.S. had prepared a proposed agreement on dates and procedures for return of Naval craft as a basis for discussion. Copies of this document (D–119 A–l)3 were distributed to the Soviet members. Adm. Piterski stated that he would require time to study the document before giving an opinion. Mr. Hooker then reviewed the main points of the U.S. proposal item by item and asked if the Soviet side wished to ask any questions. Adm. Piterski reiterated his desire to study the document in detail before giving an opinion. Mr. Hooker explained that the blank space under Item 2 would be filled in giving the name of the vessel, the approximate date of return, and the port of return, i.e. San Francisco on the West Coast or Norfolk on the Atlantic.

Adm. Piterski then stated that the Soviet side wished to reserve its position as to the ports of return as Norfolk and San Francisco might not be convenient but would comment further after review of the proposed agreement. Mr. Hooker pointed out that Article V of the Master Agreement provided for the return of Lend-Lease articles to the United States. Admiral Piterski requested that the return of the frigates be accomplished at ports in Northern Japan, Hokkaido and the icebreakers in the Western zone of Germany. Mr. Hooker replied that the U.S. must take the position that the vessels be returned to the U.S. in accordance with the Master Agreement and the precedents established in the return of Naval craft by other Lend-Lease recipients. Adm. Piterski stated that the Soviet position was as he had [Page 725] stated. Mr. Hooker then explained in detail the U.S. position, again referring to the language of Article V and the precedents established by other governments. He said that the U.S. did not feel it should bear the expense of sending crews to Japan for this purpose. Adm. Piterski replied by requesting that the Soviet proposal be considered by the U.S. Government. Mr. Hooker then argued the U.S. position relating the garden hose story and stating that it was usual for the neighbor whose house was on fire to return the hose which he had borrowed to the lender. Mr. Bazykin countered by stating that the Soviet war effort was in itself good reason for the Soviet position. Mr. Hooker agreed to report the Soviet position to his Government.

Mr. Hooker advised the Soviet delegation that he would communicate shortly with Admiral Piterski as to the next meeting. He also requested that the United States position be reported to the Soviet Government and that the views of the Soviet Government as to the United States position be reported to the United States at the next meeting. Admiral Piterski assented.4

Before adjournment, Adm. Piterski mentioned that the U.S. frigates had no names but were designated only by hull numbers. It was agreed that the headings in Item 2 of the proposed agreement should be altered to read “Hull Numbers” rather than “Name of Vessel”.

  1. This meeting was held in the Department of State, beginning at 4 p. m.
  2. Yury Vasilyevich Novikov was an Attaché in the Embassy of the Soviet Union at Washington.
  3. Not printed.
  4. This paragraph is printed from the wording on an attached correction page.