861.24/9–149

United States Side Minutes of Meeting of Combined Working Group on Naval Craft1

[Extracts]
confidential

Present

U.S. USSR
Mr. R. G. Hooker, Jr. Adm. N. A. Piterski, Sov. Navy
Capt. Wm. O. Floyd, USN Capt. 2nd Cl. M. I. Vanyukin, Sov. Navy
Lt. Comdr. J. C. Davis, USN
Mr. C. C. Matlock Mr. B. K. Sokolov,3 1st Sec. Sov. Emb. (Interpreter)
Mr. M. H. Cardozo
Mr. D. H. Henry2
Mr. G. E. Truesdell

Admiral Piterski immediately opened the discussion by stating that the Soviet side had waited a long time since the meeting of August 10, 1949 and noted that the U.S. side had agreed to call the next meeting. He then passed the initiative to the U.S. side. Mr. Hooker noted the proposal presented to the Soviets in the meeting of August 10, that the Soviets had expressed reservation as to the ports of return, i.e. Norfolk and San Francisco and had agreed to refer the U.S. proposals to the Soviet Government for review. He asked if Admiral Piterski was prepared to state the conclusions of the Soviet Government with respect to these proposals. Admiral Piterski responded by stating that agreement of both parties was necessary to the document and suggested a review paragraph by paragraph. Admiral Piterski stated that paragraph 1 was acceptable and no changes were required. He noted however that the Soviet Government was confident that all of the Vessels could be returned by November 20 which would be much less than the ninety days specified.

With respect to paragraph 2, the Admiral stated that the wording should be revised to reflect the return of the frigates at Hakodate (a port on the southern extremity of the Japanese Island of Hokkaido) in three groups of nine vessels each in the period from September to November 15. He also stated that the wording of this paragraph should be revised to indicate that the icebreakers be returned at one of the ports in Western Germany, the North Wind in October, the South Wind and the West Wind in November.

Mr. Hooker expressed surprise and disappointment that the Soviet Government continued unwilling to agree to the United States proposal [Page 731] that the vessels be returned to the United States ports of Norfolk and San Francisco. Admiral Piterski replied quickly that the lend-lease agreement between our two governments contained no provisions for the return of lend-lease articles to the United States proper and expressed his opinion that some middle point would be appropriate for the return. Mr. Hooker stated that the United States position set forth at the last meeting was a clear interpretation of the language of Article V that lend-lease articles should be returned to the United States except that the United States could exercise its clear option to receive the articles abroad. Mr. Hooker pointed out that this Government’s note of January 11 in which the United States agreed to discussions by the experts in connection with the return of the icebreakers and frigates, had designated Norfolk and San Francisco as the ports of return. He called attention to the fact that the Soviet replies of June 26 and July 22 to the United States note of January 11 in no way took issue with this proposal and the United States, therefore, had assumed there was no question in this connection. Admiral Piterski replied flatly that on behalf of the Soviet Government he had suggested that the vessels be returned to Japan and West Germany. Mr. Hooker then stated that the Government of the United States considers it strange that the Soviet Government now raises this issue after such a long period and that the United States had considered this point agreed. He said that the U.S. had considered the ports of return as already agreed upon and not as a subject for discussion of the experts which were designated to agree upon the details. Admiral Piterski countered by stating his regret that this question had not been raised previously. Mr. Hooker responded by stating that the United States also regretted this development. Admiral Piterski then asked if the United States insistence upon a return of the vessels to Norfolk and San Francisco should be properly interpreted to mean that the United States did not wish to receive the vessels. Mr. Hooker then asked if the Soviets would bear the expenses of returning the vessels to the United States if they were accepted at ports in Western Germany and Japan. Mr. Hooker stated the possibility that if the Soviets would bear this expense the amount could be set off as a credit to the Soviet Lend-Lease account. Admiral Piterski stated that he had no authority to discuss such a proposal or any other general matter but only could make the proposal that the transfer be accomplished at German and Japanese ports and that the United States should stand the expense of returning them thence to U.S. ports. Mr. Hooker stated that he had understood earlier remarks by the Admiral to mean that a middle point could be agreed upon for the transfer, and that the Soviets would be willing to bear part of the expense of return. Admiral Piterski replied that there must have been a misunderstanding [Page 732] of his remarks since he had meant to convey the Soviet position that the vessels should be returned to Germany and Japan at the expense of the Soviet Government and that the United States should bear any expenses incurred thereafter. Mr. Hooker asked if this meant that there had been no change whatever in the Soviet attitude since the previous meeting. Admiral Piterski confirmed this fact.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

…Mr. Hooker then referred to the discussion as to the ports of return and again stated the surprise and disappointment of the United States side at the Soviet decision not to return the vessels to United States ports. Admiral Piterski stated that the Soviet Government had considered the United States proposals but had no changes to offer with respect to its original position. Mr. Hooker stated that he would report the Soviet position to his government and Admiral Piterski then asked when he could expect an answer from the United States.

Mr. Hooker stated that the United States Government had considered carefully the Soviet position and continues of the firm opinion that the Soviet Government has a clear and definite obligation to return the vessels to United States ports in accordance with Article V of the Master Lend-Lease Agreement, in keeping with precedents established by other Governments in return of lend-lease naval craft, and particularly in view of the Soviet failure from January 11 to the present to give notice to this Government of its intentions in the matter. He stated, however, that, in view of the necessity for finding a solution and solely in the interest of expediting agreement, the U.S. was prepared to accept the icebreakers in Western Germany in consideration of which, the United States would expect the Soviets to return the frigates to San Francisco. He said that the United States offered this solution remaining strongly convinced that the Soviet obligations were to return the vessels to United States ports. He asked Admiral Piterski to report this proposal to his Government emphasizing the concession made by the United States and giving his personal recommendation for its acceptance. Admiral Piterski restated the U.S. proposal for clarification and asked if the United States side would name the port in Western Germany. Mr. Hooker advised that one of the larger ports would be designated but that he could not give a definite answer at this time. He stated his opinion that no disagreement should arise in this connection. In response to the United States proposal Admiral Piterski said “I do not know.” and agreed to refer the matter to his government for a reply. He agreed to advise the U.S. as to the next meeting as soon as he has received instructions as to the U.S. proposal.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  1. This meeting was held in the Department of State, beginning at 4 p. m.
  2. Boris Konstantinovich Sokolov, first secretary of the Embassy of the Soviet Union at Washington.
  3. David Howe Henry, 2d, member of the Division of Eastern European Affairs.