Office of the Historian

760H.61/8–3049: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Holmes) to the Secretary of State

secret
London, August 30, 1949—1 p. m.

3447. We communicated Department’s thinking on referring Soviet-Yugoslav dispute SC with which we strongly concur, to Foreign [Page 939] Office on receipt Deptel 3102, August 29 (repeated Belgrade 493, Moscow 604, Paris 3207).1

Talbot said FonOff views in complete accord with Departments. He stated however that, with reference Peake-Bebler conversation reported Embtel 3437 August 29 (repeated Moscow 166, Paris 656, Belgrade 68),2 British are prepared to take question to SC if Yugoslavs request British to do so and gave prior assurance that they would fully cooperate. In this regard, we have also expressed to Talbot our doubt, indicated in fifth paragraph Embtel 3403 (repeated Moscow 105, Paris 655, Belgrade 67)3 concerning desirability one of great western powers taking dispute to SC. We agree however with indication in Deptel 3102 that situation might be altered this regard if Soviet campaign against Yugoslav develops into imminent threat to or breach of peace or acts of aggression.

Talbot said that Peake would not pursue question of reference dispute to SC further with Yugoslavs without instructions, and he stated that FonOff planned take no further action at this time. He said however regarding final paragraph Deptel 3102 that at instance Bevin FonOff instructing British Embassy Washington to bring McNeil’s statement on Soviet attacks on Yugoslavia in speech of August 284 to Secretary’s attention with suggestion that high US official make similar statement stressing Soviets “playing with fire” which is favorite Bevin theme this matter. We believe it most desirable that any statement by US official be directed against Soviet actions and threats and far as possible avoid even by implication placing US in position of appearing support Tito.5

We informed by Watson,6 FonOff official who drafted McNeil [Page 940] statement, that decision that McNeil make statement was reached in meeting with Bevin.

Sent Department 3447, repeated Belgrade 701, Paris 657, Moscow 108.

Holmes
  1. Supra. ↩
  2. Not printed; it reported information from the British Foreign Office that British Ambassador Peake in Belgrade had asked Yugoslav Deputy Foreign Minister Bebler how the Yugoslav Government would view the reference of the Soviet-Yugoslav dispute to the United Nations Security Council by some other government, “perhaps by one of Yugoslavia’s great allies”. Bebler was embarrassed and reluctant to express an opinion but said that while he thought there might be advantages, the disadvantages probably would be greater since such an action would certainly provoke some vituperation from the Soviet Government which would cite it as further proof that Yugoslavia had definitely joined the Western camp (760H.61/8–2949).↩
  3. August 26, p. 933.↩
  4. On September 1, W. D. Allen, Counselor of the British Embassy, called at the Department of State to present copies of a speech made on August 28 at Greenock, Scotland, by the British Minister of State Hector McNeil dealing with the situation in the Balkans. A copy of the speech is attached to Achilles’ memorandum of conversation with Allen in file 860H.00/9–149.↩

  5. In his telegram 2199, September 1, from Moscow, not printed, Ambassador Kirk commended the tone of the Secretary of State’s statement on August 24 (see p. 932) but suggested further statements by the Department be withheld until the Soviet Union made a further move. In particular, Kirk urged against use of the “playing with fire” phrase which appeared to be stronger than current circumstances warranted (760H.61/9–149).

    For information regarding the Secretary of State’s comments about Yugoslavia at his press conference of August 31, see footnote 2, p. 932.

    ↩
  6. John H. Watson, Assistant Head, Information Research Department, British Foreign Office.↩