Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

793.00/3–2950: Telegram

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

secret

Moscow , March 29, 1950—8 p. m.

981. Deptel 252 March 28.¹ I have just seen Vishinski on subject of Vogeler and of Smith and Bender and discussed these cases for 30 minutes. My line followed Department’s general instructions except that I added the Amtorg case to that of Gubitchev as further indication Secretary’s interest in reducing tensions. Mr. Vishinski took me up at once on Gubitchev case saying emphatically and positively it had never been raised by him with Secretary. He elaborated his November 7 conversation with Secretary in re Amtorg following closely Department’s memorandum thereof.²

(While uncertain myself about conversations concerning Gubitchev, nevertheless Department’s continued references thereto seems convincing.)

Mr. Vishinski started to expand his government’s views on case of Gubitchev, but I interrupted to say that, regardless of merits of case, after all the Secretary had intervened and effected deportation and has also intervened in Amtorg case to good purpose.

Vishinski said those problems lay with our two governments, but present two cases involved two additional governments with one of which we had full diplomatic relations and that therefore he did not feel he could intervene. He agreed anything that could be done to ease tensions was good to do, but he regretted in this case he did not feel in position to intervene.

In conclusion, I said I was sure the Secretary would be pleased if Vishinski felt he could make useful approach and that I too would hope he might do so, but that I would make report to my Government of his position.³

Sent Department 981; Department pass Budapest 16.

Kirk

1. Supra.
2. Regarding the Gubichev and Amtorg cases under reference here, see footnotes 1 and 2, pages 998 and 999.
3. In telegram 268, March 30, to Moscow, repeated as 149 to Budapest, not printed, the Department of State regretted the inexactitude of its recollection regarding the Gubichev and Amtorg cases but did not feel that the basis for the American request for intervention on behalf of Vogeler and Smith and Bender had been altered inasmuch as the Secretary of State had, in the Gubichev case, concretely manifested the desire and intention to reduce international tension wherever possible. The Department therefore deeply regretted Vyshinsky’s refusal to intercede on behalf of Vogeler and Smith and Bender (793.00/3–3050).