761.56/6–2050

The Deputy Under Secretary of State ( Matthews ) to the Secretary of the Navy ( Matthews )

secret

My Dear Mr. Secretary: Reference is made to your letter of June 20, 19501 requesting information as to the arrangements which may have been made for further conversations with the Soviets on the matter of the return of U.S. lend-lease naval ships.

On September 27, 1949, at the conclusion of discussions as to arrangements for return of three icebreakers and twenty-seven frigates, the Soviet Ambassador was reminded of the Soviet note of December 9, 1948 and our understanding that discussions of naval experts should also resolve the questions of return of 186 other naval craft demanded in our note of October 7, 1948 and disposition of the remainder. Despite the fact that it was made clear to the Soviet Ambassador that the U.S. Government expected the negotiations to continue, the Soviet naval experts departed for the Soviet Union without explanation.

In a note of June 15, 1950 dealing among other things with the Soviet obligation to return lend-lease naval craft demanded by this Government, the Soviets were again reminded of their obligation under Article V of the Master Lend-Lease Agreement to return 186 naval craft demanded by the United States Government on October 7, 1948. The Soviets were informed that their apparent refusal to meet a clear obligation, as evidenced by the departure of Soviet naval experts after considering only the return of the icebreakers and frigates, constituted a default of their obligations under Article V of the Master Lend-Lease Agreement. However, as a solution to this problem, a proposal was made that naval experts of the two sides meet to discuss the procedure for the return of the 186 naval craft demanded on October 7, 1948 as well as the disposition of the remaining 242 vessels. Further negotiations of an over-all lend-lease settlement were also proposed for that date.2

It is of course impossible to predict the nature of the Soviet reply to this proposal. Should they accept by appointing naval experts to resume discussions, you may be assured that the Department of State will enter the discussions with the purpose of obtaining the maximum benefit to the national interest of the United States. Toward this end, keeping in mind your request of October 10, 1949, efforts will be made to dispossess the USSR of as many U.S. naval craft as may be possible in the light of this objective.

[Page 1306]

Acknowledgement is made of your letter of June 1, 19503 informing the Department of State of the designation of Captain Theodore F. Ascherfeld as representative of the Navy Department in the discussions with the Soviet Union for the return of U.S. Lend-Lease vessels. Captain Ascherfeld will be kept informed of future developments as to negotiations with the USSR.

Sincerely yours,

H. Freeman Matthews
  1. Not printed.
  2. July 15, 1950.
  3. Not printed. Captain Ascherfeld was designated as the replacement for Captain William O. Floyd. Together with Commander Jack C. Davis, they were to be the expert representatives of the Navy Department in any discussions which might occur in negotiations on “the question of detailed arrangements for return of U.S. Navy Lend Lease vessels” with the Soviet Union. (761.56/6–150)