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

951.40/9–2050: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Bruce) to the Secretary of State

secret

Paris, September 20, 1950—7 p. m.

1478. 1. Radio Bulletin under September 13 dateline reports following statements by Hoffman to Senate re Wherry amendment Communist bill:¹

(a) Democracies receiving more items of military value from Soviet countries than they are sending;

(b) WE receiving from EE following strategic materials: copper, nickel, lead, zinc, ferromanganese;

(c) NAP countries have reached general agreement on what materials have sufficient strategic importance to warrant placing an embargo on their export to Soviet bloc;

(d) Furthering MDAP program “through the continuance of East-West trade”.

2. New York Times September 18 and Paris edition New York Herald Tribune September 19 carried stories further statements attributed Hoffman re Wherry amendment defense appropriation bill, viz.,²

(a) Banning shipments strategic materials to iron-curtain countries may wreck entire foreign aid program;

(b) Language of bill too restrictive because covered “articles which may be used in manufacture of arms or military material”;

(c) West has been gaining more in strategic material from eastern European shipments than it has sent;

(d) “We are winning what amounts to a form of economic warfare.”

3. Having about reached saturation point here on obtaining any further appreciable parallel Excon controls (Embtel 1251, September 8³), above statements will need explaining if we expect much further action through CG/CoCom mechanism.

4. It is impossible reconcile implications statements in paragraphs 1 and 2 with material received from Department dated September 11 containing following statements:

(a) “US analysis of available data suggests that the importance of East-West trade for the economic recovery of the west has been considerably overstated”;

(b) “It is the US view that long range economic viability in west Europe would be advanced if dependence on east European markets was reduced now, during a period of large-scale US assistance programs, rather than to permit the Soviet bloc to choose, to its own best advantage, the time for a curtailment of trade.”⁴

5. Department will appreciate interpretation that PC’s will place on point 1 (c) which implies satisfactory agreement has been reached on strategic items to be controlled by WE.

6. One principal difficulty here in expanding controls has been refusal other PC’s agree control items of other than direct military significance. Point 2(b) above seems contrary paragraph 2 of agreed minute submitted at FM meeting which is designed expand controls to cover not only material and equipment needed to produce items of direct military significance but also of exports required in key industrial areas (Deptel 1236, September 11⁵).

7. As to point 2(d), Department is aware we have consistently denied that US proposals have ever envisaged economic warfare, and that to induce other PC’s accept further controls we have insisted west was losing advantage unless US controls were adopted.

8. Department’s comment would be appreciated. We would particularly like:

(a) Information supporting points 1(a), 2 (c).

(b) Most recent export statistics showing, by country, exports by WE to EE and imports by WE from EE of items mentioned points 1(b) and 2(c). Department will appreciate fact that one of CoCom criteria used in determining which items should be controlled is availability in EE.

Bruce

1. On September 12 during Senate debate of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (subsequently enacted into law as Public Law 81–831 of September 23, 1950), Senator Kenneth S. Wherry of Nebraska proposed an amendment which would have denied American assistance to countries found to be exporting items of war potential to the Soviet Union and its satellites; for the text of the Wherry amendment, see Congressional Record, vol. 96, pt. 2, p. 14606. In the course of the debate over the amendment, which was withdrawn that day without being voted upon, a statement by Economic Cooperation Administrator Paul G. Hoffman, strongly opposing the amendment, was read into the Congressional Record (vol. 96, pt. 2, p. 14610). The Department of State Wireless (or Radio) Bulletin under reference here, the official news service of the Department of State, was prepared by the Division of International Press and Publications and transmitted daily by radio to foreign service posts abroad.
2. In connection with a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951 (subsequently enacted as Public Law 843, September 27, 1950), Senator Wherry again offered the amendment identified in footnote 1, above. In place of the Wherry amendment, the House of Representatives (on September 21) and the Senate (on September 22) agreed to a substitute amendment proposed by Congressman Clarence Cannon of Missouri. The text of the Cannon amendment, which was included as section 1304 of the supplemental appropriations act as enacted, appears as the final paragraph of telegram 1493, September 23, to Paris, p. 192.
3. Not printed.
4. The material quoted here has not been further identified.
5. Same as telegram 1305, September 11, to London, p. 186.