EUR files, lot 59 D 233, “Yugoslavia”

No. 683
The Ambassador in Austria (Thompson) to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Merchant)1

secret

Dear Livie: When I found that Governor Stevenson had not had an opportunity to inform the Embassy in Belgrade of his talk with [Page 1362] Tito, I persuaded him to give me a memorandum of the high points of the conversation. I have sent a brief telegram today summarizing it,2 and enclose the full text of the memorandum which he gave me. He requested that this be held very closely. I am sending a copy to Woody Wallner in Belgrade.

Sincerely yours,

Llewellyn E. Thompson, Jr.

[Enclosure]

Memorandum by Adlai E. Stevenson to the Ambassador in Austria (Thompson)

secret

Without attempting to rearrange my notes and recollections for order and emphasis I will set forth, pursuant to your request, some of the things Tito said, in, I fear, utter disorder!!

I spent about four hours with him on Brioni on June 25, 1953:

The Soviet change of tactics does not reflect a change of objectives. Russia will be aggressive as long as the internal regime and methods are unchanged. The pressures of “state capitalistic despotism” pushes the U.S.S.R. to imperialism. The West should not look to external manifestations, peaceful gestures, conciliatory moves, minor concessions for evidence of basic changes in Soviet purposes. The real signs will come from internal changes when force and violence are replaced by consent and cooperation. The West would be foolish to relax its defense effort until the Yugoslavs, who know the Kremlin’s intentions best, relax theirs. Yugoslavia is spending more of its national income—22%—on defense than any other nation.

Until domestic internal policies change with relaxation of police methods and replacement of brutal autocracy by democratic socialism in the Yugoslav pattern, Russia, it must be assumed, will race forward.

Tito favors Four-Power talks “to feel the pulse” without the expectation of accomplishing very much yet. Negotiation and “cooperation” with the Soviets are important to deprive them of propaganda weapon that West is plotting war.

Big Russian problem today is internal. To make friends at home must make friends abroad. Objectives are to save Germany from the West, divide the Allies, reduce defense efforts and increase attention to the Orient, particularly India.

[Page 1363]

The strong arm methods of Stalin have failed at home and abroad. He was not opposed during his lifetime because his associates did not want “to go to Siberia.”

The Berlin riots are the most important post-war event except Yugoslavia’s break with the Soviets in 1948. They started as an economic protest but uncovered the bad political situation. They had to be suppressed ruthlessly or would have spread over all East Germany. The East German workers would have to put up with stern economic conditions if they had felt free and democratic socialist. But they know they are a satellite and are exploited for the benefit of the Soviet Union which takes but does not give. Russia is not Communist but state capitalism; Yugoslavia is not Communist but democratic socialist and on the right road. Communism and the withering away of the state is for the future.

European unity in terms of political federation is a desirable goal, but far in the future. Europe is not ready for it yet. There are too many old hatchets still to be buried.

India is the most interesting and important country in the world. A grouping of Russia, China and India would be very serious, but India, like Yugoslavia, is opposed to Stalinist methods and imperialism. Both are steering an independent course in foreign affairs and are misunderstood in America.

Tito knows all of the new men in the Kremlin. They are much more flexible and modern minded than Stalin who was interested only in force—an autocrat whom he compared to Ivan the Terrible.

The Balkan Pact was necessary because of the emergency. He thinks it should be enduring and, in spite of the differing philosophies of the members, be an important factor of stability in an area which has been unstable in the past. It should be attractive to the Bulgarians but he sees less evidence of internal disorder in Bulgaria than in the other satellites.

On relations with Italy he seems fully conscious of Yugoslavia’s awkward position which will be actually complicated by the necessity of maintaining forces “to protect herself from Italy.” He thinks the initiative lies with Italy which should set aside the Trieste question and discuss many smaller problems first. He doubts if any progress can be made in view of weakened political situation in Italy.

Tito wishes Cardinal Stepinac would leave the country. He has little trouble with most of the Catholic clergy, but is under constant pressure internally because Stepinac’s collaboration with the Germans and puppet Croat government was not punished more severely.

Thinks the peasants are satisfied now with the decollectivization and the ten hectare law. Also feels that the decentralization of industry [Page 1364] management, which recognizes normal incentives, is popular and will improve conditions and strengthen the regime. He hopes that Yugoslavia will need no further aid from the United States after two years. Hopes the United States will continue helping under-developed countries.

He sees little hope of political stability and strength in France, which has not had “a great jolt” and did not fight in the war.

Has little use for U.S. propaganda program—too much ideology and not enough facts. What people want is positive assurance that West has more to offer in terms of peace, security, and better living standards than the Russians.

Finally, he said he would like to visit the United States as he did England, but he did not think McCarthy would let him in.

Note: Please understand that this is desultory and confused and is merely an attempt at recording some of what he said which you thought of interest.

AES
  1. Attached to the source text are three documents: (1) a letter from Bonbright to Thompson, acknowledging receipt of Thompson’s letter of July 10 and its enclosed memorandum by Stevenson, in which Bonbright noted that Stevenson’s memorandum provided “useful confirmation of some of Tito’s views which he has not previously chosen to express in such a forthright manner”; (2) a handwritten note from Bonbright to Thurston, undated, in which Bonbright stated his belief that Stevenson’s memorandum should be shown to MacArthur, Matthews, Smith, and Bowie, and that Smith might want to show it to Dulles; and (3) a memorandum of July 27 from Bonbright to Smith, drafted by Thurston, noting that Smith might want to read the attached memorandum by Stevenson and that he also might wish to show it to Dulles. This memorandum also indicated that copies of Stevenson’s memorandum were sent to Matthews, MacArthur, and Bowie.
  2. Not found in Department of State files.