123 Davies, Joseph E./38
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Davies) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that prior to sailing from the United States I had several conferences with Mr. Troyanovsky, the Soviet Ambassador in Washington. On their face, these conferences were of a social character. It may or may not be significant that Mr. Alex Gumberg, who was very helpful to me and is apparently close to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, on the day before my departure rather pressed (avowedly in my interest) that I should be sure to call upon Ambassador Troyanovsky before leaving. On this last occasion, Troyanovsky (speaking “personally”) suggested that he was apprehensive that my stay in Moscow might be embarrassed at the beginning by some little coolness on the part of Soviet officials arising out of differences and misunderstandings which he had heard had developed between Mr. Litvinov, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and Ambassador Bullitt. To this I, of course, rejoined that I was entirely sympathetic with the very great disappointment which Ambassador Bullitt had experienced in the failure of the Soviet Government to live up to what appeared to me to have been a plain commitment. I did not permit the subject to develop controversially, but expressed the hope that my Mission might be helpful in improving relations between the two countries.
The second point which Ambassador Troyanovsky made (and it seemed to me quite pointed in view of previous talks) was that he felt that the best opportunity for the development of friendly relations now lay in the interchange of visits by prominent persons of each country and that it would be best to let bygones be bygones in so far as controversial matters were concerned. To this I made no rejoinder.
On the occasion of a previous meeting, Ambassador Troyanovsky had suggested that he felt and hoped that we might be able to adjust and smooth over some of the controversial matters of the past and by clearer understandings adjust some of these matters to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. This attitude seemed to be completely the reverse of the attitude above described in the previous meeting. Upon the same previous occasion I had frankly touched lightly upon what appeared to me to be a regrettable fact, to wit: that a very great man, the President of the United States, had agreed in principle with [Page 359] the representative of the Soviet Government upon, a broad-gauged settlement,6 the terms of which settlement, in the light of existing conditions, were well known to all parties and, in my opinion, were unequivocally clear under the express terms of the written memorandum; that this agreement had not been fulfilled; and that a situation had developed which indicated to my mind confusion over non-essentials and an attempted gradual whittling away of the broad principle of the agreement to which the Soviet Union had been committed. The writer did not amplify upon this except to express his regret, pointing out at the same time the relative unimportance of the matter to the United States and the supreme importance to the Russian people of having in the future a body of liberal public opinion in the United States sympathetic to the Russian people, particularly in view of the uncertain international situation. The writer stated to Ambassador Troyanovsky that if the surprising history of these subsequent negotiations as disclosed in the files of the State Department were known to the American public as they were to me it would result, in my opinion, in a most serious destruction of the confidence and good will which the general public of the United States now felt towards Russia, and I then stated also that it was fortunate that there was no probability of such disclosure. The Ambassador appeared somewhat downcast but made no attempt at rejoinder. The writer developed the foregoing thought after extended conferences with Judge Moore, and with design.
A further significant incident occurred at the diplomatic reception at the White House on January 3, when Umansky, the Counselor of the Russian Embassy at Washington, made a point of approaching the writer, apparently with one idea in his mind which he immediately stated in a very short conversation, to wit: that he wished to suggest to me that which his Chief, Litvinov, had suggested to him when he left for his post in the United States, to wit: that his conduct should be addressed to future relations and not to past controversial matters.
A third incident which may possibly be illuminating (or not) arose on the steamer. Mr. Walter Duranty, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, was aboard and I had many occasions to visit with him which I was naturally anxious to do as he has a fund of Russian information. I asked him specifically what he thought could be done by an American Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the present time. He stated that the debt question was “out”, and generally his ideas were in substance the same as the Troyanovsky-Umansky observations.
[Page 360]These three incidents seem significant of the attitude of the Soviet Government relative to debt discussions. Duranty also stated that the real difficulty, so far as the debt question was concerned, lies in the fact that any direct settlement of the American debt would necessarily involve the settlement of much larger debts with France, Great Britain, and twenty-three other countries, under present treaty arrangements with those countries. Of course, the indisputable fact remains that these objections obtained quite as clearly prior to the agreement as they did subsequent thereto and that the only purpose of an agreement among honorable parties in difference was to establish a new promise in settlement thereof and with specific regard to their abilities to perform their honorable commitments. Throughout these discussions the writer has for the most part merely listened with the single exception above noted of the talk with Troyanovsky.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mr. Barkov, the Chief of the Protocol Division of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, informed me on arrival (morning of January 19) that in the absence of Mr. Litvinov, who is in Geneva, Mr. Krestinski, the Assistant People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, would be glad to receive me at 3:00 o’clock of the same afternoon.
Accompanied by Mr. Henderson, the First Secretary of the Embassy, the writer called at the appointed hour upon Mr. Krestinski and found with him Mr. Neymann, Chief of the Third Western Political Division, the Division of the Foreign Office which handles American affairs. The writer stated that he brought greetings to the Foreign Office and to Mr. Krestinski from the Secretary of State. A copy of letters of credence were left with him as was also a note requesting an appointment with Mr. Kalinin in order to present the letters of recall of the writer’s predecessor and his own letters of credence. At the same time the writer told Mr. Krestinski that he was happy to be in the Soviet Union and stated that he was looking forward with pleasure towards the task of assisting in the maintenance of friendly relations between two great countries and of observing the interesting developments which were taking place in the Soviet Union. Mr. Krestinski replied in a most courteous manner, expressing pleasure at welcoming me to the Soviet Union and regret that Mr. Litvinov (who is at Geneva) was not in the Soviet Union in order also to receive me. He said that in view of the fact that a Congress of the R. S. F. S. R.7 was in session and that there was to be a meeting of the Central Executive Committee of the R. S. F. S. R., Mr. Kalinin’s time was almost completely occupied but that he hoped that it would be possible for Mr. Kalinin [Page 361] to receive me on either January 23 or January 25. The writer rejoined that there was no need for haste and that he would not wish to occasion Mr. Kalinin inconvenience, particularly in view of the important public matters that were pressing.
The writer told Mr. Krestinski that he had been impressed by the appearance of the people whom he had seen in the trains and on the streets and at the amount of construction work which appeared to be going on everywhere. Mr. Krestinski replied that the construction work which the writer had seen in Moscow was indicative of what was taking place everywhere in the Soviet Union and that although this work was useful it somewhat destroyed the beauty of the vicinities in which it was taking place. He added that within a year or two the face of Moscow and many other Soviet cities would be completely changed. After an exchange of remarks on various other subjects relating to economic and political developments in the Soviet Union, our conversation terminated, and, accompanied by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Neymann, the writer called immediately upon Mr. Stomoniakov, the Second Assistant People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Stomoniakov specializes on Far Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European Affairs. He also received us most courteously.
On that evening, the Embassy staff, which has impressed me most favorably, dined with us at the Embassy. The gentlemen of the press (from the United States) and their wives dined with us the following evening.
The Constitutional Convention of the R. S. F. S. R. was holding its final session on January 21 and, upon the request of the writer, Mr. Barkov of the Protocol Division of the Foreign Office arranged for us to attend. The report of my impressions with reference thereto will follow in the next pouch.8
I cannot conclude this report without expressing the appreciation of the excellent and efficient help which I have received from the members of the Embassy staff, a fine group of men, efficient and loyal.
Mr. Ward has been particularly helpful in connection with administrative details pertaining to getting the house in order.
Mr. Henderson, the First Secretary, met us at the Polish border station and has been exceptionally helpful and considerate both prior to and after our arrival. He has been as effective and able in this situation as the fine character of his past reports to the Department would indicate that he would be.
Respectfully yours,
- For the recognition by the United States of the Soviet Union under the agreements reached on November 16, 1933, see pp. 1 ff.↩
- Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.↩
- Ambassador Davies gave some description of the Constitutional Convention in a letter of January 25, 1937, to Stephen Early, Secretary to President Roosevelt. Joseph E. Davies, Mission to Moscow (New York, 1941), p. 20.↩