861.24/1369
Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of European Affairs (Bohlen) to the Acting Chief of the Division (Atherton)
Mr. Atherton: The following are the developments in the question of a proposed agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union for the exchange of information concerning inventions of war [Page 754] weapons similar to that concluded between the British and Soviet Governments last September.
As you are aware the War Department objected on various grounds to the conclusion of such an agreement74 and the matter was held in abeyance pending Admiral Standley’s return to Washington. I have taken up the question with Admiral Standley and he agrees that it would be desirable for us to have an agreement similar to that of the British and he asked General Michela, his Military Attaché, to discuss the question further with G–2. General Michela subsequently informed me that although G–2 is not convinced that such an agreement would be desirable, nevertheless, in order to comply with Admiral Standley’s wishes they would agree in principle but not to an agreement similar in wording to the British one as it was felt that this agreement did not contain sufficient specific waivers in the event that the War Department felt that a particular invention or information relating thereto should not be given to the Russians.
I communicated with Colonel Yeaton and suggested that under the circumstances he send me a draft of the agreement that would be agreeable to G–2 since the Department and Admiral Standley were satisfied with the wording of the British Agreement. Colonel Yeaton has now sent over a suggested draft a copy of which is attached.75 Admiral Standley feels strongly and I concur that the draft suggested by G–2 would make a very bad impression on the Soviet Government particularly in comparison with the Soviet-British Agreement on this subject and would be regarded by the Soviets as an attempt to find out exactly what inventions, processes, et cetera, the Soviet Government might have. Admiral Standley believes that it would be better not to raise the subject at all than to suggest an agreement along the lines proposed by the War Department. He does not wish, however, to attempt to overrule the War Department in their opposition to the type of agreement concluded by the British and Soviet Governments since he feels that in the last analysis any such agreement would be implemented by the War Department and not by the State Department.
If you concur I shall call Colonel Yeaton and explain to him the Admiral’s position.76
- This opposition was expressed by Maj. Gen. George V. Strong, Assistant Chief of Staff, G–2, on the grounds that it would be better to continue to give information to the Soviet authorities as a free gift without any attempt to make it reciprocal. Mr. Bohlen noted on December 29, 1942, that he had informed the Ambassador to the United Kingdom, John G. Winant, concerning the objections of the War Department to the conclusion of such an agreement, and that the Ambassador had communicated these views to W. Averell Harriman.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Mr. Atherton agreed, and Bohlen explained Ambassador Standley’s views on December 19, 1942, to Colonel Yeaton, who believed that “if the Admiral felt very strongly about the necessity and desirability on general grounds of such an agreement, he was sure that the War Department might be willing to accept the British-Soviet Agreement as a basis but that it would only be for this reason and ‘G–2 would not be happy about the matter’.”↩