740.00119 Council/9–1245: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at London9
7889. Secdel 41. For the Secretary. You will have seen Moscow’s tel of Sept 1010 repeated to London as no. 441 that Vyshinski has replied to our note of Sept 7 in regard to Rumania. His answer is drafted in such terms as to make it entirely unacceptable. Rather than continue a correspondence of this nature however it is thought that you may wish to discuss the subject direct with Molotov in London. Should the occasion arise it might be well to point out the following misstatements of fact which appear in Vyshinski’s letter.
The Soviet Govt maintains that the Groza govt was not formed at the instance of the Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR. Information at the disposal of this Govt shows irrefutably that the Soviet Rep first informed the King that the existing Govt of Rumania was unsatisfactory to the USSR and subsequently, when political consultations with regard to the formation of a new govt were under way in accordance with constitutional procedure, Mr. Vyshinski had nominated Groza in the name of the Soviet Govt. The Asst Commissar later stated that cancellation of the Groza mandate would be considered by the Soviet Govt as a hostile act. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Groza govt was brought to power without consultation with either the US or Brit Govts as had previously been requested. The views of this Govt in regard to the method of formation of the Groza govt were communicated at the time to the USSR and since the Soviet Govt gave no substantial reassurance this Govt therefore proposed consultation and joint action under the Crimea Declaration on Liberated Europe. This proposal was rejected by the USSR.
Mr. Vyshinski further insists that the American and Brit Reps on the ACC placed the matter of Groza’s resignation before the King without consultation with the Soviet member of the Commission. This statement is also unfounded on fact. The US Political Representative who is not a member of the ACC replied to questions of Rumanian leaders regarding the attitude of his Govt in respect of the Potsdam communiqué by stating that his Govt did not consider the Groza govt sufficiently representative of democratic opinion in Rumania to warrant the conclusion of a peace treaty with it at this time. The US Govt still maintains this view. Any subsequent Rumanian action was taken entirely on Rumanian initiative.
Insofar as this Govt is aware the King has never “officially declared to the Powers that he had no grievances whatsoever against the Groza [Page 619] govt”. We understand he may however have informed the Soviet Ambassador that he had no personal grievances against Groza himself. The decision of the majority of the party leaders to form a new govt has however demonstrated that the Groza govt does not enjoy the support of all democratic elements in Rumania and the continuance of the present deadlock is contrary to the constitutional procedure of the country.