867.24/1–2645: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Steinhardt)
197. January 26, reEmbs 144. In view of the suggested letter of the Prime Minister and the discussion you have had with him, it appears that the Turks are still confused about the details of ultimate settlement and the principles of a broad and general nature on which the settlement will finally be negotiated. The letter is unclear as to where the one ends and the other begins. Nevertheless, we desire to go more than half way and suggest that you inform the Prime Minister immediately that his letter would be acceptable if the wording substantially as follows is put in place of the words which follow the phrase “text indicates”:
“do not in any event alter the fact that the extent of the deliveries made before the date of its signature are to be the subject of consideration at the time of the final determination of the aid furnished by virtue of the Lend Lease Law of May [March] 11, 1941”.
Also the Prime Minister should be told that contrary to his information numerous lend-lease requisitions are held by the Foreign Economic Administration. Turkish officials in the United States signed these requisitions. Significant quantities of automobiles, wheat, military factory supplies, and other items are contained in these requisitions and are under straight lend-lease as distinguished from lend-lease of the cash reimbursement type. In addition Turkish officials in New York have signed shipping documents for other military supplies.
It should also be pointed out, that in the monthly statements of arrivals of military supplies given to the Turkish Foreign Office by the British, goods of United States origin are noted separately from those of United Kingdom origin.
Apart from the merits of the case, the Turkish delay in signing the master agreement is causing a great deal of concern in the various United States agencies connected with supplies for Turkey, and this in numerous ways contributes to the difficulties of the Turks in securing equipment and supplies.
The Foreign Office, London, in a telegram of January 25 to the British Embassy, Ankara, states that Great Britain is most anxious for the Turks to sign the “draft military supplies agreement”. This would seem to indicate that we and the British may have at this time a common objective. If in your opinion this is the case, you may want to take the matter up with your British colleague.29 It seems [Page 1302] that the proposed British declaration repeated to you in the Department’s 164 of February 530 could well be incorporated inter alia in some British communication to the Turkish Government in connection with their military supplies agreement, thus removing finally the Prime Minister’s objection mentioned near the end of the second paragraph of your 143, January 27, but without showing that we have requested the British to support your statements or in any way showing that we are making a joint approach.
February 8, reEmbs 188 we assume that the Amembassy, London, has already raised this matter with the British Government as the result of our telegram repeated to you as Department’s 164.
In addition should our counter-proposal be rejected and no further acceptable proposals be made by the Turks a statement from the British Government would be helpful in any future demand the President may make in return for the aid granted under the Lend-Lease Act.