701.6111/970
Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State
The Soviet Ambassador called this morning in order to “pay his respects,” as he termed it, upon his return from Europe and in order to present the new Counselor of Embassy.1
I adopted a completely negative attitude throughout the conversation, making it necessary for the Ambassador to take the initiative [Page 795] in any topics he brought up, even though conversation lapsed upon occasion for as much as a minute or so.
The Ambassador commenced the conversation after preliminaries, such as inquiring about my health, etc., by stating that he enjoyed his three months’ vacation in Russia. He informed me that he had returned by way of Bucharest, Belgrade, and Genoa, and that he found the trip on the Orient Express very comfortable. He remarked that this was now the only international train still continuing to function effectively in Europe.
He then stated that conditions in Europe had changed very much since he and I had last talked. I replied that they had changed very substantially.
He then went on to say that in Moscow no one would know that there was a war going on anywhere in the world, that all of the Soviet citizens were most happy and contented, that there was no shortage of supplies, and that the theaters were open, et cetera. Upon this I made no comment.
The Ambassador then said that he had seen a great deal of Ambassador Steinhardt during his stay in Moscow and that he believed Mr. Steinhardt was now very “well settled”. I stated that I had exactly the same impression, and that Ambassador Steinhardt’s conduct of his mission in Moscow was exceedingly satisfactory to the Government of the United States. I also said that this Government had followed with close attention and with complete confidence the negotiations conducted by Mr. Steinhardt since his arrival in Moscow.
The Ambassador then stated that he had endeavored as fully as possible to follow the course of events in the United States during his absence from this country, and that he had been very much surprised by the rapidity with which the revision of the neutrality legislation in this country had been completed. To this remark I made no answer.
The Ambassador then said that he had not been in the United States during the World War of 1914–1918 but that it seemed to him that public opinion in the United States was pursuing a different course from what it had during the years of the last war. He then asked me directly what I believed was the reason for this change. I replied that in my judgment the average man and woman in the United States were following far more closely than they ever had before the course of events in the rest of the world and that our citizens were far more informed on foreign relations than they had been in the years from 1914 to 1918. I said that I was confident that for this reason the overwhelming majority of the American people were able to determine for themselves with complete clarity the real issues involved in the course of international affairs and that as a [Page 796] result their opinions as to the basic elements had by now become completely crystallized. I said that it was very obviously for this reason that the revision of the Neutrality Act had been completed with the rapidity which had surprised the Ambassador.
The Ambassador seemed to be extremely nervous, hesitant, and quite lacking in the glib assurance which has characterized him throughout his earlier stay in Washington. He stated before he left that there were many important problems that he desired to discuss with me and with the Secretary of State upon the return of the latter to Washington. I said that I should be glad to discuss them with him at any time and that I was now completely at his disposal if he desired to bring them up for consideration during the present interview. The Ambassador said that he would prefer to wait until next week.
- Andrey Andreyevich Gromyko.↩