Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1941, General, The Soviet Union, Volume I

740.00119 European War 1939/882

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State (Welles)

[Washington,] November 13, 1941.

The Minister of Finland called to see me this morning at his request.

The Minister referred first of all to the formal statement which had been made by the Secretary of State yesterday and to Secretary Hull’s press conference.⁷² He said that he had been very much surprised by both and inquired in that connection whether I had as yet studied the reply of his Government.

I answered that I had only received the full reply of the Government of Finland this morning as reported by the American Legation in Helsinki and that I had not as yet had the time to do more than to read it hastily. I said, consequently, that I would prefer to refrain from making any remarks with regard thereto for the time being.

The Minister then went on to say that he had read very carefully the memorandum as published⁷³ of my account of my conversation with the Minister on August 18. He said that as soon as he had read it he had informed his Government that it seemed to him a completely accurate statement of the conversation. He asked if I had read the account published by his Government of his report of the same conversation.

I said that I had read the account.

The Minister then said that it seemed to him that except for the fact that it was condensed in as much as it was sent by cable, there was no material divergence between the two.

I replied that, taking into account differences in emphasis and in interpretation, such as, for example, the Minister’s reference in his own account of the conversation to the application of the Charter of the Atlantic in giving territorial guarantees to Great Britain and Finland, which in the conversation of August 18 we had only mentioned in passing and which seemed to me at the time to have been used merely as an illustration by the Minister, I was prepared in general terms to agree, except for one very important divergence in fact. I said that in the Finnish reply as communicated to this Government by the American Legation in Helsinki, the statement made “on Mr. Procopé’s asking whether the Soviet Government had requested the Government of the United States to transmit this information, the answer was in the negative, Mr. Welles amending his statement as follows: ‘I know that the Soviet Government would be disposed to discuss a new peace treaty with Finland through which territorial concessions would be made.’”

I said that what had actually transpired was that the Minister had inquired of me whether he was to understand that the Soviet Government had requested the United States to make a formal peace proposal to the Government of Finland. To this inquiry I had in fact replied in the negative, but I had then gone on to say that I could assure the Minister that the information which I had given him came from authoritative sources and that he would, of course, understand that the Government of the United States would not transmit information of this character to the Government of Finland unless it was assured that it came from authoritative sources. I said that in as much as the Soviet Ambassador had made it clear to me that the Soviet Government desired to avoid the possible inference that the Soviet Government through weakness was suing for peace and did not, consequently, desire to make any formal peace proposals, but merely to have its position made known to the Finnish Government, I had quite naturally and legitimately taken it for granted that the Minister of Finland would understand that the information which I was transmitting to him came from the Soviet Government.

The Minister replied that that had in fact been his understanding and that all that his Government intended to say in its present communication was that no formal peace proposals had been transmitted through the United States to Finland.

I then went on to say that I had naturally been surprised to learn, upon my return from my vacation in September, that no reference had been made by the Minister to this Government in any of his conversations with the Secretary of State to the information which I had conveyed to him on August 18.

The Minister thereupon referred to his notes and stated that either on September 2 or on September 3⁷⁴ he had informed Mr. Atherton, by instruction of his Government, that the Finnish Government could not consider the statement which I had made to him on August 18 as a peace offer and that consequently it was impossible for the Government of Finland to take any affirmative position in the nature of a peace stand.

He reminded me that immediately after my conversation with him of August 18, press reports had emanated both from Moscow and from London that the Finnish Government was suing the Soviet Government for peace. He said these reports made it all the more impossible for his Government to take any affirmative position at that time.

I replied that for a man of his long career of public service and experience, it must, of course, have been evident to him after his first conversation with me on August 18 that what I was transmitting to him in confidence was an as yet informal and unofficial peace sounding by the Soviet Government and that it was clear to me, as I was sure it must be to him, that if the Finnish Government desired to discuss peace terms at that time or until recently, the Finnish Government would have expressed to the Government of the United States its desire to obtain further information of a more detailed character with regard to the statements which I had communicated to the Minister on August 18. I said that in view of what had transpired, this Government was perfectly justified in assuming that the Government of Finland had discarded all opportunities to seek a peace discussion with the Soviet Union.

The Minister then went on to say that he deplored the statement issued by the Secretary of State yesterday, but more particularly the original statement issued by the Department of State last week. He said that these statements had been construed in his own country as an indication of the intention of the United States to “terrorize” Finland into seeking peace with the Soviet Union. He said that public opinion in his country had reacted sharply against it and that as a consequence he was informed this morning by a confidential telegram from his Government that in a secret session of the Finnish Parliament, in which the Government’s reply to the United States had been communicated to the Finnish Parliament, the latter had voted unanimously its support of the position taken by the Finnish Government. He added that both the Swedish party and the Social Democratic party had for some time insisted that the Government take an even stronger attitude.

I stated that I could not for a moment agree that the position taken by this Government in its recent statements indicated any desire on the part of the United States, or any intention on the part of the United States, to “terrorize” Finland. I said the statements had on the contrary made clear full recognition of the traditional friendly relations between our two countries and the clear expression of the hope on the part of the United States that Finland would not by continuation of the war directly prejudice the interests of the United States and serve German aims of world conquest.

The Minister then referred to that section of the Secretary’s press conference of yesterday which had been published in some of the papers, as for example the New York Herald Tribune this morning, which read, “If Mr. Procopé had reported the full and true version of his conversation with Mr. Welles, the Secretary stated, he believed there was nothing for him to add on the subject.” The Minister said he could only construe this as a public statement on the part of the Secretary of State that the latter doubted the loyalty and veracity of the Minister of Finland. He said that in view of this public statement he had seriously considered last night and this morning requesting his Government to recall him on the ground that his usefulness in Washington had terminated.

I said that I did not consider that any impartial reading of the statement to which he referred could give that impression. I said that on the contrary, the statement of the Secretary of State had been made in reply to an inquiry made by a newspaper correspondent who had requested elaboration of the report of my conversation of August 18. I said that Secretary Hull’s reply had been completely objective, that it was intended to convey the clear impression that the statements I had made to the Minister on August 18 as set forth in my memorandum of that conversation were full and clear and that if the Government of Finland had received such report, it could have had no doubt as to the nature of the communication I had made to the Minister.

The Minister said that the wording of Secretary Hull’s statement did not in his judgment convey that impression and that he felt he was entitled to some official clarification.

I said that if that was the case, I felt that no one could give him such clarification except the Secretary himself and that I thought it was wise for him to discuss the matter directly with Secretary Hull.⁷⁵

The Minister, when he left, said that he would make no comment to the press with regard to his interview with me but that he thought it would be helpful if the press could be informed for their background through Mr. McDermott that the Minister believed that there was no divergence between the accounts which he and I had rendered of our conversation of August 18.

I said that with the exception of the important point which I had previously mentioned, and except for matters of emphasis and interpretation to which I had already referred, I was willing, so far as the text of the reply of the Finnish Government was concerned, to inform the press for their background of that opinion.

S[umner] W[elles]

72. New York Times, November 13, 1941, p. 2.
73. Department of State Bulletin, November 8, 1941, p. 362.
74. See infra.
75. On November 18 the Finnish Minister did see Secretary of State Hull, who reassured him that there was no question of his veracity. The Secretary said that he had agreed with Mr. Welles’ statement of August 18 “word for word”. With regard to the question of a policy of national defense, the Secretary had intended to mean that it would stop short of Finland’s projection into the war on the side of Germany. (740.0011 European War 1939/16847)