761.00/359: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 23—3:45 p.m.]
2009. Izvestiya for November 18 published an editorial entitled “On the Question of Federations of ‘Small’ States in Europe”. The editorial occupied more than a quarter of the space on page 3.
The editorial began by referring to the favorable and extensive treatment of the Moscow Conference decisions in the Anglo-American press noting that this treatment indicates that these decisions correctly reflected the mood of the broad masses in the Allied countries.
It is impossible however not to notice false notes in this chorus. Certain commentators are arriving at arbitrary conclusions and conjectures which do not correspond to reality. In this connection the [Page 601] editorial referred to recent statement of the London weeklies New Statesman for November 10 and Economist for November 11 regarding the question of federations of small powers in postwar Europe. These weeklies are cited as deducing from the Moscow Conference Declaration on Austria that Russia no longer objected to all groupings of Central and Eastern European States.
Declaring that neither the Declaration on Austria nor any other decisions of the Moscow Conference give the slightest ground for such conclusions, the editorial stated that these conclusions are the product of their authors’ imagination. It then proceeds to set forth the “Soviet point of view” regarding the question of federations of small states in Europe. This point of view which proceeds not from abstract and theoretical but from concrete and realistic assumptions recognizes the importance of the liberation of small states and the restoration of their independence and sovereignty in the reconstruction of Europe and the establishment of a firm peace. However, it is necessary to consider the concrete situation which will obtain after the war’s conclusion in regard to these states. It is obvious that all European relationship will be in a state of flux. The small states will require a “definite time” in which to adapt themselves to the new situation created as a result of the war both as regards the settling of their internal problems and the determination of their relations with other states. In the latter there should be no external pressure on these countries impelling them toward this or that grouping of states.
At the Moscow Conference the Soviet delegation proceeding from above principles stated clearly that premature and possibly artificial incorporation of small countries in theoretically planned groupings would be pregnant with dangers both for these countries themselves and for the future peaceful development of Europe. The editorial declares that such an important step as federating with another country possibly involving a partial renunciation of sovereignty is admissible only as a result of a free and deliberate expression of the people’s will.
From these considerations flow several important conclusions. Firstly, the emigrant governments of countries occupied by the Germans not having close enough links with their peoples cannot express the true will of their peoples regarding such an important question as federation. Secondly, even new governments established immediately after the war in the countries now occupied very probably will not have sufficient authority to undertake the solution of the federation question without risking violating the will of the people and thus bringing about various complications. Thirdly, it cannot be doubted that consideration of the federation question can assume a more fruitful character only after the postwar situation has settled down and [Page 602] the small countries have gained the necessary calm and confidence in their independence.
The Soviet Union’s view that at present it is premature to foster the establishment of any sort of federations “does not exclude the readiness of the Soviet Union in good time to study this question anew in the light of the experience of postwar collaboration with the other United Nations and taking into account the conditions of the postwar.”
The editorial adds that two other basic aspects of the Soviet point of view must be mentioned. Above all it would be especially unjust if small countries which had been satellites of Germany should as a result of this or that federation be placed under as favorable conditions as small countries which had experienced aggression on the part of the enemy particularly on the part of the same satellite countries. The satellite countries of Hitlerite Germany must not escape the consequences of their participation in Hitler’s and Mussolini’s crimes. Moreover, the Soviet point of view categorically rejects all attempts to revive the policy of the “cordon sanitaire” of which some of the federation projects are forms.
The editorial concludes by suggesting that the authors of such articles as are herein referred to all [have?] the good will to go along with the Moscow Conference “the basis of which as is well known consists in friendly collaboration of England and the United States with the Soviet Union”.