861.24/10–2549
The Secretary of the Navy (Matthews) to the Acting Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: Your letter of 28 September requests that the Department of the Navy consult with the Department of State before making any commitment respecting, or taking any steps toward the disposal or transfer to or use by third country of any lend-lease naval craft returned to the United States by the Soviet Government.
While I am fully appreciative of the difficulties involved in the present negotiations for an overall settlement of the U.S.-Soviet lend-lease question, Article V of the Soviet Master-Lend-Lease Agreement of June 11, 1942 does obligate the Soviets to return to the United States such articles as are determined by the President “to be useful in the defense of the United States of America or of the Western Hemisphere or to be otherwise of use to the United States of America”. This same agreement is lacking of a desirable feature in that it fails to state specifically that defense articles transferred under the agreement and determined to be of use to the United States, will be returned to the continental United States. However, such is implied in the use of the wording “The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will return to the United States of America …”, not the wording “to the Government of the United States of America.”
In order to dispossess the Soviet Government of war potential and with a view toward utilizing such ships as may be recaptured in any of the many ways beneficial to the U.S. interests, the United States has agreed to repossess 27 frigates in Yokosuka, Japan, and three icebreakers in Bremerhaven, Germany. It is the Navy’s intention to return the icebreakers to the United States, but it is not planned to bring the frigates back from Japan. Investigation is being conducted with the view of disposing of these craft to the Commander in Chief Far East1 for possible use as fishery patrol craft or even as scrap to bolster the Japanese economy.
Referring to my letter of 10 October on this subject, it is anticipated that additional craft, as they are recovered, will be disposed of, in certain cases, to augment foreign military aid programs, present or anticipated. Final decisions with respect to such disposal cannot be [Page 750] reached prior to a thorough inspection into the condition of the craft and will be influenced by the ports of delivery. You will agree that the problem of disposal would be much simpler and less expensive, and delays in disposal more easily effected, if the Navy were not obliged to accept delivery in foreign ports. In accordance with the request contained in your letter of 28 September, the question of disposal of any of the naval craft to a third government will be coordinated with the Department of State. In this connection the Department of the Navy holds to the original position taken by the State Department in its interpretation of the terms of the Soviet Master Lend-Lease Agreement; i.e., that it is for the United States only to decide what disposition is in the interest of the defense of the United States of America.
Sincerely yours,
- General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.↩