195. Telegram From the Mission in Berlin to the Embassy in Germany1
933. From Bruce. Reference: (A) Berlin telegram sent Bonn 926, repeated Department 1048, USAREUR 149.2 (B) Bonn telegram sent Department 4196, repeated Berlin 490, USAREUR 573.3
I called today on Soviet Ambassador Pushkin.
After somewhat lengthy preliminary exchange of courteous conversation and ingurgitation of Armenian brandy I said I felt I would have to talk frankly about difficulties caused by Soviet personnel at checkpoint Helmstedt regarding travel orders to Berlin, citing particularly the case of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Evans, who have been held [Page 476] up for several days. I requested my interpreter to read in Russian following prepared statement:
“I represent the U.S. Government here not only as Ambassador, but with the authority and responsibility in Berlin of the High Commissioner as successor to the US Military Governor in Germany.
“There can be no doubt of my right to determine whom I shall document for travel either by military train or Autobahn. The present situation is most unsatisfactory.
“As far as I am concerned you are the highest Soviet authority in these affairs. I am calling this to your attention in the expectation and hope that you will issue appropriate orders to bring to an end these unnecessary, vexatious and irritating petty incidents.
“At a time when your government pronounces itself in favor of relaxing international tensions some of its representatives seem to be engaging in tactics calculated for the annoyance and delay of legitimate travel.”
Pushkin replied along following lines:
His position in this matter was different from mine as in addition to his duties as Chief of Embassy his concern was with all-German problems only. Soviet Government had delegated matters of checkpoints and travel to its military authorities in Germany. He was, however, familiar with question, had been in close contact with Soviet military authorities during recent developments and wished to assure me that Soviet military authorities did not wish to provoke incidents or cause difficulties. Reason for their action was lack of proper order and agreed procedure in such matters and their recent proposals were aimed at establishing this needed order. If only three sources issue travel orders for American personnel in Germany, namely the U.S. Commander in Berlin, the U.S. Commander in Chief in Germany, and the U.S. Ambassador in Bonn, and if it is agreed only certain designated persons are allowed to sign these travel orders, and an agreed stamp is used, that would serve to eliminate possible incidents rather than to cause them.
I commented that powers of the U.S. Ambassador, in his position as successor to the military government and to the High Commissioner, were according to his statement different from those of the Soviet Ambassador. I could not concern myself with internal Soviet procedure and had no intention whatever of discussing such problems with Soviet Commandant. Mr. Pushkin replied he did not think it was as complicated as that, adding that after all he belonged to the same government as his military authorities and therefore could very well act as an intermediary. He quoted the categories of American nationals who, in his opinion, could be issued orders for travel to Berlin, naming occupation personnel in Berlin and persons sent to Berlin on official duty travel, such as personnel of the Embassy in Bonn, U.S. military personnel in West Germany and others [Page 477] who are sent to Berlin on official business as the only acceptable categories. He stated emphatically that no existing agreements provided for leave travel to Berlin and that when such travel occurs it should be processed through entirely different channels. He stated in his opinion it was improper for U.S. Embassy to delegate its travel issuing authority to an American tourist office. At this point Mr. Gufler said it might be a difficulty of translation, since the Soviets chose to translate “travel and transportation office” as tourist office.
I cited the case of Mr. Evans as an example of a person belonging to one of the categories mentioned by Mr. Pushkin. I stated that if I issued travel orders the Soviet personnel at the checkpoint had no business stopping the holder and that this endless quibbling seemed to me ridiculous. Also I termed the time limit for the introduction of new travel orders set by Col. Kotsiuba as entirely unworkable. Mr. Pushkin stated that his understanding was that the time limit was merely a proposal of Col. Kotsiuba’s and was not in the nature of an ultimatum.
In conclusion I added that I was not prepared to enter into a debate on details but wished him to understand exactly how we felt on the principles involved.
Pushkin was unfailingly polite throughout interview.
An hour after my return to office following message received by telephone from Colonel Kotsiuba for Hillenbrand:
“Instructions have been issued to allow the married couple Evans to pass.
“I am calling your attention again to the causes which lead to the above-mentioned incident, the repetition of which may lead to similar difficulties.”
I am instructing Evans to proceed by car tonight or tomorrow morning.
Pushkin paying return call on me tomorrow morning at 1100.4
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 862B.181/4–2957. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to London, Moscow, Paris, and Washington. The source text is the Department of State copy.↩
- This telegram reported that despite a protest in the name of Ambassador Bruce, the Soviets refused to permit Foreign Service officer Robert Evans and his wife to travel by Autobahn to his new duty station in Berlin. (Ibid., 862B.181/4–2957)↩
- This telegram reported that, in view of the Evans case, it was likely that the Soviets would refuse to accept Embassy travel orders for military train passengers as well as Autobahn travelers beginning on May 1, and that Kotsiuba’s insistence on approving the new travel orders was intolerable. (Ibid., 862B.181/4–2957)↩
- Pushkin called on April 30 as scheduled, but Bruce reported that the conversation was confined to pleasantries. (Ibid., 862B.181/4–3057)↩