Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume V, Soviet Union

121. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

Washington, September 25, 1961.

SUBJECT

• US-Soviet Relations

PARTICIPANTS

• Ambassador Mikhail A. Menshikov
• The Under Secretary of State

I met with Ambassador Menshikov at the Soviet Chancery at 16th Street at 12:00 noon on September 25th. He has suggested lunch on several occasions, stressing that while he had no specific instructions, he would like to see me to exchange views. I left at 1:25 p.m.

Nothing of importance came out of the discussion. For the most part, Menshikov advanced the line that Khrushchev had opened up in Vienna and which is now readily available to us in Pravda and elsewhere. His purpose apparently was to induce me to spell out more specifically what we were willing to do.

I repeated what the Secretary said to Gromyko,¹ and suggested that since Menshikov and I were unlikely to be able to negotiate a settlement, it was a waste of time for us to go over the same ground in general terms. At some stage it would be necessary for them to spell out precisely what they mean by their assertion that they would not interfere with access to Berlin. It would be up to the negotiators to find common ground if, as I hoped, common ground existed.

I added that in my opinion it would be a mistake for Mr. Khrushchev and President Kennedy to go into any conference unless it was well established in advance that agreement would result from it; that if they negotiated directly and the negotiations failed, the danger of war would vastly increase, since it would appear there was no other alternative.

Menshikov asserted that Attorney General Robert Kennedyʼs speech² was provocative and threatening and that it would undoubtedly require some response from Moscow. I asked him if he had really read what the Attorney General had said. When he said he had only seen the newspaper reports, I pointed out that the Attorney General had referred to the use of nuclear weapons only in defense of Berlin and our interest there, and not in any threatening sense; it was a clear statement of an obvious fact, i.e., that if we were attacked, we would defend ourselves with whatever weapons were necessary.

I pointed out that Khrushchev on many occasions had used more provocative words, i.e. he could destroy Britain with eight or ten bombs, that he could blow up Italy with even fewer, and that the Acropolis would be one of the casualties along with the Greek people if Greece did not cooperate with the U.S.S.R.

Menshikov responded mildly, stressing that Khrushchevʼs remarks had been made in private conversations and not intended for publication. They were simply his way of expressing his concern over the possibility of war, etc.

I then asked Menshikov what Khrushchev had meant by his willingness to see the United Nations facilities transferred to Berlin. Menshikov stated that he had no instructions on this subject and had only heard indirectly that Khrushchev had said this.

He went on to say that the United Nations should not be in New York, that this was not good for us or others, since there were groups of Americans with violent views. From what he knew therefore the Soviet would be willing to negotiate the development of United Nations activities in Berlin. I said that we had no position on the subject but that in one way or another it might come up in discussions later.

In the last ten minutes I expressed the strong hope to Menshikov that he and his government have a better understanding of our country and its interests and objectives than I sometimes felt they had. In the course of this particular discussion I made the following points:

1. That President Kennedy, Secretary Rusk, Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Dean, Jack McCloy, myself, and others in the Administration had come into office with a strong desire to reach some kind of agreement with the Soviet Union which would allow us to work constructively to establish a peaceful and rational world;

2. That none of us could be classed as haters of the Soviet Union or in any way antagonistic to the interest of the Soviet people. And although we were disappointed and felt that we had been rebuffed, we had in no sense given up hope that some better relationship could develop in the future;

3. That if the present leadership of the United States is unable to reach reasonable agreements with the Soviet Union we will be replaced by others who will follow a far harder line.

Even though the Kremlin should somehow maneuver us into a position over Berlin that was to their immediate advantage and to our disadvantage, it would be a pyrrhic victory since it would leave America embittered, and no less militarily powerful;

4. That he must realize that while we were anxious to find ways of living and working with the Soviet Union, we were not afraid, and they should not ever assume that we lacked the will to protect our interests.

I pointed out that he personally had made remarks suggesting that we lacked that will and that this was dangerous. Anyone who had not known the British people in 1939 might have assumed their unwillingness to fight as they did in 1940 and 41 when they faced up to the entire Nazi power. I said that while the British, French, and Americans were often divided on small matters, they were united on large issues, and it was important that he understand this.

Menshikov hastened to comment on my reference to the story that he had said we would not fight. He said that the question had been asked him by someone in the Germany Embassy whose name he did not know, and it was taken entirely out of context. He seemed particularly anxious to correct what he said was a false impression.

My general impression was that Menshikov was less anxious to argue than usual and was almost mellow in his general approach. There were none of the angry replies encountered on previous occasions.

0. Source: Department of State, Secretaryʼs Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 65 D 330. Secret. Drafted by Bowles and approved in U on September 28.
1. See Document 120.
2. Presumably a reference to remarks the Attorney General had made on “Meet the Press,” September 24.