861.24/5–646

The Secretary of the Navy (Forrestal) to the Secretary of State

Sir: This letter proposes for your consideration certain aspects of the Lend-Lease account with the U.S.S.R. The question of recovery of the vessels transferred under Lend-Lease to the Soviets must eventually be taken under consideration for decision. It is not my purpose at this time to propose immediate full recovery but rather to indicate certain details in connection with this problem which are of prime importance to the Navy.

The U.S.S.R. declined to conclude “charter party” agreements with the Navy Department for vessels received under the Lend-Lease Act, as was done by the United Kingdom and other lessees. In lieu thereof Soviet representatives signed for each vessel an “Acceptance Agreement” which described the vessel as leased pursuant to the Act of Congress of 11 March 1941 and other applicable laws and regulations of the United States of America and the applicable agreements between the two governments, and “is to be covered by a formal lease executed or to be executed by such governments”. Presumably the formal lease referred to is the Soviet Master Lend-Lease Agreement signed 11 June 1942.

In the Master Agreement signed 11 June 1942, return of defense articles (which include vessels) is covered by Article V which provides as follows:

“The government of the U.S.S.R. will return to the United States of America at the end of the present emergency, as determined by the President of the United States of America, such defense articles transferred under this agreement as shall not have been destroyed, lost or consumed and as shall be 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”.

[Page 838]

From the above it appears that the following are conditions precedent to the recovery of United States owned vessels now in Soviet possession:

(a)
The present emergency must be formally ended;
(b)
The vessels concerned must be 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.

It follows that recovery cannot be implemented through ordinary lend-lease procedure nor through naval channels alone, but that preparatory negotiations must be conducted on governmental level.

A summarized list of vessels which have been transferred to the U.S.S.R. is appended.16 Of particular importance are the three CR’s or ice-breakers identified as:

U.S. Name U.S.S.R. Name
Northwind Severny Veter
Southwind Admiral Makarof
Westwind Severny Polus

These are high-powered ice-breakers of the most modern design, sister ships (except in armament) of the two now in commission in the U.S. Coast Guard and of two others under construction and completing for the Navy. The importance of an adequate number of high capacity ice-breakers in supporting any operations in the frigid zones cannot be over-emphasized. Three sevenths of the total war production of this type are held by the U.S.S.R.

It is therefore requested, in view of projected U.S. naval requirements, that the general subject of lend lease returns from the U.S.S.R. be explored and that plans be made to institute recovery proceedings with respect to the three ice-breakers immediately upon the ending of the present emergency or earlier if an acceptable alternative basis for their return can be formulated.

James Forrestal
  1. Not printed.