Skip to content

Results:

1 - 10 of 14

Documents

November 25, 1944

Letter No. 425 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

October 25, 1944

Letter No. 373 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

September 30, 1944

Letter No. 340 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

May 31, 1944

Letter No. 180 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

Fu Bingchang (Foo Ping-sheung) relays his views on relations among the Great Powers, Soviet involvement in Xinjiang, and the rifts between the Nationalists and Communists within China.

April 3, 1944

Cyper No. 105 the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa

The Canadian Ambassador in Moscow reports, on the basis of Soviet newspapers, that turmoil is ongoing along the Xinjiang-Mongolia border.

March 23, 1944

Letter No. 93 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

L.D. Wilgress and the Chinese Ambassador to Moscow, Fu Bingchang (Foo Ping-sheung), discuss Soviet movements in Xinjiang.

February 27, 1986

Brussels to Department of External Affairs (Canada), 'Zero Option and the Europeans'

Canadian officials warned of disagreement to come between the Europeans and the Americans over the “zero option,” the longstanding proposal to reduce both US and Soviet INF to zero. This dispatch from Brussels reported “substantial unhappiness” amongst the Europeans that the United States and the Soviet Union would discuss disarmament “even if neither of them believed in it.” Nuclear deterrence had prevented war in Europe for the preceding four decades, and US-Soviet discussions of disarmament only made it even more difficult to convince public opinion of deterrence’s continued importance

February 19, 1986

Brussels–NATO (BNATO) to Department of External Affairs (Canada), 'Alliance Problems Over INF'

In a flurry of cables from February 1986, Canadian assessments focused on a chronic issue within NATO: consultation within the alliance. As this dispatch from Brussels concluded, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, “NATO nuclear collective consultation is the worst form, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

February 17, 1986

Washington, DC to Department of External Affairs (Canada), 'Alliance Problems Over INF'

In a flurry of cables from February 1986, Canadian assessments focused on a chronic issue within NATO: in consultation within the alliance. The Special Consultative Group was used as a forum to “air views of allies,” hold briefings on the current state of negotiations, and to share a new negotiating position right before it was tabled. Canadian officials also warned of disagreement to come between the Europeans and the Americans over the “zero option,” the longstanding proposal to reduce both US and Soviet INF to zero.

November 9, 1944

Letter No. 402 from L.D. Wilgress, Canadian Embassy, Moscow, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, W.L. Mackenzie King

The Canadian Ambassador to the Soviet Union, L.D. Wilgress, thoroughly reviews Soviet foreign policy in Europe, Asia, and in Latin America and its relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. Wilgress optimistically concludes that "the Soviet Government are desirous of co-operating fully with the other great powers."

Pagination