Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, General, Volume I

740.0011 Moscow/10–1843

Summary of the Proceedings of the Ninth Session of the Tripartite Conference, October 27, 1943, 4 p.m.⁹

October 27, 1943, 4 p.m.

Before the opening of the session the Secretary presented Mr. Molotov with a signed copy of the Department’s publication “Peace and War”.^9a Mr. Molotov expressed great appreciation of this gift and said he was sure he would find it a most useful volume.

Mr. Molotov opened the meeting by stating that following a conversation with Mr. Eden just before the session it had been agreed, with the Secretary’s concurrence, to postpone consideration of the Soviet proposals under Item 1 for measures to shorten the war. He then inquired whether the Secretary and Mr. Eden had received the necessary instructions from their Governments concerning the Soviet proposals in regard to political policy in Italy.

The Secretary said that he had not yet heard from his Government but that he desired to say that although he was sure that the President would approve the general political principles set forth in the Soviet proposal it must not be forgotten that Italy is still the scene of active military operations.

Mr. Eden said that he had not yet heard from his Government but referred in this connection to a letter which he had addressed to Mr. Molotov¹⁰ which had been worked out together with the American Delegation regarding the political lines being followed by the Allied High Command in occupied Italian territory.

Mr. Molotov said that he had in mind a short resolution on the subject of general policy toward Italy which might be adopted by the Conference. He did not intend to go into detail in regard to the evaluation of the activities of the various authorities and groups in Italy. He proposed therefore that the Drafting Committee be given the task of preparing such a resolution which might be published at the close of the conference.

The Secretary then repeated that he felt that the substance of the seven points of the Soviet proposal was in harmony with the political philosophy of his Government, but he had in mind that the military situation in Italy was still the dominant factor in the entire situation and it might therefore be necessary to obtain the views of the Commander-in-Chief in that area in regard to any decision on Italian policy which the Conference might reach. He said he was not advancing this as a proposal but merely as an indication of what the Conference might have to consider.

Mr. Eden said that the Conference should agree on the general objective and not go into detail.

Mr. Molotov then raised the question whether or not to publish any resolution on policy in regard to Italy which might be adopted here. He suggested that the resolution be first worked out and then the question of publication could be considered after the resolution had been accepted. There was a general disposition on the part of the Conference to consider that the publication of any resolution agreed upon by the Conference on Italy would have a very helpful effect.

The Secretary agreed with Mr. Molotov’s proposal but with the one qualification that the matter would of course be decided in the last analysis by the respective governments, to which Mr. Molotov and Mr. Eden readily agreed.

Mr. Molotov advanced the proposal, which was accepted by the Conference, that the Soviet proposals together with Mr. Eden’s letter be taken by the Drafting Committee as a basis for a resolution on policy toward Italy and if this resolution was accepted by the Conference the question of publication should be decided.

Mr. Molotov then inquired whether the Secretary and Mr. Eden had had any word from their Governments in regard to the Soviet request for former Italian war vessels and merchant ships.

The Secretary and Mr. Eden replied in the negative.

Mr. Molotov then said that at a previous session he had promised Mr. Eden the information in possession of the Soviet Government regarding the situation in Bulgaria and he circulated to the Conference a paper on that subject (copy attached).¹¹

The Conference then turned to the question of Item 14 on the Agenda regarding policy in the liberated areas.

Mr. Eden said that his Government considered it very important that the three powers represented here should adopt a common policy in this connection and that after an exchange of views at this Conference the question might appropriately be referred to the proposed London Commission.^11a He referred to the British proposal of a draft declaration which had been circulated to the Conference (copy attached).¹²

The Secretary then said that he saw a connection between the question of the liberated areas and the next point the Conference was to consider, namely the attitude toward the French Committee. He thought there was merit in Mr. Eden’s suggestion that the question under discussion be submitted to the London Commission. He added that in discussing these matters (liberated areas and the French Committee) there will increasingly arise the question as to how far the Allied Governments are prepared to go in setting up the kind of governments they desire and in using force to maintain them. He said that there were already many varying opinions on this point; some people desired to go much farther in this direction than others who felt that the general attitude should be very flexible on this point. He felt that we could all agree on the desirability of seeing democracy established everywhere and on having the political, social and economic structures of the post-war world reflect democratic principles, but how far we should go in carrying out our desires was a very complicated question and one which would take on different aspects as the different countries or areas came up for consideration. He agreed therefore with Mr. Eden that the London Commission which would be composed of able, experienced public officials in close touch with their Governments should be given the opportunity to review all the material available in each individual case. He said he thought that this method would be more helpful than any attempt of the three Governments themselves to directly and inflexibly impose one form of government or another in the areas in question. He added that he was disposed to go as far as practicable along the lines of the seven points set forth in the Soviet proposals in regard to Italy,^12a but that the conditions were so varied that it was difficult to adopt a definite attitude which could be universally applied. He pointed out that you might have ten governments-in-exile several of which would be entirely acceptable to our three Governments and others concerning which there might be some doubt. He repeated that he thought it very logical to turn the study of this question over to the London Commission which could then report back to the Governments represented.

Mr. Molotov said he was certain we could agree on general lines and he appreciated and attached great value to the explanations of the Secretary and Mr. Eden and he quite agreed that the question was very complicated and would take some time to study. He proposed, and the Conference agreed, to submit study of the question of liberated areas to the proposed London Commission.

After the intermission the Conference turned to the consideration of the attitude to be adopted toward the French Committee of National Liberation. Mr. Eden, presenting the proposal on this point, said it represented the combined views of the United States and British Governments and had been set up in this fashion in view of the joint responsibility of those two countries for military operations in Western Europe (the document is the one drawn up in Washington entitled “Civil Affairs for France”¹³). He added that the difficulty in regard to France was that the French Committee was not a government and made no pretense of being one; that the future French Government was a matter for the decision of the French people after their liberation.

The Secretary agreed.

Mr. Molotov raised a number of questions in regard to the text of the draft on which he requested clarification as to the exact meaning of the words. One related to the manner in which the French military authorities, which would operate as a Civil Affairs Commission under the Allied Commander-in-Chief, would be connected with the French National Committee.

Mr. Eden explained that the Civil Affairs Committee would be appointed by and would maintain direct contact with the French National Committee; that it was necessary to make this arrangement since the Allied Commander-in-Chief could not deal directly with the French National Committee which was a political body. After some discussion on the technical set-up of the machinery for civil affairs in France, the Conference agreed to refer this question to the London Commission.

Mr. Molotov observed parenthetically that he thought the attitude toward Vichy was very well and clearly set forth in this document and he fully approved of it.

The Conference then decided that the Drafting Committee, because of its complete familiarity with all the details of the documents which the Conference had approved or would approve, would be also the committee to decide the question of what documents should be published.

The Conference then adjourned to meet tomorrow in restricted session to discuss Item 1, the Soviet proposal for measures to shorten the war, and, if time permitted, to discuss in full session Items 3 and 15.

9. Drafted by Charles E. Bohlen of the American delegation.
10. Department of State, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931–1941 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1943).
10. Conference Document No. 16, p. 718.
11. Not attached to file copy, but see Conference Document No. 12, p. 712.
12. The European Advisory Commission (see pp. 801 ff.). For a reference to a variation between United States and British minutes of this discussion, see memorandum by the Chief of the Division of European Affairs (Matthews), December 24, p. 814, and for further details on British and United States planning with regard to liberated areas, see F. S. V. Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government, North-West Europe, 1944–1946 (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1961).
12. Not attached to file copy, but see Conference Document No. 35, p. 738.
13. See Conference Document No. 13, p. 714.
13. Annex 5 to the Secret Protocol, p. 760.