740.00119 EAC/9–1044: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 10—12:30 p.m.]
7433. Comea 82. Reference “proclamations and general orders” forwarded in my despatch 17220, August 171 and circulated as JCS 291.71a Last April UK delegation on EAC agreed to short surrender instrument with understanding that subject matter in their 70-paragraph document (see EAC) 44 (1)72 not included in short form surrender instrument would in large measure be covered by proclamations and orders. Both the Russians and ourselves agreed in principle to this. Accordingly US draft proclamations and general orders follow in outline UK 70–paragraph document, and also include all provisions of US 27-paragraph document (see EAC) 44 (4)73 and Soviet surrender [Page 333] terms (see EAC) 44 (9)74 not covered in final surrender instrument. Copies of US drafts have been submitted informally to UK and Soviet delegations.
There is no difference between first two US and UK proclamations. Proclamation No. 3 submitted by UK dissolves National Socialist Party. It is very brief and we feel can be accepted without question.
General orders: UK submitted one general order, and US submitted three, covering military, political and economic matters. Main difference between single British general order and three US general orders is that British omitted some military features, thus abbreviating subject matter of their general order as compared to US general orders. My political and military advisers have reviewed and compared US and UK drafts of proclamations and general orders. They believe that most of military subjects are either already incorporated in surrender instrument or may more properly appear in “special orders” to be issued by supreme authority and zone commanders. They believe we could omit numerous subjects appearing in our General Order 1, these subjects to be covered elsewhere. We hope British will agree to insertion of certain general provisions taken from US General Order 1 and also from other two US general orders, to be added to their UK general order.
This study has served to clarify similarities and differences and should expedite business in EAC when matter of general orders and proclamations is discussed. Unless we receive directions from Washington there is no intention of US in London to rewrite proclamations and general orders in advance of EAC discussion. We believe this would be a mistake because of our consistent tripartite approach to all problems before EAC.
Time is critical and SHAEF urgently needs proclamations and general orders. Also as documents have been informally submitted to Soviet delegation as well as to UK presentation of detailed changes at this late period will complicate work of translation and will further delay attaining agreement.
In view of urgency of rapid review in Washington and of early presentation here, I hope our authorities in Washington will avoid detailed rewriting of proclamations and general orders and will provide us at earliest possible moment with comments and suggestions concerning the substance of the policies set forth therein.
Please provide copies of this message to General Hilldring and General Strong.75
[On September 12, 1944, the representatives of the United States the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on the European Advisory Commission in London signed the Protocol on the Zones of Occupation in Germany and the Administration of Greater Berlin. For text, see Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, page 118, or Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) 3071, printed in Department of State, United States Treaties and Other International Agreements, volume 5, part 2 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1956), page 2078.]