Office of the Historian

740.00113 E.W./9–1644: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman) to the Secretary of State

London, November 1, 1944—6 p.m.
[Received November 1—4:25 p.m.]

9442. Department’s 9052, October 30. In a written communication to the Embassy from Hall-Patch, the substance of which was given in Embassy’s 9261, October 27, the British replied to the proposals contained in Department’s 6485, August 16, and 8689, October 19.

Regarding the questions raised in 4037 from Moscow to the Department33 we wish to call attention again to the memorandum and message referred to in the last two sentences of Embassy’s 9261, October 27.

We believe that the best procedure would be as follows:

1.
The subject should be raised in EAC on the basis of the following proposals:
(a)
That reparation and economic disarmament should be discussed together.
(b)
That US–UK–USSR discussions on reparation and economic security should take place as soon as possible within the framework of EAC by delegations of experts.
(c)
That the experts should make recommendations to EAC.
(d)
That these recommendations should be examined by the three representatives of EAC and submitted with or without modifications [Page 374] to the three Governments concerned. In this form the recommendations would have similar status to those made at Dumbarton Oaks35 or Bretton Woods.36
(e)
That when tripartite agreement has been reached discussions should take place with the European Allies within the framework of EAC.
2.
When agreement has been reached on EAC as a procedure along the above lines or some modifications of them, the next step would be to appoint experts to carry out technical discussions as provided in 1(b).

These discussions might be held in London or Moscow according to the wishes of the Soviet. Wherever they might be held they would still be within the framework of EAC.

We believe that this arrangement would satisfactorily meet the points raised in 4037 from Moscow to the Department. We do not think it worthwhile to attempt a very rigorous distinction between technical and policy matters. It seems clear that the experts of each country will take positions within the general lines of policies laid down tentatively in each country. The important thing is that the general policies within which they operate should be flexible enough to permit some give and take.

Please show this to Mr. Winant.

Gallman
  1. Dated October 22, p. 365.↩
  2. For correspondence regarding conversations at Dumbarton Oaks, August 21–October 7, 1944, on international organization, see pp. 713 ff.↩
  3. United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 1–22, 1944; for correspondence, see vol. ii, pp. 106 ff.↩