Office of the Historian

840.70/12–944: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)

Washington, December 20, 1944—midnight.

10610. ReDepts 10401, December 13. Department’s position with respect to signing annex was based on assumption that it would be of little practical advantage to U.S. and not because of disapproval of principles. What is position of British and French? Is there any indication of Soviet attitude? Department prepared to consider signing annex in order to support Dutch proposal in light of attitude of other major powers. In any event it should be clearly understood that since annex is an implementation of draft agreement it is subject to same overriding military authority granted in Article XI, section 2 of original draft. Consequently, so long as military are in control in Germany they would have final decision regarding acceptance of recommendations of EITO Organization relating to annex.

Department would not favor attaching reservation referred to in Embassy’s 11159, December 16,34 to signatures to agreement or annex for following reasons:

(1)
If Soviets do not adhere to agreement, reservation unnecessary because Control Commission for Germany would not come under provisions of Article VI, sections 3 and 4 (November 11 draft), which relate to authorities set up by “member governments”. Under such circumstances it would appear that relations with such Commission would be covered under Article VIII, section 10 (November 11 draft).
(2)
A reservation providing that our obligations be “subject to agreement of the Control Commission” might be interpreted to restrict the possibility of individual action in the separate zones if the Commission fails to reach unanimous agreement. If unanimous agreement impossible, presumably the authority in separate zones would lie with zonal commanders, and zones under the authority of member governments would be covered by the agreement, subject to section 2 of Article XI (original draft).
(3)
Department believes it unwise to set a precedent for signing this type of agreement with reservations for it may open the door [Page 924] to other reservations by other signatories. This position is consistent with the strong position successfully taken with respect to the shipping agreement signed last summer.35

Department would appreciate specific indication from (1) SHAEF and (2) General Ross or other appropriate representative of U.S. Army that they are satisfied that our signing of annex will in no way restrict military in zones of occupation or in liberated areas.

Stettinius
  1. Not printed. The reservation provided that with respect to territories under the Control Commission, the obligations of the United States, United Kingdom, and France would be subject to agreement of the Control Commission. (840.70/12–1644)↩
  2. For documentation regarding the Interallied Shipping Agreement signed August 5, 1944, see pp. 859 ff.↩