Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, Volume II

Truman Papers

Department of State Minutes

Potsdam, July 24, 1945, 11:15 a.m.

top secret

The Seventh Session of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers opened at 11:15 a.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 1945. Mr. Byrnes was in the Chair.

Mr. Byrnes asked that the meeting review some of the matters pending before the Foreign Ministers. The Foreign Ministers had been requested to hear a statement from the representatives of the Polish Provisional Government. Mr. Byrnes had been informed that these gentlemen have now arrived and he suggested that the Foreign Ministers should proceed with the consideration of other matters before them and fix an hour, say 12:30, to invite the gentlemen to come into this room.

Mr. Molotov agreed.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he would have a message to this effect communicated to the Polish representatives.

German Economic Questions and German Reparations

Mr. Byrnes then raised the matter of German economic questions and German reparations.

Mr. Molotov added the question of reparations by Italy.

Mr. Byrnes agreed and asked whether the economic subcommittee was ready to report.

Mr. Molotov asked whether he could suggest something.

Mr. Byrnes replied that he was glad to receive the suggestion and asked Mr. Molotov to proceed.

Mr. Molotov stated that the first question concerned reparations from Germany. He had a suggestion regarding German [Austrian?] reparations here. He was sorry that it is only a Russian text.² The next paper circulated concerned Italian reparations.³ Mr. Molotov added that of course the principal question concerned Germany.

Mr. Byrnes after reading the paper asked concerning the pleasure of the Foreign Ministers regarding its disposition. He stated that he had been informed that the subcommittee was meeting tonight in order to discuss Austrian and Italian reparations. It might be well to refer these documents to the committee.

Mr. Molotov and Mr. Eden agreed.

Mr. Byrnes stated that this would be done.

Mr. Byrnes then referred to German reparations and asked whether there was any reason further to discuss this matter at this table or whether the economic subcommittee should be permitted to continue discussions in hope that they might be able to arrange for some report.

Mr. Molotov had no objection to the last suggestion since it might then be possible to discuss the matter tomorrow.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the matter would be passed in this session.

European Oil Supplies

Mr. Byrnes raised the matter of European oil supplies. He pointed out that a paper had been presented on this subject by the American delegation on July 20.⁴ He asked whether the meeting was prepared to discuss it.

Mr. Molotov asked whether it had been discussed by the economic subcommittee.

Mr. Byrnes replied that he was advised that the question was so discussed but that the Soviet representative had asked for further time to consider and that this question is also coming up tonight. Therefore he assumed that this question must also be passed.

Implementation of Yalta Declaration on Liberated Europe

Mr. Byrnes then stated that the discussion on the implementation of the Yalta Declaration on Liberated Europe⁵ was still pending. He had been informed that the subcommittee on this subject had not met since night before last when the Soviet representative,⁶ who was Chairman, stated that he would have a new proposal to submit. He asked whether it could be ascertained whether the subcommittee can meet today.

Mr. Molotov stated that he could give some information on this question. He had seen the draft of the Soviet representatives which will be submitted to the committee. In connection with the Control Councils he had had to receive the text of the suggested changes mentioned during the last meeting [the meeting on July 22⁷] from Moscow. They had been circulated this morning.⁸ He asked whether the American and British representatives had received them.

Mr. Eden stated that they had arrived but were in Russian and were now being translated.

Mr. Byrnes added that the paper in Russian had been delivered only a few moments ago. Consideration would have to wait until it had been translated.

Admission of Italy and Non-Admission of Spain Into International Organizations

Mr. Byrnes stated that the next question remaining open is the admission of Italy and the non-admission of Spain into international organizations. In regard to this matter the subcommittee had been requested to submit its report. The American representative⁹ had advised Mr. Byrnes that the Soviet representative¹⁰ was not able to arrange a meeting. There has been no meeting of this subcommittee since July 21. Mr. Byrnes asked whether the Foreign Ministers could not proceed with the discussion of this question at this table.

Mr. Molotov stated that he was not quite familiar with the draft.¹¹ However, he could study it now if Mr. Byrnes wished.

Mr. Byrnes suggested that he do so. So long as there are five or six questions of this character remaining open, we ought to dispose of them as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Molotov replied that he was always in favor of progress.

Mr. Eden asked for a minute or two to read the paper.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he had been informed by the American representative on the committee that part of this paper had been drafted by the subcommittee and agreed to.

Mr. Molotov stated that he had not been informed of this.

Mr. Byrnes continued that he had been further advised that on the first two paragraphs the reasoning had been suggested by the Soviet representative but that the American and British had not agreed to Mr. Maisky’s language. The language of this draft had been suggested by the American and British representatives.¹²

Mr. Molotov asked what it is about. He pointed out that the document mentioned Italy, mentioned the neutrals, but the countries who fought with us against the enemy were not mentioned. This would not do. He suggested reference to the Big Three.

Mr. Byrnes agreed.

Mr. Eden asked whether they would not look at the draft before reference to the Big Three.

Mr. Molotov stated that he would not look at the draft in this form.

Mr. Eden replied that he had wanted to make verbal changes only.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he would consider any suggestion, but the best way to dispose of the question was to refer it to the Big Three.

Mr. Eden stated that he would give his changes anyway. He suggested leaving out the last sentence of paragraph [one].¹³

Mr. Byrnes agreed.

Mr. Eden also pointed out that the document talked about peace with Italy and that other nations were concerned with this matter. He would redraft to make this clear.¹⁴

Mr. Byrnes then stated that he had been handed a draft¹⁵ and would read it to see if Mr. Eden agreed.

Mr. Molotov interjected to state that he was sorry that he could not take part in these changes since they did not deal with substance.

Mr. Eden stated his assumption that what Mr. Molotov wants is to add to the text something regarding the cobelligerents Rumania and Bulgaria. The changes suggested by Mr. Eden did not deal with this matter.

Mr. Molotov inquired whether mention could be made here of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that the question of establishment of diplomatic relations was discussed by the Big Three. The President has stated that the United States was unwilling to recognize these countries and gave the reasons for that attitude.¹⁶ Therefore, that matter may well be discussed in the Big Three if they wish.

The American Delegation will agree to the language suggested by the British. Therefore, I suggest that this paper be reported to the Big Three as agreed between the British and American Delegations.¹⁷ It should also be reported that the Soviet Delegation was unable to agree because they wish action taken regarding Rumania and Bulgaria.

Mr. Molotov stated that he would like it to be mentioned in the report that the Soviet Delegation refused to take part in this discussion because his colleagues had refused to discuss the establishment of diplomatic relations. It is the opinion of the Soviet Delegation that the choice between Switzerland and Portugal on the one hand and Rumania and Bulgaria on the other hand should be resolved in favor of those who helped us to win the war. He wouldn’t object to steps being taken to make things easier for Italy if similar steps were taken for Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary did more to help to defeat Germany than Italy, which had played only a small part.

Mr. Eden replied that these governments are not regarded by us as representative and that is why we do not wish to recognize them.

Mr. Molotov asked why they were less representative than Italy.

Mr. Eden replied that the Italian Government contained representatives of all parties in the state, while Rumania and Bulgaria were minority governments mainly composed of Communists.

Mr. Molotov stated that in all these governments the Communist Party formed a small minority.

Mr. Eden stated that there is another story behind this one.

Mr. Molotov replied that it was not a Communist story. He pointed out that the King had appointed the government in Rumania.

Mr. Eden interjected, “with a little help from Vyshinski, perhaps.”¹⁸

Mr. Vyshinski entered the conversation to state that he had helped many to enter the government who were not Communists.

Mr. Molotov stated that the Soviet Delegation would like this question considered in all its phases and not on the basis of the exception of some countries, but that the Soviet suggestion had been ignored.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he had a suggestion to propose for consideration by the Russian Delegation. He read:

“The three Governments also hope that the Council of Foreign Ministers may without undue delay prepare peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland. It is also their desire on the conclusion of these peace treaties with responsible democratic governments of these countries to support their application for membership in the United Nations Organization.”

Mr. Byrnes pointed out regarding the first sentence that the Council of Foreign Ministers was already charged with that duty.¹⁹ Therefore, the only question concerned the second sentence. He went on to suggest to Mr. Molotov that the language agreed to regarding Italy be changed in a way that he believed would meet Mr. Molotov’s approval.²⁰ The change would make the language regarding Italy the same as the language regarding the governments in which Mr. Molotov had expressed an interest.

Mr. Molotov stated that he was not speaking of the exact wording, but of the essence of the suggestion. His general position was that Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland should not be in a position as to the Allies worse than that of Italy. If this principle was accepted he suggested the appointment of a drafting committee to prepare a paper for discussion.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that so far as a subcommittee is concerned there is no change in the position of the United States regarding recognition of these governments. The United States did not regard them as governments having broad representation of all democratic parties.

Mr. Molotov replied that he was not suggesting that the United States now establish diplomatic relations.

Mr. Byrnes then said that so far as the statement under consideration is concerned he was satisfied that as now amended it would place Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria in the same position as Italy because it says that on the conclusion of peace treaties with representative governments it would be possible to support their admission into the United Nations Organization. The same language as used for Italy would be used in the paragraph referring to Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary. He reread his suggested amendment.

Mr. Molotov stated that he thought the wording could be improved. The important thing for the Soviet Delegation is to arrive at an understanding on substance. He asked what the situation was in Italy. The American and Soviet Governments have established diplomatic relations with Italy. The British have not. He asked whether France has an Ambassador there.

Mr. Eden stated that he would check since he did not know. He thought the position of France was the same as the British position.

Mr. Molotov stated that perhaps the United States had grounds not to establish relations with Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The meeting had before it a very complicated question affecting many countries, including Italy, the neutral states and Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. He suggested that a wording be worked out in order that Rumania, Bulgaria, [and] Hungary not be placed in a worse position than Italy. This is a condition for the participation of the Soviet Union in this matter. The Delegation had no authority to do otherwise. If this suggestion that Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary and Finland be not placed in a worse position than Italy is accepted, it would be easy to agree. If not, it would not be possible to arrive at a common decision.

Mr. Byrnes repeated that the proposed language did place Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary in the same position as Italy so far as this statement is concerned.

Mr. Eden interposed to state his belief that we must not try too much to use words to paper over facts. He pointed out that there actually is a real difference between Italy and some of the countries mentioned by Mr. Molotov. The difference is that the British would be willing to make peace with the present Italian Government, and the present British position is that it is not prepared to do so with the governments in Rumania and Bulgaria. This is the fact and Mr. Eden did not think that it should be covered over with words.

Mr. Molotov asked that the matter be referred to the Big Three. This would be another good issue. He stated that the Big Three are more reasonable people than we and find a way out.

Rumanian Oil [Equipment]

Mr. Byrnes stated that the question of Rumanian oil [equipment] is still pending. The British Delegation wished to make a further statement.

Mr. Eden stated that he had an idea that he thought might help. He circulated a proposal.²¹

Mr. Byrnes referred to the proposal that a committee of three Allied nationals be appointed and asked how it would be drawn up.

Mr. Eden stated his idea that it should not be composed of representatives of the three nations here or of Rumania.

Mr. Molotov asked what committee and where it would come from.

Mr. Byrnes replied that it was on the question of whether the pipes were the property of a British national or Germans.

Mr. Molotov asked what the committee’s functions would be.

Mr. Byrnes went on to state that the committee’s functions would also include questions of where American citizens said their property had been taken. Therefore, this question could not be decided here but should be decided only after an investigation of the facts. He associated himself with the suggestion for the appointment of representatives of other countries. If this committee said the property was German, then the Russians would have a right to it. If they said it was American, he assumed that the Russians would agree.

Mr. Molotov stated that there was no such question on the agenda.

Mr. Byrnes replied that we had put it on.

Mr. Molotov insisted that he hadn’t received any such suggestion.

Mr. Byrnes stated that the question had been on the agenda and had been discussed for some hours. Since the matter was before the meeting it should be disposed of. Now the British had submitted a proposal.

Mr. Molotov then stated that he wished to have a Russian text of this paper.

Agenda for Big Three Meeting

Mr. Byrnes asked for suggestions for the agenda for the afternoon meeting.

Mr. Eden asked what was on the list.

Mr. Byrnes stated that up to now there was very little.

Mr. Molotov stated that he had a short clear paper [two papers] regarding Italian and Austrian reparations.²²

Mr. Byrnes replied that it was his understanding that this matter had been referred to a subcommittee meeting this evening and that the Soviet paper would be considered at that time.

Mr. Molotov replied that he knew this but that since there was some free time the matter could be considered.

Mr. Byrnes remarked that with regard to free time, he had been informed that the delegation of the Polish Provisional Government had arrived.

Mr. Eden then asked whether Mr. Molotov wanted this matter considered in the afternoon meeting.

Mr. Molotov withdrew his suggestion.

Mr. Byrnes again asked for suggestions for the agenda for the afternoon meeting.

Mr. Eden asked what was on the agenda now.

Mr. Byrnes said that he did not know of any questions except that of Italy and the neutral countries. He thought that it had been agreed that this should be discussed. He pointed out that of the questions considered by the Big Three yesterday afternoon one had not been decided. This is the question of the Straits. The President had submitted a paper²³ to be studied and this paper can be considered this afternoon. He did not recall any other questions on the Big Three agenda not yet decided.

Mr. Molotov mentioned the western frontiers of Poland.

Mr. Byrnes agreed that this was still undetermined but pointed out that it would be decided by the Foreign Ministers after hearing the representatives of the Polish Provisional Government whether to add it to the agenda.

Mr. Molotov stated that he had another question. The question of the German fleet should be settled before the end of the meeting.

Mr. Byrnes replied that the question was proposed earlier and therefore should be noted.

Mr. Molotov stated that he wished agreement as to when it would be decided.

Mr. Eden stated that according to his notes it had been agreed to keep this matter for settlement at the end of the Conference.

Mr. Molotov replied that the end is now here and he wanted it discussed.

Mr. Eden asked whether we are at the beginning of the end or at the end of the beginning.

Mr. Byrnes replied that he thought that we were at the beginning of the end. The United States Delegation wants to dispose of pending matters so that the Conference can end.

Mr. Molotov reverted to his question and asked when the German fleet would be discussed. He suggested tomorrow.

Mr. Eden stated that the matter was really one for the Big Three.

Mr. Molotov suggested that it be put on their agenda either today or tomorrow.

Mr. Eden agreed.

Mr. Byrnes agreed that it should go on tomorrow’s agenda.

Mr. Molotov then stated that the question of the partition of reparations among the Allies must be decided. There had been agreement in the subcommittee, to which the Soviet Delegation did not object.

Mr. Byrnes stated his understanding that there is no agreement yet in the economic subcommittee on anything. He thought it might be well to report to the Big Three that they had been unable to reach a decision.

Mr. Molotov stated that that was why he said that we should consider the draft submitted by the Reparations Commission.²⁴

Mr. Byrnes entirely agreed and stated there were some matters in disagreement and that there was no apparent chance of reaching agreement.

Mr. Molotov insisted that questions on which the Commission has agreed could be discussed here.

Mr. Byrnes replied that the American representative, Mr. Pauley, had called attention to certain portions of this draft. He read a brief statement.²⁵

Mr. Molotov argued that the British and American Delegations had circulated papers as agreed documents.²⁶

Mr. Byrnes replied that they had but had wound up with the statement just read. This statement means that there is absolutely no agreement so far as the United States Delegation is concerned. He suggested that the matter should not be discussed here but should be reported tomorrow. If in the meantime anything had been agreed to, it could be so stated in the report.

Mr. Molotov agreed.

Western Frontier of Poland

Mr. Byrnes announced that the Polish Delegation was waiting and upon his proposal they were invited to come to the table and present their views on the question of the western frontier of Poland. A summary of their statement is attached (Annex 1).

Mr. Molotov inquired if any other Polish delegates wished to speak.

Mr. Byrnes said that they would certainly invite any other gentlemen present who wished to present his views and if there were any he would ask them to submit them in writing.²⁷

Mr. Molotov said that the position of the Soviet Union was different from that of the other countries. It was common knowledge that at Yalta they had discussed the eastern as well as the western frontier of Poland. Because of the action taken on the eastern frontier the Soviet Union was in a special position. The question of the Polish border was important not only for Poland and her neighbors but also for the whole world. He said what he would say on the question of the western frontier was not new as the Soviet view was well known. He felt it his duty to say, however, that this was a matter of justice. He considered that the views put forward by the Polish Government were just and that justice required that Germany be turned out of this area in the interests of the people of Europe and the whole world. It would cause a considerable weakening of Germany and permit the correction of the situation of Poland. It would mean that Poland as a racial state would be strong and one of the pillars of peace in Europe. Germany would be weakened from the point of view of her aggressive intentions and strengthened only from the point of view of her legitimate interests. All Poles would be brought together in one state which would be democratic and economically strong. Therefore, the Soviet Delegation hoped that sympathetic intention [attention?] would be given to the request of the Polish Government.

Mr. Eden said that as the matter was before the Big Three he had no comments to make.

Mr. Byrnes said that they would present to the Heads of Governments the views expressed by the Polish Delegation.

Mr. Molotov repeated that the Soviet position was a special one and that they had certain obligations to Poland.

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that although the United States was not a neighbor of Poland they had always been a friend of Poland.

Mr. Eden said that it was because of Poland that Great Britain had entered the war.

The meeting adjourned.

[Annex 1]

Summary of Statements Made by Members of the Polish Delegation to the Meeting of Foreign Ministers, July 24, 1945

top secret

Mr. Bierut said that the war had begun in Poland and that Poland had suffered enormous losses in men and material. Poland was losing 180,000 square kilometers in the east to the establishment of the new Polish frontier there. Poland considered that the new eastern frontier which had been regulated on the basis of nationality was correct but their position was that they should acquire territory in the west. They considered the matter from the security and economic points of view.

They considered that the territories in the west were one unit from the economic point of view. They proposed a line running from the Baltic on the north through Swinemünde including Stettin in Poland, along the Oder River and thence along the Western Neisse River to Czechoslovakia.²⁸

The territory thus included in Poland would be smaller than that which Poland had lost in the east. Under this arrangement the total area of Poland would be reduced from 388,000 square kilometers to 309,000 square kilometers but it would give Poland a sound economy. The population of Poland which had been 34 million would be reduced to 26 million but it would be homogeneous. A great many Germans had fled and he thought many of the other one to [one and] one-half million Germans left would be willing to leave. The population east of the Curzon Line²⁹ had included many Ukrainians, White Russians and some Lithuanians. It had also included about 4 million Poles which they expected would be repatriated to Poland. The density of the population of Poland before the war was 83 persons to one square kilometer. To preserve the same density they would need to have 314,000 square kilometers but they would get only 309,000 square kilometers. Thus the density would increase but they would be better off from an economic point of view.

If they received the territory proposed it would no longer be necessary for Poles to emigrate to the United States or Germany as was the case before the war. Thousands of Poles had formerly worked in this territory in the west, chiefly on farms. It was prejudicial to Poland that these workers gave their labor whereas their production went to others.

Mr. Rzymowski pointed out that the war began with the attack by Germany on Poland, that Poland had been under German occupation longer than any other country, and that the manner in which the Germans had behaved in Poland was proof that they wanted to destroy Polish civilization. It was the only country in which there were so many death camps. The Germans had tried to kill off the population to obtain “Lebensraum” for Germans and had attempted to destroy Polish culture. It would be an expression of historical justice that a Polish state be created that was powerful and which had the possibility to resist any German aggression. There should be a place in Poland for those Poles who lived east of the Curzon Line and for those who had emigrated elsewhere. There should also be a place for the increase in the population which amounted yearly to 250,000 people. Poland had ceded territory in the east for the sake of peace and it was right that Germany should also cede territory for the sake of peace. It was in the interest of peace in Europe that Germany should be deprived of this territory as a “place d’armes” in the east. Poland would be a territory without national minorities which would make for peace. Under Germany the industries of Silesia were an armament factory but in Poland they would be devoted to satisfy the peaceful needs of the Polish people.

Polish rights in Silesia were justified also by the fact that the population would consider themselves as Poles once the German administration and pressure was removed.

The line proposed was the shortest boundary possible between the Germans and Poles and would be the easiest to defend. This would give Poland the opportunity to reconstruct its social and economic structure.

Before the war Polish rural districts were overpopulated. There were about 4 million unemployed living in villages who could not be absorbed in the urban districts. The acquisition of Silesia would enable these people to be employed.

Stettin had always been an outlet under the Germans for the products of Silesia and their claim to Stettin was justified by the fact that it was needed as a Poland [Polish] outlet for Silesian products.

Mr. Mikolajczyk agreed with the opinions of his colleagues. It was in the interest of all that Germany should not be able to undertake any aggressions. The Germans had two bases for their imperialism. One was the armament industry and the second the profit which they made as an intermediary between other nations. One of the bases of German armaments was the territory which they claimed for Poland. Among its basic resources were zinc and coal. The Poles thought that these resources should not be in German hands.

With respect to the profits which Germany had made as an intermediary, he said that in 1937 Germany had transported to Czechoslovakia 2,300,000 tons; to Hungary 400,000 tons; to Rumania 500,000 tons; and to Yugoslavia 200,000 tons in addition to the goods transported to Poland.

He argued that the Oder River and its whole basin should go to Poland. Poland had to export and import in large quantities in order to give work to Polish workers. One river system, the Vistula, was not enough for this purpose. It would be necessary to control the whole of resources of water of the Oder. These sources are in the Neisse area and if not controlled by Poland they could be cut off.

Summing up, he said his arguments in favor of the Polish proposal were:

1. To take from the Germans one of the bases of their armaments.

2. To take from Germany the control of commerce and her role as an intermediary between other states.

3. Turning this area over to Poland would not only contribute to security and peace of all nations and of Poland but it would create a new economic and commercial system in which Poland would be able to prosper.

Relatively Germany which had lost the war would lose less territory than Poland. If Polish claims were satisfied Poland would lose 20 percent of her territory whereas Germany would lose 18 percent.

He asked for a speedy decision and for full agreement between the powers pointing out the necessity for the repatriation of the Poles from the Soviet Union and the other countries to which they had been driven by the war in order that they could participate in the reconstruction of their country.³⁰

2. The Rapporteur’s report (post, pp. 336–337) and these minutes (post, p. 329) indicate that Molotov circulated papers at this meeting on Austrian and Italian reparations. The Austrian paper is document No. 769, post. If there was an additional Soviet proposal concerning German reparations circulated at this meeting, it has not been identified.
3. Document No. 1099, post.
4. Document No. 1320, post.
5. For the text of this declaration, see document No. 1417, post, section v.
6. Andrey Andreyevich Gromyko. For a memorandum on the subcommittee meeting referred to, see ante, p. 268.
7. See ante, pp. 228–230.
8. The reference is apparently to document No. 796, post.
9. H. Freeman Matthews.
10. Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky.
11. Document No. 729, post.
12. The British representative was Frederick Hoyer Millar.
13. Blank in the original. Paragraph number supplied from the Rapporteur’s report, post, p. 337.
14. See post, p. 337, and paragraph 2 of document No. 1424, post.
15. Not identified.
16. See ante, p. 207.
17. See document No. 1424, post.
18. See vol. i, p. 374.
19. See the attachment to document No. 714, post.
20. See post, p. 360.
21. Document No. 841, post.
22. Documents Nos. 769 and 1099, post.
23. Document No. 755, post.
24. Molotov was presumably referring to attachment 3 or attachment 4 to document No. 894, post, or both.
25. Not found.
26. Attachments 3 and 4 to an American proposal (document No. 894, post) were both headed “Agreed in the Allied Commission on Reparations”.
27. For the views submitted in response to this invitation, see document No. 1150, post.
28. See the map facing p. 1152, post.
29. See the map facing p. 748 in vol. i. For the origin and a description of the Curzon Line, see Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. xiii. pp. 793–794.
30. For Mikolajczyk’s minutes of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers with the Polish Delegation, see document No. 1385, post.