Roosevelt Papers
Memorandum by the Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman)
Conversation
| Present: | The American Ambassador, Mr. Harriman |
| I. M. Maiski, Assistant People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs. |
Subject: German Questions
By prearrangement I called on Maiski this morning to discuss German questions. Maiski is more ready to exchange preliminary views than any other member of the Foreign Office. He said that no conclusion had been reached by the Soviet Government on any precise details. The following were their present attitude:
1) Germany should be broken up although no agreement had been reached on the precise method. He did not go into detail but indicated that the Rhineland, including the Ruhr, might be an independent state and there might be a Catholic republic including Bavaria and Württemberg.
2) Germany should be demilitarized industrially. Steel production should be limited too, but should include sufficient production to give Germany the necessary steel and iron products to maintain her economy, with perhaps a small export. He spoke about a cut to 25% of Germany’s previous production. Heavy industry should be allowed to furnish electrical equipment, etc. for her own needs. German economy should be encouraged to expand agricultural production and [Page 177] her light industries. It should be recognized that she must have an export trade in order to purchase required imports.
3) In connection with reparations the Soviet Government had security in mind first and therefore would not ask for reparations which would call for strong heavy industries. Their demands would be to strip Germany’s heavy industries of their machinery and equipment and other products not involving heavy industry. The Soviet Government did not have in mind payments over a long period but spoke of ten years.
4) He classified German labor as part of reparations. No definite numbers had been agreed upon as a demand but it would run into the millions. He said the Government was more conservative than the Russian people on this point. Later on, but without definite significance, he mentioned two or three millions. In reply to my question he said that of course the group taken to Russia to work should be carefully selected; in the first instance the lesser war criminals as well as those active in the Nazi Party. If these were not sufficient, men could be selected from other categories, perhaps those that did not appear likely to find employment. He said they had been talking principally about men but some women might be required. They should come to Russia or other countries to work for a definite period and they considered it should be the same period as the reparations payments, say ten years.
It was the Russians’ hope that this experience, although partly punishment and partly reparations for damage caused, should be handled in such a way as to reeducate the Germans. If they showed signs of becoming more reasonable in their attitude greater freedom and a fuller life might be provided. These were questions that only experience could decide. It was the Russians’ hope that they would go back to Germany in a better frame of mind. It was not the intention of the Soviet Government to treat them badly but rather to attempt to educate them.
5) He did not warm up much to a discussion of an Austrian or Danube Basin confederation. He said this was out of his immediate study. He himself was spending his time on all aspects of reparations as described above.
6) He emphasized that the principal objective of the Soviet Government was security and that if they were satisfied with that aspect they would not have to support as large an army. This aspect would be taken into account in connection with the size of reparations. I assumed he particularly had in mind such things as breaking up Germany into smaller states and production of the heavy industries and those industries such as aviation and chemicals which could be put to war use.
[Page 178]7) He said they thought Germany might have a small merchant shipping but the Soviet Government would be quite satisfied to have much of Germany’s trade carried in foreign bottoms.
8) In talking about reparation demands of other countries he said that certain principles ought to be set down as to priorities of claim such as first priority should be for damage caused by enemy action. Also the contribution in the defeat of Germany should be taken into account. Those who had done the most fighting should get the most. Another consideration should be the percentage of damage in relation to national wealth. He mentioned France for example. He had noted in the papers they were building up enormous claims but that France had not done any fighting. They would not want any German labor. He did not seem to have too much sympathy for her claims in relation to Russia’s.
When Maiski spoke about France’s difficulty in being unwilling to take labor and the opposition of the French industry to taking reparations in kind, I said I thought a principle should be made clear that reparations in kind should be used by the receiving country and not re-exported, otherwise it might disrupt the proper development of international trade and we would get back into the same sort of a mess we had after the last war. He appeared to agree.
As to the British, he did not know what their ideas would be but spoke sympathetically of their rights. Also for Poland. He thought perhaps the United States could be paid by taking over German property in the United States. This part of the conversation was very general.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .