Hiss Collection
Hiss Notes 1
Ed. chmn
2/10
For Mins
12.10 p m
ERS asked make statement
We are prepared to withdraw our insistence on the final sentence in the Polish memo, which Mr. Mol. objected to with the understanding that the Pres would be perfectly free to make any statement to the Am. people he might think he had to relative to receiving inform. from his Amb.
Mol. Would like to make a small amend. to yesterday’s text: one cond: as soon as possible
of U. S. & Gt Brit will est. dip. reis, with it as has been done by the Soviet Un
Ed. objected—It’s to be a new govt
Mol we can leave out “as has been done by the Soviet Un” Ed. But we would all have to recognize it.
Mol. our sit. is diff. from that of U. S. We have already given recog. to present govt
Ed: Yes but this will be a new gov’t
ERS: Advisable that we all move together
Mol: Present sit. being different the doc. must reflect this diff. We quite agree on the future. Let us think about it.
ERS Decl, on Lib. Areas Have discussed Mr. Mol’s proposal Impossible for us to consider amend. Would create untold diffs. for us with respect to our dom, situation
Mol: Then I will propose another amend:
2nd ¶ from the end “they would immed. take measures for carrying out mutual consultation”
Suggests one or other amend.
Ed: An improvement
ERS I’m very favorably impressed
Mol. As to the former amend. Thinks it would be very useless because we don’t wish shots which have occurred in Athens to take place elsewhere
ERS. Sorry, I’m not authorized to consider this amend. any further.
New amend. agreed to
—>Mol Withdraws his former amend.
[Page 879]Ed: One other point. About Fr. sit. Proposed addition of a last ¶
Mol Hasn’t had time to study it, perhaps at 4.00
ERS As stated yesterday, thinks it most desirable
Ed. Little further inform. Re Yug. Sub.2 due leave today or tomorrow for Bel.3 Argument, as I as [sic] understand, has been about names of regents. But in our view no reason this should hold up coming into force of agt. We can send tel. setting forth our views as Mar. St. suggested
Mol. and communique?
Ed Can do that, too
Mol. Tel. telling them to hurry up That the agt. come into force immed.
Ed. Will show other 2 delegs. draft of tel.
Ed. Re Pol.—I didn’t mean to indicate agt. with Am. proposal to drop last sentence
ERS We would of course still prefer doc. as it exists but Pres so anxious reach agt, he is willing to make this concession
Mol. Thanks him Mr. Stett. very much
Reparations
Ed:
1. 1st reps should be considered in connection with dismemberment
2. Two R objects—depletion Ger. mfg. capacity & ensuring ability make large payments later—are difficult to reconcile We are very anxious to avoid conditions making it nec. finance or feed Ger later as result reparations
3. Would like Fr. on Mos. Commission from start
4. Labor should be considered too
5. Can’t name any figure for deliveries until Commission has studied matter
Mol: Any points Mr Ed. agrees on?
Ed. Add: These arrangements are without prejudice to restitution of looted property Mol. Of course
Ed. reserve position re pre-war claims We are in favor of Com. being set up in Mos as soon as possible
Mol: No basis for work of Com. We don’t give it any directives or principles on which to work.
Ed. We agree on principles: immediate withdrawal of machinery, etc—quicker the better—& annual payments Has a redraft
[Page 880]Maisky: Mr. Ed’s reply is very disappointing—Whole spirit of reply Spirit apparently is to take from Ger little as poss.
Ed: Never said anything of kind but can say my P. M. doesn’t think you’ll get anything like as much as you think.
Re Ed’s points
1. Naturally when dismemberment decided in practical form, plan be adjusted
2. Problem was considered from beginning. No contradiction. Ain’t of annual payments quite possible after contemplated removals. If you have doubts, shortest cut to accept our formula of yesterday—to take our proposals as basis for discussion & then bring up your points Never expected support Ger.
Nothing on 3
4. Labor certainly will come in in elaboration of whole plan, but as Com. studies q.
5. Our formula doesn’t commit you to the figures. Taking into account all your points, you can easily agree to formula agreed on by Sov & Am. delegs
Ed. We consider $20 billion equals 500,000,000£ a yr.
Maisky No in ten yrs
Ed: We wanted a shorter period
Mol. Let us write down 10 yrs
Ed: We prefer 5 yrs
ERS Its all a basis of discussion Might end up all these capital movements possible in 7 yrs Sov. Gov’t isn’t committing itself to 10 yrs or $20 billion
Maisky Certainly. In end might be 5 or 6
Ed Then why put in 10 yrs
Maisky: As basis for discussion
Ed. Let each put in its own plan Will give alternate draft & discuss at 4.00 p m Agreed
Mol. re communique
ERS We are hard at work drafting something for your consid.
Mol: You take initiative?
ERS There will be a draft, we would be glad to take initiative I would suggest 1st order bus. this afternoon that drafting of commun. be assigned to For Mins
Mol. Good
Ed. all right
World Org. report of subcommittee
Mol. I agree to both points—consultation of Ch & Fr. & the invitation
[Page 881]Ed We all agree then
Austria-Yug. frontiers
Ed: presented proposal
Mol. Translate & study
ERS: we feel (b) on p 2 should be pretty carefully considered. We feel that as phrased this goes beyond period of occupation
Ed: That is all that is meant Drafting may need to be made clearer
Yug-It frontier
Ed: proposal to be studied
Yug-Bul. relations
Mol. Mentioned treaty of alliance between Yug & Bul.
1. Recently For. Commissariat rec’d a note re federation, stressing federation might include Turkey. This is not an urgent q.
2. There are conversations between Yug & Bul about a treaty of friendship & alliance Sov. Govt holds a favorable view. They are collaborating militarily ag. Gers in Yug. There should be no objections to it.
Ed: Glad to hear treaty is not actual (?) Anxious about effect of this treaty on reparations we are anxious & all agreed Gr.4 should receive from Bul. Has separate memo on this.
Mol All obligs. of Bul. have been enforced. No one can change them without consent of 3 powers Bul & Rum. cannot have a treaty between them Now is q. of treaty between 1 friendly country & an ex-enemy There was a direct agt by Brit Govt to it. Q by Eden?
Mol. There were objections to treaty between 2 former enemies but not friendly & enemy
Ed. We do not think a country under armistice terms can make a treaty without consent of 3 powers. I never had it in mind a country under armistice would come into a federation until armistice over
ERS I’m completely in accord with Ed’s views
Ed: Can’t they wait?
Mol: Has no power to speak for them.
Ed. Bul. has signed armistice. Isn’t free to do as she wants. Although has threatened to shoot our planes coming here.
Mol. Our planes have been shot at in Yug but was mistake & our troops shot at by Am planes
Ed. I don’t know why Bul. can shoot at any planes Can we ask this wait awhile
Mol Can go on with discussions
[Page 882]ERS Suggest our Ambs discuss with Mol. in Mos. promptly Mol. Would wait until tomorrow
Iran
Mol. Has nothing to add
Ed: Would Mol like to put out communique
Mol: Undesirable. Can discuss this later
ERS I would urge some reference that Iranian problems have been discussed & clarified. Very troublesome q.
Mol Against that
Ed: Say re-examined & reaffirmed Teheran Decl.
Mol Against that
ERS status of Pol. Agreed Ed. to report on yesterday’s & today’s progress.
Reparations:
Mol.: mention in document just 2 figures as basis for discussion