Hiss Collection
Hiss Notes 1
Plenary 2/10 4.55
Ed. reported on meeting For Mins
We reached agt re Pol—there were two outstanding q’s Perhaps I may come to that in a moment. Read draft as it now stands (included some changes app. agreed to by Church & St. in their private meeting before plenary session) included Mol. amend of noon. and new amend:
“and will exchange Ambs. by whose reports the respective govts will be kept informed about the situation in Poland”
Church: We have made no reference to frontiers but of course people will ask at once about frontiers, what we have agreed. We are all agreed about the E. frontier, we are all agreed in prin. about W. frontier. The only q is where it is to be exactly drawn & how much we should say about it. We all agreed that the Poles are to have E. Pr. & be free to go to the line of the Oder if they so desire. We are very doubtful indeed about going further or mentioning at this stage—we have had a tel. from our War Cab. strongly deprecating frontier going as far as W. Neisse because they think the problem is larger than we could manage
Pres. We should rather hear from the Pol. Govt of Nat. Unity we had better leave out all references to boundaries
Church: on West?
Maisky on East we should say something Church. agreed.
Church people will immediately say what is the position about the frontier. We think E. frontier is settled. We think on W. frontier wishes of Pol Govt Nat Un be first consulted & matter finally settled at peace settlements
Pres: I cannot agree on Pol boundaries at this time. It must be done by the Sen later
Mol It would be very good if something could be said about full agt of 3 heads about E. frontier. Would clarify that important q. It would be good to say gen. opin of all sides represented. Prob. would provoke criticism for a time but in end would be good. Proposes leave it to 3 Mins. to find nec. formula. Not nec. to say anything about W frontier
Church: Something
Mol Yes, much less def.
[Page 913]Church: Say recog. by 3 powers Pol should receive substantial accession of terr both to the N. & to the W.…2 Thereafter final line be determined
St: That would be very good That would correspond to wish of public opin. all around
Pres: 3 For Secs
Church: Along lines we have suggested
Maisk St.: As a last ¶
Ed Decl, on Lib Areas (continuing his report)
Read & Church amended the Mol. amend. to include “responsibilities” etc.
Mol: Wants his amend. to stand
Pres read it as agreed this morning
Church how can you carry out measure.
St. accepted Church. Formula
Agreed To be put in language
Document approved
Ed sug. amend. re Fr.
“In issuing this decl. the 3 powers express the hope that the French Prov. Govt will be associated with them in the action & procedures contemplated”
Pres: I have rather changed my opin. I was opposed to Fr. sitting in on the Com. of 3, Control Machinery The more I think of it the more I think the PM’s contention that a country which has an area to control can not do so without sitting in on the Con. Com. I think it would be easier if Fr. is on that Con Com to get DeG to agree to this Decl. & other things. Like St. think about it
Pres agreed to add also Ed. addition
St agreed
Ed. Yug.
Agreed For Mins. prepare first draft final communique
Pres Should communique contain Yug statement Will leave to Ed in Conf. with For Mins whether we join in on that or not.
Church These are very respectable issues
Pres I’m not trying to protect my purity
Mol What is agreed re Yug.
Ed We’ve agreed to send a message & we’ve agreed to draft a communique
Read d
Message for 3 Govts to Tito & Sub3
agreed to recommend Tito-Sub be immed. formed & put into effect plus Brit amends.
[Page 914]Pres: All right
Mol: Tel was to be very short & without last 2 ¶s
Ed Yes then later then the amends second part.
Church. Hope commun. can mention both parts
Mol. We just had com. when agreed only 1st part be in tel.; 2nd part to be put off until United govt formed
Church But world will give more attention to immed. enforcement of agt if other part were mentioned, too. Would have effect of getting better reception for what we say.
St. It would be inconvenient if tel. & communique different & we agreed a second tel. will be sent
Church We have complex pub. opin. Want favorable reception of agt Believes it would help (include in commun)
Ed Might say: It was further agreed that when the agt is put into force, 3 govts would recommend to new govt to make a decl, of the 3 points
St. Without 3rd point, which is very objectionable
Ed. & Church: all right leave it out.
Church Besides it’s understood in Tito-Sub agt.
St. In any case change Tel—3 parts 1st Put agt in force immed 2nd members Vojnoj be later included 3rd all acts be confirmed later Church Very good & very helpful
St & all 3 also be in communique
Ed World Org. Report of subcom re consultation Fr & China & Invitation was accepted by For Mins & need not be discussed in plenary session.
→Pres OK’d invitation
Reparations
Church We were practically instructed by our gov’t not to men tion figures. Let Com. do that
Pres goes along my idea not to mention money, not make reps an am’t of money Let Com. do Talk about the equiv.
St. That’s only a monetary expression of what the goods cost. It is not money
Pres so many people at home will think of it in terms of $ & cents
Church I don’t understand what is to be published
Pres Nothing
Church not even subject
St. There is objection to mention dollars because someone will think will take reparations in money But we have already 3 treaties on reps, where reps in kind are expressed in dollars. Why in this case should there be a misunderstanding?
[Page 915]Church. I was going to suggest Mos. Com. be auth. to issue an interim report & not have to issue whole report before authorization is given to taking reps. For ex. factories would be taken at once by Sov Govt
St. I think we can be quite frank How compare goods we should take from Ger. with our losses If we accept them we should say we accept as reparation. E could take factories & lands but better have a dec. I propose simple prin.: 1. Ger must pay reps. for losses caused to Allies. 2. To ask Rep. Com to find out am’t of reps. which would be nec. to take & to report to govts Am. side agreed with us to take as basis $20 million [sic] dollars. Does it mean Am side withdraws its agt
Pres: No I am completely in agt. Only one word. Reparations mean to so many people money. Add parenthesis (in kind)
St. We won’t publish
Pres U S entirely prepared discuss sum & principles. Only q I raise is use of word reps
St. We can use another word. Compensation of losses Church “Compensation in kind for losses”
St: 3 govts agree Ger. must pay in kind losses caused by her to Allies in course of war. To give to Mos Com the task to find out the figures of the reps. to be paid taking as basis To give Com to for discussion the Am-Sov formula
Church We can not commit ourselves to fig. of $20 billion or any other figures until Com has studied
St. No commitment
Ed What is value of the figure
St. Com. could change figures & modify them in any way.
Church You could propose that when the Com. meets Read excerpt from “communication from our govt” £500,000,000 a yr.= Ger’s pre-war exports This could not be paid by Ger. True some of it capital but that make it harder for Ger. to supply rest. Attach importance to some statement re paying for Ger imports. Unless priority at least equal to reps. we shall pay by exports (?) for reps.
St: Suppose experts say figure is wrong Then can fix new one. Our fig. not sacrosanct. We propose to discuss. It is nec. that things move forward.
Pres. suggest whole thing be left to Com at Mos.
Mol: Only yesterday ERS announced results of 3 For Mins consids. Text of Read ERS report
Ed. We think putting fig. in report might commit us to the figures. If desired would be willing say:
Mos Rep Com will be instructed: 1st To take into exam the report presented by Mr M. to the Crimean Conf
[Page 916]Mol. The 3 Mins considered this q. Eden’s proposal ignores fact this q has been discussed at Crimean Conf
Ed. we didn’t want say how many yrs
St. 1. The heads of 3 govts agree Ger must pay cocompensation in Kind for losses caused to Allied Govts
2. & agree Ger must pay in Kind
2. To the Mos. Rep Com has been given task to consider the am’t of reps, to be paid
3. In the Com. we will bring in our fig & you will bring yours Church: I agree
Intermission
St. Montreux Agt
I think this treaty is now out of date. In this treaty Jap. Emperor plays a very important role as one of the parties He plays perhaps more impor. role than S. U. The whole treaty is framed in such a way as to be linked up with Leag of Ns But Leag doesn’t exist any more, just as Jap Emperor is not in our ranks. According to this Treaty T. has rt to close Straits not only in case of war but also if T considers sit. dangerous. This also is difficult from modern point of view
The treaty was made when our rels with Gt Brit were not very tight but now G Bt wouldn’t want strangle R. . . I think this treaty should be very seriously modified. Now nearly indecent to say we observe the treaty of Montreux. I think there could be no objection to consideration of a revision of the treaty. In what sense I won’t go on to prejudge future decs. But I should like ints. of R to be taken account of. It is impossible to put up with a sit. where a small country will keep her hand at the throat of R. Ints of R must be taken into acct without infringing legit. ints of T. How to do it must be considered. I now propose the organ to study it. Is agreed 3 Mins will meet every few months Perhaps would be possible at 1st meeting to discuss so mins could report to their govts. That would be the preparatory stage for settlement of q. of the Straits
Pres. We have over 3,000 miles of natural boundary bet. US & Can No fort or armed ship on that boundary, Has existed for over 100 yrs. If we could get other govts do that would be wonderful thing
Church. Marshall mentioned this to Mr Ed & me when we were last in Mos. We viewed with sympathy the Sov. proposal that the treaty be revised We suggested that Sov Govt give us a note of what their ideas were on the Convention but this has not yet been done. We think proposal of Mar. is a wise one. We certainly feel present position of R with its great Black Sea being dependent upon this [Page 917] narrow exit is not satisfactory If the matter is brought up at the next For Secs meeting we hope the Rs will make their proposal Meanwhile I think it would be nec if T became minded to declare war on Ger for any reason, it would bee, to tell T the matter would be brought under consid. Shouldn’t like her to come in to war with out knowing of it. Indeed I think we have some promise to T that before anything is decided affecting her she would be informed Mr Ed reminds me that after we came back from Mos he mentioned the matter to the T. Amb. in general terms, so we have Kept our engagements It is worth considering whether at the time changes are made to meet the wishes & needs of R in the Straits whether some undertaking might be made to T that her indep. would in no way be affected That would make it easy for her.
St. We can hide nothing from T & we should give her some assurances
Church Then we are agreed
St. So For Mins will meet at the end of the Conf in US
Church I think it affects Brit position in the Med. more than U.S. so conference might be in Lon. I tried hard some time ago to get thru the Dardanelles. The R. Govt of that day sent 2 army corps to help from the other end. However we did not succeed
St. They were in a hurry to take away the troops. If had waited another wk. Gers & Ts all ready to capitulate Mr. Pres you would not object to conf. in Eur.
Pres No
St. No secretary of the Conf. Who is taking notes of the decs.
Ed. Will put before you a commun & a note of decisions taken Church In addition to commun.
Pres re Amended statement on Pol line For const. reasons I have made a few changes Only 2 changes. Orig text was “The 3 Powers are agreed” etc Const. q of whether I have a rt to say the 3 powers can change a boundary . . the new lang: “The 3 heads of gov’t consider” omit “3 powers” & change “agree” to “feel”
Mol Add Return her ancient terrs in E. Pr. & westerly
Pres Depends how long back you go
Mol Quite a long time ago It is of great importance to Poles from a national point of view.
Church I feel it would be better not to draw the frontiers in the W. at the present time & not to mention localities
Mol There is no mention of the frontiers & with regard to the line of the Oder there was no objection
Church Never in pub.
Mol But at the Conf
[Page 918]Ed On contrary, we have always said as far toward Oder as Poles want to go.
Church: If you talk of restoring the ancient terrs. I shall be asked what they are & there will be no satis. answer We’re not ag. it
St Withdrew his suggestions & “your suggestion Mr Pres (to Pres) is accepted”
That will be the last point of paper on Pol
Pres we have only commun
Church: D.O. (i. e. terr. trusteeships) [Then his advisers talked him out of it Prob. told him of revised copy of ERS report. He said “I haven’t seen it” but then matter was app. settled OK]4
Pres suggested draft commun. be given to heads of govt tonight & then have 11.00 a.m. meeting tomorrow
Church Then said something about multiple membership in communique