740.00119 Council/9–1145
United States Delegation Minutes of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 26, 1945, 11 a.m.
Mr. Molotov in the Chair
Molotov: M. Bidault may be a little late, but we will not wait for him. First of all, the Soviet Delegation wanted to discuss the communiqué of yesterday. There were certain inaccuracies in it. The Soviet Delegation suggest the following communiqué should be issued instead: (I want to translate the text of the communiqué in English and in Russian).37
(Reads communiqué)
The Soviet Delegation asks that the text of this communiqué be accepted.
Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I imagine that there is just a real misunderstanding on the question because I objected at the time to the adoption of the resolution unless there was accepted an amendment that I had offered as to the Governments’ returning persons considered by their Governments to be nationals of the Soviet Republic. I am perfectly sincere now in stating that my recollection was that Molotov said he was willing that we are to deal with it through diplomatic channels.
Molotov: It goes without saying I am not referring to the protocol. I am referring to the communiqué.
Byrnes: But however the communiqué did make the statement that the language of the proposal was examined and approved by the Council and that is a different understanding as to the action.
Molotov: What would you like?
Byrnes: I have no objection to saying just what did occur: that the discussion continued and that it was disposed of by agreement that it should be taken up through diplomatic channels.
Molotov: That was not the case. That was not the decision that was adopted.
[Page 387]Bevin: Mr. Chairman, at a previous meeting there was a complaint at the Communiqué Committee publishing decisions and I understood that they were not to publish decisions again. On that occasion the communiqué stated that the Council had agreed that they should consider so and so, and Mr. Molotov objected to that and said that the decision should only be recorded at the end. The Communiqué Committee has my sympathy. I think it can scarcely know what to do. But the communiqué drafted by the Soviet Delegation would mislead the public because they would not know what was proposed and what we had approved. I think the difficulty of the Committee is to issue a communiqué which says nothing.
Molotov: The communiqué had already been issued which perverted the situation, and we are not going to leave that communiqué without a denial on the part of the Soviet Delegation. We can now correct the communiqué since it misleads the public.
Bevin: I suggest that your communiqué would mislead the public as much.
Molotov: I am interested in having a communiqué that would say accurately what decision was taken and there should be no inaccuracy as was the case in the communiqué which was published in spite of the objections of the Soviet Delegation.
Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, this matter of the communiqué which I am reading here for the first time. The communiqué said “the Council continued its consideration of the memorandum by the Soviet Delegation on the acceleration of the repatriation of Soviet nationals, and the repatriation of French nationals through the areas under the control of the Soviet Government.[”] Now, what is wrong with that? What is the fact?
Molotov: I should like to ask that our draft communiqué should be considered sentence by sentence. I leave out the first part, the introduction, which we shall consider at the end. The first sentence begins as follows: “The Council of Foreign Ministers met twice today. M. Bidault presided at the morning meeting.” The Soviet Delegation considers that this is the only accurate sentence in yesterday’s communiqué. The communiqué reads as follows: “The Council continued its discussion of the proposal of the Soviet Delegation concerning the question of setting up an inter-Allied council in Japan.” Are there any amendments?
Byrnes: There is a motion to strike it out.
Molotov: All the newspapers talk about it. I should think we cannot remain silent. I have not in mind the Soviet press but the Daily Herald and the Times. Their reports are inaccurate.
Byrnes: I object to it for this reason: As I said yesterday and the day before, this matter was not on the agenda and because it was not on the agenda I am not prepared to discuss it. I have talked to my [Page 388] friend privately about it and explained my situation to him, and when yesterday he again presented the subject I did not discuss it because I had stated twice before that it was useless to discuss it and I had no authority to act upon it, and therefore I did not want the question that is not on the agenda and that is offered for discussion by any one member of the Council under the circumstances I have described to be placed in the communiqué unless both sides of the question are to be presented.
When the question was asked about the communiqué I stated that we should proceed with the agenda, that there was not time to consider the communiqué and what should be placed in it and I understood that there was general agreement. And I submit that when the Potsdam Agreement referred to us certain matters at the same time it gave to us the authority to add other matters if we agreed upon—if the Governments agreed upon them. The Governments have not agreed on that. I think it unwise for us to give to the newspapers that we are suggesting matters that Governments have not agreed to add to the agenda. It will bring about a lot of friction in the Council if each day a member can suggest a matter and discuss it and have the newspapers talk about it when the Governments have not agreed to put it on the agenda. I suggest that if we are going to do that, that we ought to agree that when a matter is not on the agenda if it is to be mentioned in the communiqué that each Delegation be invited to prepare a statement setting forth its views and giving it to the newspapers. I have never yet known the right way—the best way—of handling this press question. I sometimes think we might make a rule and admit the press to the meetings. That would be entirely satisfactory to me rather than to have us have disagreements about what should be given to the press. If we can agree, then it is all right. If we can’t agree, then the best thing would be to let them come in. This would avoid these leaks that give to the papers a statement and nobody knows where it came from. In this statement which I read for the first time, there appears in the paper handed by the Soviet Delegation: “The Council examined and approved the proposal for the acceleration of repatriation of Soviet nationals”.
Molotov: I should like to ask that we first wind up the sentence under discussion now—second sentence—and then pass on to the next one.
Byrnes: But I add only one thing. Up to this time I have been told that the Soviet representative on the Communiqué Committee objected to printing items that were on the agenda and, therefore, I certainly object to printing stories about items that were not on the agenda.
Molotov: You will recall, Mr. Byrnes, that yesterday we discussed the question whether anything should be published to the effect that [Page 389] we discussed the question of Allied control for Japan, and I did not press for this, but today all the newspapers report stories about it, and is it convenient for us to say nothing about it now?
Byrnes: I think we must try to agree with each other on these matters. We have had discussions here for several days about this procedure and about the proposal of the Soviet Delegation with reference to the procedure, but nothing was ever put into the communiqué about it.
Molotov: My understanding of this is that you suggest that nothing should be published in the communiqué. If you insist on this I agree that nothing should be said on this subject in the communiqué.
Byrnes: About this proceeding or about Japan?
Molotov: About Japan.
Byrnes: I don’t think it should be. I thought the same about the other question. I thought it was better for us not to put it in the communiqué.
Molotov: In view of the objections by you, I withdraw my sentence. Let us pass on to the next sentence: “The Council examined and approved the proposals for the acceleration of the repatriation of Soviet nationals.” I suggest that we leave out the words “and approved”.
Byrnes: I agree.
(there was no objection)
Molotov: There is no objection that this wording be accepted.
Bevin: It reads like this: “The Council examined the proposal for the acceleration of the repatriation of Soviet nationals.” Is that how it reads now?
Molotov: Yes.
Bidault: I would like to add that the question of the repatriation of French nationals of Alsace-Lorraine was postponed by agreement until the next day.
Molotov: This was not on the agenda, and our agreement was that we would not mention matters not contained in the agenda.
Bidault: I don’t mind if we come to the agreement today. If it is in yesterday’s or today’s communiqué I don’t mind at all.
Molotov: It is this sentence which has just been approved by Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin. M. Bidault has no objection?
Bidault: What I attach most value to is not form but the substance of my amendment.
Molotov: The question raised by Mr. Bidault, I suggest that it be recalled in the protocol at the end of this meeting when it will be drafted.
Bidault: I wish to make my position quite clear. If the word “approved” were left in the text, then I would have insisted. If the [Page 390] communiqué did not say that there had been agreement on the Soviet proposals then I would not insist on the French amendment. As I understand that the communiqué without this word was approved, then I shall not insist at this time.
Molotov: “The Council also accepted the proposal of the Soviet Delegation for speeding up the work of the Reparations Committee.”
Byrnes: The word “also” would have to come out of that.
Molotov: I agree.
(there was no objection)
Bevin: That makes a decision again. “Accepted” means that you have decided.
Molotov: You seem to have forgotten, Mr. Bevin, what we discussed in connection with the suggestion as to what should be published, as to what decisions of the Council should be published. My suggestion was only that nothing should be published without the consent of the Council, but when the Council agrees to publish anything, certainly it should be published. Probably it appears that we seem to forget our decision that we adopted more than two weeks ago. The decision adopted with regard to reparations in Germany could be published in full, but in this case the Soviet Delegation does not suggest that this decision should be published in full, but it suggests that only a mention should be made.
Bevin: I think my friend Molotov is right, of course. My mind is so full of disagreements, I am a little confused.
Molotov: Can we leave the wording of the second sentence as it is now leaving out the word “also”?
Bevin: The Council accepted the proposal of the Soviet Delegation for speeding up the work of the Reparations Commission.
Molotov: There certainly should be no objection. Now, the last sentence: “The memorandum of the French Delegation on restitution should be considered at the next meeting.” By accepting this sentence we depart from our decision not to publish anything not on the agenda. Nevertheless, I think it is possible to accept it provided that my colleagues agree.
Bidault: I think that the discussion of this question should be continued. It makes good sense since reparations include quite a series of problems, and one of these in our eyes is that of restitution, and therefore it is not against the agenda to mention that in our communiqué.
Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I have agreed that it is perfectly justified because reparations from Germany are tied up in it.
Molotov: Many things are linked up with reparations. Had it not been for the war, there would not be any reparations. We leave [Page 391] that sentence. Are there any suggestions as to revisions to be made in this communiqué? Then I ask that we turn to the first sentence of our draft, namely, “In view of the fact that there were inaccuracies in the communiqué of September 25, it was decided in the Council of Foreign Ministers to publish the following communiqué in place of that communiqué.” Any objections?
Bevin: Yes, certainly. I think it is a very wrong thing to do. I don’t see how the original communiqué can be said to have inaccuracies. I think the Committee tried to do the job the best way they could. I should not like to see it go out in the press in the wording suggested. I should not object to something like this: “The Council of Foreign Ministers considered the communiqué issued on September 25 and decided to issue an amended communiqué which more fully expressed their decision.”
Molotov: I should like you to repeat.
Bevin: The sentence would run: “The Council of Foreign Ministers has examined the communiqué of the twenty-fifth of September and has decided to publish a modified text of that communiqué representing the decisions taken in a more complete manner.”
Molotov: Thank you.
Byrnes: I only want to express my own opinion that it is a shame for us to do this. I believe that the only results would be that the newspaper reporters would go to the communiqué of yesterday to compare it to see what in the world happened. Then when they had compared them, they are going to say the only change is the elimination of the reference to the repatriation of French nationals from areas under the control of the Soviet Government.
Molotov: The new text has been agreed upon.
Byrnes: So far as I am concerned, I am agreed but only after I make the observation that I think it unwise. I agree with the text but as to whether it should be done at all—on the question of its amendment, that is what I am speaking about. I think that we ought carefully to consider before we do it whether the reference to that French matter is sufficient matter to call the attention of the newspaper world to it and make it appear that there is some dispute between the Soviet and the French Governments about that matter that caused a correction. I suggested this in a friendly spirit. After I had made the suggestion I am going to make no objection to its publication, but I venture to insist that it will result in more speculation about that question whereas if it were passed over it would be forgotten. I suggest this: that if Mr. Molotov thinks it should be corrected, that he accept correcting it in connection with the communiqué that is issued tonight instead of issuing a separate communiqué which would attract a lot of attention to the item.
[Page 392]Molotov: I should like to ask that the decision on the amended communiqué should be kept in order. Now, we turn to the next question.
Bidault: I have accepted a certain number of phrases in the spirit of conciliation but it must be clearly understood that I fully agree with Mr. Byrnes. I could not accept that any statement in yesterday’s communiqué was inaccurate since the Delegation would accept important revision in this matter. I would not have asked yesterday that the French nationals should be mentioned. I showed all conciliation in this respect in this yesterday. I think we should think this matter over a little more. The text was actually drafted with the agreement of all the members of the Communiqué Committee. I would have accepted this text yesterday. Today I cannot accept this text which can be compared.
Molotov: I want to state that there is no disagreement as to the text of the amended communiqué.
Bidault: But there is disagreement on the publishing of it.
Molotov: But there is no disagreement as to the text.
Bidault: I accept this text which I accept to be exact, but the text of the other communiqué was also not inaccurate and I don’t want that any comparison can be made against the other communiqué that it was inaccurate by publishing another communniqué.
Molotov: In my opinion the text of the preceding communiqué was not accurate and the text agreed upon now is the text of an accurate communiqué and I want to know if anybody disagrees to the communiqué agreed now. Do we agree to this text or is there any objection to it?
Bidault: I maintain my position, as stated.
Molotov: Thus we are to say that we have not reached agreement on acceptance.
Bidault: What we are not agreed upon is the opportunity [opportuneness?] of publishing a new text.
Molotov: I cannot convince M. Bidault and I shall not insist on this. But the Soviet Delegation considers yesterday’s communiqué to be inaccurate. The Soviet Delegation will make a statement to this effect to the press.
Bidault: It is quite normal that the Soviet Delegation should make a statement to the press. The French Delegation had had no objection to it.
Molotov: We should like to have an agreed communiqué, but if my colleagues do not wish it, then we are compelled to give an explanation. We shall have it stated that the communiqué issued is not a joint communiqué and that the Soviet Delegation will not agree. We have no other way out. Let us pass to the next item.
[Page 393]Bevin: I understood that it was agreed by all our representatives. I don’t want to prolong this argument. I think it has taken too much time, but it was agreed by all the representatives and to state that it is not an agreed communiqué would mean that the Soviet Delegation is repudiating their own representative, and we should have to say that it was agreed by all the representatives on the Committee.
Molotov: I feel that Mr. Bevin is fully entitled to state what he sees fit to state, but the Soviet Delegation will state what is only required in order to restore the truth to the situation.
Bevin: I simply want to avoid reflection on the men on the Committee.
Molotov: I think they are good workers but they acted too hastily and made certain inaccuracies, and that is why I think we ought to state the true situation, and I do not express a distrust in our representatives on the Communiqué Committee, but they acted a bit too hastily and made certain inaccuracies.
Bidault: I have no desire to provoke incidents and I am therefore ready to reexamine the whole question provided one sentence be added to the text: “The Council has studied the French proposal concerning the repatriation of the French nationals.” There is a difference from “areas under the control of the Soviet Government”. I would also ask that the introductory paragraph should mention: “In order to avoid inaccurate interpretations, the text of the preceding communiqué is altered as follows:”
Molotov: We have left out the sentence referring to the discussion by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the question relating to Japan. This was done at the suggestion of Mr. Byrnes because this question was not on the agenda and for the same reason the Soviet Delegation thinks this should not be included in the communiqué as it is not on the agenda but if you will agree to leave the two questions in the communiqué, then I shall have no objection to accepting M. Bidault’s proposal. There is no objection?
Byrnes: On what—have we gone back to Japan? I did not hear.
Molotov: The same question of mentioning a matter not on the agenda. You raised that question. I have no objection.
Byrnes: I have said to my good friend that Japan was an entirely separate question and has no reference to anything on this agenda. I have agreed to the language of the communiqué Mr. Molotov wants even though I believe publication unwise.
Molotov: Let us say that we have not agreed. That M. Bidault has made a proposal which is not acceptable.
Wang: Mr. Chairman, I think that we are considering the French memorandum on the question of restitution and reparations. If that is so, could we not consider that memorandum because we must [Page 394] put something in our next communiqué regarding the French memorandum. When that is done we could return to the question of yesterday’s communiqué. I ask now how do we proceed?
Molotov: Unfortunately, I cannot accept this proposition as the communiqué issued yesterday has already been published everywhere with the exception of the Soviet press in which it will be impossible to have it published. May we pass on to the next item—the question of restitution? Anyone wish to comment?
Restitution and Reparations
Bidault: I would. In the following draft resolution proposed by the French Delegation on restitution38 it says as follows:
“The Allied Control Commission should be instructed to speed up with the assistance of the Reparations Commission the carrying out of restitution of property of the United Nations or their nationals taking into account the principles of the declaration of the fifth January, 1943, the determination of property to be restituted shall be settled as soon as possible and the carrying out of restitution should be effected except in cases justifying exception within two years, as provided by Article 6 of Section 4 of the Potsdam Protocol.”
My first comment on the resolution which has just been circulated is that like all governments of states occupied by the enemy, the Government of France attaches greatest importance to the restitution of property which the Germans stole either directly or by indirect means mentioned in the declaration of January 5, 1943. As I said, reparations must be levied on Germany and not on the Allies. The French Government hopes there will be no delay. That is why we submitted the resolution which rests on the same principle as the Soviet resolution of yesterday; there is a complete parallel between the two. The principle of restitution is covered by the declaration of fifth January, 1943, and so far as I know all the Allies have agreed. What we ask is that the agreement should be directed and that a date should be fixed for the return of Allied property within the period fixed to their legitimate owners.
Bevin: I agree.
Molotov: The Soviet Delegation promised that it
would study this question within a short time and is grateful for having at
their disposal from last night to this morning. As to the merits of this
question, the Soviet Delegation wish to state that the Soviet Union is
interested in restitutions in no less a degree than any other state. At the
same time the Soviet Delegation recognizes the correctness of the remark
made by Mr. Byrnes as to the complexity of this question in
[Page 395]
practice. Permit me to submit a
counterproposal on this subject consisting of two paragraphs:
Unfortunately I have not this down in writing.
Bidault: I have not much objection to your text but I must insist on mine. Your text mentions the text of January 5, 1943, to which we have adhered. Our proposal calls for acceleration.
Molotov: I think the idea suggested by M. Bidault is acceptable. In addition to mentioning a basis for the settlement of this question mention should also be made of the means to be adopted by Governments represented here to implement the decisions already taken. I must add that I have not only not studied the French proposal now submitted and am thus not able to be sure in what way it differs from the Soviet draft, but I am also not an expert in these questions.
In addition the Soviet Delegation have a draft of July 17, 194540 submitted by the American Government which does not correspond with the proposals of the Soviet and French Delegations. I am unable to say whether this American draft still holds good. This is the draft distributed by the American Delegation at the Berlin Conference and I am not certain whether this draft proposal remains in force or not.
(Molotov reads: The paper beginning with “First, the restitution should be confined to identifiable objects of artistic, religious and cultural” and ending with “the value of such property as returned should be included on reparations accounts of such countries”.)
Bevin: The French proposal seems to me to imply action in their proposition while the Soviet Delegation states how it would be applied. If we could agree to the French Delegation’s proposal as to action, then the two proposals could be combined. The details could be examined by the experts and they could report because we [Page 396] have not all the figures, of course, referred to by the Soviet Delegation. If the two proposals were put together in one report, I think we could decide quickly. I gather that the Soviet Delegation is not objecting to the action proposed by the French and the French are not objecting subject to examination of the proposal of the Soviet. Then the Council would proceed to come to its decision and this would be another problem solved.
Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I only want to refer to the statement read by Mr. Molotov as having been circulated at Potsdam. That paper I am not familiar with. I know that the matter was not discussed at the Foreign Ministers’ table or at the conference of the Heads of Governments. I am told that in a meeting of the subcommittee considering reparations Mr. Pauley41 representing the United States along with other gentlemen did submit the memorandum in the hope of bringing about a compromise in that committee, which would greatly restrict the articles which would be subject to restitution. All I am saying is that I do not recall it and do not know what was in the paper. My own views have been that restitution should not be restricted to the extent that was indicated in the paper that has been read, but in any event I imagine that that proposal was not agreed to and that the matter is open for agreement by the Control Council and the Reparations Commission and it seems to me that it should be decided by them because we have not the facts here and they have the information that we are discussing on hand. For that reason I thought that the French resolution was wise because it says nothing more than that the determination of property to be restituted should be settled as soon as possible, and that the decision should be carried out in accordance with the Potsdam Protocol.
Molotov: I have read the document distributed by President Truman in the meeting of the three Heads of Governments on July 17, 1945.
Byrnes: I have no recollection nor do my assistants recall.
Molotov: It is impossible to remember everything.
Byrnes: If my friend has a copy, then certainly my recollection is in fault. Did my friend say there was agreement on that?
Molotov: The question was not discussed; neither was it decided.
Byrnes: My own thought was that there wasn’t any objection to the proposal of the French Delegation that we say that it should be accelerated, and that the decision should be effected within two years as provided by the Potsdam Protocol. I would rather have it that way than for us to attempt to go into it when we have not the facts and it is a very complicated problem.
[Page 397]Molotov: The Soviet Delegation asks for their draft to be studied, and in their turn promise they will study the French one.
Byrnes: May I make a suggestion? As I read it, there is no important difference between the Soviet draft and the French draft, and I wonder if the Soviet Delegation would not appoint a deputy, and the French Delegation appoint a deputy, and see if they can agree on language before our next session. Then the rest of us could have some hope of reaching an agreement all around.
Bidault: I want to say something very similar. The Soviet Delegation seems to have at first sight no objection to the French draft, nor do we at first sight to the Soviet draft. This can be studied by experts—if we can get them—and I think that will not be difficult nor long. Mr. Molotov says he is not an expert on this question, nor am I. But I think both Delegations have experts in these problems, and I think they might meet. And I would ask that we continue our examination of this question this afternoon.
Molotov: Provided we agree to take one of the drafts as the basis, I shall have no objection to the question being referred to the Deputies.
Bevin: As they don’t conflict with one another—the first the directive, and the other the details, can’t they take both since they don’t conflict with each other?
Bevin: It seems to me with the directive in one, the other the details, therefore if the two are taken for examination there will be——
Molotov: I have already stated that the Soviet Delegation would like time to study the French document.
Bidault: We have not got the Soviet text either, the text that was read. It was merely that when I heard that it did not seem to me that there could be any disagreement. I hope that there will be not too much delay. I ask Mr. Molotov when the two texts can be submitted to our experts.
Molotov: I think we have to take something as a basis for our Deputies; otherwise there would be no use for the experts to get together. If the Soviet draft is accepted as the basis, let us then refer it to the Deputies, and consider an amendment. If this draft is not acceptable and if it calls for study, then let us not accept it.
Bidault: Of course, the French Delegation advanced this and would like to have it taken as a basis. Moreover, in view of the fact that there is no apparent contradiction between the two texts, I would accept that both texts be taken by the experts. Of course, I am not here to withdraw the text I submitted myself in favor of another text which I have not read. All that I ask is that we reach a solution of this question.
Bevin: Do I understand that—from what Mr. Molotov proposes that if we took his text as a basis—because of the fact that he has [Page 398] not studied the French text, the experts would not be permitted to use the French text?
Molotov: Provided the Soviet draft is accepted as the basis, I shall have no objection to the French amendment being considered.
Bevin: Mr. Molotov places us in a very difficult situation. We feel that the French proposal is reasonable for it provides for a date for two years, and then the Soviet has the details as to how it would be applied. I do think it is unreasonable to put the Delegations in the position that they are asked to agree that they consider the text only when the two have been submitted and ought to be considered together, and I ask Mr. Molotov to assist the Council by being reasonable as we are to put the two texts together and make one report. We are not antagonistic to either. We just want a mutual or a common settlement and I think it does help the parties concerned if we can agree on a common basis where two things are so vital to two Delegations.
I cannot help thinking the French have a very good case for getting this thing settled within two years, to have it disposed of within two years—the quicker this has gotten started the better it will be for all of us. We don’t want to be put in a position against the French or against the Soviet. We want to think of the French Delegation helping the Soviet Delegation and the two Delegations can agree on some common basis on which we can get this settled. I think this would work to the satisfaction of both of them.
Let us try to agree.
Molotov: My only request is that my proposal should be oversimplified, at least I do not ask anyone for this. We have just received the French draft, and my colleagues have not received the Soviet draft, and now it is suggested to me that I agree with the French draft irrespective of whether I have read it or not. If I ask to be permitted to study it, then I am told that I am creating a situation. It is difficult to understand such a situation.
Bevin: It may be that I expressed myself badly. What I asked was that the two drafts together, knowing that they have not been studied, should both go as the basis for study and then the question agreed when the report comes back. I am not asking that Mr. Molotov withdraw his. They would not go as antagonistic documents but as complementary.
Molotov: Does Mr. Bevin agree to apply the same procedure in other cases, too? In all of them? If there are two drafts, then can it be accepted that if they have not been studied they should be referred to the Deputies without the Deputies having one of them as the basis?
Bevin: I can’t answer for every case. Sometimes papers are antagonistic. I can’t give a general answer but I undertake to consider each one on its merits. And in considering this on its merits, it seems to me so complementary that it would be the wise thing to do.
[Page 399]For instance, yesterday, from the Chair, I took the Soviet Delegation’s, the French Delegation’s, the British Delegation’s statements on reparations, and in the end the result of the discussion was that we all accepted the Soviet redraft. I am not a doctrinaire on any of these things. I try to do what we say in Britain “try common sense”.
Molotov: I think that the proposal of Mr. Bevin is prompted by the best intentions possible. But it is intended for those Delegates who have studied the two drafts. Is the request of the Soviet Delegation so complicated a request that they should not be given a little time to study the draft which they have just received? To translate and to read and to study it?
Bidault: I should be very glad for my part to have the opportunity to study the Soviet draft suggestion, and also I think that this matter is important and very urgent. I would not have refused any of my colleagues the necessary time to think it over. I merely ask that he tell us when we may take up the question again.
Molotov: I think one day will suffice.
Bidault: I accept that.
It was agreed that they should meet again at 5 o’clock.
The meeting adjourned.
- Texts of the communiqué which was issued on September 25 on the 20th and 21st meetings of the Council and the revised communiqué proposed by Molotov are contained in the Record of Decisions of the 22nd meeting, supra.↩
- C.F.M. (45) 38, September 20, p. 285.↩
- For text of a declaration issued by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., February 22, 1944, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, p. 213. Similar declarations were made by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.↩
- Reference is to attachment 2, “Proposed Definitions”, to the Proposal by the United States delegation, dated July 17, 1945, and entitled “German Reparations”, circulated at the First Plenary Meeting, July 17, 1945, of the Berlin Conference; for text, see Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. ii, p. 833.↩
- Edwin W. Pauley, United States Representative, Allied Commission on Reparations (from Germany), April–September 1945; Personal Representative of the President on reparations matters.↩