Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

740.00119 Council/9–1145

United States Delegation Minutes of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 28, 1945, 11:30 a.m.⁷²

London, September 28, 1945, 11:30 a.m.

Mr. Bidault in the Chair

Bidault: The meeting is open. I shall ask the chairman of the meeting of the Deputies to give us an account of their meeting this morning.⁷³

Dunn: In accordance with the directive of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Deputies this morning worked out a draft of a telegram to Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The Deputies recommend the following telegram:

(reads telegram attached⁷⁴)

Dunn: (to interpreter translating into French) You put in some extra words.

(interpreter corrected his translation)

That is the recommended telegram. The Deputies recommend that the information received be transmitted to the Allied Commission in Austria as soon as possible by the Secretariat.

I wish to report also that there remains for the Deputies to consider in accordance with the directives of the Council of Foreign Ministers the following items:

1. A telegram of instruction to the Allied Commission in Vienna in regard to the food situation in Austria.

2. Interim arrangement with regard to food for Austria.

3. The subject of restitution and of the report.

Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has an amendment to suggest. The last sentence of the last paragraph of the telegram should be amended as follows:

“The Council requests that the information be made available …”

Bidault: The text will be amended accordingly. Any further remarks on the report made on this morning’s meeting? The rapporteur’s conclusions are, therefore, adopted.

I think that the Council now will agree to take up point 8 on the agenda regarding the control and administration of Germany. We have considered this matter and have decided to support the Soviet proposal to go through diplomatic channels.

Bevin: It is a technical and difficult subject. If the Council would agree to that, I am sure that we should make a great deal of progress.

Bidault: What is the opinion of the other Delegations? I have given my opinion.

Molotov: I agree with Mr. Bevin.

Byrnes: The United States Delegation was prepared to report that the French proposal would be submitted to the Deputies, but we could equally go along that the matter be submitted through diplomatic channels.

Wang: The Chinese Delegation shares fully the view of the French Delegation in regard to the danger of possible revival of German aggression. The question of setting up the central government is one that requires much information and careful consideration. We have no objection to this being taken up through diplomatic channels. We have no objection that the decision of the Potsdam Conference to which the memorandum refers should be studied by the Deputies and form the subject of a report. We also agree with the French Delegation that the Rhineland and Westphalia should be prevented again from becoming an arsenal for German aggression in Europe. This is a matter which concerns not only France and Europe, but the world as a whole. Unless the population of the Rhineland expresses a desire to be separated from Germany we should leave aside the question of setting up a separate regime in that area. Our task for the moment is to ensure the complete disarmament of Germany industrially and militarily. Let me make a personal observation. Peace and security in Europe not only in Europe but in the whole world depends more upon solidarity and cooperation than upon measures that we could expect to apply to Germany. With solidarity, peace can be guaranteed.

Dulles: I don’t want it to appear that because we differ as to the methods that we are differing as to substance. The problem raised by the French memorandum goes to the heart of the question of peace in Europe. The solution of the problem of the Ruhr and Rhineland in terms of the ethnic problem, political problem and economic problem is one which must be dealt with seriously and with a solid study. If the matter were referred to the Deputies, a study presumably would be made and it would be a joint study. That would seem to be the preferable decision. But that is not the exclusive procedure because if a joint study was not made presumably the French, who have taken the initiative of the French memorandum, would want to make a study elaborating somewhat their ideas, then submit that for the study of the other powers represented. But in any event, such a study should be made and should be made promptly, and if it is decided to refer the matter to diplomatic treatment, that, in our opinion, does not mean that we are postponing the serious and prompt study of this problem.

Bidault: Any further remarks aside from those which I am going to make myself?

Bevin: I want to say that I have expressed my views about the Ruhr. I have expressed my views about it at the meeting we had the other day. I don’t think it is necessary to repeat myself.

Bidault: I should like to make first two preliminary remarks, then I shall express the feeling of the French Delegation on the formulas that were suggested for the settlement of the question.

In his statement which we have all appreciated, the Delegate of China expressed the essential reason of our hope in the future of peace in the world; that of the co-operation between great powers represented here and also the other United Nations. I should like to associate myself with these sentiments, and we are all agreed that it is an absolutely essential decision, but this never prevented anybody from also using the same means and in other parts of the world and it did not appear by great powers and the other United Nations was not inconsistent with definite measures. With us that should be the case in an area that has always been the breeding place of strife and where cooperation should be better found by France than by Germany.⁷⁵ My second remark is this. The French Delegation agrees with the statement made by the representative of the United States when he said first that the German problem is very important and this problem in connection with the peace in Europe and in the world deserves a careful study. France has made that study and it will contribute to its being communicated to the powers represented here. The second point made by the United States representative was to stress the necessity of acting promptly and what is important for us is not to determine whether to send it to the Deputies or the Ambassadors. What is important is that such a serious problem not only for France but for the whole world should be settled and it is an urgent matter. The war has been over for several months in Europe. A few decisions have been taken but no decision has been taken with France which was in the front of aggression on the part of Germany. It is therefore urgent that we should have common decisions to which France should be associated and I shall explain later that nothing should be done without our agreement. We are now confronted with a problem. How shall we reach properly and usefully if possible a conclusion in the matter raised by the French Delegation, namely, the western zones of Germany and a general regime. I shall speak frankly. If this is only done by the normal diplomatic channels, I am afraid the question will not be entirely satisfactory. At least it can only be considered as a preliminary phase in any case. It has been referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers, and, as I have already said, before the general peace settlement, will have to come before the whole of the United Nations. If it is insisted here the French Delegation agree to a preliminary approach the matter will be carried out through the diplomatic channels, but in my opinion it is essential that the final protocol will mention that the fact was referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers, then to the whole of the United Nations. It should be anomalous not to mention the German problem. It is more complicated, it is more serious and it would not be normal that the Council of Foreign Ministers should only have to deal with questions that are not too difficult. I shall now conclude and summarize my point of view. If finally the Council prefers, the French Delegation agrees that this should be dealt with through diplomatic channels on one condition, namely, that the final protocol will refer to the common will of the powers represented here to settle this problem and that this will be a preliminary work and that settlement be made through diplomatic channels as soon as possible before a new session of the Conference of Foreign Ministers. The French Delegation could not accept that such an important problem as the German problem should not be mentioned in the protocol of our first session. Any other remarks? I understand that the Council prefers the diplomatic channels, in which case I shall express my opinion by proposing a resolution. This is the text of the French resolution:

“The questions raised in the memorandum of the French Delegation dated September 14, 1945 regarding the control and administration of Germany will without any delay be the subject of preliminary study through the diplomatic channels. The problem will be submitted to the examination of the Council of Foreign Ministers with a view to decisions to be taken.”

Byrnes: I would like to see it.

Bidault: The new resolution, which is in French, will be circulated for the members to examine.

Byrnes: I agree.

Molotov: I suggest we accept the original proposal made by Mr. Bevin.

Bevin: This only amplifies it. It was originally proposed that it go to the Deputies. Now it is proposed to go first through diplomatic channels.

Molotov: My suggestion is that we first should decide how we are going to settle this question, whether through diplomatic channels or not, then the question itself.

Bidault: Am I to understand that it has been suggested that the question should be treated by solely diplomatic channels and this is to have been accepted? What the French Delegation wants is that it should be mentioned in the protocol and that furthermore after studying through the diplomatic channels the question should come back to the Council of Foreign Ministers. Frankly, the French Delegation have no particular liking for the diplomatic channels but since my colleagues thought it should also go through diplomatic channels appear to be an excellent solution, we agreed, but it seemed that it should not be only and exclusively done through the diplomatic channels and that our Council will take up the matter again after the preliminary work has been carried out.

Molotov: No objection.

Bidault: Do you want me to read that text again?

Byrnes: I have agreed on it. You are too honest.

Bidault: When one is chairman, one should be overly honest.

Bevin: When one is not chairman, one must be overly careful.

Bidault: I think that has been settled in a manner not exactly in accordance with the wishes of the French Delegation. Now, we have to look over any other points, which in the preceding items of the agenda have not been examined or settled yet.

Molotov: I suggested that our Deputies should find out what points remain open in the agenda so as to avoid any omission.

(that was agreed)

Bidault: I think this is an excellent suggestion. It is a good thing that our Deputies soon meet and draw up a list of questions still open so that no part will be omitted, and there are several possible solutions. We might decide either that there will be a Deputies’ meeting early in the afternoon, then a full meeting of the Council, or if we assume that their work will be fairly long, we might only decide on a meeting of our Deputies. I suggest three o’clock.

Molotov: Four o’clock for the Deputies.

Byrnes: I wonder if the Deputies could meet at three o’clock and then we could meet at five.

Molotov: No objection.

Bidault: That would give them two hours to work on it. The chairman of the Deputies’ meeting of this morning has pointed out to us that there was a whole series with which the Deputies still have to deal. Will they defer these or will they only examine the question still open on our agenda?

Byrnes: The suggestion made by Mr. Molotov was that the Deputies meet for the Deputies to determine what questions were left to decide and to report back to the Council so that they could work on those matters. That was to facilitate the work of the conference and there should be immediate accord on that. Then the Council can go on.

Bevin: I thought that they might take up Austria and the other points at the same time.

Byrnes: There is no limit on their activities. If they can settle them, we would be very happy.

Bevin: I fear that we have given them quite [a] task. I suggest we meet at seven tonight.

(The final decision was that the Deputies would meet at three this afternoon and again at ten o’clock tomorrow morning and that the Council would meet at five today.)

72. According to the British Record of this meeting (not printed) the participants were as follows: U.K.—Mr. Bevin, Sir R. I. Campbell, Sir A. Clark Kerr, and Mr. A. Duff Cooper; U.S.A.—Mr. Byrnes, Mr. J. Dunn, Mr. B. V. Cohen, Mr. J. F. Dulles, and Mr. C. E. Bohlen; U.S.S.R.—M. Molotov, M. F. T. Gusev, M. K. V. Novikov, M. S. A. Golunski, and M. V. N. Pavlov; France—M. Bidault (Chairman), M. Couve de Murville, General Catroux, M. Alphand, and M. Fouques Duparc; China—Dr. Wang Shih-Chieh, Dr. Wellington Koo, Dr. Victor Hoo, Dr. Hollington Tong, and Mr. Yang Yun Chu. (Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Minutes)
73. The Deputies met at 10 a.m., September 28, 1945, for their 4th meeting; the minutes of the meeting are not printed.
74. Draft telegram as prepared by Deputies not attached to these minutes. For the version of the telegram agreed to at this meeting, see footnote 70, above. The sole modification in the Deputies’ draft is shown below.
75. According to the British record of this meeting (not printed) Bidault commented as follows on Wang’s statement: “M. Bidault agreed that the only hope for future peace lay in the co-operation of the Powers represented at the Council and indeed of all the United Nations. This, however, was not inconsistent with the adoption of definite measures of control in particular cases, and the French Delegation were anxious that such measures should be adopted in these territories, which had been for generations the breeding ground of aggression in Europe.” (Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Minutes)