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-Ninth Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 30, 1945, 3:30 p.m.¹⁹

London, September 30, 1945, 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Byrnes in the Chair

Byrnes: I will call first on the Soviet Deputy to give a report on the morning meeting of the Deputies.²⁰

Gousev: This morning the meeting of the Deputies was held at which the following questions were considered:

1. Draft telegram to the Austrian Control Commission and the continuation of the discussion concerning restitution. The meeting of the Deputies approved a draft telegram to the Allied Council in Vienna concerning the food supplies for the population of Austria. The text has been circulated. Does the Council wish me to read the text of the telegram?

Byrnes: I would say that each of the Delegations has a copy and it is unnecessary to read it. The question is oil the agreement of the sending of the telegram by the Council. Are there any objections? As there seems to be no objection, then the Council will deem that it has been decreed that the telegram will be sent by each Delegation to its representative.

Gousev: The Deputies continued the discussion of the question of restitution but this discussion has not been completed owing to the fact that it became necessary on the part of the Soviet Delegation to receive the opinion of economic experts on this question. The Soviet representative stated that the Soviet Delegation expect to receive the opinion of experts in the near future and as soon as they are in possession of the necessary information they will be able to come back to this question. The French, British, Chinese and American representatives expressed their wish to complete as soon as possible the discussion of the question of restitution, if possible before the end of the present session of the Council and to proceed with the carrying out of restitution as soon as possible. In conclusion I must say that at the end of the meeting of the Deputies the British representative again raised the question of improving the food situation in Austria. On this question an exchange of views took place, no decision was adopted and further discussion of this question was deferred. These are the main results of the Deputies’ meeting this morning.

Bidault: I hope that the meeting of the Deputies will soon be able to arrive at an agreement concerning restitution. I would like to remind the Council concerning the reservation of the French Delegation at the 24th meeting of this Council²¹ with reference to the connection between reparations and restitution.

Molotov: The French Delegation has raised this question but they have not formulated their views and we have not even received any memorandum and so we don’t ever [even?] know what the French Delegation regards as restitution, and I want to suggest that the French Delegation present their views and that will facilitate the position of the Deputies.

Bidault: The French Delegation is of the opinion that the memorandum distributed on September 20²² answers the question that has just been raised.

Molotov: I have in my mind the memorandum that the French Delegation submitted on the question of Germany²³ but I remember that there is a special memorandum of the French Delegation on restitution dated September 20. I think that our Deputies could discuss the memorandum with a view to ascertaining whether they will be able to fall in with the views of the French Delegation concerning restitution. I want to point out that the French Delegation have not justified the time limit on the carrying out of restitution in their memorandum, and I therefore suggest that the French Delegation justify the time limit suggested by them.

Bidault: I would prefer this matter being referred to the Deputies because as a matter of fact I must remind you that they are generally charged in such matters with the responsibility of determining how and when, and in particular the examination of restitution ought to produce results. With regard to the time limit the memorandum on reparations, which we circulated on September 20—reparations which we have already pointed out have as a preliminary condition restitution—asks that these matters should be disposed of in the shortest possible time and we laid down a time limit of two years because this was in conformity with the draft resolution which was presented and in conformity at the same time it was decided in our absence at Potsdam under Article 6, Section 4 of the Protocol.²⁴

Dunn: I take it there is no question that the matter of restitution has been referred to the Deputies by the Council and that we can consider that the Deputies will continue their study of the question. Any objection?

(No objection.)

Dunn: We will pass on to the next item to be considered.

Molotov: What is our agenda?

Dunn: I understand we are to consider the report of the Protocol committee.

Molotov: I should like to ask when the protocol submitted yesterday by the Soviet Delegation²⁵ will come up for discussion.

Dunn: I understand that at the end of yesterday’s meeting it was decided the Council would meet today to examine the protocol.

Molotov: I have no objection to this but I want to ask when the proposal of the Soviet Delegation, which it regards as an urgent one, will come up for discussion.

Dunn: I should say that the question would be taken up by the Council immediately after considering the report of the Protocol committee and at the same time the United States amendment²⁶ will be considered with it.

(Agreed.)

Bevin: The protocol and the communiqué questions?

Molotov: I suggest that we discuss them separately.

Byrnes: I think that the proper procedure would be to take up the protocol before taking up the communiqué. I have in my hands a draft of a protocol of the present conference and a note by the senior secretary of the Joint Secretariat.²⁷ I assume the other Delegations have this document.

Molotov: The question I want to ask is whether the protocol is going to be signed by the Ministers.

Byrnes: Of course.

Molotov: I suggest that we decide that the protocol will be signed by the Ministers, and only by those Ministers who decided questions and not by those who only discussed. But it will be recorded who was present. Do you agree with this suggestion? What is it we have decided?

Byrnes: We haven’t decided anything.

Molotov: I ask that this question be decided, otherwise there will be difficulty in discussing the protocol.

Byrnes: I think there must be a misunderstanding because nothing has been decided except that we will discuss the report of the Protocol committee. Now it will be in order for any member to suggest whatever procedure he deems best and then that suggestion to be discussed. I understand Mr. Molotov has a suggestion.

Molotov: That is what I am asking for. My suggestion is as follows: The Council of Foreign Ministers decide that the protocol containing the decisions should be signed by those Ministers who participated in the adoption of the decisions.

[Here follows a brief discussion at the conclusion of which it was agreed to recess the meeting for five minutes so that Molotov could familiarize himself with C.F.M.(45) 71, September 30, 1945, which he had not yet seen.]

Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has prepared a draft protocol of all their meetings of the Council since September 11th up to now. Analyzing it by general questions in which all the five members participated, I will circulate this text. I should like here to ask you to get acquainted with that draft protocol and as you have it only in Russian, I suggest we adjourn for one or two hours to study it.

Byrnes: May I suggest this? What I have said just now was simply what the situation was and reported by the Protocol committee so far as the United States Delegation is concerned. Though it is not our idea as to the kind of protocol that should be issued, the United States Delegation is not interested in form. I am not interested in procedure and I don’t care very much whether the United States signs five papers or four or three if the papers recorded the facts, that is all that is of interest. I have no objection if section (c) is agreed on, and which I am told the committee agreed upon, to signing, the five of us as to the general matters and to four or three or two signing the other headings provided there is a statement anywhere that only two signed because formally only two under the agreement of September 11 could vote on it, and therefore only two would have the right to sign. I don’t think there is any reason why I can’t agree with my friend as to this proposal. If a matter of form certainly is not of vital importance and if at either the top of the heading on Italy or at the bottom of it there is a statement to show why only four signed I see no objection. So far as the United States Delegation is concerned, we are ready to agree that we should sign those various headings in which we participated as voters. I don’t see any reason for so much difference in the committee. I hope that the members can agree. When it comes to Finland, the United States will not sign that and they will not be responsible for anything. I therefore suggest that we adopt the Committee’s report (c) with the suggestion of Mr. Molotov that the various parts be signed only by those Governments that could vote on the subject. As I read things, that is the daily record which we agreed on yesterday after hours of discussion, and if we agreed on it let it be signed by each of us who voted on the subject.

Bevin: That is why I asked what we were considering in order to get my mind clear. This proposal was put to us yesterday by Mr. Molotov, that we sign in this manner, and while I would have preferred the five to sign the protocol, I am quite agreeable to taking this course, almost with the excuses that Great Britain had to be present, to get the thing issued and to get it clear I am quite agreeable to what the Chairman has suggested. I have gone out of my way this morning to try and get agreement with the Soviet Delegation along the very lines they proposed last night. This was agreed on and I accepted it. It has been agreed all through that the agreements arrived at should stand. When it came to a question of signature, I tried to fall in and agree with the suggestions made.

[Here follows a discussion leading to the Council’s decision to charge the Protocol Committee with responsibility for checking the text of records of decisions included in the draft protocol.]

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, before we separate and in order to put an end to this discussion of the protocol which is the matter which is being especially referred to the Committee on Protocol, I would like to make the following statement: The French Delegation accepts that we have several protocols instead of one only which should be drawn up and that they should be respectively signed only by the Ministers who have taken part in the decisions provided that the following formula should be included as part of the signatures. I believe that this is in conformity with what Mr. Molotov said to Mr. Bevin. The formula would be as follows: “The above decisions were discussed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. They have been signed by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs indicated hereafter.”

Byrnes: Gentlemen of the Council, you have heard the request of the representative of the Government of France that if the documents are to be signed separately there will be included a motion requested by him. Are there objections?

Molotov: I think we shall be able to find without difficulty a formula embodying the mention of those Ministers who were present at the meeting.

Byrnes: The Protocol Committee will be requested to draft language along the lines suggested by the representative of the French.

Molotov: I should like it to be said in accordance with the proposal of Mr. Bidault and Mr. Molotov.

[Here follows a further discussion of the proposal to refer to the Protocol Committee the task of preparing a draft protocol along lines agreed upon by the Council.]

Byrnes: Therefore I suggest that the Committee withdraw and proceed to prepare the draft that they had considered last night along with the Soviet draft presented this afternoon. By the time they have prepared this document presented by the Soviet Delegation, the Soviet Delegation may have the rest of their draft to be turned over to the Committee. Therefore if there is no objection I suggest that the Protocol Committee withdraw and begin their work and at the end of an hour’s time they might have the rest of the Soviet draft. Can Mr. Molotov give us any idea as to how long it would take before the other parts are ready?

Molotov: I wonder if we can agree now to arrange the protocol in chronological order. I think it will be better to do so because we are going to have other decisions, for instance the decision on Austria and maybe a decision on the question of restitution, and then we can add them if we accept them. Therefore the question is of our agreeing as to the order in which the protocol should be arranged. The Soviet Delegation believes that the protocol should be arranged chronologically as is usually the case with protocols and in accordance with the suggestion under (b) in the Secretariat’s paper.

Bidault: Does all the Committee—do all five operate all through?

Molotov: No objection to this?

Bevin: There is no need to change the order when we sign it.

Molotov: I agree.

Bevin: When the draft is submitted will all five be in the room although some do not vote?

Molotov: If it is such an important question, I should like to have all five in one room.

Bevin: It would be very embarrassing to me to have to ask the United States to go out when we deal with the peace treaty with Finland.

Molotov: On the contrary, I should like them to be present.

Byrnes: Thanks. I am invited. I am glad.

Bevin: When we return and consider the report of the Protocol Committee all five will be here.

Molotov: I should like to ask that this proposal be submitted in writing.

Bevin: There is need for it to be in writing.

Molotov: I agree with this too.

Byrnes: I think, gentlemen, it is a matter that does not deserve the attention that we have given to it. For my part I am perfectly satisfied to have one protocol to be signed by all with the statement that the decisions in the attached record not relating to treaties signed by all parties, all signed. As to the Finland protocol, we simply state that the decision in the attached record so far as it relates to the treaty with Finland, Great Britain and the Soviet Union sign. Not being able to agree, the only thing I see we can do is to let it go to the Committee. My objection to that course is simply this. We spent hours yesterday working on the minutes. We agreed on them. Now, I can’t read this Russian draft very well but the gentleman who sits on my left tells me as he glances at it that there is one question with reference to the Soviet nationals which we discussed for an hour yesterday and excluded, and that is whether it is in this draft, and when we leave it to the Committee they will spend another hour and we will spend another hour on questions we decided yesterday.

Molotov: It is a mistake. I must say that the text should be reconciled to what we decided yesterday.

Byrnes: If the Committee member of the Soviet Delegation is instructed to reconcile it with what was decided yesterday then it would be all right, otherwise the Committee will—I suggest that the Committee withdraw and go on with the other work. Let us discuss the communiqué.

Bevin: I do think, Mr. Byrnes, that we are violating all union rules in trying to make them do it in an hour.

(Committee adjourns.)

Bevin: Hope springs eternal.

Byrnes: On the question of the Communiqué Committee we might now discuss questions that will be presented at some time or another and which would require a decision on the part of the Council. In the course of the discussion the Committee would like to have answered the question “Shall there be one communiqué with each section showing which of the Foreign Ministers took part in the decision?” Another question I am told being considered by these gentlemen is the question of whether the draft of the communiqué should contain all the decisions of the Council, including references to the Deputies. I hasten to express my views that the question—the second question—shall be answered by the decision that the communiqué should include mention of the matter, because if that is not done there will be little in the communiqué. As to the first question as to whether there will be one communiqué with sections showing which of the Foreign Ministers took part, I think there ought to be no difficulty about that. We could have but one communiqué. The communiqué can state, when it refers to treaties, that these members participated but did not vote. That’s what the facts are. That is all the communiqué is supposed to do.

Molotov: I want to make a suggestion. Like the protocol, there should be one communiqué. I think that the communiqué should state which questions were decided by which Ministers. It is not convenient to mention in the communiqué those who are present but only those who took part in the discussions. As regards the contents of the communiqué, I think it should contain the decisions adopted by the Council and should contain no mention of the tasks assigned to the Deputies.

Byrnes: Most of the work of the Council was devoted to an agreement upon the principles to govern the work of the Deputies. In justice to ourselves, we ought to state in the communiqué the things that occupied us and which we decided in accordance with the facts as to the disposition that was made.

Molotov: I think that we may agree on this. But in this case it will be necessary to find a form to express what questions have been referred to what Deputies. Thus we have no objection to mentioning the questions which have been referred to the Deputies under this one reservation.

Byrnes: I think we should find language that would solve that situation. We must do it in justice to ourselves. The newspapers have already stated a lot of it anyway. We might as well state it accurately.

Molotov: The newspapers publish some things and then say anything about certain things so they have published information of their own. They feed on food which they receive.

Byrnes: Not always—sometimes they feed on food which they haven’t.

Bevin: And their imagination is developed with their indigestion.

Byrnes: I would like to ask if any member of the Council has any suggestion, because the Communiqué Committee is put up against a very hard problem.

Bevin: Is it your proposal that in the communiqué when you say a matter is referred to the Deputies you do not stipulate the Deputies to whom they are referred?

Molotov: I think that it should be stated clearly so as not to deceive the reading public.

Bidault: With regard to the French Delegation, our attitude is this. There should be no difference between the main Delegates and their substitutes—Deputies.

Molotov: I agree that is quite right.

Bidault: I would like to say as regards the Conference of the full Delegates and of the Deputies the view of the French Delegation on this I have already stated. I have already said it may be expected therefore that the very extreme sacrifice will be the last I would be able to concede.

Molotov: I have still got to say that M. Bidault’s reference to sacrifice is without sufficient grounds. The decisions adopted at the Berlin Conference were published throughout the world and when the French Delegation made up their minds to go to London to participate in the work of the Council the French Delegation knew all along that the deliberations of the Council would be conducted on the basis of decisions of the Berlin Conference, and the French Government did not express their reluctance to participate in the work of the Council on the grounds they would be conducted on the basis of the Berlin decisions and they made no objection. If the French Delegation is agreed with the Berlin decisions, then the French Delegation was free to participate, but once the French Delegation has come to London to take part in the deliberations of the Council that means the French Delegation agreed to work on the basis of the Berlin decisions. Therefore I cannot on any account agree with the statement that the French Delegation have made a sacrifice in the Conference.

Bidault: Naturally I maintain the term “sacrifice” of course, and I hope that in meetings of this Council which will follow we shall be encouraged to make further sacrifice by the general attitude shown by the other Delegations. Therefore, we do not feel ourselves to be bound by the decisions of the Berlin Conference and we stress what our feelings were on the subject in the spirit in which we came here and in the spirit which we have shown in the past, in particular as illustrated in the record in regard to the Council in which we said we felt that the Council was sovereign with regard to fixing of its agenda and we felt that all members are free to decide on the measures of our work. A decision was made in common and can only be reversed in common. There is no need for me to stress my spirit of conciliation.

Molotov: I do not want to repeat anything of what I have said but I want to add that if anyone denounces the decision adopted by us in common, that decision ceases to be a decision. This is obvious. There is a Russian proverb which, says “You can’t make people like you by force”.

Bevin: This raises a very big point. Someone takes part in a decision, then he denounces it and is free. That is the nearest thing to the Hitler theory I have ever heard.

Molotov: This is what Mr. Bevin has been doing.

Bevin: My position is a very simple one.

Molotov: I should like to ask the Chairman to put an end to the speeches which are out of place. Have we got a Chairman or not? Unless Mr. Bevin will withdraw his words I shall leave the room.

Bevin: If I said anything offensive I withdraw it.

Molotov: Then we shall make out who assisted Hitler most.

Bevin: If I said anything offensive I apologize. My position has been a very simple one. It has been a question of interpretation of the Berlin decision. I merely drew an analogy, and I apologize. I don’t go back on any decision that I make and I never will, but I thought that the decision was correct and still think so, but all this afternoon I have been trying to meet Mr. Molotov. It seems to me now that the logical conclusion of all that we have been doing this afternoon is that we have agreed to sign separately and to sign but under separate heads. Now we present a paragraph in which reference to the Deputies is confined to signatories. I don’t see what else we can do. It has gone so far.

Molotov: I should like to say a few words. This is the second time that I have taken part in a Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. I remember the first Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs took place in October 1943.³⁰ The Conference was attended by Mr. Hull³¹ Mr. Eden,³² and the findings of this Conference were widely made known and the accounts of this Conference were given by Mr. Eden in the British Parliament and by Mr. Hull in the American Parliament. Not only the Governments who took part in this Conference were satisfied with the findings but also all the other friendly nations in the United Nations. It may well be that the atmosphere in Moscow was very favorable. It may be that on the other hand there were other reasons for this, but the Moscow Conference played a very important part in the accomplishment of our common task in the defeat of our common enemy. I don’t yet realize what the results of our work will be at this Conference when it comes to an end, but I am most anxious that the result should be most favorable; but to achieve this our common efforts are required and a good atmosphere is necessary to do the work. But I must say that as regards the atmosphere of our work in London there are a number of things which I have felt—and which are not always favorable or helpful to our work. I am not going to give reply to any offenses on the part of anybody and I think it would be below my self respect. As usual such methods are resorted to when other methods are lacking, but this is a matter of taste. Hitler also took advantage of this but achieved no results. But I still think that we are interested in engaging in serious business and I therefore suggest that we pass to business.

Byrnes: I want to say that I recall the Conference to which Mr. Molotov referred. It did result in great good in the conduct of the war. I must say however that the task that confronts us now after hostilities are over is a more serious one. After weeks of work our nerves are on edge; however, we must not lose our patience. No matter how we may differ we must continue to have respect for each other and to have the affection we have had for each other ever since we came together.

Bevin: As I tried to keep the right atmosphere in this Conference, if that is to be preserved there must be a recognition of each other’s difficulties. I have my difficulties. One of the problems which has made my job very difficult has been that the things I was interested in have been reserved and passed over every time a difficulty is created. Therefore, if the atmosphere is to be kept favorable, then I think there should be consideration of each other’s difficulties in carrying out the agenda; and except for the remark I made just now, which I think was misunderstood and which I withdrew, I think I have done my part. I have sat here hour after hour as patiently as I could, and apart from asking a few questions and trying to promote decisions I don’t think I have done anything else. It’s very nice to play off one’s predecessors against one. I don’t mind that at all. I dare say when Mr. Molotov understands me better and understands Great Britain better we shall be able to get on extremely well. All we want is to get a good peace settlement. If I have been wrong in my interpretation, if my Government has been wrong, I have made all sorts of suggestions on the side and everywhere but I do want to say when suggestions are made I think a serious endeavor should be made to understand each other’s point of view; then I think the Conference can do good work. Already it has accomplished much. There are several items on the agenda affecting my country very seriously, which I have been trying to get answered. Probably we can in future find an understanding alike in regard to procedure. I have no personal feeling about anybody or anything and, in any case, I agree with Mr. Molotov to get on with the work.

Byrnes: I have come to the conclusion that we cannot make any progress with the communiqué until the protocol matter is settled. I do not see that it will be useful to continue the discussion here until we hear from the Protocol Committee. I suggest we recess until 9:30.

Molotov: I suggest that we continue our meeting and discuss the questions. We have not yet tried to discuss, and I ask therefore the discussion of the Soviet proposal of yesterday.

Byrnes: May I suggest to my good friend that I think we would really make progress by recessing until 9:00 or 9:30.

Molotov: When are we going to wind up our Conference? I must hasten to Moscow. I promised I would leave tomorrow.

Byrnes: I think if we meet at 9:30, let us stay and decide one way or the other. By that time the Protocol Committee will have reported and then we can take up the question Mr. Molotov suggests and decide it.

Meeting adjourned.

19. For the list of participants at this meeting, see Record of Decisions, supra.
20. Minutes of the seventh meeting of the Deputies, September 30, 1945, not
21. See the Record of Decisions of the 24th meeting of the Council, C.F.M.(P) (45) 24th meeting, September 27, p. 421, and the British record of the 24th meeting, p. 422.
22. C.F.M.(45) 38, p. 285.
23. Apparently reference is to C.F.M.(45) 17, September 13, p. 177.
24. According to the British record of this meeting, Bidault at this point referred to section III, paragraph 6 of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference; see Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. ii, p. 1486.
25. For text of the Soviet proposal (or protocol), which was introduced at the 28th meeting of the Council, September 29, 3 p.m., see C.F.M.(45) 83, September 30, p. 474; for the American minutes of the 28th meeting, see p. 445.
26. For text of the United States proposal (or amendment), which was introduced at the 28th meeting of the Council, September 29, 3 p.m., see C.F.M.(45) 84, September 30, p. 475.
27. C.F.M.(45) 71, September 30, p. 514; two alternative drafts of the protocol had been prepared: C.F.M.(45) 72, September 30, 1945, arranged by subject matter and C.F.M.(45) 73, September 30, 1945, arranged chronologically; neither of the draft protocols is printed.
30. For documentation regarding the Tripartite Conference of Foreign Ministers held in Moscow, October 18 to November 1, 1943, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. i, pp. 513 ff.
31. Cordell Hull, then Secretary of State.
32. Anthony Eden, then British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.