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

740.00119 Council/12–2645

United States Delegation Minutes of an Informal Meeting, Conference of Foreign Ministers, Moscow, Spiridonovka, December 24, 1945, 3:15 p.m.

Moscow, December 24, 1945, 3:15 p.m.

Present:52
The Secretary	Mr. Bevin	Mr. Molotov
Mr. Harriman	Sir A. Clark Kerr	Mr. Vishinsky
Mr. Bohlen	Sir A. Cadogan	Mr. Gusev
Mr. Cohen		Mr. Malich
		Mr. Pavlov

Subject[s]:	1. Atomic Energy
	2. Rumania and Bulgaria
	3. Iran
	4. Austria
	5. Japanese Fleet
	6. Japanese Islands
	7. German Assets in Austria
	8. Peace Treaties
	9. Rumania and Bulgaria
	10. Atomic Energy

1. Atomic Energy

Mr. Byrnes opened the meeting and proposed to resume discussion on points outstanding with regard to the atomic energy proposals. Mr. Bevin had agreed to circulate a draft embodying the two amendments which were still pending.

Mr. Molotov stated that he had not yet seen this draft. However, he had certain proposals with regard to Section II. In the draft which Mr. Byrnes had submitted yesterday,⁵³ Section II consisted of two paragraphs. Mr. Molotov proposed that the words “with the consent of the Security Council” be inserted in paragraph (a) after the words “made public” at the end of the first sentence. With regard to paragraph (b), Mr. Molotov proposed to add that the Atomic Energy Commission should be accountable to the Security Council for its work.

Mr. Molotov also stated that he was not sure that the next to last paragraph in the draft, beginning “The work of the Commission should proceed by separate stages,” was necessary. The Commission would, of course, establish its own rules of procedure since this was left to its discretion under Section IV.

Mr. Bevin suggested that in adopting their procedure the Commission and Security Council should make a reference to point 8 of the Washington Declaration. He stated that Canada was particularly interested in this.

Mr. Molotov said that this would not be “convenient”. The Washington Declaration had been made with participation of the United States, Britain and Canada. The Soviet Government had not been a party to this Declaration. Accordingly, it would be better not to refer to a matter in which not all the Governments concerned had participated. However, the Washington Declaration remained binding upon those who were parties to it.

Mr. Bevin replied that it seemed expedient to refer to this point in the draft although not necessarily mentioning the Washington Declaration. Mr. Bevin desired to include the principle involved, which would serve as a directive for the work of the Commission.

Mr. Molotov said that this proposal could be referred to the Commission itself.

Mr. Byrnes asked Mr. Molotov to agree to the inclusion of this point since it had been agreed to by the President and two Prime Ministers. For his part he would agree to Mr. Molotov’s amendment to Section 11(b) reading, “in such matters the Commission will be accountable to the Security Council,” and also to Mr. Molotov’s suggestion in regard to the next to last paragraph under Section V.

With regard to Mr. Molotov’s proposal concerning the addition of the words “with consent of the Security Council,” in Section II (a) at the end of sentence one, Mr. Byrnes inquired whether it would be acceptable to employ the following language: “shall be made public unless the Security Council in the interest of peace and security otherwise directs.” In this event, the Commission would be entitled to take the initiative in issuing minor reports in which the Security Council would not be interested. However, the Commission could not issue a report if the Security Council did not desire. This gave the Security Council full control as regards peace and security.

Mr. Bevin said that he was disturbed by the veto aspect of this matter, with reference to publication.

Mr. Cohen explained that in accordance with the language proposed by Mr. Byrnes, reports and recommendations of the Commission could be made public unless the Security Council by affirmative vote decided otherwise.

Mr. Bevin stated that he now understood and was in agreement.

Mr. Byrnes inquired whether Mr. Molotov would accept this proposal, pointing out that he was willing to accept the language proposed by Mr. Molotov in (b).

Mr. Molotov said he would have to think it over. It seemed possible to reach agreement on this matter.

2. Rumania and Bulgaria

Mr. Byrnes proceeded to the proposals regarding Rumania and Bulgaria. After his conversation with Mr. Molotov yesterday afternoon, he had told Mr. Bevin this morning of the agreement regarding this subject reached in that conversation. He had written out what in his opinion was the agreement arrived at yesterday. Mr. Bevin had said that this was satisfactory to him. Mr. Byrnes circulated two papers embodying the agreement as he had formulated it (Enclosures 1 and 2).

Mr. Molotov requested time for translation of Mr. Byrnes’ papers which he had received just before the present session began. He observed that the proposals apparently stood in need of some amendments.

3. Iran

Mr. Byrnes proceeded to the question of Iran.

Mr. Bevin stated that he had promised Generalissimo Stalin to study this question. He wished his colleagues to consider a settlement which he had formulated. Mr. Bevin circulated a paper on this subject (Enclosure 3).

4. Austria

Mr. Molotov inquired whether the other delegates had examined his paper on Austria.⁵⁴

Mr. Bevin said that he had received a preliminary reply from London but not a final reply and that he hoped to be prepared to discuss this question tomorrow. If by tomorrow he did not receive a full answer from London he would provide such information as he had received.

5. Japanese Fleet

Mr. Molotov stated that he wished to discuss a further point with regard to Japan. He had exchanged letters with Mr. Byrnes with regard to the Japanese fleet.⁵⁵ The proposal had been made that the Japanese fleet be scuttled. He had agreed with this proposal but with certain qualifications. He had thought it desirable that the smaller vessels be divided up. In any event the Soviet Union would receive ¼ of these vessels. Mr. Byrnes had expressed agreement to this. Mr. Molotov added that the same applied to the Japanese merchant shipping. He inquired as to how it would be best to get this matter underway.

Mr. Byrnes replied that he had accepted Mr. Molotov’s proposal and had issued instructions to the Navy to fulfill the agreement which they had reached. He did not remember the exact language of the correspondence. However, he had already instructed the U.S. Navy to proceed in accordance with the agreement.

Mr. Bevin inquired whether the British Government was a party to this agreement.

Mr. Byrnes replied that it was.

Mr. Molotov inquired about the Japanese merchant marine.

Mr. Byrnes replied that this depended upon what had been placed into the agreement.

Mr. Molotov read a section from Mr. Byrnes’ letter regarding the Japanese merchant marine.

Mr. Byrnes said that the Navy had informed him that it was necessary to use all possible Japanese vessels for the transport of supplies, et cetera. As soon as these operations were completed, he would instruct them to get in touch with the Soviet and British authorities and settle the matter.

Mr. Bevin stated that, as he recalled, the British proposal had been that the Japanese naval fleet should be sunk. With regard to the merchant marine, had not a reservation been made as to fishing vessels? Even though the Japanese had been defeated, it was necessary for them to go on living somehow.

Mr. Molotov said that some portion of the fishing fleet should be left to the Japanese, but not necessarily all.

Mr. Byrnes said that the question of fishing vessels had not been discussed in his letter and he had no facts on this question. He did stand by the agreement reached in the correspondence and would take up later the question of fishing vessels.

Mr. Molotov reiterated that this matter should be placed into definite channels. It had started as far back as last October.

Mr. Byrnes said he regarded it as a settled matter. He would find out from the Navy the status of the program set forth in his letter.

Mr. Molotov said that the Japanese fishing fleet should be included in the merchant marine.

Mr. Byrnes said that this raised another question, one concerning which he had no information.

Mr. Bevin said that it would be necessary for him to study the question.

6. Japanese Islands

Mr. Molotov inquired whether the other delegates could give him any information regarding the projected disposition of the Japanese islands and Japanese mandated islands in the Pacific.

Mr. Byrnes replied that so far as the United States was concerned no solution had been arrived at and there could be no solution until the peace treaty problem was approached. He knew of no agreement except that with regard to the Kuriles.⁵⁶ He had not known about that agreement until he had been advised that an understanding had been reached at Yalta.

Mr. Bevin inquired whether the British Government had participated in that understanding.

Mr. Molotov replied in the affirmative. With regard to the other Japanese islands, he inquired whether this question would be discussed in the future.

Mr. Byrnes said that he would be delighted at any time to discuss the question.

Mr. Bevin said with regard to the secret agreement signed by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, he personally had never seen anything concerning the Kuriles. The British Government knew nothing about it. It had been an agreement between Prime Minister Churchill, President Roosevelt and Generalissimo Stalin. However, the Cabinet members had no knowledge concerning it.

Mr. Molotov pointed out that Ambassador Clark Kerr and Mr. Cadogan knew about this agreement.

Mr. Bevin said that the British Government had not gone back on the agreement after it had learned about it and did not intend to go back on it. However, it created a “frightful” difficulty for him when matters were “thrown at” him in this fashion without his being informed in advance.

Mr. Molotov said that he was not pressing for an immediate discussion of this question. He only meant to inquire whether information could be expected upon it. If the question were not going to be decided, it would be desirable at least to set a time for deciding.

Mr. Bevin stated that any time Mr. Molotov informed him of a matter which Mr. Molotov felt was not being handled expeditiously, he would immediately take it up with his colleagues.

Mr. Molotov replied that both Mr. Bevin and his colleagues were present at the moment and that therefore there could be no better opportunity.

7. German Assets in Austria

Mr. Byrnes recalled that he had inquired earlier in the conference regarding the determination of what constitutes German assets in Austria. He desired to urge agreement upon his proposal that this question be referred to the Allied Control Council in Vienna and that the Soviet Government authorize its representative there to come to a decision on the question. There were some United States properties in Austria. The Nazis had taken charge of Austrian properties belonging to Americans. The claim had been made that these were Nazi assets. It was essential that prompt decision be reached in such questions as otherwise irritation was created. The United States Government had authorized its representative to fettle these matters on the spot but its representative had replied that the Soviet representative had no such authorization.

Mr. Molotov replied that this general question had been discussed at the Berlin Conference and inquired whether there were any specific matters concerning it.

Mr. Byrnes said that the claim had been raised that purely Austrian properties and American properties were really German properties.

Mr. Molotov said that specific cases should be considered individually.

Mr. Byrnes agreed. However, when the United States representative had asked that such specific questions be considered, the Soviet representative had replied that he was not authorized to decide them.

Mr. Molotov said that he would attempt to clear up this question before Mr. Byrnes’ departure.

8. Peace Treaties

Mr. Byrnes pointed out that general agreement had been reached on the peace treaty proposal. China had been informed, and had concurred on this document.⁵⁷ Mr. Bidault had also been informed and had said that he personally was disposed to accept it but that he had no authority to do so and would have to speak to General de Gaulle.⁵⁸ Mr. Byrnes had put in a telephone call to Mr. Bidault for this afternoon. In the event that the French were in agreement, would Mr. Molotov and Mr. Bevin be willing to issue this document to the press? Since the conference had begun the press had been given no news concerning it. It would be desirable to issue this one statement and to say that the work of the conference was proceeding in a friendly spirit and that there would be a communiqué within a few days.

Mr. Molotov said that this was acceptable to him.

Mr. Bevin said that before publishing this document he wished to study further the wording of paragraph 4. His Government had called his attention to a constitutional question involved therein. The second line of this paragraph included the words “signed on behalf of”. His Government preferred the words “signed by the governments”. This was proposed since otherwise it might be assumed that Mr. Bevin had agreed to sign on behalf of Canada, et cetera.

Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Molotov said they had no objection to this change.

Mr. Molotov suggested that it read “signed by representatives of” the states in question. Mr. Bevin agreed to this.

9. Rumania and Bulgaria

After a recess, Mr. Molotov distributed Soviet drafts on Rumania and Bulgaria.⁵⁹

After a preliminary study of these papers Mr. Byrnes inquired whether the Soviet draft implied that the reorganized government of Rumania would contain only one representative from both the Peasant and Liberal Parties.

Mr. Molotov replied that there would be one representative from each party. Two suitable representatives could be found.

Mr. Byrnes stated that he remembered saying in yesterday’s conversation that the persons taken into the reorganized Government should be truly representative of their parties. Mr. Byrnes said that this certainly should be in the draft.

Mr. Molotov suggested that this was covered by the provision that the representatives taken in would be from groups not now participating in the Government.

Mr. Byrnes replied that there might be certain cases in which men would belong to groups not now participating in the Government, but nevertheless would not be truly representative of their parties.

Mr. Molotov said that he had no objection to a person from the Maniu group but that Maniu himself would not be acceptable.

Mr. Bevin inquired whether it was necessary to mention the three individual men in a document of this character.

Mr. Molotov said that it had been stated at the outset that these three men were unacceptable. His colleagues had agreed to this.

Mr. Byrnes said that it would not be proper for the three Governments to take specific notice of individuals. Instructions could be sent to the representatives of the three Governments that these three individuals should not be selected. However, the individuals themselves would not be made the subject of special mention.

Mr. Molotov pointed out that Mr. Ethridge had mentioned these individuals in his paper.

Mr. Byrnes replied that there was a difference between the report of an individual and an agreement among three great Governments.

Mr. Molotov said that the Soviet Government considered the reference to these individuals to be necessary.

Mr. Bevin pointed out that there had been an assumption that the United States and British delegates were pressing for the inclusion of these three individuals. However, this did not follow from the proposal which Mr. Byrnes had presented. There would be misunderstanding in Great Britain if Mr. Bevin mentioned in the agreement three individuals whom he had never seen. Mr. Bevin concurred in Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion that the representatives of the three powers be instructed not to select these individuals. However, it would be awkward publicly to ostracize men in their own country. It was another thing to have an understanding that the Commission to be formed would not consider selecting them.

10. Atomic Energy

Mr. Byrnes inquired whether the atomic energy document had been finally disposed of.

Mr. Molotov stated that the Soviet Delegation was in agreement with the document (Enclosure no. 4). The Soviet Delegation also agreed to issue a statement to the press as Mr. Byrnes had proposed.

Mr. Bevin suggested with regard to the Atomic Energy Commission that all three governments approach France and China with the document and that he would approach Canada as a Dominion. These countries would be requested to sponsor the proposal before the United Nations. This would be done in order to have the proposal placed on the agenda at the forthcoming meeting of the General Assembly.

Mr. Byrnes stated that this was satisfactory to him and that in fact he had assumed this would be done. However, he suggested that the proposal be submitted to the Drafting Committee.⁶⁰

Mr. Byrnes suggested that in view of the fact that he had not yet received a reply from Mr. Bidault, the public statement to be issued this evening should say that the peace treaty agreement had been communicated to France and China and that France and China had been invited to adhere to it. He proposed that the statement be released not later than 10 p.m.⁶¹

Mr. Bevin and Mr. Molotov agreed to this.

It was agreed that the reference to Paris as the site of the peace conference would be struck out pending the French reply.

It was agreed to refer the Atomic Energy Commission agreement to the Drafting Committee.

A Protocol Committee was appointed consisting of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Malik, and Sir Ronald Campbell.

[Enclosure 1]

Memorandum by the United States Delegation at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers

Moscow, December 24, 1945.

Rumania

The three Governments are prepared to give King Michael the advice for which he has asked in his letter of August 21, 1945, with a view to the formation of a Rumanian Government reorganized on a broader democratic basis which may be recognized by all three Governments. The King should be advised that the reorganized Rumanian Government should include members truly representative of the National Peasant Party and the Liberal Party. The Rumanian Government thus reorganized should be pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot. In these elections all democratic and anti-Nazi parties should have the right to take part and to put forward candidates. The reorganized government should give assurances concerning the grant of freedom of the press, speech, religion and association, and concerning the activities of the political police and militia.

Mr. Vyshinski, Mr. Harriman, and Sir A. Clark Kerr are authorized as a commission to proceed to Bucharest immediately to consult with King Michael, members of the present provisional government, and with other Rumanian democratic leaders with a view to the reorganization of the present government along the above lines and pledged to the holding of elections as stated above.

As soon as the reorganization is complete and the required assurances have been received the government of Rumania should be recognized by the Government of the U.S.S.R., which now maintains diplomatic relations with the present provisional government of Rumania, and by the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States.

[Enclosure 2]

Memorandum by the United States Delegation at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers

Moscow, December 24, 1945.

Bulgaria

It is understood by the three Governments that the Soviet Government will undertake to extend friendly advice to the present Bulgarian Government as to the desirability of including in addition to the present Fatherland Front parties representatives of other democratic elements such as the present opposition Agrarian, Social Democratic parties, and independents.

If this friendly advice is adopted by the Bulgarian Government and the additional representatives included, the British and United States Governments will then reexamine in accordance with the decisions of the Berlin Conference the question of the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Bulgarian Government.

[Enclosure 3]

Memorandum by the United Kingdom Delegation at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers⁶²

Moscow, December 24, 1945.

Suggested Draft Terms of Reference for Tripartite Commission on Iran

1. The Commission to take as its point of departure the fact that during the presence in Persia of Allied troops the Persian economy and governmental organization have been disturbed and difficulties have arisen between the central government and the inhabitants of certain provinces. The three Powers recognize that they may have some responsibility for this and should, therefore, endeavor to assist the Persian state in reestablishing normal conditions to the satisfaction of all elements of the population and maintaining friendly relations with other countries.

2. With a view to allaying the apprehensions of the Persian Government, and to remove causes of international friction, the Commission to look into the question of facilitating the early withdrawal of Allied troops from Persia and to make appropriate recommendations to the governments of the three Powers.

3. The Commission to keep in mind (a) the undertaking given by Great Britain and Soviet Russia in the Treaty of January, 1942, to respect the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Persia; and (b) the declaration about Persia issued during the Tehran Conference by President Roosevelt, Generalissimo Stalin and Mr. Churchill.

4. With a view to reconciling the existing differences between the central Persian Government and certain regions of the country, the Commission to advise and assist the Persian Government in the establishment of provincial councils, in accordance with the provisions of the Persian constitution.

5. The recommendations of the Commission (which must receive the approval of the three Governments before being submitted to the Persian Government) to cover the whole of Persia including Azerbaijan.

6. Existing laws amplifying the relevant provisions of the constitution (with respect to provincial councils) to be taken as the point of departure but the Commission to recommend any amendments which seem to be required especially in regard to the elections to the local councils, the powers and duties of the councils and the manner in which they are to be furnished with funds.

7. The Commission also to make recommendations as to the use of the minority languages such as Arabic, Turkish and Kurdish for educational and other purposes.

8. The Commission to consult closely with the Persian Government and with representatives of all important elements of the population in the process of formulating its recommendations.

9. The three Powers to use their best endeavors to persuade the Persian Government to pass into law and to put into execution the recommendations made by the Commission.

10. The Commission to make no recommendation which would weaken the fundamental unity of the Persian state.

11. The first provincial elections to be carried out under the supervision of the Commission.

[Enclosure 4]

[Enclosure 4, a revised draft text of the proposed recommendations for the establishment by the United Nations of a commission to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy and other related matters, not here printed; the text was incorporated as section VII of the Communiqué on the Conference, December 27, printed on page 822.]

[Enclosure 5]

Memorandum by the Soviet Delegation at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers

Moscow, December 24, 1945.

Bulgaria

It is understood by the three Governments that the Soviet Government will undertake to extend friendly advice to the Bulgarian now being formed as to the desirability of including within the Bulgarian Government of the Fatherland Front now being formed an additional one or two representatives of other democratic groups from among representatives of the opposition loyal to the Bulgarian Government.

If this friendly advice is adopted by the Bulgarian Government and the additional representatives included, the British and United States Governments will establish diplomatic relations with the Bulgarian Government, with which the Soviet Government already has diplomatic relations.

[Enclosure 6]

Memorandum by the Soviet Delegation at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers

Moscow, December 24, 1945.

Rumania

The three Governments are prepared to give King Mihail the advice for which he has asked in his letter of August 21, 1945, on the broadening of the basis of the Rumanian Government. The King should be advised that in the composition of the Rumanian Government there should be included in addition 1–2 loyal representatives, in relation to the present Government, of groups of the National-Peasant and the Liberal parties (not including Maniu, Bratianu, Lupu) which are not participating at the present time in the Government.

The three Governments take note that the Rumanian Government thus reorganized will declare that free and unfettered elections will be held as soon as possible on the basis of universal and secret ballot. In these elections all democratic and anti-fascist parties should have the right to take part and to put forward candidates. The reorganized Government should give assurances concerning the grant of freedom of the press, speech, religion and association.

A. Y. Vyshinski, Mr. Harriman, and Sir A. Clark Kerr are authorized as a Commission to proceed to Bucharest immediately to consult with King Mihail and members of the present Government with a view toward the execution of the above-mentioned tasks.

As soon as these tasks are decided and the required assurances have been received, the Government of Rumania, with which the Soviet Government maintains diplomatic relations, will be recognized by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom.

52. According to the United Kingdom delegation minutes of this meeting, the following additional persons participated: For the United States—James B. Conant; for the United Kingdom—P. J. Dixon and W. McAfee.
53. According to the United Kingdom delegation minutes of this meeting, Molotov referred to the American draft originally submitted by the Secretary of State at the Third Formal Session of the Conference on December 18 and included as enclosure 3 to the United States delegation minutes of that meeting, p. 663.
54. Presumably reference here is to the Soviet memorandum on German and other military units in Austria, included as enclosure 3 to the United States delegation minutes of the Informal Meeting of December 21, 2:30 p.m., p. 721.
55. For the exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and Foreign Commissar Molotov on the disposition of the Japanese fleet, see telegrams 2175, October 17, 2197, October 20, and 2199, October 22, all to Moscow, printed in vol. vi , section under Japan entitled “Surrender of Japan …”, Part IV.
56. Presumably reference here is to the Agreement Regarding Entry of the Soviet Union into the War Against Japan, February 11, 1945, Conferences at Malta and Yalta, p. 984.
57. For Chinese concurrence in the formula for preparing the peace treaties, see telegram 16, December 23, from Chungking to Moscow, p. 759.
58. Regarding Bidault’s disposition to accept the formula for preparing the peace treaties, see footnote 50, p. 761.
59. Enclosures 6 and 5 to these minutes, pp. 773 and 772, respectively.
60. According to the United Kingdom delegation minutes of this meeting, Foreign Secretary Bevin suggested, at this point, the following draft resolution for submission to the United Nations by the six sponsoring powers: “Resolved by the General Assembly of the United Nations to establish a Commission, with the composition and functions set out hereunder, to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy and other related matters.” It was agreed by the Conference that this draft resolution should be referred to the Drafting Committee. (Moscow Embassy Files: 500 Conference of Foreign Ministers)
61. Regarding the Secretary’s efforts to obtain a reply from the French Government, see telegram 7332, December 24, from Paris to Moscow, supra, and footnote 50. The statement from the Conference regarding the preparation of peace treaties with Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland, which was released on December 24, was subsequently included as section I of the Communiqué on the Conference, released on December 27; for text of the Communiqué, see telegram 4284, December 27, 3 a.m., from Moscow, p. 815.
62. According to despatch 2337, January 3, 1946, from Moscow, which transmitted to the Department certain records and documents relating to the discussions at the Conference of the Iranian question, this particular British memorandum incorporated changes made at the suggestion of the Secretary of State of the original British memorandum of December 20 on Iran (see p. 708); in particular, paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 of the present document were suggested by the United States delegation and accepted by Foreign Secretary Bevin (740.00119 Council/1–346).