740.00119 EAC/1–3045: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10 p.m.]
1051. Cornea 166. At last night’s meeting of the European Advisory Commission the United Kingdom proposal on control machinery for Austria received a preliminary discussion (my 919, January 26, 5 p.m.; full text in my despatch No. 20639 of January 2643).
Strang pointed out that his Austrian draft on control machinery differed from the agreement on control machinery in Germany in that central German administrative agencies had been assumed to exist in the German paper, while there were no central agencies in Austria. Accordingly, article IX of his draft described the relations between the Allied Commission and Austrian administrative machinery in the period prior to creation of central Austrian agencies, and article X in the period following their creation. He pointed out that article II gives greater prominence to the role of the Allied Commanders as members of the Allied Council than as Commanders-in-Chief of their national forces, since they might be expected to have relatively small forces under their command. The United Kingdom draft also assumes four power rather than tri-partite control.
At several points in the discussions Strang laid particular stress on the importance of reaching agreement on the arrangements for interim Allied control, to take effect as soon as Vienna is occupied and to continue until German surrender or collapse. In this connection he referred to stage 1 in the United Kingdom memorandum of August 2144 (my despatch No. 17617 [17616] of August 2345), to the British note of October 30 to Molotov, and to the covering memorandum transmitting the present United Kingdom proposal on control machinery. Sobolev had no comment to make on the interim arrangements, and Strang made no specific proposals.
Sobolev asked whether the “freely elected Austrian Government”, mentioned in last paragraph of preamble to United Kingdom proposal, referred to a provisional or a permanent government. Strang’s reply was that, in line with the thoughts outlined in his memorandum of December 1446 on establishment of self government in Austria (my [Page 16] despatch No. 19893 of December 1547), he had thought of Allied control as continuing until a free election of a permanent government; however, he considered this point suitable for discussion.
To Sobolev’s query (article II A) as to why Naval liaison officers would be required, Strang referred to Danubian questions of common concern and to the precedent in the German control machinery, and offered to consider its admission. To Sobolev’s query (article III) as to the difference between the executive committee for Austria and the coordinating committee in the German machinery, Strang expressed the view, one, that the committee would have to take a more direct role in the administration of Austria because of the absence of central Austrian agencies, and, two, that it would avoid confusion to use different names; he felt there was no fundamental difference between the two.
In article IV Sobolev queried the need for a Naval division, and asked the significance of omitting a division of restitution, deliveries and reparation; he wanted assurance that some provisions would be made for administering Austrian reparations. Strang replied that he had assumed that it might be better for psychological reasons, to administer reparations under the economic division in Austria, but was willing to discuss inclusion of a separate division.
Sobolev drew from the United Kingdom representative a definition of “to achieve separation” (article VIII B) as including complete separation from Germany, destruction of German administration in Austria and establishment of strict frontier control between the two countries. Sobolev asked whether article VIII D meant that free elections would be organized under the supervision of the Allied council. In reply Strang referred to article XV E of his December 14 memorandum; detailed preparation of elections could be carried out after establishment of a national committee; the elections would be conducted by the Austrians, not the Allies. However, the Allied machinery, he added, could transfer its functions gradually to Austrian agencies during the period leading up to free elections, and would give up those functions entirely after a freely elected government had been established.
Massigli suggested that the Allied Commission should continue its work until recognition of an Austrian government by the four Allied Governments. Strang offered to consider revising the last words of the preamble to read “A freely elected Austrian Government recognized by the four powers”. With regard to article VIII A, Massigli suggested that the responsibility of the Allies for giving the new state permanent laws and institutions and for effecting fundamental reforms should be stated more positively. With respect to article IV A, [Page 17] Massigli stressed the importance of restitution and reparation in Austria, which had much factory equipment removed from occupied countries.
I suggested as comment, not as a proposal, that in view of the necessity of recreating a central Austrian administrative machine from the ground up, it might be better to group the related administrative functions in three or four large divisions, with suitable sections under them; for example, an economic division might contain sections for industry, agriculture, commerce, finance, manpower and reparation, each section to have a single head, rather than three or four heads.
It was agreed to continue discussion of control machinery as soon as the Soviet and French representatives receive instructions.
Please furnish paraphrase to Generals Hilldring and Strong.
- Neither printed. For text of the United Kingdom proposal on control machinery for Austria, see p. 8.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 455.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 478.↩
- Not printed.↩