Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, European Advisory Commission, Austria, Germany, Volume III

740.019 Control (Austria)/6–1645: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser on Austrian Affairs (Erhardt) to the Secretary of State

Florence, June 16, 1945—9 a.m.
[Received June 17—12:15 p.m.]

78. There follows a summary of the highlights of Genl Flory’s report on the Vienna mission. A separate telegram will be sent covering his recommendations since this part of his report is not now available. It is being decided in Caserta today.

The mission was granted almost complete freedom of movement with the exception of a refusal of permission for an air expert to visit the three airfields east of the Danube. Members of the mission proceeded freely throughout the area of greater Vienna south and west of the Danube and they even went beyond the Gau limits, into lower Austria. They also made some trips east of the River without any difficulty. Survey parties were given access to practically every building they wished to see including plants, factories, arsenals and even barracks occupied by Soviet Army. Local Soviet commanders and technicians also showed the greatest cooperation in arranging for the mission specialists to visit utility installations, in arranging interviews with local engineers, public health and municipal officials and in obtaining desired information and statistics. In their contacts the Soviet authorities were most hospitable and friendly both toward the officers and the enlisted men. The friendliness shown by the Soviet officers was in keeping with the warmth with which the Soviet rank and file greeted the American soldiers. Officers of Flory mission with previous knowledge of Soviets were of the opinion that the cordiality and cooperation of Soviet Army during this visit to Vienna was almost without precedent in their previous experiences.

The inner city is one of most seriously damaged areas of the city. Accommodations and facilities in useable condition there other than the hotels will probably be sufficient only to provide for the requirements of the Austrian authorities and the excess if any available for use by the occupying powers will not be very great [apparent omission] Dept, rptd to London as 25).

The US zone proposed by the British on Feb 28 embracing Districts 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26⁶⁶ contains some of the finest accommodations and facilities in Vienna. Good housing and billeting facilities exist there for officers and enlisted men. It contains large buildings suitable for headquarters and recreational facilities. However its useable installations are scattered over a large area and the principal buildings suitable for large headquarters consist of hospital facilities in operation. There are no adequate parade grounds for ceremonies. It contains nothing comparable to District 13 the facilities and accommodations of which are considered the most desirable in the city.

The US zone proposed by the Soviets on April 23 is identical with the zone proposed by the British except that it does not include the areas beyond the 1938 city limits namely District 26 and the greater portion of District 14.

American zone proposed by JCS 1169 slash 9 embracing districts 3, 4, 10, 11 and 23 contains some fashionable residential buildings and a number of office buildings adequate for housing large headquarters by dividing installations among adjoining buildings. There are no villas suitable for genl officers and the only suitable residential section is in a highly congested district which has been severely damaged by bombing. It contains no suitable barracks or training areas and recreational facilities are nonexistent. Excepting for two small severely damaged districts this zone consists principally of devastated industrial plants.

From point of view of training areas greater Vienna provides ample facilities during winter months for small unit training and extensive maneuvers. However, when crops are standing few areas are suitable for maneuvers except in district 25 and probably in districts 19 and 26. Small unit training can be carried out in almost any district winter or summer.

Brit and US have proposed subdivision of greater Vienna while Soviets have stood for the zoning of the city on the basis of pre-1938 limits. At present the temporary Austrian administration recognizes pre-1938 city limits. In private conversations with members of mission some of the Austrian officials maintained that since it took the Germans a year to integrate greater Vienna with the city as it existed up to 1938 it would only add to the present confusion if an attempt were made at this time to go back to old city limits. On the other hand, it appears to be the view of majority of city officials that while it is a sound principle to expand the boundaries of a growing city, the problem of reconstructing Vienna after the great damage it has suffered is so great that there would be little time or energy available to devote to extending city limits for some years to come. It is, therefore, uncertain whether Austrians themselves would look with favor on retention of Gau limits.

There are some advantages to be gained from extending zone to Gau limits. For example, several airports and airfield sites, training areas and recreation grounds would become available. Against these advantages the administrative problem of occupying areas in which the civil authorities are subordinate to a provincial govt in another zone of occupation. Furthermore air facilities and all season training areas within Gau limits are inadequate to meet the needs of the three western occupying powers. The latter would therefore have to go out of the Gau anyway to fulfill their needs. It is also possible that if the western Allies insisted on the Gau limits it could be made to appear that they were exerting pressure on the Austrians to retain against their will a heritage of the Nazi occupation. It is therefore doubtful whether there is any real advantage in insisting upon the zoning of Gau rather than city within 1938 limits.

A number of facilities of Vienna and its environs, some of which are essential to the occupying forces, are distributed geographically in such a way as to prevent their distribution into zones. Other facilities exist which are too few in number to permit a physical distribution. Among these categories may be mentioned the Danube docks, certain railroad stations serving areas to the west and south, radio and cable terminals, sport grounds, bathing beaches, first class hotels, rifle ranges, training areas and especially air fields. Some of these are essential to the economic life of the community as a whole. If these facilities are to be confined to the exclusive use of one or two occupying forces it would require the wisdom of Solomon to divide the total facilities equitably among all the occupying powers. The economic life of the city can only be maintained by permitting the free circulation of the Austrian population and Austrian officials and the same privileges should be granted the Allied occupying forces.

In the case of air fields lying outside the 1938 limits or outside the Gau limits it seems essential that the users of these fields have unrestricted access to them. If for reasons of security road blocks or, patrols are required, they should be under international control and preferably composed of troops of the nation most frequently using the highway. Likewise maintenance, improvement and traffic control should be the responsibility of the principal user. It is believed that unless some arrangement is made a complicated pass system and language difficulties would give rise to a never ending series of unnecessary misunderstandings.

Soviet authorities in Vienna were reluctant to express views on any proposed subdivision of the city and they indicated that they were aware of only one proposal, namely that of their own govt in the EAC. At one meeting they refused to comment on the question as to whether they felt that districts 4 and 10 were essential to them. In private conversations they argued that because of the limited accommodations in the eastern area of the city some western districts with good housing were necessary to them. It is not impossible that the reason for their choosing districts 4 and 10 is to be found in the location in these districts of both road and rail terminals leading to southern Austria. Another indication of the views and preferences of the local Soviet officials was revealed in a question asked privately of an Allied officer by the commander of the Vienna garrison as to whether in this Allied officer’s view it would be necessary for high officials of Allied administration to be quartered in their own zone or whether they might be permitted to reside in zones of other nationalities. This question was evidently based on the superiority of villas in 19 district, which the Soviets constantly referred to as the best in town and which they tacitly [agreed?] seemed to come within the American zone.

Soviet representatives made only two comments in replies to direct questions, viz: they believed that a uniform control throughout Austria over all economic and political life was to be desired and striven for; a certain freedom of movement throughout the city including access to some exclusive facilities such as the Danube docks would be most desirable.

In public and private conversations French Mission expressed following views:

1. The zone proposed for them by the Soviets embracing districts 3 and 11 was entirely inacceptable.

2. The French desired a zone with road and rail terminals leading to the west. To accomplish this they proposed for themselves a zone made up of districts 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16; the British to have districts 3, 5, 12 and 13; the Soviets to have 2, 20, 21, 22, 4 and 10; and the US districts 8, 9, 17, 18 and 19.

3. Great importance is attached by the French to the reestablishment of inland waterways connecting French canal system with Danube. For this purpose they wish use of dock facilities in Vienna and rights of access to them.

4. On airfields French position is that they want a field exclusively for themselves only if all other occupying powers will accept lodgers they will content themselves with lodger rights at Tulln but if the power using Tulln will not grant lodger rights then French will be willing to share Schwechat with its principal occupant.

5. French indicated that they would strongly support principle of free transit rights both in city and on highways leading to the airfields. They also feel that suburban training areas are essential.

Brit Mission states that with minor adjustments they can accept Soviet zoning proposal providing training and recreation areas are made available to them outside of towns; if free transit rights are granted British would also recommend abandoning their insistence on zoning greater Vienna. British strongly feel that each occupying power should have a separate airfield but there is some reason to believe that if necessary they are willing to share Tulln with the US and the French. British consider justified Soviet claims to a zone east of river and canal and they likewise feel that French objections to a zone composed of districts 3 and 11 is reasonable.

Erhardt

66. For the identification of numbered districts, see Map “B” annexed to the Agreement Between the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic on Zones of Occupation in Austria and the Administration of the City of Vienna, signed July 9, 1945, printed in Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No 1600, or 61 Stat, (pt.3) 2679