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

740.00119 EAC/3–1745

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State

No. 21791

London, March 17, 1945.
[Received March 23.]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit a copy of a report of the Allied Consultation Committee to the European Advisory Commission giving the results of its conferences with the representatives of certain other Allied Governments on questions relating to the surrender terms for Germany. There are also enclosed copies of informal notes of the meetings of the Allied Consultation Committee and an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman of the European Advisory Commission with respect to the functions of the Committee. The Secretary-General,⁸³ who prepared the notes of the meetings, did not prepare a report of the proceedings at the first meeting of the Allied Consultation Committee which was held on December 18, 194. To make the record complete it can be stated that that meeting concerned itself with the election of a chairman and a discussion of the manner of handling the consultation with the other Allied Governments. It was decided at that meeting to submit certain questions to the Chairman of the European Advisory Commission asking for clarification as to the scope of the functions of the Committee. These questions were submitted in the enclosed letter (P12/26/44).^83a

A summary of the Surrender Instrument, which was presented to the representatives who met with the Consultation Committee, was transmitted to the Department with the Embassy’s despatch No. 20232 of January 6, 1944 [1945].

Respectfully yours,

For the Ambassador:

E. Allan Lightner, Jr.

Secretary, U.S. Delegation
European Advisory Commission

[Enclosure 1]

Report of the Allied Consultation Committee to the European Advisory Commission⁸⁴

P12/60/45

Part I.—Introduction

In accordance with the instructions of the European Advisory Commission contained in the last paragraph of the Chairman’s⁸⁵ letter of 6th January, 1945 (P12/35/45),⁸⁶ the Committee has the honour to present herewith a First Report on its meetings with the representatives of the Governments of Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece. The representatives of these countries (whose names are given in Annex A) were received in the above order, which corresponds to that in which the Commission’s invitation to engage in consultation was accepted by their respective Governments. The representatives of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, whose Governments had submitted a joint memorandum to the Commission, were, at their request, received together.

2. At the first meeting with each group of representatives, two copies (in both the English and Russian versions) of the Summary of the Instrument of Unconditional Surrender in the form approved by the Commission at the informal meeting held on 7th December, 1944 (P8/33/44)^86a were handed to the representatives of each Government. Assurances were received in each case that the minimum circulation possible would be given to the document, the secret character of which was explained to those present. The representatives of Czechoslovakia and of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were informed, in reply to questions, that the Committee was not authorised to communicate to them the full text of the Instrument, which, for security reasons, must remain secret for the present.

Part II.—Conclusions and Recommendations

3. The Czechoslovak, Netherlands, Belgian, Luxembourg and Greek Governments have confirmed their desire to participate with their armed forces in the occupation of Germany. The Committee considers that their wishes might be taken into account in considering the concrete steps to be taken to give effect to the terms of Article 4 of the Agreement of 12th September, 1944, on Zones of Occupation which provides for the possibility of including auxiliary contingents of the Allied Powers in the composition of the forces of occupation. In the Committee’s view, this question could best be answered if the Commission were to authorise it to communicate to the Governments concerned a summary of the Agreement on Zones of Occupation.

4. The Czechoslovak, Netherlands, Belgian, Luxembourg and Greek Governments have confirmed their desire to participate in the machinery of control in Germany. The Committee considers that this question could best be answered if the Commission were to authorise it to communicate to the Governments concerned a summary of the Agreement on Machinery of Control in Germany.

5. All the Allied Governments consulted have expressed a wish to continue the consultations regarding Terms of Surrender for Germany and additional requirements to be imposed under the General Article which are of special concern to those Governments—in particular, economic questions such as restitution and spoliation, repatriation of displaced persons, and disposal of German war material. The Committee considers that this desire could be satisfied by continuing at the appropriate moment consultations with this Committee, or with any other competent body authorised by the European Advisory Commission to continue the discussion.

6. The wishes of the Allied Governments consulted as set out in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 33 and 34 below could, in the Committee’s view, be considered and given appropriate expression in the forthcoming preparation of Orders, Instructions, etc.

7. The Commission may wish to consider whether or not the Allied Consultation Committee should answer the desire of the Belgian, Luxembourg and Netherlands Governments for an explanation of the juridical position of the respective National Authorities in securing the execution of the Terms of Surrender in liberated territory. This request is mentioned in paragraph 21 below. If the E.A.C. authorizes discussion of this subject, the Allied Consultation Committee would appreciate guidance from the Commission with respect to the answers to be given.

8. The Committee suggests that consideration of the proposals presented by the Norwegian Government, to which reference is made in paragraph 29 below, should be pursued through appropriate military channels and that this Committee should be authorised to inform the Norwegian representatives to that effect.

9. In view of their concrete nature and importance, the wishes of the Czechoslovak Government referred to in paragraph 17 below and set out in Part II of the Memorandum of the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs⁸⁷ dated 24th August, 1944⁸⁸ and in later documents, merit the special consideration of the European Advisory Commission.

Part III.—Views of the Allied Governments

10. The following paragraphs set out the points to which the several countries attach special importance and in regard to which the Committee undertook to invite the particular attention of the Commission. These points have been arranged, in the sections dealing with each country or group of countries, as they relate to (a) the Instrument of Unconditional Surrender and the Orders, etc. to be issued thereunder, (b) the occupation of Germany, (c) Allied Control Machinery in Germany, (d) further consultation or association between the Allied Governments and the European Advisory Commission.

czechoslovakia

Instrument of Surrender.

11. This Government considers that the Terms of Surrender should stipulate in connection with the evacuation of occupied territory, that all requisitions and other coercive measures should cease immediately, that no damage is to be caused to public or private property, and that all agricultural and industrial plants, installations, services, etc. must be left in good working condition; that nothing must be exported and that persons leaving the country must not carry away anything except their personal goods and chattels.

12. In the view of the Czechoslovak Government, cash reserves of currency of all kinds held on Allied territory by enemy military and civilian authorities (but not German currency held by private persons) should be included among the property to be placed at the disposal of the Allied Representatives. Gold belonging to or held by the German State, public corporations and banks in Germany and in neutral countries should be added to the items to be held at the disposal of the Allied Representatives. If provisions to this effect are not included in the Instrument of Surrender itself, but are imposed by orders issued under the General Article, this Government considers that the necessary orders should be worked out beforehand so that they can be issued simultaneously with the signature of the Instrument or immediately after the capitulation.

13. The Czechoslovak representatives suggest that the Instrument of Surrender should include an acknowledgment of the responsibility of Germany for loss and damage caused to the United Nations by German aggression and should affirm the right of the United Nations whose territories were occupied by Germany to restitution of the identifiable property seized by Germany and to compensation for other property as well as for damage and loss caused during the occupation.

14. A provision is suggested forbidding Germany any intercourse with, or any export to, foreign countries without permission of the Allies. All German or German-held assets in neutral countries should be placed at the disposal of the Allied Representatives by the German authorities.

15. The Czechoslovak Government is interested in securing the release from military service and auxiliary services under military organisation, including the Todt organization,⁸⁹ of all Allied nationals (excluding Germans and Magyars). Provisions to this effect should, in its view, be included in the relevant article of the Instrument of Surrender, which should also include a stipulation providing for the best possible treatment of displaced nationals of the United Nations, especially workers, pending repatriation.

16. This Government considers that German authorities should be bound by the Instrument of Surrender to deliver up war criminals to justice, the principal ones being handed over immediately on capitulation.

17. The Czechoslovak representatives expressed a strong desire that provisions dealing with certain political questions in which their Government is interested should be included in the Instrument of Surrender to be confirmed by Germany by the signature of her plenipotentiaries. These questions are the three included in Section II of the Aide-Mémoire submitted by the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister on 24th August, 1944 [P12B/3/44] relating to (a) political clauses (nullification of certain treaties), (b) the date of the beginning of the state of war between the Czechoslovak Republic and Germany and Hungary, and (c) the transfer of Germans and Magyars from Czechoslovakia to Germany and Hungary.

Occupation of Germany

18. The Czechoslovak Government reiterates its request to be allowed to take part in the military occupation of Germany.

Allied Control Machinery in Germany

19. The Czechoslovak Government desires to be represented on the various Allied bodies, Commissions and agencies which may be set up for the execution of the Instrument of Surrender and orders issued thereunder.

Further Consultation with E.A.C.

20. The Czechoslovak Government desires to be associated as closely as possible with the drafting of the additional requirements and regulations designed for issue by the Allied Representatives under the General Article. In particular, it wishes to be given the opportunity of making observations and suggestions regarding the restitution of looted property, the question of enemy currency in the occupied countries (including gold), the supply of German goods and services for the economic restoration of Allied countries, and the liquidation of enemy property (including incorporeal property, e.g., patents, copyrights, etc.) in Allied countries.

belgium, luxembourg and the netherlands

Instrument of Surrender

21. The representatives of these Governments have expressed concern about the use in the Preamble of the Instrument of Surrender of the phrase “in the interests of the United Nations”. They wish to be assured that “no expression in the Instrument of Surrender leaves any doubt that all obligations to be imposed thereunder have force for the benefit of each of the United Nations concerned and give each of them the direct right to claim their execution by the enemy”. They have asked for an explanation of the juridical position of the respective national authorities in securing the execution of the Terms of Surrender in liberated territory.

22. The three Governments are anxious that provision should be made in the Instrument of Surrender itself for safeguarding the life and property of all Allied nationals in any territory not evacuated by the enemy before capitulation.

23. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the recommendations in Section D of Chapter II of the joint memorandum submitted to the Commission by the three Governments [pp. 7–8 of P12C/1/44⁹⁰] regarding disarmament and demobilisation of the German armed forces, the disposal of war material and stores, the demolition of military installations and fortifications, and the allocation to the victorious Powers of ex-enemy munitions and war booty.

24. As regards the release and repatriation of displaced persons of Allied nationality, the three Governments ask that special attention should be given to the views expressed by any of them regarding the priority to be accorded to individuals or categories of citizens whose early return to their respective countries is required for reconstruction and rehabilitation. They ask whether machinery has been set up to deal with this problem and suggest that, if this has not yet been done, the establishment of machinery should be considered without delay. The Belgian Government ask for special consideration for the early return to Belgium of the King of the Belgians⁹¹ and his family.

25. The three representatives have asked for the insertion hi the Instrument of Surrender of a provision by which Germany would be bound as regards each Allied State to carry out her pre-war Treaty obligations in so far as she is not expressly released from such obligations by the other party or parties to the treaties or conventions concerned. The Belgian Representative also asked for provision to be made in the Instrument of Surrender for the nullification of the annexation of Belgian territory (Eupen, Malmédy and St. Vith) unilaterally incorporated in the German Reich in 1940.

Occupation of Germany

26. The three Governments attach importance to the inter-Allied character of the occupation. So far as their other military commitments permit (in particular the obligations of the Netherlands Government in the war against Japan), they would wish to be represented by appropriate contingents.

Allied Control Machinery

27. The three Governments have expressed the view that there should be a permanent Central Allied Commission with adequate representation for all States with a direct interest in the fulfilment of the terms of capitulation, including in particular liberated countries.

Further Consultation with E.A.C.

28. The three Governments have expressed their desire to be consulted at the appropriate stage on the economic provisions to be imposed upon Germany by orders issued under the General Article in respect of such matters as the restitution of looted property, reparations for damage and spoliation, the disposal of German war factories and munitions plant and the allocation of German war material and stores. In addition, further consultation is desired in connection with the surrender of war criminals.

norway

Instrument of Surrender

29. The Norwegian representatives drew the particular attention of the Committee to the proposals which their Government had submitted in their memorandum of 2nd September, 1944 [P12H/3/44].⁹² They asked whether consideration had been given to the 14 draft Articles se [set?] out in Annex A to that memorandum which had been drawn up for incorporation in the Terms of Surrender to be imposed upon the German authorities in Norway. The first of these Articles reads as follows: “The terms shall be notified to the Germans and their subordinates in Norway by two Allied plenipotentiaries, one of whom shall be appointed by the Norwegian Government”. The remaining 13 Articles provide detailed regulations for the control and disarmament of German forces and German-controlled organisations in Norway.

30. The Norwegian Government are especially concerned with the control of German shipping and shipbuilding; their representatives thought that the orders to be issued under the General Article affecting such matters especially affecting Norwegian interests should be issued simultaneously with, or immediately after, the signature of the Instrument of Surrender.

Further Consultation with the E.A.C.

31. This Government’s representatives expressed a strong desire to be associated with the Committee or with any bodies set up by the Commission in the future which might be concerned with drafting orders and proclamations for issue under the General Article. They were anxious that there should be an opportunity of discussing matters of particular concern to the Norwegian Government, particularly those relating to naval vessels and merchant ships, before final decisions were reached.

yugoslavia

32. The representative of this Government attended a meeting of the Committee on 23rd January, when he said that he had no questions to raise at that stage. It would appear from the letter addressed to the Chairman of the Commission by the Yugoslav Prime Minister⁹³ of 3rd January (P12G/3/45)⁹⁴ that the Royal Yugoslav Government desire to reserve their attitude until after the formation of a single Yugoslav Government in association with the National Committee of Liberation in Belgrade.⁹⁵ It may be expected that when this Government has been formed, its fully-considered and documented views will be presented.

greece

Instrument of Surrender

33. At the meeting of the Committee held on 15th February, the Greek representatives presented a memorandum emphasising their Government’s desire that Greece’s claims against Germany should be referred to the Allied Representatives who would receive the capitulation of Germany, with a view to those Representatives considering the compensation to be made for the loss and damage suffered by the Greek nation. In particular, the Greek representatives asked “that from the war material, etc. to be held by the German authorities at the disposal of the Allied Representatives, a quantity be allotted to the requirements of the Greek Army sufficient to place the latter on a war footing of 25 fully-equipped divisions”.

34. The further request was made that a demand should be made on the German military forces who might still be in occupation of Greek territory at the time of surrender for the handing over to the Greek military authorities of all war equipment, military installations, etc. in that territory in good condition.

Occupation of Germany

35. Greece desires to be invited to join in the military occupation of Germany.

Allied Control Machinery in Germany

36. Greece wishes to be represented on the Inter-Allied Commission of Control in Germany.

Further Consultation with the E.A.C., etc.

37. The Greek representatives asked that their Government’s desire that the surrender of territory and military installations shall be carried out in the particular way proposed (see paragraph 34 above) should be further discussed with those responsible for drafting orders for issue under the General Article.

London , 14 March, 1945.

[Subenclosure]

Annex A

List or Representatives of Allied Governments Consulted by the Allied Consultation Committee

Czechoslovakia	Dr. J. Spacek, Minister Plenipotentiary
	Dr. Z. Prochazka, Minister Plenipotentiary
Belgium	Monsieur Fernand Van Langenhove, Secretary-General Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Luxembourg	H. E. Monsieur Joseph Bech, Minister of Foreign Affairs
	Monsieur Alphonse Als, Chef de Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Netherlands	Dr. W. Huender, Chief of the Section of Postwar Problems, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Norway	Mr. C. F. Smith, Minister to Belgium
Yugoslavia	Mr. J. Melander, Economic Adviser to Foreign Minister
Greece	H. E. Dr. Stoyan Gavrilovic, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
	H. E. Monsieur Thanassis Aghnides, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
	Major-General Ventiris
	Lieutenant-Colonel Stathatos

[Enclosure 2]

Copy of a Letter Dated December 27, 1944 From the Chairman of the Allied Consultation Committee (Sobolev) to the Chairman of the European Advisory Commission (Strang)

P12/26/44

Dear Sir William: On behalf of my colleagues⁹⁶ at the Consultation Committee I submit to you the attached report for consideration by the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

A. Sobolev

Report

The Committee which the Commission agreed on 7th December to set up to conduct discussions with representatives of the European Allied Governments would welcome instructions from the Commission on the following points:—

(1) Whilst the Committee proposes to state, in reply to any enquiry from the representatives of the European Allied Governments, that the Instrument of Surrender, itself must be withheld at this stage because it is a document of primary military character which has immediate security significance and must accordingly receive very restricted circulation, may the Committee give an assurance that the full text will be communicated to the European Allied Governments in due course prior to the actual surrender of Germany?

(2) Is it within the competence of the Committee to discuss with the representatives of the European Allied Governments the questions of occupation and control machinery and to inform them of the Commission’s recommendations on these subjects, if necessary by communicating a summary of the two Protocols?

(3) Are the functions of the Committee—

(a) to discuss with the representatives of the European Allied Governments any points raised by the latter on the summary of the Instrument of Surrender whether in regard to the subjects specified in para 2 of the summary or the subjects which will be covered by the further documents mentioned in para 3 of the summary?

(b) to discuss any points arising from the memoranda submitted to the Commission by the European Allied Governments on which the representatives of those governments desire to obtain the views of the Commission?

London , 29 December, 1945.

[Enclosure 3]

Copy of a Letter Dated January 6, 1945, From the Chairman of the European Advisory Commission (Strang) to the Chairman of the Allied Consultation Committee (Sobolev)

P12/35/45

As you are aware, I have referred to the Commission the report of the Allied Consultation Committee which you submitted with your letter of the 27th December, 1944. This was discussed at the informal meeting held on 2nd January, 1945, when the Commission agreed on the following answers to the questions in the Committee’s report:—

1. The Commission approves the proposal that, if any representatives of the European Allied Governments should ask for the communication of the text of the Instrument of Surrender itself, the reply should be given that it is a document of primary military character which has immediate security significance and must accordingly receive very restricted circulation. The Commission is unable to authorise the giving of an assurance that the full text will be communicated to the European Allied Governments in due course, but if the specific question should be asked, the reply may be given that this question is being considered by the Governments concerned.

2. If the questions of occupation and control machinery should be raised by the representatives of the European Allied Governments, the Committee is authorised to inform them that proposals on these subjects have been made by the Commission to the Governments concerned, and are still under their consideration. At this stage the Committee is unable to discuss these questions in any detail. The representatives will see, however, from point (vii) of part 2 of the summary and from the third part of that document that provision has been made in the Instrument of Unconditional Surrender for the military occupation of the whole of Germany and for the creation of control machinery.

3. The functions of the Committee are:—

(a) if a question is asked in relation to a subject for which provision has been made in the Instrument of Surrender, to confirm that this is so with reference to the relevant paragraph of the summary;

(b) if a question is asked relating to a subject which will require to be dealt with under the general article mentioned in the third part of the summary, the Committee should state that this is the case and that the consideration of it is part of the further programme of the Commission;

(c) to hear and report back to the Commission on any question which may be raised by the representatives of the European Allied Governments, to which the Committee is unable itself to give an answer.

Members of the Committee are at liberty to report individually and consult as necessary with the heads of their respective Delegations on any questions on which they do not feel able to reach a conclusion, and if they can reach agreement in this way it will be unnecessary for them to report back to the Commission as a body. The Commission would wish, however, that the Committee should report to it in any case where the Committee considers it necessary, and that it should include in its report, if possible, recommendations as to the course to be adopted.

The Committee should render a general report to the Commission on its transactions with the representatives of each of the European Allied Governments, submitting interim reports if this should be considered necessary.

W. Strang

London , 8 January, 1945.

83. E. P. Donaldson
84. Post, p. 199.
84. Adopted at a meeting of the Committee held on March 14, 1945
85. Sir William Strang
86. Post, p. 200
87. Ante, p. 168.
87. Jan Masaryk
88. Not printed. For a summary of views of the Czechoslovak Government, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 72
89. An auxiliary service of the German Armed Forces charged with the carrying out of certain technical construction work, particularly road, rail, and fortification construction. Organization Todt used forced foreign labor to a considerable extent
90. Not printed. For a summary of the views of the Governments of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 70
91. Leopold II.
92. Not printed. For a summary of the views of the Norwegian Government, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. i, p. 73
93. Ivan Ŝubaŝić
94. Not printed
95. For documentation regarding the interest of the United States in the formation of a united Yugoslav government, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. iv, pp. 1330 ff
96. Philip E. Mosely (for the United States), Viscount Samuel Hood (for the United Kingdom), and Comte Pierre Marie de Leusse (for France)