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

740.00119 EAC/3–2945: Telegram

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

London, March 29, 1945—9 p.m.
[Received—9:05 p.m.]

3278. For Assistant Secretary Dunn and Mr. Matthews.⁵ Special German Series 2. I want to keep you fully abreast of the work of the Committee on Dismemberment of Germany, which was set up by decision of the Yalta Conference. It is now possible to summarize the initial phase of the Committee’s proceedings.

In order to facilitate handling, I shall label my telegrams on this potentially explosive subject as “special German series” and address them as above. In London these matters will be handled by me personally, with Mosely’s assistance. For purposes of numbering, my 1852, February 22, 8 p.m., should be considered as “Special German Series [1?]”.

The Dismemberment Committee has held one meeting, on March 7, attended by Mr. Eden, Gousev, Strang and myself, which was devoted to defining the mandate of the Committee. At the close of the meeting Strang agreed to reduce our understanding of this mandate to writing for submission to the three representatives.

Strang’s draft for the Committee was circulated on March 9. Paraphrase follows:

1. In examining the procedure for German dismemberment the Committee will approach its task having in mind following considerations: (a) the Allies’ primary objective in treatment of Germany after surrender or end of resistance is to prevent German aggression in future; (b) in considering how this objective can best be achieved, one question is whether it can be attained by measures such as control and destruction of German industry, as supplement to demilitarization and disarmament, or whether it will be necessary, in addition, to divide Germany; (c) if, for attainment of this objective it should be found necessary to divide Germany, inquiry should be made as to (1) in what fashion Germany should be divided, into what sections, with what boundaries for those parts, and what interrelationship to exist among the parts; (2) at what time division should be carried out; (3) what measures the Allies would have to take in order to effectuate and maintain such division.

2. Inquiries of the Committee along lines set forth under (c) above will be conducted in the light of subjects set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b). End of Paraphrase.

I objected to paragraph 1 b of this draft, asking that instead of the words “destruction and control of German industry” we substitute the words “elimination or control of all German industry that could be used for military production” as set forth in the Yalta Communiqué. Strang accepted this change and Gousev said he had no objection to it. I have written Mr. Eden to say that with this modification I have no objection to Strang’s draft.⁶

In reply to Strang’s letter of March 9 Gousev has now written Mr. Eden, setting forth his understanding of the mandate of the Committee and stating that he has no objection to the formula contained in Strang’s draft.

Beginning of paraphrase of Gousev’s statement submitted as “a proposal for consideration of the Committee”.

Soviet Government understands Crimea Conference decision in respect to Germany’s dismemberment not as an obligatory plan for dismemberment but as a possibility for exercising pressure on Germany with aim of rendering Germany harmless in case other means should prove inadequate. End of Paraphrase.

Gousev’s reply has been sent to me informally, and I assume that Mr. Eden will now acknowledge Gousev’s letter and will formally communicate to me copies of Gousev’s letter and of his own reply.⁷

The Soviet statement of March 26 represents a notable success for the concept that the Committee on Dismemberment is intended to consider not merely the question of “procedure” for effecting dismemberment but also, and in the first instance, the substantive question of the desirability and feasibility of dismemberment. Thus far there is no indication of a fixed Soviet view on dismemberment. Gousev’s letter makes it plain that at this stage his Government is not committed in principle to a policy of dismemberment.

I appreciate the indication received from the Department that it sees no objection to enlarging the membership of the Committee to include a French representative. In view of the simultaneous discussions about including France in the Separations Committee in Moscow,⁸ Mr. Eden and I have refrained from raising the question of French membership in the Dismemberment Committee. Meanwhile the formal adherence of France to the Surrender Instrument for Germany is also in abeyance until the three powers decide to inform the French of the addition to article XII of the Instrument as agreed at Yalta (my 1852 February 22, 8 p.m.). Yesterday Massigli made representations to Mr. Eden, urging prompt formal adherence by France to the Instrument. In any case the French would probably be embarrassed if they were asked to join in discussions of dismemberment until they know the attitudes of the other three governments on this question.

In private talks I have asked Gousev if the dismemberment of Germany would not react unfavorably on the amount of reparation which could be secured from the German economy. Gousev professed to see no connection between German economic unity and the total amount of reparation obtainable. On another occasion Mosely asked Gousev if his information led him to believe that any strong separatist movements would arise in Germany proper as a result of defeat and if he thought the German people would itself either seek or support partition. To both questions Gousev replied with an unhesitating “no”.

Winant

5. H. Freeman Matthews, Director of the Office of European Affairs
6. Ambassador Winant’s letter to Foreign Minister Eden, dated March 29, not printed
7. In a letter dated April 3, 1945 (not printed), Foreign Secretary Eden transmitted to Ambassador Winant copies of Ambassador Gousev’s letter of March 26, his own reply of April 3, and the Draft Directive for the Committee on Dismemberment as amended in accordance with Ambassador Winant’s suggestion. In a letter dated April 6 (not printed), acknowledging Mr. Eden’s letter, Ambassador Winant stated: “I am glad to inform you that the Soviet Government’s interpretation of the Crimea Agreement conforms to the understanding of the United States Government, and to confirm my acceptance of the draft directive for the Committee on Dismemberment in the amended form shown in the enclosure to your letter to Mr. Gousev.” Mr. Eden subsequently informed Ambassador Gousev of the contents of Ambassador Winant’s letter of April 10 (740.00119 EAC/10–345)
8. For documentation regarding the Allied Commission on Reparations, see pp. 1169 ff