740.00119 EAC/2–345
Memorandum by Mr. Philip E. Mosely, Political Adviser to the United States Representative on the European Advisory Commission (Winant)
1. Receipt of Revised JCS 1067.
The E.A.C. Delegation has now received a revised 1067 consisting of four parts: Overall Military Government Directive; Appendix A, Political Directive; Appendix B, Economic Directive; Appendix D, Relief Directive; a Financial Directive is still being revised in Washington for transmission (Department’s instruction No. 4980 of January 13, 1945).
2. Overall or Military Government Directive.
This directive has been very considerably revised. Unlike the original 1067, it no longer relates to the interim period which had been envisaged as extending from the German surrender or collapse to the establishment of the Control Council in Berlin—the so-called post-surrender SHAEF period—, but relates directly to the period of Control Machinery.
However, even in its new form, the Military Government directive will be a difficult document to negotiate. Some Articles, such as Articles 2 and 6 and the second sentence of Article 9, paraphrase the Agreement already made regarding Control Machinery. Other Articles, such as Articles 3,4, 5 and 10, are purely declaratory or exhortatory in character. Articles 7b and 8, and the first sentence of Article 9 are matters for domestic housekeeping by each commander-in-chief and do not require Allied agreement. This analysis shows that the revised overall Military Government directive provides practically nothing which requires agreement or is appropriate in form to serve as a basis of negotiation.
3. The Three Appendices.
On the other hand, the three attached directives have scarcely been revised at all. One example of such revision is found in Article 3 of [Page 400] the Economic Directive, which formerly provided that German business and industrial property and records should be protected from destruction and held for ultimate disposition by the Combined Chiefs of Staff. The revised directive provides that they shall be held for disposition, “as may be determined by the Control Council”. Aside from three or four such substitutions of Control Council for Combined Chiefs of Staff, no effort has been made to adapt these three directives to use in the period of joint Allied control of Germany, and thus they have been sent to the E.A.C. Delegation in a form which appears inconsistent with the emphasis of the overall revised Military Government directive on joint policies and on the role of the Control Council.
The attached directives are excessively detailed in some respects and completely silent regarding other important matters. For example, Article 1 of the Political Directive lists 14 broad categories of persons who must be searched out, arrested and held “pending receipt by you of further instructions as to their disposition”. There is no indication as to the source from which these “further instructions” are to be received.
4. Political Directive.
Article 4 of the Political Directive requires that “all records, books, documents, papers, files, scientific, industrial and other information and data” belonging to any one of a list of six broad categories of German agencies should be preserved from destruction. Apparently no estimate has been made of the number of military personnel which would be required to give effect to this requirement.
Article 6 of the Political Directive provides that courts will be allowed to resume their functions “at such time and under such regulations, supervision and control as may be determined”. There is no indication as to how that time and those regulations will be determined, whether by the Control Council, the zone commander, or by individual local Government administrators.
Article 10 again goes into considerable detail on the handling of six different categories of persons requiring special handling.
Aside from these few problems which are treated in considerable detail, though without clear provision for either zonal or central control, there is a wide series of political questions which are omitted from this directive, without indication as to whether they will be left entirely to the zone commander or will be treated in later directives to the members of the Control Council.
5. Economic Directive.
The Economic Directive requires the zone commander to exercise “appropriate supervision over transactions of all types between your zone and areas outside Germany”, to facilitate “the prompt restitution [Page 401] to liberated countries of identifiable property looted by Germans”, to prevent “the dissipation or sabotage of German resources and equipment which may be required for relief, restitution or reparation to any of the Allied countries”, to make a survey “to determine the extent to which productive capacity and supplies within your zone are or can be made available for shipment to other zones of occupation or to other countries or for relief and rehabilitation in the devastated countries of Europe”, etc., etc., etc.
It can be argued that these economic policies are binding on the zone commander only until overriding general policies are laid down, in accordance with the recognition in the Military Government Directive of a Control Council. However, if such is the intention, it would have been more useful, for purposes of negotiation, to channel the provisions of the proposed Economic Directive toward a consideration of those economic problems which will require uniform handling throughout Germany, rather than to devote it almost exclusively to measures which are to be taken in the separate zones.
The general impact of the Economic Directive on the reader is that it implies the operation of each of the three zones as a separate economic entity, with the zone commander responsible for organizing all commercial and other transactions between his zone and other zones in Germany and with other countries. This concept runs directly counter to Soviet and British emphasis on operating the German economy as a unit with a large measure of Allied control in order to assure to the devastated countries a maximum of German material needed for their speedy reconstruction.
6. Relief Directive.
Article 2 of the Relief Directive sets forth the principle of holding German consumption to a minimum. Yet neither it nor the Economic Directive makes any provision for overall Allied control of German rationing, prices, wages and transport, which, in an economy of scarcity, will be essential if the purpose of providing maximum relief to the Allied countries is to be achieved.
7. Presentation of JCS 1067.
By its 603 of January 26, the Department instructs the Ambassador to present the revised JCS 1067 as a basis of tripartite negotiation in the European Advisory Commission. In passing, it might be pointed out that since November 27 all E.A.C. negotiations are on a quadripartite basis.
The Department states that it intends to supplement this document by “other statements of policy on subjects not covered either by it or by draft directives or statements of policy previously forwarded”. There is no indication of what these subjects will be. Apparently the Ambassador is expected to ask the other Delegations to accept 1067 [Page 402] on faith and without being able to give them any advance assurance that any particular subject will be covered in additional statements.
The Ambassador is authorized to subdivide 1067 or to re-phrase any parts of it “so long as any such revised documents are consistent in policy and substance with the views expressed in 1067 and any other appropriate policy documents forwarded” to him. Again in passing, it should be pointed out that the 15 draft directives already approved by our Government and circulated in the E.A.C. are in many respects not consistent with the very narrow substance of 1067.87
8. Remaining Scope of E.A.C. Negotiations.
The same telegram from the Department states that “E.A.C. action should be taken only on broad general policies suitable for discussion on a governmental level” and that all supplementary action should be taken collectively by the zone commanders as members of the Control Council or individually in their separate areas of responsibility, and that “such supplementary action by the Control Council would not require separate approval by the three Governments so long as it came reasonably within the broad policies agreed previously”.
The E.A.C. Delegation does not know what those “broad policies previously approved” are. It has never been provided with policy statements from Washington on any of the “broad policies”, unless 1067 is supposed to fill that bill.
It is not clear whether the E.A.C. is intended to negotiate 1067 and the present 15 U.S. directives which are before the Commission, or whether it is to go on beyond the “policy statements so far furnished” to it and to negotiate “the broad policies” on the basis of which the separate national commanders are to exercise their responsibility for governing and reconstructing Germany without reference back to their Governments.
[Page 403]The U.S. Government is committed toward its Allies to negotiate broad policy regarding Germany in the E.A.C., and there is no indication that any Government except the U.S. Government is even contemplating transferring that responsibility to a mainly military group such as the Control Council. Prior to discarding the E.A.C. as a center of negotiation for common Allied policy towards Germany in favor of an unknown and untried alternative body, it would seem essential to give to the E.A.C. Delegation adequate statements of broad U.S. policy as a basis for negotiating Allied policy in the E.A.C. The revised 1067 can hardly be intended to fulfill that function.
- The titles of the United States draft directives and the dates of their circulation in the European Advisory Commission are as follows: (1) Censorship of Civilian Communications, November 23, 1944; (2) Control of Works of Art and Monuments, November 23, 1944; (3) Control of Public Information in Germany, November 23, 1944; (4) Securing and Examining Information and Archives, November 23, 1944; (5) Disposition of German and German Controlled Naval Craft, Equipment and Facilities, November 23, 1944; (6) Control of Merchant Shipping Subsequent to Surrender, November 23, 1944; (7) Control of Inland Transport, November 23, 1944; (8) Disposition of German or German Controlled Aircraft, Aeronautical Equipment and Facilities, November 23, 1944; (9) Disposition and Control of the German Police, November 25, 1944; (10) Control and Disposal of Nationals, Armed Forces and Property of Enemy Countries Other Than Germany, November 25, 1944; (11) Administration of Justice, November 25, 1944; (12) Religious Affairs, November 25, 1944; (13) Elimination and Prohibition of Military Training in Germany, December 8, 1944; (14) Control of Post, Telegraph and Telephone Services in Germany, December 14, 1944; (15) Disposal of German Armed Forces, January 1, 1945. For text of draft directive on Control of Works of Art and Monuments, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, p. 1060. None of the other directives is printed, but all can be found in the European Advisory Commission files of the Department of State.↩