Office of the Historian

740.00119 Council/9–2645

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

London, September 26, 1945—1 a.m.
[Received September 25—11:40 p.m.]

9968. Delsec 60, September 26 from Reinstein.

1.
Divergence of opinion between US and British on invitation to USSR and on allocation procedure seems to me so great that I doubt feasibility of reaching agreement on invitations for establishment of Inter-Allied Reparations Agency this week. Rueff planning to leave for Paris Thursday.83 We will meet again tomorrow and Thursday if necessary.84 If adequate instructions reach me in time we will attempt to draft invitation for submission to three governments. If not I will suggest Rueff return to London next week for further discussions. Should this be necessary I urge that Kindleberger fly to London to participate in discussions.
2.
Department’s continued insistence upon invitation to USSR ignores formal refusal in Soviet note to Kennan quoted in Moscow’s 3303, September 18 to Department. Allocation by Allied Control Commission as between USSR and Poland on one hand and other claimants on other is USSR suggestion not British. As I have previously reported Waley considers Soviet participation highly desirable but does not regard it as possible to obtain. Until this issue is resolved it is impossible to go forward with organization of IARA. Failure of USSR to join IARA seems to me will probably necessitate revision in our thinking on a number of problems possibly including exchange of [Page 1314] mixed commissions. I regard it as desirable that Department review entire situation carefully before making decision.
3.
Other principal issue is that of allocation procedure. I interpret Department telegram 839084a as meaning this question is being considered further. I do not regard arguments in paragraph 7 of 8390 as persuasive. IARA is allocation agency. Decision on what is to be removed from Germany will be made by Control Council under policies laid down for it. Appropriate allocation of equipment to be removed from Germany as between claimant countries seems to me to have nothing to do with question of economic disarmament of Germany which presumably will be carried out no matter which countries receive equipment. Criteria for allocation should therefore be economic. Plan suggested in paragraph 8 of Department telegram 8390 does not seem to me likely to contribute to European reconstruction.
4.
I do not understand reference to coal in paragraph 1 of your telegram. British attitude is that under Potsdam agreement reparations are at present confined to capital equipment and foreign assets with current output largely mortgaged for payment of imports. Proposed terms of reference of IARA are to deal with capital equipment. External assets could be handled by it by decision of three controlling powers as well as current output if current output is to go to reparations. With reference to your question regarding British attitude see telegram85 reporting on meeting on IARA today which suggests change.
5.
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Department telegram 8390 noted restitution will be discussed in CFM tomorrow.86 You will be informed of results.
6.
Suggestion in paragraph 6 of your telegram regarding secretariat does not appear to me to be feasible and does not accord with British and French ideas. Is Department able to commit itself to a contribution to IARA?
7.
Department telegram 8390 just deciphered reached me too late for today’s meeting with Waley and Rueff. I shall attempt to arrange teletype conference for 2100 hours London time Wednesday September 26. Failing instructions I shall act as outlined in paragraph 1 above. [Reinstein.]
Winant
  1. September 27.↩
  2. This telegram had presumably been drafted on September 25; if so, the dates indicated here would have been September 26 and 27; the meetings actually took place on September 25 and 27, as reported in telegrams 10079 and 10081, September 27, from London, pp. 1316 and 1317, respectively.↩
  3. Dated September 24, p. 1311.↩
  4. Presumably reference is to telegram 10079, September 27, 11 p.m., p. 1316.↩
  5. See the minutes of the twenty-second meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, September 26, 11 a.m., vol. ii, p. 384.↩