862.014/6–445: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 5—10:05 p.m.]
1891. ReEmbtel 1580, May 15, 11 a.m. Brit Ambassador has received letter dated May 30 from Vyshinski in reply to note dated May 14 concerning establishment of Polish administration on German territory occupied by Red Army. Vyshinski states that Soviet Govt cannot agree to wide interpretation functions of Control Committee set forth in British note which assumes that supreme authority of Allies over Germany as a whole must be extended to separate zones of occupation in all respects. He admits the validity of this principle only in relation to questions which are common to all Germany, and adds that any other conception would make the realization by the Allied Powers of authority in their respective zones meaningless.
Vyshinski denies that representatives of Polish administration on German territory occupied by Red Army may be characterized as agents of the Soviet Govt. He says that Polish administration is operating under direction of Polish Provisional Govt and performing its functions on territory under its authority in conformity with Polish laws. This situation was caused by circumstances arising out of the war. It must also be remembered that Crimea decisions on Poland recognize that Poland is to receive substantial increases of territory in north and west. This is confirmation that Crimea decisions do not exclude but rather presuppose possibility of functioning of a Polish administration in this territory. Existence of Polish adminstration at the present time cannot be considered as predetermining future disposal of these territories which is a subject for settlement at the peace conference as provided in Crimea decision.
Vyshinski asserts that statements made by representatives of Provisional Govt concerning Danzig and certain agricultural districts of Polish Pomerania cannot be regarded as proof that question of Poland’s western frontiers is to be regarded as already disposed of.
Vyshinski then states that in light of the foregoing, question of responsibility of Soviet Govt for activity of Polish officials in these areas hardly needs further explanation. In conclusion he says that [Page 326] in present circumstances and in view of considerations set forth by him there are no grounds for raising and even less for discussing question of so-called free city of Danzig.
Sent Dept., rptd Paris for Murphy 155.