Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Council of Foreign Ministers, Volume II

C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2063: US Delegation Minutes

United States Delegation Record, Council of Foreign Ministers, Second Session, Forty-First Meeting, Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, July 12, 1946, noon³⁵

Paris, July 12, 1946, noon

secret

The Secretary: We will proceed with the business of the session. I am told there is no report of the Deputies. The report will be presented at the meeting this afternoon. I am advised there is a report from the committee on Italian colonies. I am advised that the French Representative was Chairman of the last meeting, so I will call on him to make a report.

Couve de Murville: Mr. Chairman, the committee met yesterday morning and considered the draft for the treaty and the draft declaration of the Four Powers. You have the text before you. It is Document C.F.M. (46) 221.³⁶ No agreement has been reached on the two points. However, there is a reservation on the part of the United Kingdom regarding paragraph 2, point 4(b) of the draft declaration of the four powers. As to the views of other interested governments, the United Kingdom has asked that a more precise mention should be made of the governments concerned.

Mr. Bevin: I didn’t want a limitation put on what is called the “other interested governments”. I withdraw the reservation; as long as it is understood that they may give their views they have the liberty to do this. I didn’t want a limitation on the interpretation. I withdraw the reservation if that is understood.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States Delegation would go on record to say that other interested governments, dominions or otherwise, should have full opportunity to present their views. What do the other members say?

Mr. Molotov: As to paragraph 2, this paragraph provides for no restrictions. It cannot meet with any objection on the part of anybody. As to paragraph 4, my information is that the French text does not correspond to the English text. We have no Russian text corresponding to the English.

Mr. Byrnes: Does the Soviet Delegation state what is the difference in the texts? Have them read, and if possible to reconcile them.

Mr. Molotov: I would like to point to paragraph 4 of the English text which contains at the end the sentence reading as follows: (reads sentence) And the French text contains the sentence that reads differently, (reads sentence) We hope that the English text is right but we are told that the French text comes from later wording. We should like to see this paragraph, to have an accurate one.

M. Bidault: Mr. Chairman, I think I can easily disperse this uncertainty and confusion. The English text was the original text and the French was translated from the English and I should say was badly translated. In the present case the English text is clearer and more in conformity with the actual facts.

Mr. Byrnes: Then we can understand that the English text is agreed.

Mr. Bevin: I am glad we can get something English agreed to.

Mr. Molotov: Nothing else has been acccepted.

The Secretary: We return to the consideration of the German question. Does anyone desire to make any remarks at this time on any of the several proposals which have been discussed?

Treatment of Germany as an Economic Whole

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I have been instructed by my government to make the following statement:

During these meetings on Germany we have had from Mr. Molotov statements as to the Soviet attitude regarding the treatment of Germany as an economic whole and regarding their interpretation of our agreement on reparations from Germany.

We do not agree with Mr. Molotov’s interpretation of the Berlin Protocol in regard to reparations, and I shall circulate a paper later setting out our point of view. We shall circulate this paper after the end of this session in order that the governments may study it in the recess.

We consider that the clauses of the Berlin Protocol stipulating that Germany should be treated as an economic whole should be implemented fully and immediately.

In this connection I wish to recall that my government has made a specific reservation on the level of industry plan in connection with the principle of economic unity.

I listened with great interest to Mr. Byrnes’ proposal which he made at the close of our meeting last night. I might appropriately repeat words which I used myself two days ago: “The United Kingdom will cooperate on a fully reciprocal basis with the other zones”. Clearly Mr. Byrnes’ proposal requires careful consideration, but I can assure him that H.M.G. will examine it urgently and sympathetically.

The Secretary: Is there any other comment? Mr. Molotov?

Mr. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation wishes to postpone its observations on the question which was touched upon by Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin until after the Soviet Delegation has studied the proposals and remarks made by Bevin. At the present moment all the Soviet Delegation can say is that we remain on the basis of the decision jointly adopted at the Berlin Conference and that we are willing to take jointly measures for their implementation. The Soviet Delegation believes that no Government should violate these decisions. On the contrary, all are interested to see them carried out as adopted.

The Secretary: Any other comment?

M. Bidault: Perhaps I am mistaken. I am under the impression that for the last few days we have considered a number of soliloquies instead of concrete discussions. There are three important problems concerning the future of Germany being discussed by us. There is the problem of economic unity of Germany, which certain delegations link to the problem of reparations, the problem of German central administration, and finally, the problem of coal.

The French Delegation desires to record in a few words the position of the French Government regarding questions which essentially concern the prosperity and security of France. Although the French Government has not modified its point of view, which it has had on several occasions expressed, regarding German central administration, and although it links their institution to the examination of its proposals regarding the future of the Ruhr and Rhineland, it has never been opposed to actual necessity; and we doubt that we should wait for the provisional peace to discuss the present boundary and economic unity. This is stated in a letter I sent on behalf of my government to the American Embassy in Paris on the first of March 1946.³⁷ This is the reason why the French Government has not been opposed to the possible creation of Allied offices with German executive personnel which being under the Control Council in Berlin would provisionally apply the principles of German economic unity in the fields of foreign trade, currency, and the like. We ask, in any case, that the action of these Allied offices should not be extended to the Saar which should be immediately integrated in the economic and monetary sphere of France. Furthermore, France considers that the measures to be taken for the carrying out of German economic unity cannot justify the increase of internal consumption of coal in Germany. I am entirely in agreement with the idea that the taxpayers should be protected; but I also wish to say that if the increase of local consumption of coal is higher than or even only proportional to the increase of production, France knows what this means for herself and for the taxpayers.

M. Bidault: The French Government could not contemplate this serious project without feeling some anxiety regarding the recovery of our economic life and that of all the countries which need German coal in order to be in a position to recover from the German invasion. Our Government thinks that the development of trade between the various zones would make it possible to alleviate the burdens of the Occupying Powers without thereby jeopardizing the essential development of the export of coal. The question of the export of coal is of deep and vital interest to France. We shall ask to have the guarantee that for a great number of years we will receive an important and determined quantity of German coal. This guarantee, in our opinion, should result from the reintegration of the Saar and from the internationalization of the Ruhr. This problem of coal should, in our opinion, be the subject of the full attention of the Council of Foreign Ministers, both as regards its future and as regards its immediate settlement. And this is the reason why we have submitted a draft resolution to the Council in this connection.³⁸ I ask that we should submit it to the same close examination as other drafts in which we were not directly concerned.

Mr. Byrnes: In view of the statement by the French Delegation may I call to the attention of my colleagues that no new agreement is required to treat Germany as an economic unit. The Potsdam Agreement provided the following: For the time being, no central German Government shall be established. Notwithstanding this, however, certain essential German administrative Departments, headed by State Secretaries, shall be established, particularly in the fields of finance, transportation and communication. Such Departments will act under the direction of a Control Council. The French Government did not agree to that proposal but in view of the statement of the French Foreign Minister, or rather its President, here this morning if the Council could agree to instruct representatives of the Four Governments to put into effect the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement with the amendment that it is understood that the Saar shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of such administrative departments and be administered as a part of the French economy—if that can be done and the French agree, what the Three Powers at Potsdam agreed to do July 15 of last year we could actually get under way July 15 of this year. Do I understand by the silence that we all agree?

M. Molotov: So far we have been listening.

Mr. Byrnes: The Chairman is willing to listen.

M. Molotov: I wish to say for the Soviet Delegation that I should like to recall that two days ago the Soviet Delegation stated that it had no objection to the setting up of a central German administration as a transitory measure for the establishment of future German government. The Soviet Delegation would like to have some time in order to study the proposal which was made by M. Bidault today.

Mr. Byrnes: Does the Soviet representative have reference to my proposal about the Saar?

Mr. Bevin: I think the economic central administration does not matter very much. But paragraph 15 of the Potsdam Agreement we feel is essential.

Mr. Byrnes: My thought is that if we are going to make a start towards keeping Germany as an economic unit we will have to have a central agency as to communication and transport that will start it and the difficulty we now find is that we are all in favor of it but nothing is being done about it. The United States Delegation was in favor of the proposal offered by the United Kingdom Delegation but it was not agreed. I refer to the draft of yesterday. I can demonstrate by the statement made by the four representatives that the four Governments represented here are in favor of treating Germany as an economic unit and I can demonstrate that we have done nothing as a Conference to accomplish it. If we could agree to instruct our representatives to carry out the provisions of 9, sub-paragraph 4 of the Potsdam Agreement and to give particular attention to the steps necessary to carry out Articles 14 and 15 of the Potsdam Agreement, we will have directed them to take steps toward treating Germany as an economic unit. We need no new agreement—we only need direction to carry out existing agreements.

Mr. Bevin: We want 19 as well.

Mr. Byrnes: I will ask again, can we agree to send instructions to carry out provisions 9, 14, 15 and 19, having to do with the treatment of Germany as an economic unit. If we are all in favor of it, let’s do it. We need no new agreement except on the amendment with regard to the Saar which I believe we can all agree to—that the Saar should be excluded from the jurisdiction of such administrative authorities and be administered by the French authorities as a part of the French economy. I may add this, the statement I make on the Saar does not require commitment from every member regarding the final decision on the disposition of the Saar but only temporary measures as far as the administrative agencies are concerned and until we reach a final decision.

Mr. Molotov: I have already stated the view of the Soviet Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes: If we cannot agree on that we shall see if we can agree on some other subject. Are there any proposals?

M. Bidault: Are we going to decide regarding the French proposal concerning coal?

Mr. Byrnes: With reference to the paper which was submitted by the French Delegation as to coal, we have before us also a paper submitted by the United Kingdom Delegation.

M. Molotov: What number do you have in mind?

M. Bidault: I refer to the new French proposal, CFM(46)226. This paper was circulated last night.

M. Molotov: We have the English text but we don’t have the Russian text.

M. Bidault: The text was given last night.

Mr. Bevin: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my original text³⁹ and will discuss it on the basis of the French text. I desire to suggest an amendment to the French text. In the last paragraph I suggest the words should be “This report shall be considered by the Allied Control Council in Berlin who will report to the Council of Foreign Ministers before September 1, 1946.” My Government objects to the by-passing of the Allied Control Council as they are the responsible party and their observations on any report should be before the Council of Foreign Ministers when this is considered. I must, however, make the reservations that the statements I have made on non-agreement on Article 15 of the Potsdam Agreement this fact must be taken into account when we deal with the coal situation in the Ruhr.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States Delegation would agree to the amendment proposed by the British Delegation. As Foreign Minister I would not want to pass upon the report on any phase of the German situation without submitting it to our representative on the Control Council. I would not want to have the precedent of having a separate committee. We must go through our representative and get his views. Any other comments?

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has not had the time to examine this question and to have the views of the Soviet representative on the Control Council but the Soviet Delegation will take most urgent steps in order to examine the question and will submit its views in the shortest possible time, taking favorable view of the French proposal.

M. Bidault: He who speaks last can afford to speak shortly. Since the Allied Control Council is mentioned in the second line I have no objection to having it also mentioned in the line before the last one. I am also convinced, as has been said by M. Molotov, that we shall come to agreement, and favorable results, that is to say, coal.

Mr. Byrnes: The statement of M. Bidault does not change the statement of M. Molotov, I judge.

M. Molotov: It looks like that. I think there will be no disagreement on this question.

Mr. Byrnes: Is there any further discussion on the German question? If not, I want to ask if we cannot discuss the Austrian question.

Austrian Treaty

Mr. Byrnes: At the last meeting of the Council the United States Delegation urged the consideration at that time of the draft treaty with Austria. At that time we had not prepared drafts of the treaty but we did submit a memorandum outlining the subjects we thought should be included in the treaty and which should be considered by the Deputies.⁴⁰ On June 1, complying with the request that a draft be submitted for the Deputies to consider, we circulated a proposal for a draft treaty.⁴¹ The treaty that was circulated was based in great part upon the agreements arrived at for the treaties of Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Of course, it follows that since that time—since the circulation of this paper—there have been many changes in the texts of the treaties—in the Balkan States; such changes should be made in the treaty with Austria.

I think that the members of the Council have a copy of the draft proposal and I want to ask now if the draft cannot be turned over to the Deputies with instructions to prepare and submit to us at the earliest opportunity a treaty for adoption by us. On June 26 there was circulated by the UK Delegation a draft that should also be submitted to the Deputies.⁴² Of course the Council would welcome submission by the Soviet Delegation and French Delegation of their views on the subject. I ask that action be taken because it is inconceivable to me that we will have treaties with Italy and the Balkan States and not take some steps to end the technical state of war with Austria. I remember that Marshal Stalin made the distinction between [Austria and] Italy. He said Austria did not have her own armed forces whereas Italy did have her armed forces. As I said several times in discussing this matter, it is essential that we proceed to draft this treaty with Austria. It will enable the Soviet Government to withdraw her soldiers, and the United Kingdom and the United States and France—wherever soldiers are guarding lines of communication—they can be returned to their homes as the parents in every one of our countries want them to be returned. In October 1943 at Moscow the United Kingdom, Soviet Union and the United States all declared that they wished to see reestablished a free and independent Austria and thereby open the way to the Austrian people themselves as well as its neighboring states faced with similar problems to find internal and economic security, which is the basis for lasting peace. I hope we can take steps to bring about the fulfillment of that Declaration.

Mr. Molotov: As to the question of Austria, the Soviet Delegation submits the following proposal:

[Here follows the text of C.F.M.(46) 230, July 12, 1946, printed on page 939.]

The text of the proposal will be circulated in English and in French.

M. Bidault: I think, Mr. Chairman, that time would be necessary, both to examine this draft and the whole of the Declaration.

Mr. Byrnes: I noticed in the last proposal of the United States Delegation it was stated that any country could submit draft treaties with Austria for submission to the Deputies. The Soviet Delegation in its paper which has been presented in paragraph 4 is in agreement with that. It was agreed by the United Kingdom Delegation that the Deputies should proceed without delay after drafting the treaties, then we can discuss the other subjects which I must admit I am not so well informed at this moment but which I shall be glad to discuss this afternoon. I wonder if the French Delegation could find it possible to agree to submitting to the Deputies the question of drafting the treaty after they have finished with the other treaties and if so, we can settle that much of it and make a little headway.

M. Bidault: The French Delegation has always agreed that we should give work to the Deputies and as regards the Deputies, I think I can tell you that there will probably be French proposals in this connection and if I may say so at such a late hour, the egg has been laid down but the chicken hasn’t come yet.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation feels that the Deputies have a lot of work to accomplish now to complete the drafting of the treaties which we are discussing. It would be incorrect in the view of the Soviet Delegation to take one paragraph of the Soviet proposal separate from the others. We suggest that we jointly consider them and that we adopt a decision on this question because it is an important and urgent question, especially as regards the removal of the unbidden guests from Austria. It is well-known that the Austrian parliament adopted a unanimous decision to expell these people from Austria and this is a demand of the whole of Austria and they have rightly demanded it.

Mr. Byrnes: The United States Delegation is not asking for action on one paragraph, the United States is asking for action on a proposal made by the United States Delegation at a meeting in April, in May, circulated in the early part of June. And I again urge today that draft treaties be drafted by each Delegation and be submitted to the Deputies for their consideration and report back to the Council. When our proposal was first submitted the Soviet Delegation said there was no paper and they wanted a draft of the treaty. Therefore we went to the trouble of preparing a treaty and we asked that it be turned over to the Deputies. When that is done the United States Delegation will be entirely willing to discuss the question of displaced persons in Austria or any other question which the Soviet Delegation is interested in, but I would like to dispose of the proposal by the United States that the Deputies be instructed to draft a treaty with Austria. Can’t we agree to send it to the Deputies now and then this afternoon we can go into a discussion of the matter you propose in this paper. If you desire to amend my request by directing that the Deputies begin work upon it when they have finished work upon the Balkan treaty and the Italian treaty, then that is entirely satisfactory. I submit that if, when the treaties are completed by the Deputies the Soviet Delegation is of the opinion that for any reason it is not timely to submit it, it is not committed in any way to exercise its right to express its views at that time.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation suggests that the question be discussed and that then a decision be reached.

Mr. Byrnes: Does the Soviet Delegation mean this afternoon?

M. Molotov: Yes, and that for the time being we adjourn.

Mr. Byrnes: The Council will now adjourn. I have forgotten the agreement yesterday as to the time we would meet this afternoon.

Mr. Bidault: Five o’clock. There is only one request I have to make. I shall ask Mr. Bevin to be good enough to take the chair and replace me because at five o’clock I have to go for a few minutes to a meeting of members of the Committee of Resistance. As you know, I have taken part in that.

35. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
36. See p. 899.
37. For Bidault’s letter of March 1, 1946, see telegram 1024, March 2, 1946, from Paris, vol. v, p. 512.
38. C.F.M.(46) 226, July 11, 1946, p. 901.
39. C.F.M.(46) 225, July 11, 1946, p. 901.
40. The memorandum under reference is C.F.M.(46) 3, April 26, 1946, p. 124.
41. The United States proposal for a draft peace treaty with Austria, which is not printed, was transmitted to the British, French, and Soviet Governments at the end of May 1946 and was subsequently circulated in the Council of Foreign Ministers, in a slightly modified form, as C.F.M.(46) 119, June 20, 1946, not printed.
42. The proposal by the United Kingdom Delegation for draft heads of a treaty with Austria was circulated to the Council of Foreign Ministers as C.F.M.(46) 151, June 26, 1946, not printed.