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

C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2080: CFM Minutes

United States Delegation Minutes, Council of Foreign Ministers, Third Session, Eighteenth Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, December 7, 1946, 10:30 a.m.⁴⁵

New York, December 7, 1946, 10:30 a.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY)18th Meeting

Mr. Bevin: I have before me three U.S. proposals (CFM(46) (NY) 57, 58, 59).⁴⁶

Mr. Byrnes: I have submitted these papers as a possible basis for our work on Germany and Austria.

M. Molotov: I wish to submit Soviet proposals. We have studied the U.S. proposals, and I believe that we can reach agreement on the agenda for our next meeting. We propose that the Council deal with Germany and Austria at this meeting. I wish to submit the following proposals regarding the time and place of the meeting and its agenda:⁴⁷

1) The CFM agrees to call its next session at the city of . . . . . on . . . . . date in order to study the German and Austrian questions.

In this respect, I believe that the next session of the CFM should be held in Moscow. No session has been held in Moscow, and it is our turn. I propose that this meeting be held in the latter part of February. However, I am prepared to discuss the question of the place and time of the meeting, and any place that will be acceptable to my colleagues will be acceptable to me.

2) The agenda

A. Report by the Control Council for Germany on the application of the decisions of the Berlin Conference on demilitarization, democratization, economic questions and reparations.

B. Central German administration and the problem of a German Government.

C. Preparation of a peace treaty for Germany; procedure; appointment of deputies and general directives thereto.

D. Preparation of peace treaty for Austria.

E. Liquidation of Prussia.

F. Report of the Commission of Coal Experts as in accordance with CFM decision of July 12.

If we deal with all these points, we will have accomplished much work, and I do not feel that we should expand our agenda any further. I also suggest that we request the Control Council for Germany to submit to the CFM two weeks before its meeting a report on its activities.

Mr. Byrnes: The items outlined by Mr. Molotov are generally speaking in accordance with my proposals, and I do not believe that we will have a great deal of trouble in agreeing on our agenda. In preparing my proposals I have separated those which I thought we might discuss here in New York and those which we might discuss at our next meeting. I believe that it would be wise to follow my order since if we appoint deputies here we could instruct them to hear the states directly interested in a German settlement and call on the Allied Control authorities to submit a report. We could then appoint deputies for Austria. Then I suggest we proceed to our discussion regarding the agenda. I do not foresee any difficulties, as our ideas are quite close.

Could we agree to direct our discussions here in the order I have suggested? I would like to take up first those matters on which we could obtain a final decision and then discuss the agenda. My first suggestion concerns the appointment of deputies in order that we might put them to work and benefit by the results of their study. They could perform a splendid service by hearing the states that desire to be heard. I would like to add Yugoslavia to the list contained in paragraph 2 of my proposal on Germany since the Yugoslavs have requested a hearing. You will note that paragraph 3 calls for a report from the Allied Control authorities. In addition, the Soviet Delegate has added one or two items on which he desires the Allied Control Authority to report. When we have finished discussing this question, we could discuss the limitation of armed forces. I would like to discuss that matter here in New York. After we have disposed of these questions we could discuss when and where we shall meet again and what should be the subjects on our agenda. Can we agree now on the apointment of special deputies to initiate the work I have indicated?

M. Couve de Murville: I believe that Mr. Byrnes’ proposal is reasonable. I suggest we take up first the points on which we can reach agreement and then discuss the agenda.

M. Molotov: I think the United States proposal is correct concerning the appointment of special deputies. The question arises, however, as to when this should be done. If they start their work before we have had an exchange of views in a CFM session, their work will bear little fruit. We should discuss these matters first of all in the Council. With respect to the hearing of the directly interested states, this, of course, should take place, but better results would be obtained if these states were heard by the deputies after the deputies knew exactly what the Council was interested in. The U.S. Delegation has submitted proposals for the next meeting of the CFM, as well as proposals on Austria and the limitation of armed forces. I understand that Mr. Byrnes wishes to discuss these matters at the present session. I entertain doubts that we could discuss these matters here since we have little time. In addition, the Soviet Delegation is not prepared to discuss them as it does not have its experts here. Furthermore, we have not finished our discussions on the peace treaties. We propose to limit our discussions to the study of those questions which we are capable of considering here. I feel that we should only discuss the question of the agenda for our next meeting. There should be no great difficulty in this as the discrepancies between our drafts are not very large.

Mr. Byrnes: I wonder whether the Soviet Delegation would agree to discuss the several proposals which I have submitted. If we cannot agree on one point, we could proceed to the next.

M. Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Byrnes: The reason I ask for the appointment of special deputies at this time is due to the fact that it would be advisable in preparing the peace treaty for Germany to give an opportunity to the directly interested states to present their views to us in advance instead of the Council presenting its decisions to them. In the preparation of the Paris peace treaties complaints were made that these states did not have an occasion to present their views until the Council had already made its decisions. It would be far better to hear the views of these states before we come to agreement. When the representative of Holland came to see me some days ago he spoke of a certain territory of Germany which he hoped would be ceded to the Netherlands.⁴⁸ I asked him how many inhabitants lived in this territory. The special deputies could obtain this information, evaluate it, and report to us. They would not be making decisions but merely condensing information for us. This would expedite our work a great deal. It will help us in our decisions on the German frontiers. We cannot discuss the German Government until we know what the area of Germany will be.

The deputies, in addition to hearing the interested states, can organize, and direct their thoughts as to what they should do. They will be with us in February at the next meeting, and we can assign tasks to them. What I fear, however, is that if we do not appoint our deputies now, when we meet again we will not be able to come to decisions. I have made seven trips across the ocean, and I will make another one if I believe that we can make decisions. I am willing to go any place, but I am interested mainly in results. I do not wish to go to the next meeting just to appoint deputies. I firmly believe that we should first of all give the interested governments an opportunity to express their views. This would facilitate our work.

Mr. Bevin: According to paragraph 1 of the U.S. proposal Mr. Byrnes desires the appointment of special deputies to investigate and report to the CFM. It does not ask that these deputies make decisions. Mr. Molotov apparently fears that the deputies might take decisions before the CFM reaches agreement on the subjects discussed by the deputies. I believe that we should avoid what happened before. As you know, there was considerable resentment at the Paris Conference because some of the interested countries had not had an occasion previously to express their views. Some of these countries have been in two wars with Germany—their losses have been terrible, and I think we ought to give them every possibility to express their views. I wish to avoid confronting them with our decisions. I wish all countries, not only the European ones but others, like Canada and Australia, to have an opportunity to express their views on the German settlement. I think the deputies should undertake this work. Then we shall have all the facts before us, and this should expedite our work. In dealing with Germany we must not ignore these countries which are so vitally interested. All the countries enumerated in paragraph 2 of the U.S. proposal are deeply concerned as to what steps will be taken to prevent Germany from arming again and what steps will be taken for their security. They will cooperate closely with us. I firmly believe that we should obtain all possible information from them, and it will only be then that we should be satisfied that their views are being taken into account. This is a solemn and serious matter—it concerns peace in Europe. We cannot invite all these nations to our next meeting, for this would mean the convoking of a peace conference. But we should have all the facts and opinions, for I feel that only this would make our next conference far more successful. I have one brief suggestion to make on the U.S. proposal. I believe that the word “considering” should be replaced by the words “investigating and reporting”.

If you examine paragraph 3 you will note that we ask for a factual report from the ACC. Both the United States and the U.S.S.R. desire to obtain the same thing. It is most important to have a very comprehensive study made. I note that reference is being made to accomplishing all this work in six weeks. I hope that it will be done thoroughly. When we meet again I hope we can get right down to work, and that we will have all this information. It is possible that a little more time will be needed.

M. Couve de Murville: I believe that we all agree in principle on the question of the appointment of special deputies. The question arises, however, as to what these deputies should do if they start work immediately. I do not think that they can accomplish a great deal until they know the general lines on which the German problem is going to be considered. They should have some general directives from the CFM. It is possible that no positive results can be achieved until the CFM makes its decisions, but at the same time the CFM will need the information outlined in paragraphs 2 and 3. With respect to the views of the other interested governments, Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin have indicated that the essential task of the Deputies would be to give hearings to the interested states and obtain their views on the German settlement. This is a very important matter since experience has shown us that insufficient account was given to the views of these states previously. This was a drawback in our work, and it is a very important one.

I do not object to the proposed procedure concerning the obtaining of the views of the interested states by the deputies, but I do not think that this is sufficient. The interested states should also be heard in subsequent stages of our work and should be admitted to our meetings when questions in which they are interested are under discussion. With respect to the second question on which information is needed, i.e., conditions in Germany, Mr. Molotov and Mr. Byrnes are right when they ask for a report and when they indicate the points on which the information is desired.

Mr. Byrnes: With respect to paragraph 3, I note that in the Soviet proposal there is a request for information on three other matters. One concerns a report from the Coal Experts. I am told that that report has been presented within the last week or so.⁴⁹ The other two Soviet questions could be added to paragraph 3 as points “C” and “D”.

Mr. Bevin: I would like to reserve my position on paragraph 3 of the American proposal until I have carefully examined it. I do not wish to discuss this matter now, but there may be some points I would like to add.

M. Molotov: I feel that the CFM, either in February or March, should consider the preparation of the peace treaty with Germany. This would involve questions of procedure, the appointment of deputies and the basic directives which would be issued to them. I propose that we do not attempt to settle these matters now but at our next meeting. We could exchange views on the question of the basic directives. It is not likely that we will agree on everything, but it would be better to ascertain the views of the CFM on these directives before the deputies are appointed. Then the deputies will know what will be required of them when they hear the views of the interested states. I agree that in considering the German question it is essential to give wider hearings to the interested states and that their views should be considered before we come to any final decision. This would be in the first stage of our work and not in the last stage. What would be the best procedure? I think we ought to take the following into account. Up to the present time only the Dutch and the Belgians have approached us. The other interested states are probably still reflecting on this matter and will only approach us in the near future. The Deputies might start hearing their views in February or March. This would be at the initial stage of our work and not after the CFM has taken decisions.

I would like to discuss certain individual points of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. proposals. I consider it correct to include the question of German frontiers in the preparation of the German peace treaty. The U.S. draft contains on its suggested agenda a paragraph dealing with the establishment of central agencies and a paragraph dealing with the form and scope of the provisional German government. The Soviet draft also makes mention of these matters. These can be combined into one paragraph. Furthermore, I do not object to discussing the U.S. proposal concerning a Four-Power treaty, but I think it is essential to consider thoroughly the report of the Control Council which will deal with the decisions of the Berlin Conference. Finally, Mr. Byrnes is right when he said that a coal report had been submitted. We have not yet discussed this report, and we could do so at our next meeting.

Mr. Byrnes: I think we will have to discuss the question of an agenda at length. I agree to the first item on the Soviet list. However, I suggest that we ask the Control Council to report immediately and not to wait until two weeks before our next meeting.

I consider that this is one of the most serious matters we have discussed. Mr. Molotov said that the deputies should be appointed in February or March and begin their work at that time—that is, not after any final decision of the CFM, but before. Mr. Molotov also says that basic directives should be issued to the Deputies. These basic directives will certainly be considered as decisions of the CFM which the deputies will have to follow. The deputies will obtain these directives before they have heard the interested states. If we hold a meeting three months from now to consider questions concerning the preparation of the peace treaties with Germany and Austria, our meeting will be devoted to procedure, and there will be no results. It would not be important enough to justify it. If, on the contrary, we are going to make basic decisions, that is, directives for our deputies, we would be doing so before our deputies had given hearings to the interested states.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I shall have to leave.

Mr. Byrnes: I would like to add Brazil after Yugoslavia to the list of states in paragraph 2.

(The Ministers agreed to hold their next meeting on the German question on Monday, December 9.)

45. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
46. Ante, pp. 1464, 1465, and 1466.
47. The Soviet proposal presented here was formally circulated to the Council as document CFM(46) (NY)60, December 7, p. 1476.
48. No record has been found of the conversation under reference here. The memorandum of the Netherlands Government, which was presented to the Secretary of State by the Netherlands Representative at the United Nations (van Kleffens) on November 5, 1946, is printed on p. 1016.
49. The Report under reference is not printed. For documentation regarding the deliberations of the Committee of Coal Experts of the Allied Control Council for Germany, see vol. v, pp. 766 ff.