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, Twenty-Second Meeting, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, December 11, 1946, 4 p.m.²⁴

New York, December 11, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret
USDEL(CFM) (46) (NY)22nd Meeting

Germany

Mr. Bevin: Will Mr. Riddleberger make his report?

Mr. Riddleberger: The German Subcommittee is prepared to submit its report this afternoon.²⁵ The Committee has drawn up a document which contains the proposal for a report of the Control Council in Berlin and an agenda for the next meeting of the C.F.M.²⁶ Under paragraph 1(a) the Control Council is asked to give a report on the main sections of the Berlin Conference. These main sections are stipulated. The Committee agreed on the subject matter as listed in this paragraph. As the French did not participate in the Berlin Conference, they did not wish reference made to it. In addition, the United Kingdom desired to amplify the subject of reparation and give more specific instructions to the Control Council on the type of report it should make. With respect to paragraph 1(b) the U.K. desired the words “and financial” included. The French did not wish reference made to the future. They desired the word “situation” in place of the word “future”.

The Soviet Representative desired to strike out the words “under quadripartite government”. The U.K. and French Representatives desired these words struck out in paragraph 1(c). Unanimous agreement was reached on paragraph 1(d). In view of the C.F.M. discussion, the Committee deemed it advisable to insert a tentative paragraph on the consideration of the deputies’ report in case such deputies were appointed. The Committee had a long debate on paragraph 3. The U.S., U.K. and French Representatives believed that the future frontiers of Germany should be considered at an early date. The Soviet Representative held the view that this subject was contained in the preparation of the peace treaty with Germany. The Soviet Representative held that this matter was linked to the question of the appointment of deputies which had not yet been decided upon. In view of this, paragraph 6 likewise provides for the preparation of the peace treaty. Paragraph 4 relates entirely to the U.S. proposal for a draft disarmament and demilitarization pact. The French desired to insert the words “for ensuring European security”. The Soviet Delegation saw no reason for this phrase. With regard to paragraph 5, the French desired to have these subjects considered together with paragraphs 3 and 4. The U.S. and U.K. Representatives saw no objection, and it is believed that the Soviet Representative also agreed. Paragraph 7 contains no brackets. Paragraph 8 contains the words “and related matters” in brackets at the suggestion of the U.S., U.K. and French Representatives. Paragraph 9 is inserted at the request of the U.S., U.K. and French.

Mr. Bevin: Could we agree to the appointment of deputies? It is my view that one group should be selected for Austria and another for Germany. Then we will know what to refer to them.

M. Molotov: The question of one or two deputies is up to each government. We do not have enough deputies to go around, and we can supply only one. If the other members wish to supply more, that is quite all right. It is important to know where they will work and what subjects they will discuss.

Mr. Byrnes: London was the original headquarters of the Secretary General of the C.F.M. I am willing to have my deputy go anywhere, but according to the Potsdam Agreement London would seem to be the best place. As to what they should do, I will not repeat what I said several days about the hearing of the interested governments, but I am just as firm in my conviction that these governments should be heard before we take any decisions. With respect to Austria, the U.S. Delegation submitted a draft treaty early in June²⁷ and the U.K. submitted an alternate draft²⁸ shortly thereafter. The Soviet and French Delegations could submit their views. These papers could be compared, and by March 10 the deputies could be of real assistance to us in drafting an Austrian treaty. They have already five treaties to go on, and they would be in a good position to prepare a working draft for Austria by the time we met in Moscow. If that is not done now, we would spend a great deal of time discussing the matter in Moscow, in appointing deputies, and it is likely that they would not report back to us until next fall.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation does not object to the appointment of deputies at the present time and to their beginning their work before March 10. It agrees that they should hear the directly interested countries, and in the first place the neighbors of Germany. The Soviet Delegation also has no objection to the examination of the Austrian treaty by the deputies. Useful work will undoubtedly be done in this connection since we already have a certain amount of experience in the preparation of treaties.

I must point out in this connection that the American press receives a very one-sided account of the proposals submitted by the Soviet Delegation. I hope this can be avoided in the future. For example, the Soviet Delegation had hardly had time to speak when the U.S. press gave the Soviet views on the proposal concerning the appointment of deputies in a sense unfavorable to the Soviet Union. The U.S. press is free, but there should be as few cases as possible of such one-sidedness.

Regarding the meeting of the Deputies, I agree to London, but I wonder whether Berlin would not be more suitable. I am not insistent on Berlin.

Mr. Bevin: Can we agree that the deputies will deal with the aspects of the German problem which we refer to them and with the Austrian treaty?

The Ministers agreed to this proposal.

Mr. Bevin. I suggest we take up the agenda. The first part of paragraph 1 has been agreed to by the Deputies. Paragraph 1(a) reads “report for the elapsed period on the (main sections of the decisions of the Berlin Conference) (U.K., U.S., U.S.S.R. proposal) (the following points) (French proposal): demilitarization, denazification, democratization, economic principles, reparations”. The French have proposed the deletion of the reference to the Berlin Conference.

M. Couve de Murville: It is a question purely of form. We have always insisted that no mention be made of the Berlin Conference since we were not a party to it. We agree to the substance of 1(a).

M. Molotov: There is no reason why we cannot agree to delete the words objected to by the French Delegation.

After a brief discussion the Ministers agreed that paragraph 1(a) should read “report on the work of the Control Council since its creation on the following points: demilitarization, denazification, democratization, economic principles, reparations.”

M. Molotov: I object to the U.K. addition to this article concerning removals from Germany. It is not a proper proposal, but is a pin prick will not facilitate our work. The Control Council has not dealt with this matter and cannot report on it.

Mr. Bevin: We thought we might obtain these figures which would be helpful to us in assisting the implementation of the Berlin Conference. We would be obtaining a full picture.

M. Molotov: The Control Council cannot report on matters it does not deal with. We should request it to inform us only of the matters which fall within its scope. The information requested by the U.K. Delegation will be supplied in Moscow.

Mr. Bevin: In view of the fact that we are assured that we shall have this information, I will not insist on my addition.

Paragraph 1(b) contains various proposals by the French, U.S., U.S.S.R. and U.K. Delegations.

M. Molotov: I propose that all the amendments be adopted.

The Ministers agreed that this paragraph should read: “The establishment of central administrations and other problems connected with the economic, financial and political situation of Germany under quadripartite government.”

Mr. Bevin: Paragraph 1(c) reads: “The form and scope of the provisional political organization of Germany (under quadripartite government).” The U.S. and Soviet Delegations suggest that the bracketed words be deleted.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree to leave them in.

M. Molotov: Is this paragraph necessary? Could we not delete it in full? In paragraph 1(b) we raised the question of the political situation in Germany. Paragraph 1(c) relates to a later period when a provisional government will be formed. Do we need to deal with this matter at Moscow? Would it not be better to dispose of paragraph 1(b) and at a future meeting consider the question of a provisional German government?

Mr. Byrnes: I think the time has come when we could give some consideration as to what kind of a government we want in Germany. It will be a long time before the German treaty is ratified, and it might be well to discuss this matter. Perhaps no agreement will be reached, but we could at least have an exchange of views. I would be willing to leave this question as a separate point on the agenda. Would you be willing to remove it from paragraph 1 so that we would not be calling on the Control Council to report on this matter and place it elsewhere on the agenda?

M. Molotov: If it remains on the agenda, it would be preferable to place it elsewhere. It would be difficult for the Control Council to report or make recommendations on this subject. As I recall it, this question was contained in the U.S. and Soviet draft agenda as a separate item. I will not object to discussing this matter in Moscow if we have time. But can we consider a provisional political organization under quadripartite government? On the U.S. and Soviet draft agendas it was a question of a real provisional government.

Mr. Byrnes: Our position was taken exactly for the reason you stated. I believe it would be preferable to include this question as a separate item with the words “under quadripartite government” struck out.

Mr. Bevin: Paragraph 1(c) will, therefore, be the next item on the agenda. It would read “consideration of the form and scope of the provisional organization of Germany”.

M. Couve de Murville: I do not object to this since the Control Council is not called upon to make a report.

Mr. Bevin: The next item on the agenda is the consideration of the report of the deputies for Germany. Could we add the words “and Austria”?

The Ministers agreed that the consideration of the deputies’ report would be the third item on the agenda.

Mr. Bevin: I propose that we have three sub-paragraphs to the third paragraph. These would concern the future boundaries of Germany, the preparation of the peace treaty and the consideration of the Ruhr and Rhineland.

M. Couve de Murville: I propose a somewhat different form. Paragraph 3 would relate to the deputies’ report. Paragraph 4 would relate to the preparation of the peace treaty with Germany. There would be four sub-paragraphs, namely, (a) Procedure, (b) Frontiers, (c) Disarmament, (d) Ruhr and Rhineland.

After a brief discussion, the Ministers agreed that paragraph 3 would read as follows:

“3. Preparation of a Peace Treaty with Germany.

a. Consideration of the report of the deputies for Germany which will include the views of the other governments concerned and procedure.

b. Basic directives pertaining to the peace treaty for Germany including frontiers for Germany, the Ruhr, the Rhineland, etc.”

The Ministers also agreed that the U.S. draft disarmament and demilitarization treaty and other measures for the economic and military control of Germany would be the fourth item on the agenda.

M. Molotov: I suggest that we add the word “political” after the words “and other measures for”.

Mr. Byrnes: I note that it has been proposed to add the words “for ensuring European security” at the end of this item. I have great interest in the security of Europe, but I do not wish to draw up treaties only for this purpose but primarily for the purpose of world peace. I suggest that these words be not included. Many people throughout the world are concerned with their own security. If you insist on these words, I request that you add to them the words “and world peace”.

The Ministers agreed to this addition.

Mr. Bevin: Why does Mr. Molotov desire the inclusion of the word “political”?

M. Molotov: I stated my views on this question at Paris. I want to make sure that Germany is rendered harmless for Europe. Germany must be democratized and demilitarized.

Mr. Bevin: I had in mind that that matter would be included in the peace treaty itself. It must be provided for in the treaty. The U.S. disarmament and demilitarization treaty deals with something entirely different.

M. Molotov: The question of democratization is provided for in the peace treaty. Demilitarization will also be provided for.

Mr. Bevin: I do not object to the word. I merely wish to know M. Molotov’s reason for including it. The U.S. draft treaty will therefore be item 4 in our agenda. The consideration of the report of the coal experts will be item 5.

Before we go on, can we agree on what we should refer to the deputies? Their first directive should be to hear the views of those countries which were actively at war with Germany. This would be in the line of paragraph III of the U.S. proposal, CFM(46) (NY)57.²⁹

Mr. Byrnes: The deputies should also consider the procedure for the preparation of the German peace treaty.

Mr. Bevin: I am coming to that. Is there any objection to the first directive.

M. Couve de Murville: I agree. But if you say “actively at war”, you would not include all the neighboring countries. I propose that we say “neighboring Allied states and states taking an active participation in the war against Germany”.

M. Molotov: I suggest that this formula read “neighboring states and other Allied states which participated with their armed forces in the war against Germany”.

M. Couve de Murville: It might be advisable to let the deputies work out a final wording based on M. Molotov’s proposal.

The Ministers agreed to this course and also to the second directive which would be issued to the deputies regarding the procedure for the preparation of the peace treaty.

Mr. Bevin: We now come to the Austrian treaty which will be our next item on the agenda. Can we agree on the directives to the deputies?

M. Molotov: I propose we confine ourselves to a single decision to instruct the deputies to study the peace treaty with Austria and prepare a report for us.

Mr. Byrnes: The U.S. tabled a draft treaty months ago. It has never been studied. I think that this draft, the U.K. draft and any other proposals that might be submitted should be considered by the deputies.

M. Molotov: I agree.

Mr. Bevin: The deputies will therefore be instructed to proceed with the preparation of the Austrian peace treaty taking into consideration the draft submitted and any other papers that might be referred to them. They should be asked to submit a report to the C.F.M. in time for consideration in March.

Mr. Byrnes: The question of German assets in Austria has never been settled. I think we should place it on our agenda.

M. Molotov: This question should not be assigned to the deputies. I am not prepared to discuss it at the present time.

Mr. Byrnes: The question was raised by the U.K. Delegation in Paris and proposals were tabled. I hope that we can give them consideration. Months have passed and there has been no settlement of this important question. I would like to have the deputies look into it. I want it understood that this question should not be excluded from consideration by them.

Mr. Bevin: We are asking the German Control Council to report on certain matters. Can we not ask for a similar report from the Austrian Control Council?

M. Molotov: We were not given notice that the question of German assets in Austria would be discussed here. We are not prepared to discuss the matter since we have no material available.

Mr. Byrnes: If it is understood that the deputies may discuss this question, I will not ask for consideration now. But there must be a decision made some time. In any event I do not want a situation to arise whereby this question cannot be discussed because it is not part of the treaty. I want to know what are and what are not German assets. Perhaps the deputies can decide this question.

Mr. Bevin: The last item on the U.S. proposal for a peace treaty with Austria, CFM(46) (NY)58,³⁰ concerns the reduction of occupation forces to 10,000.

M. Molotov: The Soviet Delegation has already said that this is a new question. It cannot discuss it, because it has no material or experts here in New York. With respect to the Austrian treaty, the Yugoslavs have informed us that they wish to be heard. They are a neighbor and should be heard by the deputies.

Mr. Byrnes: I agree if it is understood that the other states will have the same right.

M. Couve de Murville: We should adopt the same solution as we did with Germany. All Allied and interested states should be permitted to express their views.

Mr. Byrnes: I would like to return to the last item on the agenda concerning the limitation of European occupation forces. M. Molotov said that he was not prepared to discuss this question now. I request that we keep it on our agenda for the Moscow meeting.

M. Molotov: I cannot express any view now. I have no documents. This is a new question and is a complicated one.

Mr. Byrnes: I only ask that it be kept on the agenda for March 10.

M. Molotov: When Mr. Byrnes comes to Moscow, he may raise this question, and we will discuss it. I cannot discuss it now.

Mr. Byrnes: Will M. Molotov agree that we can discuss the question or does he agree that we can discuss whether we can discuss it?

Mr. Bevin: It is my understanding that if this question is raised in Moscow, it will be discussed.

M. Molotov indicated that he agreed with the statement made by Mr. Bevin.

Mr. Byrnes: Is there any agreement when and where the deputies for Austria will meet? I understood that M. Molotov had stated that there might be one deputy for Germany and Austria.

The Ministers agreed that both the Austrian and German deputies would meet in London and would commence their discussions on January 14, 1947.

Mr. Byrnes: Some time ago I received a letter from the Chinese Foreign Minister requesting me to advise the Council that in accordance with the Berlin Agreement he assumed that he would participate in the preparation of the German treaty.³¹ The Berlin Agreement provided that the C.F.M. would be used for the preparation of a peace settlement with Germany.³² The same agreement established the C.F.M. and made China a member. At Moscow we came to agreement on the drafting of the satellite treaties, but we made no reference to the German treaty. However, in the Moscow Agreement it was provided that we should request the adherence of France and China to the procedure concerning the preparation of the treaty. As a result of that I communicated with the Chinese and French Foreign Ministers.³³ In my letter to M. Bidault on January 12³⁴ I stated “The agreement reached at Moscow is in no way to alter the previous understanding with regard to the preparation of the peace settlement with Germany.” The Chinese Foreign Minister has reminded me of the language of the Berlin Agreement and the statement made subsequent to the Moscow conference, and I do not see how the C.F.M., which was established with China as a member, can decline to invite China to the Moscow meeting.

M. Molotov: There is a clear decision of the Berlin conference on the preparation of the peace treaty with Germany. Paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of the Berlin decision state that the C.F.M. shall prepare peace treaties, including the German treaty, and that this preparation should be carried on by those members of the C.F.M. who represented the countries which have signed the respective surrender terms. China is not a signatory to the German surrender, and consequently China should not be invited to assist in the preparation of the German treaty. Moreover the Chinese themselves do not claim this participation. I have in mind a letter from the Chinese Foreign Minister dated October 12 in which he states “As regards the procedure for the convocation of peace conferences, no definite procedure has been established. The assertion that such conferences should be convoked only by those powers which prepare the draft treaty has no justification.” The question arises as to the meaning of the preparation of the peace treaty—namely, whether such preparation includes the question of convoking the peace conference. We believe that it does, for otherwise an illogical situation would arise. Four powers participated in the preparation of the peace treaty, but five powers convoked the conference. How could a fifth power take part in the convocation of a peace conference without knowing the status as regards the preparation of the treaties. How could China participate in the convocation of the peace conference if China does not know whether the peace treaty is ready or not? The conference should be convoked by those who have prepared the treaty just as we have done in the case of the five ex-enemy countries. This is in strict conformity with Potsdam. Therefore, the Chinese request is devoid of foundation. It will be another matter when the Japanese treaty arises. The Chinese Government is a party to the Japanese surrender, and China will participate in the convocation of the conference.

Mr. Byrnes: I do not wish to take any more time on this subject I wish to see the letter from China.

The Ministers agreed to meet at 4:00 p.m. on December 12.

24. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
25. The Subcommittee, also sometimes referred to as the Committee of Representatives of the Four Ministers or the Committee on German Questions, met on December 10, 1946.
26. The agenda drawn up by the Committee is printed on p. 1508. For the agenda as finally agreed upon by the Council of Foreign Ministers, see CFM(46) (NY)73, December 11, 1946, p. 1531.
27. CFM (46) 119, June 20, 1946, not printed.
28. CFM (46) 151, June 26, 1946, not printed.
29. Ante, p. 1464.
30. Ante, p. 1465.
31. Reference here is presumably to the Chinese memorandum of September 3, 1946. p. 941.
32. Foreign Relations, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945. vol. ii, pp. 1478 and 1500.
33. Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 741.
34. Department of State Bulletin, January 27, 1946, p. 112.