Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The British Commonwealth, Western and Central Europe, Volume V

740.00119 Control (Germany)/6–446: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State

secret

Berlin, June 4, 1946—10 p.m.
[Received June 4—5:09 p.m.]

1419. My 1376, May 29.¹⁸ At 58th Coordinating Committee meeting 3 June Soviet member again insisted matter of Disarmament Commission be referred to Control Council, and supported his stand by setting forth argument developed by Ivanov¹⁹ in Political Directorate (see my 1406, June 2²⁰). Debate became protracted on question of issuance of communiqué, formulation of decision for minutes and desire of Soviet member carry matter to Control Council.

At outset Dratvin said communiqué by Coordinating Committee would be useless and subject of Disarmament Commission was far too important to allow it to die there. French, British and US members declared they could see no useful purpose served by referring matter to Control Council unless its members had possibility of acting contrary to orders from their Governments. US member pointed out matter actually was no longer on Coordinating Committee agenda and Soviet delegation was quite free to ask it be placed on agenda of Control Council. He said that only matter on agenda was communiqué and text of conclusion for minutes. Soviet member finally refused agree communiqué by Coordinating Committee.

General Dratvin then developed thesis that if one member wanted to pass a given matter to Control Council it should be done because Coordinating Committee was merely executive body and Control Council was supreme legislative organ in Germany. He objected to what he called attempts to have Coordinating Committee supplant Control Council. He quoted Agreement on Control Machinery dated 5 June 1945²¹ in support of his thesis, and said any attempts give Coordinating Committee other functions than that of executive Control Council decisions were illegal. He emphasized Soviet belief that desire of one member of control authority organ sufficed to carry a matter to an organ of higher competency and vehemently protested against new procedure being adopted in Coordinating Committee. He added that disregarding general principle, he was unable understand why this particular case should be buried in Coordinating Committee.

At this juncture Chairman asked Coordinating Committee whether, in light of quotations made by Soviet member, it would agree reconsider sending Disarmament Commission matter to Control Council. Neither US nor British member found Chairman’s proposal acceptable, and General Robertson said ideas just stated by his Soviet colleague and indeed his entire recent attitude has tended to turn proceedings of Coordinating Committee into travesty. He said that in great majority of cases recently reaching Coordinating Committee it had been practically impossible for Committee to take effective action. He concluded that should Dratvin propose Control Council meet following day with matter of Disarmament Commission on its agenda, he would readily agree.

General Dratvin countered that, as Coordinating Committee had been unable reach agreement, question must be referred to Control Council, that there was no question of any farce, and asked reasons for great hurry to bury matter in Coordinating Committee. He then revealed that he was acting on direct instructions from his Commander-in-Chief (Sokolovsky) and that, moreover, he thought he was acting rightly, his procedure being based on common (5 June 1945) agreement. Dratvin asked whether a question raised in Directorate must be decided there.

General Clay then recalled that at an early Control Council meeting General Eisenhower²² had proposed and obtained unanimous agreement that actions by Coordinating Committee should be considered as equivalent to those by Control Council,²³ and that only laws need go to Control Council. General Clay said that Directorates were not in same position because Soviet delegation had always opposed granting similar authority to Directorates. General Clay then said he would like to associate himself with remarks made by his British colleague to effect that authority of Coordinating Committee was deteriorating markedly; in recent weeks a question failing obtain immediate unanimous agreement was unable to obtain later agreement and went either to Control Council or Directorates. Thereupon, Dratvin said, he agreed with Clay that decisions of Coordinating Committee were as valid as those of Control Council, but only with regard to matters referred to it by Control Council, thus not with regard to questions of principles.

Chairman then proposed passing to next item on agenda and said Soviet member could present Disarmament Commission matter to Control Council. Soviet member protested this seemed like personal decision and said he was forced to conclude there was no longer quadripartite agreement. Chairman said there was none on this particular point. British member explained that when point of order is in question Chairman can rule. He felt General Koeltz had right of support from every other delegation.

At this point General Dratvin commenced offering what he called compromise proposals for text of conclusion for minutes. However, members were unable agree on all its points. Interposing a veto General Clay said it was first time he realized single member veto had some merit. It was finally agreed General Dratvin should be allowed opportunity reformulate his proposed text of conclusion in light of remarks by his colleagues, and present that text to next Coordinating Committee meeting (June 14).

During final minutes of debate General Dratvin agreed any delegation could withdraw its own proposal and said he desired only clarify own statement that Soviets thought economic examination by Disarmament Commission would be premature. In his draft text General Dratvin had inserted sentence to effect that committee took note Soviets will transmit question to Control Council.

French member said that never at Coordinating Committee meeting had there been any obstacle to withdrawal of paper by its sponsor, and never had one member insisted on reintroducing paper withdrawn by another member.

As stated in my 1376, Soviet motives for insisting on postponement of decision are obscure. However, it does not seem that insistence can any longer be attributed chiefly to desire obtain instructions on best formulation of communiqué. Certainly in that respect Soviet delegation is as well able now to formulate text as it will be after discussion in Control Council.

Murphy

18. Not printed. This telegram reported on inconclusive discussions at the 57th Coordinating Committee meeting, May 28, during which the positions of the respective members concerning the Disarmament Commission remained substantially as summarized in telegram 1342, May 25, 7 p.m., from Berlin, p. 559. Due to the Coordinating Committee’s inability to resolve the problem, General Dratvin suggested that it be referred to the Control Council. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/5–2946)
19. Nikolai Ivanovich Ivanov, Deputy Political Adviser to the Chief of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany (Sokolovsky).
20. Not printed; the most pertinent portion reads as follows: “… Ivanov deplored what he called obvious and increasing practice in Coordinating Committee to withdraw papers from agenda as soon as they encountered substantial opposition. He hoped practice would not now spread to Political Directorate, as he considered it constituted incipient breakdown control machinery.” (740.00119 Control (Germany)/6–246)
21. Reference is to the Statement on Control Machinery in Germany; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, June 10, 1945, p. 1054. According to the minutes of the meeting, General Dratvin quoted paragraphs 3 and 5 (740.00119 Control (Germany)/7–146).
22. General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, formerly U.S. member, Allied Control Council for Germany.
23. See telegram 569, September 20, 1945, from Berlin, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. iii, p. 836.