740.00119 Control (Germany)/8–1746: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 17—10:46 a.m.]
1955. 1. Mytel 1898, August 11. At seventy-first meeting Coordinating Committee August 17, discussion was opened on French proposal for Allied central agencies.
Soviet member stated he was attentively studying proposal but was not yet in position to discuss it.
British member reiterated statement of British delegate in ACC that proposal was not new and said it was inacceptable in the light of the agreement on control machinery defining the role of the ACC directorate. He then gave the following reasons for the need for German central administrations: Potsdam agreement envisaged that German democracy must rest on German political responsibility. Only the Germans themselves can find the way out from present difficulties. The Germans must execute policy subject to Allied supervision. There would be numerous disagreements in proposed inter-Allied agencies whereas the Germans could produce homogeneous administrations. German economic unity and effectiveness of central administrations would be interdependent. Central administrations would pass their executive decisions down through German channels. They would make possible a decrease of Allied personnel whereas French proposal would mean the reverse. British member then stated that while he rejected French plan as a substitute for Potsdam provisions, he was willing to consider arrangements being made along the lines of the French plan in order to give effect to Soviet suggestion for an organization to increase German internal trade, provided such arrangements [Page 593] would be limited to German internal trade and would not interfere with US-British interzonal measures for economic unity.
US chairman agreed with all of British statement except concluding remark and said he could not commit himself to transitory measures based on expediency. He declared Potsdam decisions and agreement on control machinery furnished adequate framework for control of Germany and that US-British interzonal arrangements were fully in accord with these agreements.
French delegate presented a lengthy and unconvincing extension of General Koenig’s argument in ACC, adding nothing new except the thesis that French plan was essentially the same as proposal in US Military Governor’s special report on central German agencies published this May. (An amusing sidelight is provided in Noiret’s57 remark to me that the French had only discovered this special report a few days ago and since then had been engaged in its intensive study.) According to French member, ACC is government of Germany and must assume whole responsibility, otherwise Germans would take advantage of Allied control. Establishment of central agencies would be premature before reorganization of the German states and a definition of their powers. French delegate claimed that under his plan the actual work would be done by Germans and that no increase of Allied staff need result from the substitution of Allied direction in place of control.
US chairman indicated that further discussion would serve no purpose but that Coordinating Committee should await statement of Soviet views on French plan at a later meeting before making its report to Control Council. He declared US-British interzonal experiment will prove French fears baseless and he reiterated US still hopes arrangements may be extended to include all zones.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Repeated to Moscow 226, London 286, Paris for Matthews 244.
- Gen. Roger Noiret, Deputy Military Governor, French Zone of Occupation in Germany; French member, Coordinating Committee, Allied Control Council for Germany.↩