CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 58

Report by the Coordinating Committee to the Council of Foreign Ministers 71

secret
CFM(47) (M) 74

Preparation of the Proposals in Regard to the Report of the Allied Control Council

v. form and scope of provisional political organisation of germany

1. The Coordinating Committee attach to this report all the proposals of the four Delegations. These are:

[Page 410]
Soviet Delegation CFM/47/M/4672
U.S. Delegation CFM/47/M/4973
and CFM/47/M/2774
French Delegation CFM/47/M/4075
CFM/47/M/4176
CFM/47/M/4877
and CFM/47/M/5778 (Section VIII)
U.K. Delegation CFM/47/M/3979

2. This section is very complicated and the Coordinating Committee has not gone fully into all the details. The report contains the principal points of agreement and disagreement.

3. Central German Administrative Departments

All Delegations are agreed that, subject to the reservations made below by the French Delegation, central administrations should be established in Germany on the lines indicated by the Potsdam Agreement. They are also agreed that the instructions and directives of German central administrations will pass down directly through German administrative channels. However, the French Delegation makes its agreement on this subject conditional upon the reaching of an agreement on economic unity. On the other hand it is opposed to departments headed by German State secretaries but contemplates councils of the various Laender representatives. These councils would in certain cases have executive powers, subject to the veto of the Control Council, and in other cases would be only advisory under quadripartite direction. Finally, the French Delegation considers that the Saar must not fall within the competence of the central administrations referred [Page 411] to above, the creation of which must not, besides, prejudge in any respect the final charter of the Ruhr and the Rhineland.

4. Structure of the Future German Government

The Soviet, U.S. and U.K. Delegations contemplate the formation of a German Government which will in the first instance be a provisional one. The French Delegation considers that it is premature to consider the establishment of a German Government. The Soviet and U.K. Delegations have submitted detailed proposals for the structure of the future German Government. Both proposals include the idea of a President and two Chambers. There are certain differences however between the two proposals which are revealed in the proposals themselves attached to this report. The U.S. Delegation has presented the basic principles which it believes should govern the formation of the German Government. While it does not object to the form of government proposed by the Soviet and U.K. Delegations, it believes that this question should be decided by the Germans, subject to Allied Control Council approval.

5. Division of Powers

The U.S., French and U.K. Delegations consider that residual powers should remain with the Laender and that the powers exercised by the Central Government should be strictly limited and defined. The division of powers between the Central Government and the Laender is not given in sufficient detail in all proposals to enable a fair comparison to be made between them. The view of the Soviet Delegation is that the division of powers between the Central Government and the Laender is a matter to be laid down in the constitution which will be ratified by the German people. The Soviet Delegation wishes to add the following sentences:

“In addition the general position of the Soviet Delegation is as follows: that in its view Hitlerite centralisation of state government should be liquidated, Landtags and two German Chambers must be established and a provisional German Government must be created such as to ensure the political and economic unity of Germany and to be responsible for the fulfilment of the obligations of Germany to the Allied States.”

6. Stages in the Evolution of the Political Organisation of Germany

The proposals made under this heading by the Delegations are attached. The U.K. Delegation considers that it would have been advantageous if the Coordinating Committee could have made a comparison of the proposals made under this heading by the different Delegations. The U.S. Delegation points out that there is basic disagreement on how the provisional government should be formed.

[Page 412]

7. General

The U.S. Delegation wishes to draw attention to its proposal that the German constitution include a clause providing that the authority of the Central Government and the Laender be exercised in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the peace settlement and the powers reserved to the Allied Control Council.

The French Delegation states that this proposal merits most careful study.

The Soviet Delegation is of the opinion that the Peace Treaty with Germany which will regulate the future relations between the Allied States on the one hand and Germany on the other hand should have the signature of the German Government.

vi. population transfers

I. Proposals of the Soviet Delegation ( CFM 47/M/17).80

1. “(1). To guarantee to the official representatives of the Allied countries engaged in repatriation free access to the camps for displaced persons, verification of lists and documents regarding displaced persons, and freedom to conduct conversations with them, etc.”

No agreement has been reached on this proposal.

The position of the U.S. Delegation is as follows: It is the present policy of the U.S. to accept accredited representatives of the Allied countries who do in fact have access to the D.P. camps of the U.S. Zone.

The French Delegation agrees that the Control Council should be invited to put into effect immediately point (i) of para 5 of Section VII 2 of its Report with respect to visits to camps and assembly points.81 It agrees also that the exercise of this right of visit should be guaranteed to the accredited representatives of the countries concerned.

The U.K. Delegation reserves its general position, adhering to the agreement on the subject in the Control Council Report.

2. “(2) To forbid immediately in the camps for displaced persons any propaganda and agitation hostile to the interests of the Allies or of any of the Allied Powers and likewise to forbid any attempt to prevent displaced persons from returning to their homeland”.

[Page 413]

All Delegations agreed to recommend to the C.F.M. to instruct the Allied Control Council to implement immediately sub-paras (ii) to (v) inclusive of para 5 of Section VII 2 of its Report.82

In this connexion the U.S. Delegation refers once more to its statement in para 1 above with reference to the International Refugee Organisation.

3. “(3) To disband immediately all “Committees”, “centres and other organisations in the western zones of occupation in Germany which are engaged in activity hostile to the interests of any of the Allied Powers.”

No agreement has been reached on this proposal.

The U.S. Delegation is prepared to consider and study the Soviet proposals to see if language could be agreed upon which would permit D.P.s to organise and still not become organisations hostile to the Allied Powers. For the time being it is necessary to reserve the U.S. position on this proposal.

The French Delegation declares that it is ready to accept the Soviet proposal with the reserve that the words “which are engaged” should he replaced by the words “when they are engaged”.

The U.K. Delegation states that while there is not necessarily disagreement on the principle contained in this proposal final agreement will depend upon the precise drafting of any resolution arising from it.

4. “(4) To forbid any kind of enlistment whatsoever of displaced persons in semi-military organisations (guard units, guard companies, etc.) now in existence or being formed in the territory of the western zones of Germany, and to release those displaced persons who already belong to such organisations.”

All Delegations agree that the decision on this point will depend on the decision which may be taken on the corresponding point in the section on Demilitarisation.

5. “(5) To provide that the administration of the camps for displaced persons shall consist primarily of the representatives of States whose citizens are among the displaced persons.”

No agreement has been reached on this proposal.

It is the view of the U.S. Delegation that this question is a problem for the I.R.O.

[Page 414]

The French Delegation cannot accept the Soviet proposal. It reserves its point of view on the role which can be entrusted to I.R.O.

The U.K. Delegation cannot at this time agree to the Soviet proposal.

The Soviet Delegation opposes the U.S. proposal.

6. “(6) To transfer under guard military criminals in the camps for displaced persons to the military command of the countries concerned.”

All three Delegations agree in principle to this proposal.

The U.S. and U.K. Delegations give their agreement subject to the production of satisfactory evidence that the individuals whose transfer is requested are in fact war criminals.

7. “(7) To form a special quadrilateral committee for investigating the situation in the camps for displaced persons located in the American, British and French Zones of occupation, in order to ascertain the desire and intention of these persons to return to their homeland.”

No agreement was reached on this proposal.

The U.S. Delegation supports the view that I.R.O. should take over the investigation of D.P. camps proposed in the para 7 if it is necessary to have such an investigation.

The French Delegation considers that the right of visit granted to the accredited representatives of the countries concerned should give adequate guarantees. For this reason it does not believe it indispensible to create a special quadripartite commission.

The U.K. Delegation has this question under consideration. It cannot at this time agree to the Soviet proposal.

II. Proposals of the French Delegation ( CFM/47/M/57, Sec. IV)

1. “1). No new transfer of German-speaking populations shall be effected in addition to those already decided upon by previous agreements.

“2). In so far as the consent of the States concerned can be obtained, the transfers still to be executed under the Potsdam Agreements shall be suspended.”

The Soviet Delegation does not agree with these French proposals.

The U.S. and U.K. Delegations reserve their positions pending the completion of a further study of these problems in which they are prepared to participate.

2. “3). The Control Council shall accelerate the voluntary repatriation of displaced persons who are now in Germany. Permanent settlement of such persons in German territory shall not be authorized. Resettlement outside of Germany of persons whom it has been impossible to repatriate shall be encouraged.”

[Page 415]

The Soviet Delegation agrees with this French proposal.

The U.S. Delegation agrees in principle with the desirability of accelerating voluntary repatriation of Displaced Persons, and with their resettlement outside Germany to the extent that provision is made therefor. It believes the I.R.O. should be charged with this responsibility.

The U.K. Delegation agrees with the first and third sentences but not with the second sentence. It recognizes that the permanent establishment of these persons in Germany is undesirable, but thinks it may prove to be in some measure unavoidable.

3. “4). German emigration shall be organized. To this end, a conference of the qualified representatives of the Four Occupying Powers shall be convoked before July 1, 1947, in Paris. To the extent that it shall deem useful, this conference can invite the representatives of other States and in particular those which are in a position to receive German emigrants into their territory.”

The Soviet Delegation does not agree with this French proposal.

The U.S. Delegation reserves its position pending further study which it considers necessary.

The U.K. Delegation has not yet taken up its position on this point.

III. Proposal of the U.S. Delegation (based on CFM/47/M/1983)

“that the whole problem of Displaced Persons be not discussed in detail by the Council of Foreign Ministers but be referred to the I.R.O.

The Soviet Delegation does not agree with this proposal, considering that the questions of resettlement and redistribution of the Displaced Persons which fall under the competence of the Control Council in Germany are included within the competence of the Council of Foreign Ministers and that there are no reasons to exclude these questions from the competence of the Council of Foreign Ministers and the Allied Control Council. On the contrary, the I.R.O. cannot deal with such questions. According to the terms of reference of the I.R.O. (which is attached to the U.N.O.) to which the Soviet Government has not adhered only purely humanitarian and not political aims fall under the competence of this organization as has been officially stated by the founders of the organization.

The French and U.K. Delegations reserved their positions.

[Page 416]

IV. Proposal of the Soviet Delegation (Supplementary Proposal)

“The Council of Foreign Ministers instructs the Allied Control Council as follows:

‘in view of the fact that each occupation power had the opportunity to complete in full the repatriation of Displaced Persons and Refugees to their countries of origin after the capitulation of Germany, it should be prohibited to charge any expenses incurred for the maintenance of Displaced Persons and Refugees to German account or to the account of occupation forces as of 1 January 1947.’”

The U.S. Delegation reserves its position but points out that in its opinion the pressure on the German economy would be more effectively relieved by stopping the influx of additional refugees into Germany.

The French and U.K. Delegations reserve their positions.

There was agreement that this proposal should be reported to the Council of Foreign Ministers.

V. Proposals of the U.K. Delegation

  • “1). The Control Council shall study further the whole question of the transfers of population into Germany with a view to directing to the areas best able to receive them those populations whose transfer to Germany is still to be expected. Account shall be taken in this study of the situation existing in each zone, the contribution already made by each Zone Commander to the solution of the problem and the commitments still outstanding.
  • “2). The Control Council shall carry out a redistribution of refugees and expellees already transferred to the various zones of Germany, in order to effect a more equitable and more even settlement. A German commission shall be established to study this question. This commission shall be accorded freedom of action and of movement throughout Germany as a whole and shall be responsible for the implementation of its own recommendations subject to the rights of the governments of the Laender being safeguarded and subject to general supervision of the Control Council.”

All Delegations agreed to forward these U.K. proposals to the Council of Foreign Ministers, considering it impossible at the present time to define their positions with regard to these proposals, which have not been discussed.

vii. economic principles

preamble

The position of each Delegation with respect to each specific proposal is dependent upon reaching agreement as a whole on the related problems of the level of industry reparations, and the treatment of Germany as an economic unit.

[Page 417]

The French Delegation adds the following reservations: It cannot agree to any settlement of these three questions without prior settlement of the question of the export of coal in conformity with the demands of the French Government. The French Government repeats that it is ready to accept that Germany should be treated provisionally within its present borders as an economic unity without awaiting the determination of the future status of the Ruhr and Rhineland or prejudging the political and economic regime of those regions, and on the condition that the Saar should immediately be incorporated in the economic and monetary sphere of France.

The Soviet Delegation declares that it approaches the consideration of economic principles in an organic connection with the question of reparations to which, as was stated by the head of the Soviet Delegation, the Soviet Government attaches paramount importance. In considering separate proposals advanced by various delegations concerning economic principles and especially with regard to reparations, the Soviet Delegation sees a series of points on which it can find a common solution of questions, only, however, having in view that it will meet reciprocity in the question of reparations to which it attaches a special importance.

1. Common Sharing of Resources

All delegations are agreed in principle that there should be a sharing of indigenous resources in Germany and that commodities in short supply should be allocated on a basis of uniform rations. Agricultural production shall be maximized and industry reactivated on peaceful lines as soon as possible and imports into Germany shall also be used on a common basis.

2. Export-Import Plan

All delegations agree in principle that there should be a common export-import plan. The U.S. and U.K. Delegations believe that the proceeds of all exports from current production and stocks should be used in the first place to pay for imports.

The Soviet Delegation considers that proceeds from exports must be used also for procurement of imports necessary for securing production of goods for reparations.

The French Delegation reserves its position on the Soviet proposal until the question of reparations from current production has been examined.

3. Sharing of Import Deficits

The U.K. and the U.S. Delegations express the view that there should be an equitable sharing among the occupying powers of the costs of the occupation of Germany, past, present, and future.

[Page 418]

The French Delegation states that the common plan for exports and imports, to be implemented in 1948, should provide for equilibrium in the balance of payments. It believes that the future surpluses should cover the authorized costs of occupation, the past deficits of the balance of payments, and such reparations from current production as may result from the study of that question which was requested by the French Delegation.

The Soviet Delegation is of the opinion that only the future relationship between exports and imports can be considered and not the repayment of past and present deficits. Furthermore, the Soviet Delegation considers that the German economy should be established on the principle of a net balance, i.e., not showing any deficit.

4. Financial Reform

All Delegations are agreed that financial reform shall be effected throughout Germany as soon as possible. The agreement of the Soviet Delegation is based upon acceptance of the principle that the plan for financial reform must provide the funds necessary for reparation and costs of occupation.

5. Subjection of Resources in Germany to German Law

All Delegations agree that foreign-owned property in Germany is subject to German law and that Allied Control Council approval shall be required in the future for all acquisitions of property in Germany by foreign States or their nationals. The U.S., U.K. and French Delegations believe that this provision should be retroactive to the date of the surrender of Germany. The Soviet Delegation declares that it is not in agreement with the extension of this provision to past acquisitions of property in Germany which were made in connection with reparations receipts. The French Delegation reserves its point of view in regard to the future regime of Ruhr industries.

6. Occupation Forces and Their Requirements

The proposals of the U.S. Delegation ((CFM) (47) (M)27, para. B5 and (CFM) (47) (M)51)84) on these subjects are under examination by the other delegations but the issues involved have not been joined.

7. Freedom of Movement

No agreement has been reached on the proposals of the Delegations of the U.K. and the U.S. (CFM) (47) (M)47,85 para. 3B and (CFM) (47) (M)27, para C.

[Page 419]

8. Control of the Ruhr

All Delegations agree that the authority of the Allied Control Council should extend over the resources of the Ruhr as well as those of all other areas of Germany when economic unity has been attained.

The Soviet Delegation considers that a quadripartite control of the Ruhr industrial region which forms the main basis of German militarism must be established, and that this is one of the most important conditions for the solution of the question of the economic unity of Germany.

This report does not prejudge a separate discussion of the internationalization of the Ruhr at the proper time on the Council of Foreign Ministers agenda. The French Delegation desires to see this regime established as soon as possible.

9. Annullment of the Bi-Zonal Agreement

The Soviet Delegation proposes the immediate annullment of the bi-zonal agreement between the U.K. and U.S. zones of occupation. The U.S. and the U.K. Delegations state that the agreement will remain in effect until the economic unity of Germany has been achieved.

10. Economic Decentralization and De-cartelization

All Delegations are of the opinion that the principles of de-cartelization and economic decentralization agreed at the Potsdam Conference should be carried out. Complete agreement has not been reached by the four Delegations on concrete measures for the implementation of this program.

In expressing agreement with the above statement, the Soviet Delegation considers that the proposal which comes closest to the Potsdam Agreement is contained in the Soviet draft proposal Document C.F.M. (47) (M)23,86 paragraph 6.

The proposals of the Soviet, French and U.K. Delegations are presented below:

By the Soviet Delegation (CFM(47) (M)23, para. I 6 (p. 15))

“To propose to the Control Council that necessary measures be adopted for the taking over of mills and other enterprises from German concerns, cartels and trusts, and for the transfer of these enterprises to the ownership of the German state. Democratic parties and free trade unions of Germany shall be called upon for the carrying out of these measures.”

By the French Delegation (CFM(47) (M)57, para. IV 6)

[Page 420]

“6) The Control Council shall take the following steps in the field of decartelization:

  • ‘(a) establishment of a list of the principal trusts which shall be automatically eliminated in the four zones;
  • ‘(b) determination of the characteristics according to which the other trusts may be brought before a quadripartite liquidation commission;
  • ‘(c) appropriate measures to avoid reconstitution of the trusts which have been liquidated and the creation of new trusts;
  • ‘(d) limitation or elimination of the cartels under the terms provided for by United Nations economic organizations;
  • ‘(e) exceptions to the rules thus established as regards trusts and cartels under a quadripartite agreement in favor of the undertakings or establishments managed or controlled by the Allies.’”

By the U.K. Delegation (CFM(47) (M)47, Economic Principles, para 6)

“That measures for the breaking up of concentrations of economic power, as exemplified by cartels, syndicates, trusts and other arrangements, shall be hastened; and that the socialisation of certain industries shall be regarded as one method of carrying this out.”

11. Allied Control Over Internal Allocations in Germany

The Soviet Delegation agrees with the French proposal for strengthening Allied control over the distribution and use of coal, power and steel in Germany. It considers it necessary to add that allocation of coal for internal consumption, for reparation and for export should be exercised through the Allied Control Council. Furthermore, with respect to the supply of coal the problems of internal consumption, reparations and exports are organically inter-related, and their consideration in close relationship forms one of the conditions for securing economic unity for Germany.

The U.S. and U.K. Delegations agree with the French proposal in principle with the reservation that detailed arrangements shall preserve a substantial measure of autonomy for the German administrative agencies charged with allocations.

12. Central Administrative Agencies

This subject will be treated in the section concerning the Provisional Government of Germany.

The proposals discussed above are included in the following CFM documents:

CFM (47) (M) 23
27
47
51
57

[Page 421]

viii. the level of post-war german economy and reparations plan

A. Level of German Post-War Economy

1. The four Delegations agree on the necessity of a revision of the plan for reparations and the level of German post-war economy.

The agreement of the U.S. and U.K. Delegations pertains only to such changes in the proposed removals of capital equipment as may be necessitated by such revision of the level of industry plan as is agreed.

The United Kingdom and French Delegations agree that the guiding principles of this revision should be fixed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.

The Soviet Delegation considers that it is necessary to provide for raising the level of German industry, so that the annual production of steel will in the very near future reach ten to twelve million tons. The United Kingdom Delegation considers that annual steel production in Germany should eventually be brought up to ten million tons; and that the limits on the capacity to be left in Germany of other restricted industries shall be subject to upward adjustments; and that the list of prohibited industries shall be reviewed.

The French Delegation considers that the annual capacity of steel production should be fixed at approximately the figure provided for in March, 1946.

The United States Delegation is not in a position to determine the exact figure for steel production for the time being.

The Soviet Delegation feels that this revision should take into account a program of reparations from current production. The United Kingdom and United States Delegations do not agree to this proposal.

2. The four Delegations agree to direct the Control Council to complete the revision of the plan for Reparations and the level of postwar German economy before July 1, 1947, to set up within a three-month’s period after the completion of this revision lists of factories to be retained in the four zones. The plants thereby made available for reparations shall be immediately closed in the four zones. The United States view is that all plants other than those referred to in the lists above are to be removed. The acceptance of the proposed dates by the United Kingdom Delegation is dependent upon a satisfactory revision of the plan for reparations and the level of post-war German economy.

3. The United Kingdom and United States Delegations agree that the rehabilitation of German industry shall be effected on a progressive plan having due regard to the necessity of exporting coal to the [Page 422] liberated countries. In particular the rate by which steel production is increased shall be determined in relation to the need for coal exports provided that the burden of cost on the occupying powers is not increased as a result [of?] this consideration.

The French Delegation favors this proposal provided that its implementation would be such as to satisfy French claims, formulated as an absolute condition, with regard to coal exports.

The Soviet Delegation accepts the British proposal with an addition: “it is recognised that deliveries of coal on account of reparations are necessary”.

B. Reparations

1. The four Delegations agree to direct the Control Council to determine within three months following the completion of the Plan for Reparations and the Level of Post-war German Economy to establish the lists of the plants and the amount [of?] equipment taken away or to be taken away within the four zones as reparations.

2. The Soviet and French Delegations are of the opinion that the Control Council should be instructed to allocate, aside from complete plants, separate pieces of equipment to be taken from the plants that are retained. The United Kingdom and United States Delegations reserve their position.

3. The four Delegations agree to fix a time limit for the completion of the program of reparations from industrial capital equipment. The United Kingdom and United States Delegations consider that this time limit can be fixed only after a study by the Control Council. The Soviet Delegation considers that this time limit should be fixed by July 1, 1948. The French Delegation suggests December 31, 1948.

4. The Soviet Delegation proposes to utilize for the coverage of reparation annual deliveries of goods from current production.

The French Delegation proposes a study of a program of reparations from current production, taking into account the repercussions of this program on the amounts of German coal available and also on the war potential and the balance of accounts.

The United Kingdom and United States Delegations do not agree to reparations from current production; they are not authorized to accept a study of the question.

The acceptance of reparations from current production is an absolute condition of the Soviet Delegation’s acceptance of the principle of the economic unity of Germany.

5. The Soviet Delegation considers that various services should be utilized as coverage for reparations.

The French Delegation considers that the Council of Ministers should study the possibility of reparations in services and other items.

[Page 423]

The United Kingdom and United States Delegations reserve their position.

The United States Delegation adds that it is opposed to the use of labor for reparations except after trial and sentence of war criminals under due process of law.

The French Delegation reserves its position in order to show that a mechanism can be devised to utilize services without loss of individual rights.

6. The Soviet Delegation considers that it is necessary to assert reparations for the U.S.S.R. to the extent of ten billion dollars and the Soviet Union will satisfy the reparation claims of Poland from its share.

The Soviet Delegation considers it necessary to determine that the reparations obligations of Germany must be fulfilled in the course of twenty years counting this period from the date of publication of the decisions of the Berlin Conference of the Three Powers.

Owing to the position taken with regard to reparations from current production, the United Kingdom and United States Delegations feel that it is unnecessary for them to comment on the sum and time period for reparations.

The French Delegation reserves its position pending the completion of the study provided in that proposal on reparations from current production, services and other items.

In connection with the positions of the United States and United Kingdom Delegations with regard to reparations from Germany the Soviet Delegation considers it necessary to make the following statement:

1.
At the Yalta Conference the U.S.A. agreed to adopt as a basis for the discussion the proposal that the amount of reparations to the Soviet Union be established at 10 billion dollars. As it can be seen from the Yalta Protocol the American Delegation did not object against discussing the said amount as a basis for the establishment of the volume of reparations to be paid to the Soviet Union. On the contrary, it has agreed to this proposal.
2.
It is quite logical, while speaking about the sum of reparations to be established at 10 billion dollars, to determine simultaneously the term of reparations payment.
3.
At the Yalta Conference, as it can be seen from the Protocol issued by it, the United States and United Kingdom Delegations agreed that the annual deliveries of goods from the current production should constitute a source of reparations from Germany. Attempts to base the refusal to make any reparations from the current production on the fact that the Berlin decisions annulled the Yalta agreement cannot of course be considered as founded if only due to the fact that the Berlin decisions state that agreement with regard to reparations was reached in accordance with the decisions of the Crimea Conference, [Page 424] and with the purpose of fulfilling the decisions of this conference with respect to Germany. Such a reference to the Yalta Conference makes unnecessary any mention of different concrete points of the Yalta agreement with regard to reparations. If the Berlin decision contains no mention of reparations from the current production we cannot explain this fact as a rejection of such a principal position with regard to reparations. The question concerning current production was not practically discussed at Berlin. Special attention was paid to the removals of equipment. The Soviet proposals with regard to reparations are justified by moral, political and juridical principles.

The head of the United States Delegation has expressed his view on this subject before the Council of Foreign Ministers. (See Document CFM/47/M/30)87

7. The Soviet and French Delegations propose that the Inter-Allied Reparations Commission, consisting of representatives of the United Kingdom, United States, France and the Soviet Union be reactivated. The United Kingdom and United States Delegations do not consider it necessary to reactivate the Inter-Allied Reparations Commission.

8. The U.K. Delegation proposes that each of the Occupying Powers shall provide for the Council of Foreign Ministers information on the type and amount of reparation removals from its zone up to the present date and regularly thereafter to the Control Council.

The United States and French Delegations agree with the British proposal.

The British proposal can be accepted by the Soviet Delegation if agreement is reached on the basic reparations problems. At the same time the Soviet Delegation proposes to amend the text as follows:

“That each of the Occupying Powers shall provide for the Council of Foreign Ministers information on the type and amount of reparation removals and receipts from its zone and also the external assets discovered or seized up to the present date and regularly thereafter to the Control Council.”

9. The United Kingdom, United States and Soviet Delegations agree, if the determined plan for the delivery of reparations is regularly fulfilled, to consider it possible not to put any obstacles in the way of the increase of production of the German peace-time industry, both for the domestic consumption of Germany and for the development of trade with other countries. The French Delegation reserves its point of view.

10. The United States proposes that the Council of Foreign Ministers direct the Deputies to the Foreign Ministers to recommend to the next (fifth) Session of the Council methods for compensation to the [Page 425] United Nations nationals whose property has been or will be removed as reparation or war booty. In no case shall compensation be permitted for United Nations nationals owning interests in German enterprises organized exclusively for war production. The United Kingdom and French Delegations agreed subject to confirmation. The Soviet Delegation considered that the proposal requires study.

  1. This is a continuation of the Coordinating Committee Report begun in document CFM(47) (M) 64, March 26, 1947, p. 401.
  2. Statement made by Foreign Minister Molotov at the 12th Meeting of the Council, March 22; for the text, see Molotov, Problems of Foreign Policy, pp. 391–399; for a summary, see telegram 963, Delsec 1336, March 22, from Moscow, p. 276.
  3. Statement by the United States Delegation on the form and scope of a provisional political organization for Germany, dated March 22, 1947; for the text, see Germany 1947–1949, pp. 189–190, or Department of State Bulletin, March 30, 1947, pp. 569–570.
  4. A proposed directive to the Allied Control Authority for Germany on the treatment of Germany as a single economic unit, tabled by Secretary Marshall at the Council’s 7th Meeting, March 17; for the text, see Germany 1947–1949, pp. 444–445, or Department of State Bulletin, March 27, 1947, pp. 567–569.
  5. Memorandum by the French Government, dated January 17, 1947, and subsequently circulated to the Council of Foreign Ministers as document CFM(47) (M)40, March 21, 1947; for text, see Documents Français Relatifs à L’Allemagne (Août 1945–Février 1947) (Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1947), pp. 42–45.
  6. Memorandum by the French Government, dated January 17, 1947, and subsequently circulated to the Council of Foreign Ministers as document CFM(47) (M)41, March 21, 1947; for text, see ibid., pp. 46–56.
  7. Statement made by Foreign Minister Bidault at the 12th Meeting of the Council; for the text, see Déclarations de Bidault , pp. 29–31; for a summary, see telegram 963, Delsec 1336, March 22, from Moscow, p. 276.
  8. Dated March 24, 1947, and entitled “Resolutions Proposed by the French Delegation in Connection with the Discussion of the Report of the Control Council”, not printed.
  9. Statement tabled by Foreign Minister Bevin at the 11th Meeting of the Council, March 21, and entitled “Suggested Principles for Development of Future Political Structure of Germany”, not printed.
  10. A statement by the Soviet Delegation on the question of displaced persons in Germany, presented to the Council of Foreign Ministers at its 6th Meeting, March 15, not printed.
  11. The reference here is to the Report to the Council of Foreign Ministers from the Allied Control Authority for Germany, Section VII—Population Transfers, Part 2, paragraph (5) “Agreements Already Reached”. Sub-paragraph (i) was concerned with the freedom of access to displaced persons camps in Germany by representatives of nations whose citizens were in such camps.
  12. The sub-paragraphs under reference forbade, in displaced persons camps, all propaganda against United Nations interests or against repatriation; confirmed the free distribution of newspapers, magazines, etc., in displaced persons camps and the unrestricted use by displaced persons of international communications; endorsed the continuation of the work of organizations tracing United Nations displaced persons and prisoners of war; and approved the continuation of the census and registration of the property and belongings of displaced persons.
  13. Text of a statement on displaced persons made by Secretary Marshall at the 6th Meeting of the Council, March 15; for the text, see Department of State Bulletin, March 23, 1947, p. 526.
  14. Not printed.
  15. The document under reference was a proposal by the United Kingdom Delegation on economic principles for Germany, dated March 22, 1947, not printed. The specific paragraph under reference here called for unrestricted freedom of movement throughout Germany and the removal of economic barriers between zones.
  16. A statement made by Foreign Minister Molotov at the 7th Meeting of the Council, March 17; for the text, see Documents on International Affairs, 1947–1948, pp. 427–439, or Molotov, Problems of Foreign Policy, pp. 359–378. For a summary, see telegram 856, Delsec 1308, March 17, from Moscow, p. 255.
  17. A statement made by Secretary Marshall at the 8th Meeting of the Council, March 18; for the text, see Germany 1947–1949, pp. 371–372, or Department of State Bulletin, March 30, 1947, p. 564.