740.00119 Council/5–148: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
1882. Delsec 1706. Re Delsec 1699, April 29.1 There was informal discussion of reparations deliveries and allocations Friday evening between heads of delegations and assistants.2
Strang reported Bevin’s views as follows: In view of certain contemplated steps including announcement currency reform3 and probable announcement re organization of German Government which will be distasteful to Soviets, it would be “overloading the board” to discontinue reparation deliveries to them at this time. For this reason and in view of fact that Soviets are making timely reciprocal deliveries, it is British position that quadripartite allocations should be resumed and that deliveries to Soviets on some basis should be continued. He proposed calling a meeting of quadripartite council4 for purposes making allocations on regular Potsdam basis. Strang indicated that he was authorized to negotiate with heads other delegations only regarding possible announcement to Soviets that henceforth reciprocal deliveries must be made on current basis.
Douglas with General Clay’s full concurrence expressed in emphatic terms view that it would ‘be most unwise and inadvisable for the three western powers to make an attempt at this time to reconvene the ACC for the purpose of making new quadripartite allocations. Such action on our part would be a sign of weakness and would be so interpreted by the Soviets. General Clay expressed view that such a move particularly if coupled with a resumption of deliveries to the Soviet at this time would have disastrous political effect in Germany. Douglas recommended [Page 215] that there be tripartite announcement to effect that because of the Soviet “walk-out” from the ACC and their continued violation of various important provisions of Potsdam agreement, the other three powers will undertake allocations on tripartite basis. The Soviet share might be allocated but their share would be “put on ice” and delivery thereof indefinitely postponed. (British technical adviser voiced opinion that it would be practically feasible to do this.)
Massigli supported fully this statement of US position and said that in the French view the most important aspect of entire matter is to make sure that reparations deliveries to the Western European nations be resumed at earliest possible date. French fear that any attempted resumption quadripartite allocation will delay indefinitely deliveries to the west and they therefore favor immediate tripartite allocation. French consider time of the essence because they are convinced that if matter is delayed until establishment of German Government, there will be so much resistance to reparations that they will never be realized. Concerning the technical cloud on title in consequence to tripartite allocations, Massigli felt certain that the western nations would overlook this technicality because of their great desire to receive reparations. French do not believe that Soviet point of view will be significantly affected by any action western nations may take concerning reparations.
Douglas then requested views of other regarding deliveries to satellites. Strang ventured opinion that satellites should not be excluded from normal deliveries following IARA allocations. However, he appeared favorably impressed by Massigli’s recommendation that full IARA allocations be made but that, without making announcement of any change in policy, deliveries to satellites be indefinitely postponed owing to “administrative difficulties”. Douglas said that US delegation saw much merit in Massigli’s proposal. Clay indicated that all deliveries to satellites from US Zone have been discontinued, and referred to provision of Potsdam agreement empowering zonal commanders to withhold reparation deliveries. There was general agreement that this procedure would be possible within framework IARA agreement and that satellites would be unsuccessful if upon discovery of intentions they should attempt block allocations.
Clay suggested that Soviets might possibly endeavor initiate quadripartite allocations and recommended that if they should make such a move, we should agree to participate quadripartite allocations but at the same time inform them that they will receive no deliveries until all our other conditions are met.
At conclusion of meeting Strang agreed to discuss entire matter again with Bevin in light of the positions and arguments of US and French delegations.
[Page 216]Sent Department 1882; repeated USPolAd Berlin for OMGUS 109.
- Not printed; it reported that the conferees at the London Conference on Germany would meet shortly to discuss reparations (740.00119 Council/4–3048).↩
- According to Ambassador Murphy’s rough notes of this meeting, a copy of which was transmitted to John D. Hickerson under cover of a brief letter dated May 5, neither printed, those participating in the discussion were Strang, Massigli, Douglas, Clay, and Murphy (740.00119 EW/5–548).↩
- Documentation regarding the projected currency reform in the Western zones of occupation of Germany is included in chapter vi.↩
- i.e., the Allied Control Council for Germany. Documentation on the breakdown of quadripartite administration in Germany is included in chapter vi.↩