740.00119 Council/5–1248: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
2072. Delsec 1732. Informal meeting heads of delegations with principal advisers yesterday afternoon1 discussed paper on German [Page 238] political organization and draft letters on constitution and on powers of civil and military governments.2 Benelux Delegation also present, having been furnished copies three papers under discussion day before. Van Verduynen registered complaint against exclusion Benelux Delegation from preliminary talks. He felt problem German political organization was of vital interest to Benelux whose representatives were at decided disadvantage being brought in this late stage without background earlier discussions.
Strang explained subject dealing with government for three western zones was primary concern of three occupying powers, involving their relations vis-à-vis one another and German authorities. For this reason representatives of occupying powers had decided first consult together in drawing up preliminary papers and now welcomed Benelux observations. Strang reminded Benelux Delegation that he had some days ago given quite detailed story on progress of preliminary talks.
In reply to question re Soviet reactions to setting up government in Western Germany, Douglas stated USDel believes failure to proceed with next logical steps this direction would be construed by Soviets as sign of weakness and that we need not be concerned that our actions may provoke Soviets. As things are now we must think of arresting Soviets.
Massigli indicated he was not as convinced as Douglas that steps contemplated in papers under discussion were unrelated to Soviet reactions. He felt this question should be discussed later with reference particularly to timing of publication of decisions and mapping course of action in face of possible Soviet actions such as setting up government in Eastern Germany.
Meeting then discussed three draft papers with following results.
Paper on Political Organization: French continue to reserve position with respect to bracketed phrases in paragraphs 2 and 4. Massigli stated he was not refusing accept US–UK position on election as distinct from designation of members to Constituent Assembly but at the moment French Delegation preferred leave question in suspense.
Benelux were inclined to think designation by Laender governments was preferable. If it were decided that delegates should be elected, Benelux hoped ratification would be on basis of plebiscite.
Benelux also pointed out modifications of Laender boundaries might affect external boundaries as well. In view of well-known Benelux territorial claims they wanted understanding that any international [Page 239] boundary modifications would not prejudice such Benelux claims. It was agreed Benelux would put views in writing in letter to Chairman.
Robertson reported results his discussions with Clay and Koenig on interpretation of “people of affected areas” (paragraph 2) as it affected problem North Rhineland-Westphalen. He envisaged three possible recommendations by Ministers-President: (1) That North Rhineland be separated from Westphalen as separate Land; (2) that part of North Rhineland west of Rhine [be] separated from Westphalen and be joined to South Rhineland; and (3) that South Rhineland be joined to North Rhineland-Westphalen.3
In case (3) should be recommended, Military governments [Governors] should veto proposal unless there were general policy agreement that Western Germany consist of few large states. If (2) recommended, people of North Rhineland west of Rhine and people of South Rhineland should decide question by simple majority vote. If (1) recommended, people of North Rhineland would vote as well as people of Westphalen. If former were in favor of separation, separation would occur only if one-third total vote both areas approved, Massigli was opposed to principle that people of Westphalen should have any say in the matter and suggested it would be better to agree that separation would be authorized if two-thirds North Rhineland vote favored separation. British willing to set figure at 75%. US ready accept whatever figure British and French work out between them.
Draft letter on constitution: British and French accepted US proposed language for paragraph 1(C) on understanding military governments would endeavor agree prior to September 1 on exact nature police powers permitted federal government. All delegates agreed in principle that federal government would have to have limited police powers but felt it was unnecessary for purposes of draft letter on constitution to attempt go into details. (This draft letter is now agreed.)
Draft letter on powers of civil and military governments: (Discussion based on revised paper presented by Robertson after discussions with Clay and Koenig. (Following is text of agreed paper as it emerged from meeting. Letter now agreed except for French reservation re paragraph 3(D). French raised point in that connection that probably boundary changes crossing zonal lines may leave French zone commander without capital city and with, uncertain jurisdiction. Begin verbatim text.
[Here follows the text of document TRI/17 (Second Revise), May 11, 1948, not printed. For the definitive version of this paper, see document TRI/17 (Final), May 19, page 260.]
[Page 240]Sent Department 2072, repeated USPolAd Berlin 126 and AmEmbassy Paris 212.
- This was the 2nd Informal Meeting of the London Conference on Germany.↩
- The documents under consideration at this meeting were: document TRI/13 (3rd Revise), May 4, entitled “Political Organisation”, not printed (for the final version of the document, see TRI/13 (Final), May 31, p. 305); document TRI/15 (Revised), May 4, entitled “Letter of Advice to Military Governors Regarding German Constitution”, not printed (for the final version, see TRI/15 (Final), May 12, infra); document TRI/17 (Revised), May 7, entitled “Letter of Advice to Military Governors Regarding Powers of Civil and Military Governments”, not printed (for the final version, see TRI/17 (Final), May 19, p. 260).↩
- The proposals summarized here were subsequently incorporated in a Conference document (TRI/19 (Final), May 26) included as an annex to TRI/13 (Final), May 31, p. 305.↩