Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Germany and Austria, Volume II

740.00119 Council/5–1348: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State

secret

London, May 13, 1948—9 p. m.

2108. Delsec 1733. Yesterday’s informal meeting between heads of delegations including Benelux¹ reached agreement on certain heretofore unresolved issues as follows:

First. Re interpretation of “people of affected areas” paragraph two paper on political organization, French withdrew objection British proposal for voting procedure on alternative (1) cited Delsec 1732.² Robertson proposals thus agreed.

Second. Clay and Robertson who undertook to reconsider the wording of paragraph 3(D) of draft letter on powers of civil and military governments³ reached conclusion that until new Länder boundaries were known not enough data and information were at their disposal to enable them to define exact relationship between respective Military Govts [Governors] and German state govts. After new boundaries agreed respective military govts [Governors] will no doubt have to reach new agreement defining method and procedure for exercise of military government powers over new state governments. US Delegation feels that procedure agreed for exercising control over federal government should apply likewise to control of state governments and that there should be majority decision of three military governors or their deputies for any action taken by military government in any of Länder.

This principle is not acceptable to Robertson. French appear to support US view although they have not yet formulated their position. Therefore, discussion postponed until exact Länder boundaries are known. For the purpose of draft letter paragraph 3 (D) was replaced by following wording agreed upon by British and US Delegations. French Delegation requested additional time for consideration.

“When the military governors will have received recommendations from the Ministers President regarding revision of state boundaries, they will agree upon an organization of military government, in the states and approve the submission of these recommendations to the people in the affected areas.”

Third. At suggestion of US Delegation paragraph 1 (E) of draft letter on constitution⁴ was amended to authorize federal government to enact such measures of coordination in field of public health as are essential to safeguard health of the people in the several states.

Fourth. Re paper on protection allied interests (Delsec 1721⁵) US delegation emphasized that it could not accept Benelux proposal to set up special intergovernmental committee to consider with military governors whether measures to safeguard allied interests were required and what form should take. US position had not yet crystallized. Problem of protection of foreign interests embraces important questions of international law, policy and vast variety of other subjects partly of very technical nature. USDel suggested therefore that each government first set up its own study group prior to establishment of intergovernmental committee to review problem and make recommendations to their governments.

In addition it was felt that term “allied” interest is misleading because technically US has no allied relations with any country and the British are technically allies of Soviets. On other hand, term, “United Nations interests” would exclude Swiss and Swedish interests. US proposal to substitute “foreign” for “allied” was accepted. Following changes were agreed in draft report (see Delsec 1721) which has now been approved:

• “(A) Agreed to following wording for paragraph one: ‘The Conference recommends that the principle of nondiscrimination against foreign interests in Germany be reaffirmed and that each government should promptly study the problem of safeguarding foreign interests in order that there may be subsequently established as close to 1 September 1948 as possible in intergovernmental group to review the question and make recommendations to their governments.’
• (B) Agreed to change throughout the paper the expression ‘allied interests’ to ‘foreign interests’.
• (C) Agreed to eliminate paragraph 3 of the paper.
• (D) Agreed to give opportunity to Benelux countries to discuss with the military governors measures to be taken with view to resumption of normal management of their property interests in Germany.
• (E) Agreed to contents of paragraph 5 which had now become paragraph 3 of the paper.”

Fifth. In connection with contemplated modification of German Laender boundaries in paragraph 2 paper on Political Organization Benelux representative circulated letter dated May 12 (quoted below) reiterating Benelux territorial demands and other economic claims which were embodied in CFM (D) (47) (G) 64 dated February 19, 1947.⁶

US delegate replied that in its opinion Article 2 of Paris Reparation Agreement⁷ prevents countries parties to the agreement from making financial and economic claims on ground that Article 2 A of said agreement provided for full settlement of all such claims by means of reparations. Very essence of reparations was to compensate the countries for all economic damage suffered as result of the war and occupation by Hitler Germany. Van Verduynen relied on subparagraph 3 of paragraph B of Article 2 and maintained that the settlement envisaged in paragraph A is without prejudice to “any political, territorial or other demands which any signatory government may put forward with respect to the peace settlement of Germany”. Discussion of Benelux letter will be resumed May 18 to give delegations time for study.

It is submitted that language in subparagraph three of paragraph B of Article 2 of Paris agreement gives certain support to Benelux contention. On other hand paragraph A would become meaningless if term “other demands” in paragraph B would enable signatory governments to put forward any claim against Germany and its nationals to extent that such claims are not satisfied by way of reparations. Your comments by Monday May 17 on interpretation of Article 2 of Paris Reparations Agreement would be appreciated. Please cable also any reference to the history of the Paris negotiations which might shed light on intention of signatory parties and on meaning of wording of Article 2 A and B.

Verbatim text of letter of May 12 from Dutch Ambassador.

[Here follows the text of Ambassador Michiels van Verduynen’s letter of May 12 to Strang (in his capacity as Conference chairman); regarding the letter, see telegram 2148, Delsec 1740, May 18, from London, page 249.]

Introductory sentence and fourth point only repeated to American Embassy The Hague, Brussels (keep Luxembourg informed), Rome, Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen as Delsec 1737.

Sent Department 2108, repeated Berlin 132, Paris 215.

Douglas

1. This was the 5th Informal Meeting of the London Conference on Germany.
2. May 12, p. 237.
3. For the version of the draft letter under reference here, ultimately approved by the Conference, see document TRI/17 (Final), May 19, p. 260.
4. For the approved version of this paper, see document TRI/15 (Final), May 12, p. 240.
5. Dated May 6, p. 226. For the final version of the paper under reference here (TRI/18 (Final), May 31), see p. 307.
6. The document under reference is not printed, but the salient points were included in the Report by the Deputies for Germany to the Council of Foreign Ministers, February 25, 1947, Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. ii, p. 40.
7. For the text of the Paris Agreement on Reparation, signed in Paris on December 21, 1945, see Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series No. 1655, or 61 Stat. (pt. 3) 3157; for documentation on the negotiations leading to the conclusion of this agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. iii, pp. 1169 ff.