740.00119 Council/5–2048: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
2171. Delsec 1742. Informal meeting yesterday among four delegations1 discussed remaining points disagreement on political organization papers and Benelux letter re territorial and economic claims. Draft letter to military governors re powers of civil and military governments2 was approved when French withdrew reservation on proposed substitute paragraph 3(d) which has now been revised to read as follows: “When the military governors have received the recommendations of the Minister-President re revision of state boundaries, and before approving submission of these recommendations to people of affected areas, the military governors will agree upon an organization of military governments in the states.”
Remaining point at issue in basis political organization paper3 (bracketed phrases in paragraphs 2 and 4) was then discussed at some length without definite agreement. Am still hopeful, particularly after yesterday’s discussion, matter will soon be resolved to meet US/UK views.
Massigli stated French Government unhappy about proposal to hold elections for Constituent Assembly, procedure which would incur [Page 263] greater risk than having delegates chosen by existing Landtage. He is fearful of alleged nationalist trends in Germany.
De Gruben also expressed fears that electoral campaign for Assembly would let loose nationalist forces. Furthermore, best way to insure federal type government would normally be to recognize political bodies already organized as competent to draft constitution, in same way US and Swiss constitutions drawn up.
Douglas, Clay and Strang pointed out importance of having German people assume responsibility for decision whether government for west Germany should be set up and type of government to be created. If delegates were appointed rather than elected we would be open to accusation that constituent body was non-representative or even collaborationist, and hence that constitution did not reflect will of people but was imposed. There were risks involved in either course, but risks of nationalist sentiments arising were less than risks of opening ourselves to criticism of imposing constitution. We already face criticism that we are responsible for dividing Germany but we can at least mitigate if not eliminate such difficulties if we make sure Germans accept responsibility for decisions. Clay was not worried by nationalist trends which he felt better emerge now, when military governments in a position to suppress such movements, than later.
De Gruben was concerned because letter to Military Governors on German constitution4 was not clear how agreed principles in that paper would be made known to Germans. He was afraid Germans might proceed with constitution without taking into account these principles.
Douglas and Clay assured him that there was complete understanding among Military Governors, even though this was not stated in letter on constitution, that their representatives would follow work of Constituent Assembly closely, giving advice and guidance where necessary. This procedure had worked well with Laender constitution in US zone. There was no point in intervening with Germans if they were proceeding along right lines; only when they appeared to deviate would it be necessary to make known agreed principles which they would be required to follow. In practice, no difficulty foreseen, as Clay was convinced on basis his experience Germans anxious to protect powers of states (as indicated by German opposition to limited powers of Upper House in Bizonal Economic Administration). Furthermore, high degree of German cooperation was likely as long as Red Army was just across Elbe.
Meeting agreed to appoint working party to begin preparation of communiqué. Important matters to be covered will be treated approximately as follows: (1) Very general announcement on political organization [Page 264] along lines used in communiqué issued March 6,5 with possible addition to the effect that announcement of decisions through Minister-President would be made at an early date; (2) probably several points on security, depending on results yesterday’s meeting;6 and (3) quite detailed information on Ruhr paper giving main highlights, including possibly excerpts from paper itself.
Meeting then considered Benelux letter re economic and territorial claims.7
Douglas pointed out, lest there be any misunderstanding, that Benelux claims appear to rest on theory of compensation and that he could not accept that principle. On other hand he was prepared have a group appointed to examine territorial adjustments, provided terms of reference clearly indicate any changes recommended must be minor in nature, designed to iron out local anomalies, and improve communications and take into consideration wishes of population affected. He was quite ready to have group start work at once but could not agree that there was any relation between territorial problem and setting up German Government; therefore we could not countenance postponing establishment of such government until decisions on territorial matters made.
Strang agreed with Douglas and Massigli raised no objection.
Van Verduynen stated that although this did not meet Benelux wishes he would submit proposal to Benelux governments. He raised question whether other delegates would be willing to submit to their governments recommendation to have Benelux claims studied and answer made to Benelux governments who had long been awaiting action.
In order to obtain agreement on limited program suggested by him, Douglas indicated he personally was willing to make such recommendation to his government. He wanted it understood that this action would be taken outside framework of present meetings, which were not empowered to discuss Benelux claims for compensation. Strang and Massigli agreed to take similar action.
It was agreed that draft terms of reference would be drawn up along the lines suggested by Douglas to guide work of the body to be set up to study territorial adjustments.8
[Page 265]Sent Department as 2171, repeated Berlin 137; Paris 220.
Last five paragraphs this message repeated as Delsec 1746 to Moscow, Brussels, The Hague, Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Rome.
- This was the 7th Informal Meeting of the London Conference on Germany.↩
- See document TRI/17 (Final), May 19, supra.↩
- See document TRI/13 (Final), May 31, p. 305.↩
- See document TRI/15 (Final), May 12, p. 240.↩
- Ante, p. 141.↩
- See telegram 2167, May 19, from London, p. 256, for a report on the meeting under reference here.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Telegram 1868, Secdel 1584, May 21, to London, not printed, instructed that the terms of reference of the body to be set up to study territorial adjustments should explicitly state that the recommendations would be confined to tentative and provisional readjustments, subject to the confirmation or modification in the final peace settlement. The Department regarded this as essential to avoid the possibility of a Soviet claim that the action in the west provided justification for unilateral determination of the eastern German frontier. (740.00119 Council/5–2048)↩