740.00119 Council/4–2248: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
niact
1423. Personal for Douglas, Clay and Murphy. Brit support French desire to have Berlin situation considered in London and they suggest it be discussed by heads of delegations, assisted by respective Commanders-in-Chief.1 In Deptel 13972 we expressed opinion such review unavoidable and on the whole desirable.
For discussion and negotiation with Brit and French (not however as agenda item) revised draft of US note to Sov Govt is quoted below. Subject to Brit and French views expressed to you, we still believe joint approach might have a useful effect, particularly since inaction could lead to deterioration of western position in Berlin. Instead of producing drastic Sov reaction envisaged by Brit and French, joint approach might prevent the kind of measures they fear. If Brit and French feel strongly to the contrary, however, we will not insist on this point and you will of course endeavor to ascertain what line of alternative action they consider desirable. Request we be advised before final agreement on course of action is reached.
Begin revised draft. “In the light of recent developments in Berlin (and Vienna) the US Govt considers it necessary to make unmistakably clear to the Sov Govt its position in this matter. The rights of the US as a joint occupying power derive3 from the total defeat and unconditional surrender of Germany; the international agreements undertaken in connection therewith by the Govts of the US, UK, France and the Sov Union define the zones in Germany and sectors [Page 897] In Berlin which are occupied by these powers and establish the control of Germany and Berlin by these victor nations. The right of the US to its position in Berlin is fully as strong and valid as the right of the Sov Union to its zone of occupation in Germany. In order that the pertinent agreements might enter into effect, and in the expectation that they would be observed by the other signatories, the US withdrew its forces from Thuringia and Saxony in 1945.
It clearly results from these undertakings that Berlin is not a part of the Sov zone but is an international zone of occupation and the seat of Allied control of Germany. Understandings in good faith engaged in by the zone commanders and subsequently developed in the Allied Control Authority, as well as practices sanctioned by usage, guarantee the US, together with the other powers, free access to Berlin for the purpose of fulfilling its responsibilities in Germany. The US Mil Commander in Germany has been given strict orders to continue to participate in the joint occupation of Berlin and to take all appropriate action necessary for that purpose.
The foregoing considerations apply with equal force to the position of the US in Vienna.
The US Govt expects that the Sov Govt will not authorize or permit actions on the part of its Mil commanders inconsistent with the rights which the US Govt has exercised since its forces entered into Berlin and Vienna and which it is fully determined to maintain.”4 End revised draft. Army Department concurs.
Sent to London as 1423; repeated to Vienna for Yost and Keyes eyes only as 368.
- The reference here is to the London Six Power Conference on Germany which resumed on April 20, 1948.↩
- April 20, p. 194.↩
- The draft of this note, transmitted in telegram 402, April 14, to Moscow, not printed, read as follows from this point: “… from the international agreements undertaken by the Govts of the US, UK, France and Sov Russia defining the zones in Germany and sectors in Berlin which are occupied by these powers and establishing the joint control of Germany and Berlin. In observance of these agreements and in the expectation that they would continue to be observed by the other signatories, the US withdrew its forces from Thuringia and Saxony.” (740.00119 Control (Germany)/4–1448)↩
- The final paragraph of the note transmitted in telegram 402, read: “The US Govt expects that the Sov Govt will not authorize or permit actions on the part of its military commanders inconsistent with the unquestioned rights which the US Govt is fully determined to maintain.”↩