740.00119 Control (Germany)/9–548: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1
niact
3527. In view of Brit attitude and the time factor, we agree it will be necessary to withhold any approach to Moscow until after the date [Page 1123] set for the Mil Govs to report back to their Govts. There was never any intention on our part to walk out of committees or to foreclose discussions in Berlin. We feel it is of utmost importance that if a break is to occur it should be over the basic issues and should not take place in Berlin. Instructions to Clay with regard to tomorrow’s meetings will repeat this point. Copy of these instructions will be sent you through the MA.2
Unless there is a change in the Sov attitude, it appears very doubtful that the Mil Govs in the course of the next two days will be able to make any real progress towards settlement. We should therefore like to utilize the agreed date for submission of the Mil Govs’ report to enable an approach to be made to Moscow as soon as possible in order to bring back the Berlin discussions, if they are to continue, to the agreements reached in Moscow. If this fails on the grounds that the Sovs are unwilling to abide by Stalin’s and Molotov’s commitments on the two central points, namely, the lifting of all the restrictions imposed since March and control by the finance commission on the German Bank of Emission’s operations in Berlin, it will then be clearly manifested that the Sov Govt has no intention of reaching any agreement. We would therefore like at the present time to prepare the ground for this approach since it seems unlikely that Sokolovsky’s attitude in Berlin will change in the course of the next 48 hours and we should delay as little as possible.
We propose that we should agree that instructions be sent by the three Govts to their reps in Moscow to seek an interview with Molotov as soon as possible after the meeting on Sept 7 and to hand him a written communication which should include a statement calling attention to Sokolovsky’s breach of the clear understanding reached with Stalin and Molotov with respect to the date and complete lifting of transport restrictions and to the powers of the finance commission and also point out that Sokolovsky had suggested new restrictions which were not contemplated in the directive. If the Sov Govt is prepared to issue new instructions to Sokolovsky this would enable conversations in Berlin to continue on the basis previously agreed in Moscow. If Molotov refuses or evidences an unwillingness to issue these instructions, the three reps could then state that they would be compelled to report to their Govts the apparent unwillingness of the Sov Govt to abide by assurances given by Generalissimo Stalin and Mr. Molotov. We are still giving consideration to this phase of the approach, including possibly other material for the statement and will keep you informed.
It seems likely that the discussions in Berlin will not have reached a point by Sept 7 to enable the Mil Govs to submit a final report and that an effort may be made by Sokolovsky to extend the time so the [Page 1124] discussions may continue. Clay is being instructed in such an event to state that the Mil Govs have no authority to extend the date, but the question must be referred to the Govts. There might then be some advantage in deciding to let the Mil Govs continue in Berlin while in Moscow the basic issues raised by the report or reports of Sept 7 are being met. If it becomes apparent that time will be lost by efforts to obtain a joint report by the Mil Govs to their Govts, the directive, in our view, requires that the Mil Govs must report, either jointly or separately, to their respective Govts by Sept 7 concerning results of their meetings.
Please discuss this promptly with Bevin and Massigli, letting us know their views.