740.00119 Control (Germany)/9–648: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
3987. Supplement to Embtel 3983.1 in response to Deptel 35272 of September 5.
- 1.
- Since sending Embtel 3983 of
today, Strang has talked with
Bevin. Bevin, who is exhausted, had to
leave London, as previously reported, last Wednesday afternoon for a
week’s absence in Cornwall. My only method of communicating with him
at the moment is through Strang. Strang reports that Bevin’s position is as follows:
- (a)
- Robertson has been instructed to make Sokolovsky’s position on the two matters of principle, namely the lifting of restrictions on transport prior to June 18 and the powers of the financial commission, unmistakably clear.
- (b)
- It is Bevin’s view that the report of the military governors, either jointly or separately, should be submitted to the respective governments after the close of the meeting in Berlin on September 7.
- (c)
- After the receipt by the respective governments of the reports of the military governors referred to in (b) above, the three western powers should determine, collectively, the identical representations to be made in Moscow.
- (d)
- While Bevin is not prepared to make a commitment, now in advance of the receipt of the report from the military governors as to whether there should be continued discussions in Berlin or whether, depending upon the substance of the report, attempt to reach a settlement should be made in Moscow.
- (e)
- While Bevin is firm on the two fundamental principles involved he is not inclined to make any commitment as to any course of action [based] upon a presently hypothetical state of affairs.
- (f)
- There are two reasons which, according to Strang, move Bevin to take this position: first, he, officially, does not want to prejudge the outcome of the conversations in Berlin; and secondly, before he can commit himself after the receipt of the report of the military governors in which the facts are clearly disclosed, he must consult with his colleagues of the British Cabinet. He does not want this to be construed that he will not follow the procedure on this point outlined in Deptel 3527; he merely, for the reasons stated, wants to reserve his position.
- 2.
- Meanwhile, however, Strang is willing, on the understanding that it implies no commitment on the part of Bevin, to consider with Massigli and me a coordinated and united representation to be made to Moscow on certain hypothetical results of the conversations in Berlin.
- 3.
- Under Robertson’s present instructions, he has no authority to agree to any request which Sokolovsky may make in Berlin for an extension of the period covered by the discussions beyond September 7. He would, therefore, necessarily have to refer any such request back to his government.
- 4.
- While Strang did not raise with Bevin specifically the question of a joint or separate report by military governors, he thinks it reasonable to assume, in view of Bevin’s insistence that a report be submitted by the military governors after the meeting on September 7, that if time would be lost in an effort to obtain a joint report, the military governors should report individually to their respective governments. While he did not put the question to Bevin, but will do so tomorrow morning when he talks with him again on the phone, it is for the moment reasonable to assume that he would prefer, in the event no quadripartite report could be had without the loss of time, an identical report to be submitted to the respective governments by the military governors of the three western powers, so that the three western powers could act on the basis of a similar statement of fact.
It is, however, Strang’s view (given me subsequent to dictating the above) in which he thinks Bevin would concur, that a quadripartite report showing clearly the items of agreement and disagreement, should form the basis of representations to Moscow. Otherwise, if we act solely on the reports of the military governors of the three western powers when we make our representations in Moscow, there may be disagreement in Moscow as to the points on which Sokolovsky disagreed or agreed as the case may be.
[Page 1131]Sent Department as 3987; repeated Berlin (for Murphy and Clay—Eyes Only) as 491; Paris (for Caffery—Eyes Only) as 578. Moscow (for Smith—Eyes Only) as 245, Department please pass.