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

501.BC/10–1348: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

top secret   us urgent
niact

Paris, October 13, 1948—10 p. m.

Delga 312. Eyes Only Lovett from Jessup. Following is summary and analysis of developments in Berlin situation here.

The six members of SC not directly involved have been meeting almost daily under Bramuglia’s chairmanship. McNaughton assures us that they take the line that they are not a committee of the Council but are a group of members seeking information and not attempting mediation. Checks with various members of the six confirm impression Bramgulia has steadfastly acted in concert with the other five after consultation and has not gone off on any tangents of his own. Our Delga 280, October 11,¹ informed you concerning Bramuglia’s questions to us and the memorandum reply agreed upon by UK, France and US. After receipt and consideration by the six of our memorandum, Bramuglia saw Vishinsky and put to him two points: first, the simultaneous lifting of Soviet and Western Powers restrictions on transport, communications, etc., and, second, possible meeting of the CFM.

Question of simultaneity between lifting the blockade and CFM meeting was not clearly expressed in the second point and we do not know just how Bramuglia presented it. Personally, so far as CFM meeting is concerned, I believe issue of simultaneity is relatively unimportant since we have declared and are prepared to reaffirm willingness for CFM meeting immediately after lifting of blockade. Appropriate formula to this effect could be drafted. Vishinsky indicated reserved position on first point, said second point was satisfactory and then raised currency question. Vishinsky said as personal opinion he thought this might be settled on basis “Molotov proposal”.

Our information on this point came from Urdaneta who is not sufficiently familiar with the problem to be able to identify which “Molotov proposal” was referred to. Vishinsky stated he would have to consult his government and would reply to Bramuglia not later than today. Understand reply just received and the six will discuss it this evening.

We will know its content by morning.² Reply will be shown to the Three Western Governments with request for comment and the six will then reconsider the situation. Although not yet settled, possibility is at this stage SC would meet and Bramuglia would report on the activities of the six. Presumably Three Western Governments and possibly other members of six would then comment. Probably no resolution would be introduced at that meeting. Members of the six assure us no resolution will be introduced by any of them without prior consultation with us. Cannot now exclude possibility that nature of Vishinsky and our comments might lead to further “seeking information” by the six. But we have been strongly urging desirability prompt SC session to counter Soviet propaganda that SC members accept Soviet theory SC is incompetent. Earliest possible date of next SC meeting would be Saturday, but deferment until Monday not unlikely.

Conversations with members of the six indicate they fundamentally support the position of US–UK–France and when time comes will vote with us. I anticipate possibility six may attempt to draft some resolution which while inherently supporting us would avoid direct language condemning Soviet but would seek to advance possibility Soviet acceptance or acquiescence and lead to further SC consideration.

I feel strongly we would antagonize some of our supporters if any counter measures against Soviet were taken in Berlin before they are satisfied their informal procedures or SC action has reached the limits of possible utility. Unless Vishinsky reply is far better than anticipated, I would expect discussions on some SC resolution in SC next week with possibility vote might not be taken until week after. Sure you appreciate our problem keeping other SC members in line and laying solid foundation for possible eventual action in GA while avoiding any suggestion to Russians that we are weakening on our position. [Jessup.]

Marshall

1. Ante, p. 1216.

2. Telegram Delga 327, October 14, from Paris, not printed, transmitted the unofficial text of Vyshinsky’s reply as follows:

   “1. The SC should remove the question of Berlin from its agenda. 2. The USSR does not accept Point One of the Bramuglia questionnaire of October 11, on the ground that it is contrary to the agreement of the Four Powers prescribing the simultaneity of the two following measures: (A) The USSR on the one hand, and the US, UK, and France on the other, will lift the restrictions placed by the one on communications, transport and commerce between Berlin and the Western Zones of Germany, by the others on the transport and commerce between their zones and the Soviet Zones; (B) Simultaneous with the lifting of these restrictions the German-Soviet mark will be established as the sole currency in circulation in Berlin and the Western mark will be withdrawn from circulation. 3. The question of Berlin ought to be referred to the CFM and there treated in conformity with the agreed directive of August 30, 1948, to the four military commanders. 4. The CFM ought to resolve the problem of Germany as a whole as well as the situation in Berlin in conformity with the Potsdam agreement.” (501.BC/10–1448)