740.00119 Control (Austria)/5–2548: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Legation in Austria

secret

471. As suggested Legtel 639 May 20,1 Kleinwaechter has approached Dept re AC decision May 14 fixing amount and share of occupation costs for 1948. He was specifically instructed by Gruber to emphasize and support here protests made by Austrian Govt in Vienna. Kleinwaechter accordingly handed us aide-mémoire along same general lines as Austrian note to AC (Legtel 649 May 21), note handed to you (Legtel 652 May 23), and Gruber’s letter of May 15.2

An oral answer was given Kleinwaechter that: (a) Action of AC in assessing amount of occupation costs at 10.5 percent and distributing sum equally among four Elements represented in our opinion a distinct step forward in ameliorating burden occupation through sizable reductions both of total occupation costs and of share allotted to Soviet Element; (b) this result was only basis on which agreement could be reached after protracted negotiations by four High Commissioners since January, and US had tried throughout these negotiations to have amount of occupation costs set at lower figure whereas Soviets had constantly insisted on higher figure; (c) inability of three Western powers to take joint position in this matter made it difficult to oppose Soviet demand for continued prescription of occupation costs; (d) Brit and French may well feel that if circumstances beyond their control require maintenance their forces in Austria the latter should bear a portion of the financial burden involved since Austria at least benefits through the protection afforded by presence of Brit and French forces; (e) newly assessed occupation costs do not necessarily mean loss to Austrian Govt since expense of providing own protection through maintenance Austrian armed forces would probably amount to as much as 7.9 percent of budget, the sum to which, total amount of occupation costs reduces after deduction of US share reimbursable in dollars under pay-as-you-go program; (f) US has consistently endeavored from beginning to bring about progressive reduction of costs of occupation and will continue to do so in future.

Kleinwaechter was also informed that no further answer would be made here inasmuch as US representatives in Vienna would deal with protests made there. While we realize that this action on part of Austrians is symptomatic of their increasing restlessness at prospect of treaty impasse and continued occupation, we are somewhat surprised by this evidence of failure to appreciate US efforts in their behalf. Dept is also concerned by this manifestation of growing tendency [Page 1424] of Austrians to hold US responsible for developments in or with respect to their country (even though these may represent quadripartite actions) which do not fully accord with Austria’s hopes or desires. We would have no objection in this case to informing Austrian Govt that since US pays for its occupation costs in dollars the notes of protest in question are primary concern of other Allied powers although US will continue to work in every feasible way to reduce burden of occupation.

Marshall
  1. Supra.
  2. None printed.