740:00119 Control (Austria)/8–3148: Telegram

The Chargé in Austria (Yost) to the Secretary of State


1037. Discussion in AC August 27 of proposed resolution restricting Allied police and judicial authority over Austrian citizens (this resolution already discussed some dozen times in AC bodies without result) brought out once again following Soviet attitudes:

Soviets will not agree that any Soviet citizen, even though not member of armed forces, should be subject to Austrian jurisdiction.
Soviets will not sanction principle that Austrian authorities may call on occupation forces for assistance in maintenance of law and order.
Soviets will not hand over to Austrian authorities for detention before trial or for punishment after trial and conviction any Austrian or other person subject to Austrian jurisdiction accused of an offense against occupation power.
Soviets will not consent to Austrians assuming full control over arming Austrian law enforcement agencies. In view complete disagreement on these essential points resolution was returned to Internal Affairs Directorate for further study. Although little chance of concrete results, US element will continue to press these proposals as one means of keeping Marek case and Soviet kidnapping activities before public (reLegtel 1006 August 19 1).

Another significant point discussed by AC was statement of Soviet representatives at previous EXCO meeting that since there was no quadripartite agreement on Soviet sponsored demand for full report on UN” and German property in international zone of Vienna, “Soviet element reserves the right to act as it may see fit”. When US High Commissioner protested against this threat of unilateral action, Kurasov lamely referred to article second of control agreement, to which General Keyes was immediately able to reply that international zone is not in Soviet zone and that there was no “absence of action” in this case since duly appointed quadripartite commission had long been dealing with this problem. Soviets thereupon subsided but more may later be heard of alleged “right” of unilateral action when quadripartite agreement cannot be obtained.

  1. Ante, p. 1433.