Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers; Germany and Austria, Volume III

740.00119 Control (Germany)/5–2249: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting United States Political Adviser for Germany (Riddleberger)

top secret

Washington, May 24, 1949—6 p. m.

612. Reurtel 787, May 22.¹ Fol for USPolAd and OMGUS. Dept cabling main points preliminary position paper access Berlin which has been modified after receiving OMGUS material.² Fol for clarification on unclear points or on points on which further exchange OMGUS and Dept’s views desirable.

1. Dept favors unrestricted access as original position with minimum position insistence upon 24 trains Western sponsored movements on assumption that, if necessary, Ger traffic could be so documented and moved. In USPolAd 784, May 22³ you state that prior to 3/1/48 Sov had agreed to 24 freight plus 7 passenger paths into Berlin. You state further that, including all gateways, Allied plus Ger traffic averaged 20 to 21 freight trains per day and had reached over 30 per day (urtel 756, May 18³). As Dept figure wld include passenger as well as freight it appears considerably smaller than past movements. Dept calculated on basis 700 to 1200 tons per train or a total cargo of over 12,000 tons per day by 18 freight trains under any weather conditions. Is a total of 12, 000 tons sufficient to handle basic, needs of Western powers and population and industry Western sectors Berlin? Do you or OMGUS have any other comments on the minimum number of trains required? Can Helmstedt route carry 25 or more incoming Allied trains efficiently or shld USDel request other entry points (possibly Oebisfelde) if the US minimum position of the 25 or more train paths is proposed?

2. OMGUS Point 5 under Rail states that Ger commercial freight between Berlin and Bizone will not be inspected when covered by movement permits of authorities in Western Zones or Western Sectors. Point 3 under Road states Sovs shld accept official documentation of Western zones and Western sectors but “may check contents against such documentation” and for Water (Point 2) that Sovs must accept Western documentation “without inspection.” Dept agrees with provision for sealing vehicles or craft but does not understand reasoning which could be advanced in denying Sov right to inspect Ger traffic to assure contents in accord with documentation. Pls comment.

3. Point 11 under Bail provides for use Sov motive power in Eastern zone and use of Western motive power only in case “repeated failure” of Sovs to provide facilities. In view apparent intention Sovs, since lifting blockade, to delay and obstruct travel through use of Eastern motive power, Dept has modified its original paper to obtain agreement for use of Western locomotives and crews in Sov zone for Western and Western power sponsored movements. Bequest you and OMGUS reconsider this matter.

4. Under Documentation, OMGUS provides that Ger personnel and baggage require only “interzonal passes” except on military trains. Dept understands such passes can be vetoed by any one occupying power. Given the conditions of a split Ger and an internatl Berlin, Dept wld not favor veto right for any one zonal authority in terms of travel between Berlin and zones of other powers. Accordingly Dept has rewritten this provision to allow movement Gers between Western zones and Western sectors of Berlin under documentation by appropriate authorities in Western sectors or Western zones and not subject to Sov restrictions.

5. Dept has considered advisability establishing joint border control posts with provision that traffic cld only be rejected in event agreement between Sov and Western power official at post. However, as minimum position Dept wld agree Sov posts as accepted by OMGUS provided firm agreement is obtained that Western power documentation will be used to cover all movements between Western sectors of Berlin and Western zones. In this connection Dept and OMGUS must first agree on nature of inspection to be allowed Sov on shipments covered by Western documentation including both Western power traffic, Western power sponsored traffic and Ger commercial traffic all of which include both persons and cargo.

6. In Point 3 under General OMGUS states that traffic will “normally” be checked only at points of ingress and egress of Sov zone. Dept prefers agreement that inspections be limited to border posts thus eliminating any other inspections on traffic through Sov zone. Pls comment.

Webb

1. Ante, p. 789.
2. Under reference here are CFMP D–4/10, “Access to and from Berlin”, May 19, and its modification CFMP EH4/10a, May 24, 1949, neither printed. (CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 178: CFMP Documents) The CFMP series of documents was prepared by various members of the Department of State to provide information and guidance to the United States Delegation to the Council of Foreign Ministers, May 23–June 20, 1949. Other papers in the series are printed on pp. 895 ff.
3. Not printed.
3. Not printed.