Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

762A.00/5–1750: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Berlin Element of the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany¹

secret

Washington, May 17, 1950—7 p. m.

194. Berlin’s tel 699 May 9, sent Frankfort 839 rptd Paris 224, London 57, Moscow 44. Deptel 185 May 12 to Berlin, rptd Frankfort 3359, London 2259, Moscow 410.² Dept suggests fol ideas to be discussed with Brit, Fr and Berlin leaders in connection with reply Sov letter May 8 on Berlin elections. Some of these points might be incorporated in City Assembly res and/or Allied reply as you think best. Fol not to be considered as rigid instrs.

Allied reply shld convey general tone of seeking clarify and resolve differences between Western and Sov proposals rather than outright rejection Sov proposals. It shld leave no doubt however that some of proposals are entirely unacceptable as they stand. This method seems desirable both indicate our sincerity in exploring whether genuine agreement is possible on terms acceptable to West and achieve best propaganda position if agrmt impossible. Our reply shld not invite direct negots but shld give impression further clarifying correspondence desired.

After initial remarks noting with pleasure Sov agrmt on free elections to restore Berlin’s unity Commandants’ ltrs might comment on seven Sov conditions somewhat along fol lines. It is disappointing Sovs again suggest some conditions which were thoroughly discussed at Paris CFM in 1949 and rejected by Western Powers. These conditions are no more acceptable now than then. As to individual conditions:

1. Agreed

2. This proposal was made by Vyshinsky at Paris CFM in 1949 and was unacceptable US, Br and Fr then. It is still unacceptable, since Sov Sector is only one of four Sectors and contains only one-third of Berlin population. (We cld reiterate Western counter-proposal at CFM, that each commandant appoint same nr of Ger reps. We might also agree to a Ger comm chosen on basis relative pop in East and West Berlin.)

3. Agreed provided denazification tribunals are included in definition of “court”.

4. This proposal was also made by Vyshinsky at 1949 Paris CFM and was unacceptable Western Powers. It is still unacceptable. If a party decides it wants trade union or other representation in govt it can of course nominate representatives for such groups.

5. Proposals of Berlin City Assembly called for elections on basis of 1948 constitution. This reps a reasonable forward step since 1948 constitution was passed in unified City Assembly with SovSec and SED participation. US (Br, Fr) Commandant ready to approve 1948 constitution and invites Sov Commandant to do likewise. (At Paris we were agreeable 1946 constitution with deletion Art. 36 and substituion new US formula. See CFM Minutes, Vol VI, pp 70–71.³ We can retreat to this position later if exchanges proceed further.)

6. What if anything wld Sovs substitute for May 1949 Occupation Statute? Sov proposal makes no mention of reestablishing quadripartite Allied Kommandatura. Does this omission mean that after possible withdrawal of garrisons Berlin City Govt wld not be under Allied Control? If it is to be under Allied control, what kind of control and to what extent shld the control mechanism have power over the democratically elected city Govt? The US (Br, Fr) Commandant cannot agree to return to former Kommandatura procedure under which one Commandant cld veto desires of other three and paralyze effective democratic Govt in City.

Does Sov proposal that “Ger dem orgs” be accorded freedom in Western Sectors mean Sovs are prepared grant right of unrestricted activity in their Sector to Polit parties and other orgs such as UGO presently operating in West Sectors? (If Sovs wld agree to freedom for Western orgs there wld seem to be no serious objection permitting their orgs operate freely in West Berlin.)

7. This is new proposal not previously put forward. US (Br, Fr) Commandant wld like know why it is proposed withdraw occupation troops from Berlin in advance such withdrawal from all Ger. If withdrawal of troops considered necessary for free elections, does Sov Govt contemplate withdrawing its troops prior Oct 15 elections in its Zone and Berlin Sec? (Of course we cld not agree withdrawal of troops from Berlin alone in view its location in heart of Sovzone.)

US (Br, Fr) Commandant considers it essential to free elections that genuine freedom of speech, press and assembly be guaranteed before, during and after elections and that no man be in fear of reprisals on account of opinions held or expressed in a peaceable manner. End outline of suggested reply.

Dept believes we must show our sincerity in seeking achieve agreement with Sovs on elections. It is our understanding important Ger leaders believe our moves for all-Berlin and All-German elections shld be more than just propaganda maneuvers and feel one more real effort see whether Sovs will agree unification on acceptable terms necessary at this time before we recognize split of Berlin and Ger. Dept does not of course have much hope this effort will succeed but is willing go through with it, especially since Fr seem require positive evidence of Sov unwillingness to reestablish Berlin as unified quadripartite city before considering possibility Berlin’s becoming 12th Land in Fed Rep. We believe negots shld be carried considerable distance by exchange of notes, in which positions are clearly stated and authenticated and polemic kept to minimum although realities Sov conditions clearly revealed. If such, exchange shows narrowing of differences indicating possible alteration previous firmly held Sov views, then it might be worthwhile negotiate further across a table. Dept wld not agree however resuming face-to-face negots in old atmosphere of recrimination and sparring for propaganda advantage without some hope concrete results.

Webb

1. Repeated to Frankfort as 3494, London for USDel as 2366, Moscow as 424, and Paris as 2251.
2. Not printed, but see footnote 4, supra.
3. A copy of this volume of CFM minutes, prepared by the Division of Historical Policy Research in September 1949, is in Box 234 of Lot M–88. The minutes of the 12th (2d Restricted) meeting of the 1949 CFM, under reference here, are also printed in Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. iii, p. 949.