462A.62B31/10–2451: Telegram
The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State 1
264. From AGSec. Ref: Bonn to Dept 246 rptd Frankfort unnumbered, Berlin 60, Paris 97, London 89 of 18 October; Berlin to Frankfort 702, rptd Dept. 604 of 19 October; Dept to Frankfort 2532 rptd Berlin 166, Paris 2342, London 2117; Frankfort to Dept 3341 rptd Berlin 185.2
Fol is summary report mtg HICOMs with Erhard on Berlin and East–West trade situation, held Bonn–Petersberg, 24 October.
Kirkpatrick opened meeting by detailing way in which situation with regard to Warenbegleitscheine, parcel post, road tax, ship lift, barge traffic, etc, had deteriorated since signature of IZT agrmt. He said West Gers had given Allies impression that if they left West Gers to deal with East Zone on trade matters greater progress could be made. However, in two recent cases of friction with East Zone and Sovs over Steinstuecken and East-West trade, Allied CDTS appeared to have achieved results with GDR on Steinstuecken, whereas under [Page 1879] Fed Govt handling there had been continued deterioration in trade situation.3 He then asked Erhard for his views and report of yesterday’s Düsseldorf mtg.4
Erhard admitted there was great disappointment on West Ger side on trade developments. He agreed WBS and parcel post situations were bad and that Sovs were apparently sabotaging opening up of Rothensee ship lift. On road tax he said Fed Rep considered arrangement was tolerable and that there had been no deterioration. He said that negots at Düsseldorf had been satis, at least from point of view that agmt was reached on schedule of deliveries for iron and steel products. As to brown coal deliveries, agmt had been initialled but not yet signed and all that West delegation could do now was to wait and see what steps East Zone would take to implement agmt. He believed that East auths and Sovs attached great importance to iron and steel deliveries and now that requirements had been put in concrete form there would be greater inducement for East Zone to make good on its part of agmt. He then said that in his opinion West Gers and Allies should wait one more week before taking final decisions on counteraction, but should agree today what these decisions should be.
I said that I thought there should be no further delay and that West Gers should make it clear now that nothing further would be done to implement trade agmt until WBS situation was cleared up.
Upon questioning by Kirkpatrick and me, Erhard then said: (a) that he had issued instructions that no further rolled steel products were to be delivered by West to East until conditions on which IZT agmt was signed were fulfilled; (b) that it had been made plain to East Zone reps at preliminary meeting yesterday that no deliveries of rolled products would be made until WBS and other outstanding questions were satisfactorily settled; (c) that East Zone reps had recognized gravity of this announcement and had contacted their superiors in Berlin about it yesterday. He had hoped to hear results of this contact before this morning’s meeting, but as yet had had no word from Berlin.
Poncet said Allies in signing trade agmt had demonstrated goodwill which had not been reciprocated by Sovs and that sitn could not continue on this basis. However, he wondered why, if effect of East restrictions had been to stifle Berlin trade, there had not been bigger reaction from Berlin firms. He also suggested reason Russians were returning Warenbegleitscheine unstamped en bloc was because West Berlin firms were submitting two or three applications to cover same goods. Kirkpatrick then made point that Berlin economy had not felt effect of restrictions because of contributions made by Berlin air freight service and added that, in his opinion, if Gers continued to feel they should manage the trade sitn alone, Allies should discontinue air lift at once. He then asked whether at Düsseldorf meeting West Gers had taken up with East reps fact that there had been no common examination of doubtful WBS between Treuhandstelle and Transitstelle. Erhard replied that this and all other outstanding questions had been [Page 1880] taken up at prelim meeting. He then added that on Ger side trade difficulties had never been regarded as solely German or Allied problem, but common problem. Fed Govt merely felt that if negots could be confined to Gers and questions of polit prestige which affected Allies kept out of picture, there was better chance of solution.
I agreed that treating matter as common problem was right attitude, but said that unfortunately articles in press had given impression that there was real difference of view between West Gers and Allies as to attitude to be taken up against Sov encroachment and restrictions Kirkpatrick and I both then emphasized necessity for completely united front between Allies and West Gers on measures to counter East Zone restrictions.
After further discussion, mtg agreed: (a) that there would be no further deliveries of rolled products either under the trade agmt or the vorgriff until East Zone auths were satisfactorily fulfilling conditions for signature of agmt; (b) that, if in a week these conditions had not been fulfilled, balance of trade under trade agmt would be suspended; (c) these points would also be taken up with Chancellor at meeting 25 October.5 Meeting also agreed to issue following press communique: “HICOMs and Fed Min of Econ met this morning to consider question of continued obstacles to Berlin trade. Dr. Erhard made statement on negots at Düsseldorf which took place with East Zone reps. Unanimous agmt was reached that implementation of interzonal trade agmt must depend on settlement of problems of Berlin trade and communications.”
- Repeated to Frankfurt, Berlin, London, Paris, and Moscow.↩
- None printed; they reported various aspects of the deteriorating situation with regard to access to Berlin and the Department of State’s hope that the British and French would take a firm stand on the violations of the conditions laid down for fulfillment of the interzonal trade agreement. (462A.62B31/10–1851, 962.50/10–1951 and 862A.2552/10–2251)↩
- Regarding the occupation of Steinstuecken by police from the “German Democratic Republic” on October 18, see memorandum of conversation, October 22, p. 1954.↩
- A reference to negotiations at Düsseldorf between East and West Germans concerning an agreement on iron and steel deliveries from West Germany under the interzonal trade agreement.↩
- No record has been found in Department of State files that the points under reference were discussed with Chancellor Adenauer on October 25.↩