398.10–GDC/7–1951: Telegram
The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State 1
52. Immed before and during eighth mtg of special comite with Ger del on July 18 latter were handed Allied papers (being air pouched)2 on subjs covered by paras numbered 1 thru 5.3 Fol is summary of prelim Ger comments and questions expressed in mtg:
1. Special position of the three powers in Ger.
Allied paper stated inter alia that three powers had special position because of rights deriving from quadripartite agrmts to which Ger not a party. Special position wld remain in force after contractual arrangements concluded and wld impose upon Allies fol: (i) responsibilities regarding whole of Ger including questions of Ger unity and Ger peace settlement; (ii) right to ensure respect of internatl agrmts affecting Ger but not covered by contractual arrangements; (iii) right to maintain forces in Ger. Gers expressed appreciation Allied responsibility re Ger unity but asked whether Ger ability freely to conclude peace treaty wld be impaired. Also asked for examples of agrmts mentioned under (ii) and whether forces meant occ forces or West def forces. O’Neill (chairman) stated these important questions wld require study. He did, however, cite as examples of agrmts under (ii) June 5, 1945, declaration, proclamations one and two of control council of 30 August and 20 Sept 1945, and Potsdam agrmt.4
2. Fon relations (relations with other parts of Ger).
Gers expressed appreciation of Allied agrmt that relations with other parts of Ger wld not be treated in contractual arrangement covering fon relations and requested Allied views concerning future of Berlin. O’Neill stated Allies intention contracts shld not affect status of Berlin but that, insofar as contracts affect relaxation of Allied powers, Allies hoped to make similar relaxations re Berlin though not necessarily in same manner. Berlin constituted separate topic for later discussions.
[Page 1493]3. Fon trade and exchange and strategic commodities export controls.
Gers expressed desire to avoid special contractual arrangement on subj and reserved position. They reported measures were being taken re special problem of Berlin leakages.5 O’Neill noted latter statement with satisfaction and stated progress on gen question depended largely upon progress in other inter-governmental discussions.
4. Decartelization and deconcentration.
Gers noted topic how being discussed between AHC and Ger officials and yet too early to anticipate results. Furthermore, Ger law being prepared which wld require further discussion. Hope was expressed implementation law Nbr. 276 wld soon end so no arrangement wld be necessary. Special mention was made of difficult position of Ger film industry under order Nbr. 17 and of difficulty of getting parlimentary approval of Allied views. O’Neill deferred reply as many points raised now under technical discussion and he felt Allied position wld be clarified somewhat by Allied paper on next fol topic.
5. Preservation of Allied legis for which no Ger substitute exists, and of certain Ger legis.
Fol Ger views were set forth as being very preliminary in nature owing to paper being recd during course of mtg. Eight of Allies to enact legis is difficult one for Gers to accept. If council of ambassadors can enact legis, its title is a misnomer. It wld be difficult to agree to maintenance of Allied legis in certain fields if legis scheduled for preservation is not listed. O’Neill stated Allies cld not relinquish power to enact legis and point out necessity of enacting repeal legis. Allies power legislate wld be held to a minimum and governed by extent subjs not covered by control measures since largely up to Gers to enact legis which wld permit repeal of Allied legis.
6. Gers submitted written statements on controls over the Ruhr; preservation of OCC legis for which no Ger substitute exists, and of certain Ger legis; and Allied courts in Ger (being airpouched).8 Save for stating re Ruhr controls that Allies cld not agree that successful conclusion of current negots between govts wld permit termination of law Nbr. 27, O’Neill offered no comments on these papers.
7. Disposal of property under Allied control—internal restitution.
[Page 1494]Gers noted topic covered scope of MG law Nbr. 529 in all essential points and stated Ger proposals wld not be forthcoming until Bundestag legal comite had completed current study of various related points.
Next mtg set for July 25.
- Repeated to Frankfurt.↩
- None printed; copies of the five papers are attached to the minutes of the eighth meeting, SPCOM/FED/M(51)8, not printed, as Appendixes A–E. CFM files, lot M–88, box 186, record of mtgs with Federal Delegation.↩
- McCloy had reported on the fifth, sixth and seventh meetings, June 20 and July 5 and 11 in Bonn telegrams 981, 18, and 36, June 22 and July 6 and 13, none printed (762A.00/6–2251, 398.10–GDC/7–651 and 7–1351).↩
- For the text of the Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority With Respect to Germany, June 5, 1945, see Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS) No. 1520, or 60 Stat. 1649; for the texts of Control Council proclamations Nos. 1 and 2, see Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 1, October 29, 1945, pp. 4 and 8–19; for the text of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference, August 1, 1945, see Foreign Relations, The Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945, vol. ii, pp. 1478 ff.↩
- For documentation on the problem of East-West trade through Berlin, see pp. 1828 ff.↩
- For the text of High Commission Law No. 27, “Reorganization of German Coal and Iron and Steel Industries,” dated May 16, 1950, see Laws, Regulations, Directives and Decisions, vol. i, pp. 155–172.↩
- For the text of United States Military Government Order No. 1 to Law 56, “Prohibition of Monopolistic Conditions in the German Motion Picture Industry”, see Military Government Gazette, Germany, United States Area of Control, Issue I, March 15, 1948, pp. 16–17.↩
- Not printed.↩
- For the text of Military Government Law No. 52, “Blocking and Control of Property”, see Military Government Gazette, Germany, United States Area of Control, Issue A, June 1, 1946, pp. 24–27.↩