Office of the Historian
No. 514

763.0221/11–951: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Legation in Austria 1

secret
priority
Washington, November 13, 1951—7:11 p.m.

1223. Legtel 1687 Nov 9 not rptd London and Paris.2 Dept concerned four Deputy HICOMs will discuss occupation costs before tripartite understanding reached which takes into account possibility of Sov or Aust counteraction. Dept agrees confirmation of Sov dismissal Aust occupation personnel (Legtel 1679 Nov 9 rptd Paris 1713) and publicity for Aust Govt plan to stop censorship funds enhances chances Sovs embarrass Brit and Fr by voting against increased 1951 allocations. Easy Sov access to other sources revenue and fact their occupation costs always lower than Brit and Fr also favor these tactics. Sovs doubtless aware Aust desire to air issue in Parl especially to emphasize present budget crisis caused by occupation rather than by Factors Austs control. If subj debated publicly Aust leaders cld be expected to examine legal basis for costs and relation of costs to occupation functions and to attack high Brit personnel costs compared to Sovs and dubious Fr expenditures such as Laenderbank stock, indemnity for devaluation losses and pocket money for Fr soldiers. Dept aware no quadripartite precedent exists for accountability but inserted requirement in WFM position [Page 1076] paper4 to make clear US cannot support compensation for costs not directly related to occupation.

If possible before Nov 14 mtg suggest you discuss these factors with Caccia and Payart stressing difficulties we face in supporting them in case Sovs execute volte face or Austs insist on airing issue in Parl because of embarrassment this subj has caused us and will cause us on overall aid program. We also do not favor separate Aust allocation for Brit and Fr unless sure procedure found to guarantee this info does not become public knowledge. Your statement Legtel 1687 you lack auth to agree increase interpreted here to mean you will await Sov comment and results increased pressure on Brit and Fr since Deptel 1078 Oct 265 permits you to settle rather than force Brit or Fr into unilateral action, or withdrawal of forces.

Webb
  1. Drafted by Rutter and cleared with Dawson and Williamson. Repeated to London and Paris.↩
  2. Telegram 1687 summarized a meeting of the Western High Commissioners on November 8 in which Donnelly reiterated the U.S. position. Preparations were made at this meeting for a meeting of the Deputy High Commissioners on November 14 to again consider this problem (763.0221/11–951)↩
  3. Telegram 1679 reported that Soviet dismissals were believed to number several hundred. (863.06/11–951)↩
  4. The Department of State position paper under reference is WFM T–7/la of August 22; see footnote 2, Document 509.↩
  5. Document 513.↩