US-Senat ratifiziert die Welt-Charta
…
L’Aube (August 1, 1945)
Pierre Laval a été remis aux Français
par les autorités américaines auxquelles il s’était livré
…
U.S. State Department (August 1, 1945)
740.00119 Potsdam/8-145
Report by the Technical Subcommittee on Disposition of the German Navy and Merchant Marine
[Babelsberg, August 1, 1945]
| Enclosure[s]: | (A) Decisions of the Tripartite Conference on Distribution of the German Navy |
| (B) Decisions of the Tripartite Conference on Distribution of the German Merchant Marine |
-
The Committee met at 1030, 31 July, 1945, in consideration of above subject. The Committee’s recommendations, Enclosures (A) and Enclosure (B), are based upon tentative decisions reached during plenary sessions of the Tripartite Conference beginning 17 July, 1945. These enclosures are drafted in the form of decisions in order to facilitate final action in the plenary session of the Tripartite Conference. [For?] Those parts of the enclosures in which agreed recommendations could not be made the divergent views are set forth in each of the specific paragraphs involved.
-
The Committee feel bound to draw the attention of the Conference [to] the possibility that any public announcement that German warships are to be divided amongst the Allies may result in the German crews scuttling ships which might be ordered to sail to Allied ports. It is therefore desirable that no announcement of the division of the German Navy be made, at any rate until the expert commission has completed its investigations, which should include the detailed arrangements for carrying out the transfer of ships. A similar delay is necessary before making any definite announcement about the division of the surrendered German merchant ships. The Committee accordingly recommend that the Conference might confine publicity to the following announcement:
The Conference agreed in principle upon arrangements for the use and disposal of the surrendered German Fleet and merchant ships. It was decided that the Three Governments would appoint experts to work out together detailed plans to give effect to the agreed principles. A further joint statement will be published simultaneously by the Three Governments in due course.
КУЗЊЕЦОВ
Admiral of the Fleet
C M COOKE JR.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
E D B MCCARTHY
Rear Admiral, Royal Navy
[Enclosure A]
Decisions of the Tripartite Conference on Distribution of the German Navy
-
The Tripartite Conference agree upon the following principles for the distribution of the German Navy:
(a) The total strength of the German surface navy, excluding ships sunk and those taken over from Allied Nations, but including ships under construction or repair, shall be divided equally among the USSR, U.K., and U.S.
(1) (The British representatives expressed the view that a portion of the German Navy should be allotted to France and that, therefore, full agreement with the above principles must be subject to final decision of the Plenary Conference.)
(b) Ships under construction or repair mean those ships whose construction or repair may be completed within three to six months, according to the type of ship. Whether such ships under construction or repair shall be completed or repaired shall be determined by the technical commission appointed by the Three Powers and referred to below, subject to the principle that their completion or repair must be achieved within the time limits above provided without any increase of skilled employment in the German shipyards and without permitting the reopening of any German shipbuilding or connected industries. Completion date means the date when a ship is able to go out on its first trip, or, under peace-time standards, would refer to the customary date of delivery by shipyard to the Government.
(c) The larger part of the German submarine fleet shall be sunk. The Committee are not able to make a recommendation as regards the number of submarines to be preserved for experimental and technical purposes.
-
(1) It is the opinion of the British and American members that not more than 30 submarines shall be preserved and divided equally between the USSR, U.K. and U.S. for experimental and technical purposes. Paragraph 1 (a) (1) also applies to submarines.
-
(2) It is the view of the Russian members that this number is too small for their requirements and that USSR should receive about 30 submarines for its own experimental and technical purposes.
(d) All stocks of armaments, ammunition and supplies of the German Navy appertaining to the vessels transferred pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) hereof shall be handed over to the respective powers receiving such ships.
(e) The Three Governments agree to constitute a tripartite naval commission comprising two representatives for each Government, accompanied by the requisite staff, to submit agreed recommendations to the Three Governments for the allocation of specific German warships and to handle other detailed matters arising out of the agreement between the Three Governments regarding the German fleet. The Commission will hold its first meeting not later than August 15th, 1945, in Berlin, which shall be its headquarters. Each delegation on the Commission will have the right on the basis of reciprocity to inspect German warships wherever they may be located.
(f) The Three Governments agree that transfers, including those of ships under construction and repair, shall be completed as soon as possible, but not later than February 15th, 1946. The Commission will submit fortnightly reports, including proposals for the progressive allocation of the vessels when agreed by the Commission.
-
[Enclosure B]
Decisions of the Tripartite Conference on Distribution of the German Merchant Marine
-
The Tripartite Conference agree upon the following principles for the distribution of the German Merchant Marine:
(a) (1) It is proposed by the Soviet and American representatives: The German Merchant Marine, surrendered to the Three Powers and wherever located, shall be divided equally among the USSR, the U.K., and the U.S. The actual transfers of the ships to the respective countries shall take place as soon as practicable after the end of the war against Japan. This distribution shall not preclude any of the Parties from making such further allocation of part of its share to other Allied Nations.
(2) The British representatives considered it essential to allot a share of not less than one quarter to the lesser maritime Allied States whose merchant marines have lost so heavily in support of the common cause against Germany. Accordingly, the British Delegation proposed the following alternative draft of subparagraph (a) (1):
One quarter of the German merchant marine surrendered to the Three Powers and wherever located shall be allotted to the Soviet Union and the remainder shall be divided between the U.K. and the U.S. who will provide an appropriate share to the Allied States whose merchant marines have suffered substantial losses in support of the common cause against Germany. The actual transfers of the ships to the respective countries shall take place as soon as practicable after the end of the war against Japan.
(b) The allocation, manning, and operation of these ships during the Japanese War period shall fall under the cognizance and authority of the Combined Shipping Adjustment Board and the United Maritime Authority.
(c) While actual transfer of the ships will be delayed until after the end of the war with Japan, a Tripartite Shipping Commission shall inventory and value all available ships and recommend a specific distribution in accordance with subparagraph (a) (as approved).
(d) The British and American representatives propose the following sub-paragraph: “German inland and coastal ships determined to be necessary to the maintenance of the basic German peace economy by the Allied Control Council of Germany shall not be included in the shipping pool thus divided among the Three Powers.”
The Soviet representatives do not agree to this inclusion.
(e) The Three Governments agree to constitute a tripartite merchant marine commission comprising two representatives for each Government, accompanied by the requisite staff, to submit agreed recommendations to the Three Governments for the allocation of specific German merchant ships and to handle other detailed matters arising out of the agreement between the Three Governments regarding the German merchant ships. The Commission will hold its first meeting not later than September 1st, 1945, in Berlin, which shall be its headquarters. Each delegation on the Commission will have the right on the basis of reciprocity to inspect the German merchant ships wherever they may be located.
(f) The British representatives suggested the need to add the following provision: “The shares of the various Allied States will be counted as reparation receipts.”
The Soviet Delegation considered that this was unnecessary in view of the new policy agreed by the Conference on reparations.
The American representatives took no position in this matter.
Truman-Bierut conversation, 10 a.m.
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | United Kingdom | |
| President Truman | President Bierut | |
| Secretary Byrnes | Deputy Prime Minister Mikołajczyk | |
| Mr. Bohlen | Vice President Grabski | |
| Mr. Harriman | Mr. Modzelewski | |
| Mr. Żebrowski |
Truman reported at the Twelfth Plenary Meeting “that the President of the Polish Provisional Government and members of the Polish Delegation had called on him this morning and he had informed them of the action which the Conference had taken with respect to Poland.”
Memorandum by the Polish Deputy Prime Minister
August 1, 1945
[Translation]
Notes of a Discussion with President Truman on August 1, 1945, in Babelsberg
Present on the American side: Truman, Byrnes, Bohlen, and Harriman. On the Polish side: Bierut, Mikołajczyk, Grabski, Modzelewski, and interpreter Żebrowski.
President Truman opens the session. He states that on behalf of the three Great Powers he wishes to inform us of the following:
The territorial boundaries have been established in accordance with the Polish proposal, and the Polish Government is responsible for the administration within these boundaries. The Russians have agreed to withdraw their armies from these territories, and will retain only two lines of communication for transit across Poland. (In answer to my question, Bohlen stated that one of these lines is the Kraków–Lwów line; the other one is in the north.)
We have acknowledged the fact that representative Poles from Poland and from abroad had agreed to the formation of a Provisional Government of National Unity. We had recognized that Government and therefore we were able now to hear its views. After hearing its views, we were able to make a unanimous decision which we are now communicating to you. As a result, the Arciszewski Government has ceased to exist and the two states – Great Britain and the United States – undertake to do everything in their power in order to protect Polish property abroad, to make it impossible to transfer or sell such property, and to help recover it.
All of the Three Powers promise every assistance to help Poles and the Polish Army in returning to Poland from abroad. In this connection they express their conviction that all Poles who return will be treated on the same terms as apply to all other Polish citizens.
Having heard the statement of the President and of the Government concerning obligations under the resolutions of the Crimean Conference to hold elections as soon as possible, as well as the statement that the foreign press shall have free access to Poland, we were able to make unanimous decisions.
Mr. Bierut thanks the President for both the decisions and the assistance.
President Truman stresses the fact that he speaks on behalf of the three Great Powers and can accept thanks only in that capacity.
In parting I approached Truman and told him that only now was I free to thank him as the President of the United States.
President Truman answered, “Thank you; we did it out of friendship toward Poland”, and said that he himself was greatly interested in Poland … and that he hoped that Poland would be free and happy.
Then there was a brief conversation with Harriman, who stressed once more the necessity of keeping secret the decision announced by President Truman until the Communiqué4 had been published. He then pointed out that as a result of the statements made by Mr. Bierut and of discussions between Mr. Mikołajczyk and himself, Dunn, Bohlen, and Matthews, the American Delegation had been able to propose the final text, which had been approved unanimously by the Three Powers, and the decision is now that of the three Great Powers.
Since Harriman expressed a desire to see me again, I suggested that he could pay me a farewell visit, which was arranged for 12:30.
Enclosure A
740.00119 (Potsdam)/7-3045
Proposal by the U.S. Delegation
[Babelsberg,] July 30, 1945
Western Frontier of Poland
In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimean Conference the three Heads of Government have sought the opinion of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity in regard to the accession of territory in the north and west which Poland should receive. The President of Poland and members of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity have been received at the Conference and have fully presented their views. The three Heads of Government reaffirm their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement.
The three Heads of Government agree that, pending the final determination of Poland’s western frontier, the former German territories east of a line running from the Baltic Sea through Swinemünde, and thence along the Oder River to the confluence of the western Neisse River and along the western Neisse to the Czechoslovak frontier, including that portion of East Prussia not placed under the administration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with the understanding reached at this conference and including the area of the former free city of Danzig, shall be under the administration of the Polish State and for such purposes should not be considered as part of the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany.
Enclosure B
860c.01/7-2145
Text Approved by the Heads of Government
[Babelsberg,] July 21, 1945
Top secret
Statement on the Polish Question
We have taken note with pleasure of the agreement reached among representative Poles from Poland and abroad which has made possible the formation, in accordance with the decisions reached at the Crimea Conference, of a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity recognized by the Three Powers. The establishment by the British and United States Governments of diplomatic relations with the Polish Provisional Government has resulted in the withdrawal of their recognition from the former Polish Government in London, which no longer exists.
The British and United States Governments have taken measures to protect the interest of the Polish Provisional Government as the recognized government of the Polish State in the property belonging to the Polish State located on their territory and under their control, whatever the form of this property may be. They have further taken measures to prevent alienation to third parties of such property. All proper facilities will be given to the Polish Provisional Government for the exercise of the ordinary legal remedies for the recovery of any property of the Polish State which may have been wrongfully alienated.
The three powers are anxious to assist the Polish Provisional Government in facilitating the return to Poland as soon as practicable of all Poles abroad who wish to go, including members of the Polish Armed Forces and the Merchant Marine. They expect that those Poles who return home shall be accorded personal rights and rights on property on the same basis as all Polish citizens.
The three powers note that the Polish Provisional Government in conformity with the Crimea decision has agreed to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot in which all democratic and anti-Nazi parties shall have the right to take part and to put forward candidates, and that representatives of the Allied powers [press] shall enjoy full freedom to report to the world upon the developments in Poland before and during the elections.
The President’s Special Counsel to the Secretary of State
[Babelsberg,] August 1, 1945
Bob Jackson tried to reach you, and when he couldn’t, asked for me, and he discussed with me the present situation on war criminals.
The meeting scheduled for this morning did not take place, because of the opening of Parliament and the necessity of the Lord Chancellor being present at the opening. The meeting has been postponed for tomorrow. I told Bob that anything that was to be done had to be done at today’s meeting.
His views are:
- That we should refuse emphatically to name any of the war criminals.
- That we should not commit ourselves here to an international tribunal for purposes of trial.
As to the second point, Bob has come to feel very strongly that it would be better not to have a joint tribunal because of the difficulty of working with the Russians in a trial. He feels that if the Russians, however, in London accept the various propositions which we have made, that he is committed to favor a joint tribunal, and does not feel that he can back out of it merely on the ground that it would be difficult to get along.
If, however, they do not accede to our suggestions as to definition of a war crime and certain other matters, he will then take the course of having each nation try the criminals in its respective jurisdiction. He was even of the thought that the British, French and Americans might agree to a joint trial, leaving the Russians out. I expressed to him my personal opinion that that would be quite a slap at the Russians, leading to recriminations, whereas it would not be quite so bad if it was decided that each nation would try its own war criminal prisoners.
At any rate, nothing will be done before tomorrow, and I said I would phone him from some place in England and find out what has happened.
S[AMUEL] I R[OSENMAN]
740.00119 (Potsdam)/8-145
The Ambassador in France to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs
Paris, August 1, 1945
Secret
No. 675
Excellency: Acting under instructions from my Government, I have the honor to transmit herewith the text of the document “Western Frontier of Poland” approved on July 31, 1945.
I avail myself [etc.]
JEFFERSON CAFFERY
Eleventh meeting of the Foreign Ministers, 11:25 a.m.
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | United Kingdom | Soviet Union |
| Secretary Byrnes | Foreign Secretary Bevin | Foreign Commissar Molotov |
| Mr. Dunn | Sir Alexander Cadogan | Mr. Gromyko |
| Mr. Clayton | Sir Archibald Clark Kerr | Mr. Vyshinsky |
| Mr. Page | Major Theakstone | Mr. Gusev |
Department of State Minutes
Potsdam, August 1, 1945, 11:25 a.m.
Top secret
The final meeting of the Foreign Ministers opened at 11:25 a.m. on August 1, 1945 under the chairmanship of Mr. Byrnes.
German Reparations
MR. BYRNES stated that he would read a list of questions which were pending. First was the question of German Reparations. He inquired whether the Committee [Subcommittee] was ready to report and stated that he was informed that this Committee was now in session. Therefore, for the time being the subject would be passed over. He believed Mr. Vyshinski was on the subcommittee and wondered whether there was anything Mr. Vyshinski could say.
MR. VYSHINSKI replied that the subcommittee had examined this matter and that some questions were in a state of suspense. Also new questions had arisen.
MR. BYRNES stated his assumption that the Committee would not be able to report in this case.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed.
MR. BYRNES announced that the subject would therefore be submitted to the Big Three at 3 p.m.
MR. VYSHINSKI stated that this had been assumed.
MR. BYRNES suggested that the agenda for the Big Three be prepared as the meeting progressed.
German Economic Principles
The second question concerned German economic principles. The same subcommittee had this question and was drafting on it, particularly on paragraph 19.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that not one economist was present.
MR. BEVIN interjected to state that the meeting might settle the matter if the economists were absent.
German Fleet
MR. BYRNES stated that the third question concerned the disposition of the German fleet. He understood that there was a division of opinion on this subject and wondered whether it could be discussed profitably at this meeting.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that members of the Committee were not present.
MR. BYRNES stated that he had received a report from the U.S. representative and assumed that the British and Soviet delegates had also received reports. He inquired whether this is true.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested that the members of the Committee be called in since he did not know about their last conclusions.
MR. BYRNES remarked that he had been advised regarding the differences of opinion and that the British Foreign Minister had also received information. If members of the Committee were called in the question could be discussed.
MR. MOLOTOV then stated that he would try to become acquainted with recent developments while the meeting was in session. He went on to suggest an adjournment of ten minutes when the representatives arrived in order that the matter might be studied.
War Crimes
MR. BYRNES then raised the matter of war crimes which had not been settled by the Big Three. The British draft on this subject had the approval of the U.S. delegation and the substantial approval of the Soviet delegation which desired, however, to name certain criminals.
MR. BEVIN stated that the British delegation was opposed to naming the specific criminals and felt on this matter like the American delegation. He thought that it would be misunderstood if it was done before the court sat. It would contravene certain principles upon which the British Judiciary works. The British therefore feel strongly that the British proposal meets the case. It also feels that every step should be taken in our power to get on with the trials at the earliest possible moment.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that the U.S. delegation, as stated yesterday, feels that the determination of prisoners to be prosecuted should be left to the prosecutors selected by the three governments and that the decision should not be taken from them. He hoped that our Soviet friends could agree.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested reference to the Big Three.
MR. BYRNES agreed.
Allied Property Used in Satellite Reparations
MR. BYRNES next raised the matter of the use of Allied property in the settlement of satellite reparations.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that on this question it was difficult to do without the Commission [without consideration by a subcommittee?] particularly since the proposal had only been received yesterday.
MR. BYRNES replied that the proposal had been circulated on the 25th of July.
MR. MOLOTOV insisted that that had been a different document.
MR. BYRNES stated his belief that he was misunderstood. He asked for the consideration of the document circulated on the 25th which referred to the property of Allied nationals.
MR. MOLOTOV again asked whether they were discussing the July 25th document.
MR. BYRNES confirmed this.
MR. BEVIN then asked for a copy.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that it was probable that the July 25th document had not been circulated at a regular meeting but had been distributed in a Committee. He and Mr. Vyshinski had only seen this document yesterday. It is an important question which should be given full consideration. He again wondered how the meeting could proceed without the commission. He asked whether the commission could consider the matter today.
MR. BYRNES agreed and stated that a Committee would be appointed.
MR. BEVIN again asked which document was meant and read one before him.
MR. BYRNES agreed that this was the document.
MR. MOLOTOV interjected that Mr. Bevin knew as little about it as the Russians. He pointed out that there were two documents.
MR. BYRNES asked to look at the two documents and then stated that on July 25 the paper in Mr. Byrnes’ hand regarding the removal of Allied property from Rumania [Germany] had been circulated. On the same day another one regarding the use of Allied property in satellite reparations had been distributed. This was the one which he wished to have discussed.
MR. MOLOTOV inquired about the first document.
MR. BYRNES stated that the paper referring to Germany was withdrawn. He would not ask for consideration.
MR. BEVIN stated that the question now concerned the appointment of a drafting committee.
MR. BYRNES named Mr. Russell and Mr. Cannon.
MR. MOLOTOV named Mr. Gusev and Mr.———.
MR. BEVIN named Mr. Turner and Mr. Coulson.
German External Assets
MR. BYRNES stated that the next paper circulated concerned German external assets. This subject was before the economic subcommittee and would have to be passed.
Oil for Western Europe
MR. BYRNES stated that the document regarding oil for Western Europe was also before the Economic Subcommittee which was waiting to hear from the Soviet representative.
Allied Oil Equipment in Rumania
MR. BYRNES pointed out that the latest British proposal regarding Allied oil equipment in Rumania had not yet been acted upon.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that on this question the Soviet delegation had made a written proposal to the British five days ago.
MR. BEVIN asked whether he would receive this written proposal today.
MR. MOLOTOV repeated that it had been sent several days ago, probably on July 28.
MR. BEVIN then stated that he had the document before him now. Mr. Bevin pointed out that there were real differences between the British and Soviet drafts since the British have proposed arbitration and the Soviet proposal was for a joint Soviet-British investigating committee.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that this Commission would make a general spot investigation of all documents and facts.
MR. BEVIN replied that the British preferred a neutral, since investigation on a lower level would mean no agreement.
MR. MOLOTOV replied that until now the question had been discussed on a diplomatic level. The Soviet Government now proposes that representatives of both sides should be appointed to investigate. Neither the documents nor the facts in this case have been examined.
MR. BEVIN wished to know what would happen when the investigation had been made.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that they hoped for a settlement. If the Committee failed, however, the next step should be examined. However, no investigation had yet been made.
MR. BYRNES stated that he wished to add that when the paper on this subject had been presented, the U.S. delegation had pointed out that American as well as British interests were involved. Therefore any Commission must have an American representative.
MR. MOLOTOV replied that so far as the American proposal was concerned, a bilateral commission should also be set up.
MR. BYRNES agreed. He thought that they should first make an effort to settle this matter between themselves. He pointed out that American experts have been there for several weeks but up to now have been unable to obtain any agreement from the Soviet experts. He thought that the orderly way to settle this matter is for Mr. Molotov to have his experts meet ours.
MR. BEVIN stated that he wished clarification. He inquired whether it was proposed to set up two bilateral commissions.
MR. MOLOTOV replied that he had suggested two bilateral investigations.
MR. BYRNES asked whether a date could be agreed upon since our experts were already there. He suggested a meeting in 10 days.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that this meeting would be in Rumania.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that it would be on the basis of their documents.
MR. BYRNES asked that the investigation not be limited by any document.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed that the Commission should discuss this matter.
MR. BYRNES insisted that the Commission should not be limited by a document but should be permitted to investigate the facts.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that the Russians would not limit discussions.
MR. BYRNES agreed.
MR. BEVIN stated his assumption that steps would be taken to give all necessary facilities to the experts to go about in Rumania.
MR. MOLOTOV replied that this went without saying. Both the British and Russians would take the necessary steps.
Protocol
MR. BYRNES then stated that he had been advised by the Protocol Committee of certain differences. He wished to know whether his colleagues had also received a report on this subject in order that the points of difference could be discussed. He stated that the questions before the meeting are:
1. Trusteeship Territories
MR. MOLOTOV interjected to state that the Soviet delegation had circulated a document regarding activities in Germany and Austria hostile to the Soviet Union.
MR. BEVIN stated that this document had been sent to London for the preparation of a reply.
MR. MOLOTOV asked whether it could not be agreed that the British and American delegates will insist upon a rapid investigation of this case and take measures to stop such activities.
MR. BYRNES stated that he had thought that we had made it plain that we had taken steps to investigate. An inquiry had been sent to the Army Commander.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested that the meeting might confine itself to the following:
The American and British Delegates had taken steps to investigate and will let the Soviet Government know of the results and also stated that activities of hostile organizations will not be tolerated.
MR. BYRNES repeated that we have asked for a report from our Army Commander. If he reports that there is nothing to these allegations there will be nothing to do. If these statements are substantially correct, proper steps will be taken.
MR. MOLOTOV asked whether if it were evident that such organizations existed, then they would not be tolerated.
MR. BYRNES replied that when a report was received, it would be sent to Mr. Molotov. Then there could be a discussion of the steps to be taken.
MR. BEVIN pointed out that at Crimea we had undertaken not to allow hostile activities against the USSR. Therefore he could see no necessity for another document. If the Soviet Union had complaints to the effect that such activities were being carried on contrary to the agreement, attention should be called to that fact as had been done. It would then be our duty to act in accord with the spirit of the agreement.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed that this was sufficient. He went on to refer to another document presented by the Soviet Union regarding the repatriation of Soviet citizens coming from the Baltic and the Western Ukraine who were now in Norway and England. This document had been circulated on July 29. The memo was of primary interest to the British.
MR. BEVIN stated his belief that this case which had been handed to him after his arrival would be an easy matter to settle through diplomatic channels. He had asked London to go into it immediately and he undertook to deal with it immediately upon his return.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that this is satisfactory. Mr. Molotov went on to state that he was going to circulate another document dealing with complaints received from citizens who state that the agreement with the Soviet Union regarding Soviet prisoners of war is not being observed. This was a sore question with the Soviet Union. Many Soviet nationals had not yet been returned to their homes despite the fact that the war had been over for some time. He wished to ask that Soviet representatives on repatriation be admitted to camps where Soviet nationals were held.
MR. BEVIN pointed out that this matter had nothing to do with the Protocol.
MR. BYRNES replied that Mr. Molotov had asked for delay in consideration of the Protocol in order that other matters could be taken up.
MR. MOLOTOV continued that the question was contained in the document circulated beforehand [just circulated?]. He had no other questions if his colleagues promised to assist on this.
MR. BYRNES stated that he had been informed that our military was doing everything in their power. They want all of these people to return. We have enough people to feed without encouraging other people to remain. Mr. Molotov could rest assured that we would do everything possible to facilitate this matter.
MR. MOLOTOV repeated that he wished to have some attention paid to this question which was a burning one. There were many complications.
Trusteeship Territories
MR. BYRNES again referred to disputed questions before the Protocol Committee. The first question under dispute concerned trusteeship territories. He was informed that the Soviet representative had taken the position that the proposal should mention that the Soviet Government intended to raise with the Council of Foreign Ministers the disposal of all territories subject to trusteeship. The U.S. and British delegations want agreement among the [Big] Three to limit discussion to the disposal of Italian territory. They felt that only this could be mentioned in the Protocol.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that the Soviet memorandum which was circulated dealt with two questions. The first concerned the Italian colonies and the second the League of Nations Mandates. The Soviet question had been referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers in London. The Soviet delegation had agreed. He wished to ask that in drawing up the Protocol there should be a short recapitulation of the Soviet memorandum inserted with the conclusion that the declaration had been referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. He wished to ask that the tone of the Soviet memorandum be reflected in the Protocol.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that this was not in accord with his recollection of the action taken by the Big Three. The fact is that the Soviet paper had asked for consideration of the whole question. Nevertheless discussion at the table was limited to Italian Colonies. The U.S. delegation contended that the question of what should be done to the Italian Colonies depended in the first instance on whether the Colonies would be separated from Italy. This question should be determined in the Peace Treaty, originally to be prepared in the Council of Foreign Ministers and therefore the question regarding trusteeship for Italian Colonies should be settled in the London Council of Foreign Ministers. The question of trusteeship as presented in the Soviet request was much broader and it was not his understanding that the Big Three had agreed to refer it to the Council of Foreign Ministers. In the discussion reference had been made to the language of the United Nations Charter which provided for agreement in certain circumstances but he did not understand that the Big Three had agreed to refer the whole question of trusteeships to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he would not press this matter. He would accept the wording of the British proposal with a slight amendment. He stated that the amendment would read as follows: (He read).
MR. BYRNES agreed.
Black Sea Straits
MR. BYRNES next raised the question of the Black Sea Straits. He stated that on this question he did not think there would be much trouble in reaching agreement. The Soviet draft had referred to the recognition of “necessity”. The British draft had mentioned “need.”
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he had no objection to “need.”
Western Frontier of the USSR
MR. BYRNES stated that the third question concerns the Western Frontier of the USSR. There are a number of questions in dispute here including the title and the Soviet representative had also objected to certain qualifying words which make it clear that the arrangement is provisional and subject to the peace settlement.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that the President had taken a position on all discussions such as this that it must be understood that the cession of territory would have to be left until the peace settlement.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that everyone agreed to this.
MR. BYRNES replied that it seemed to him then that we should be careful to use language which would not mislead people into believing that we intended an immediate transfer of territory. The question was no doubt misunderstood because of the difference in language. The word “transfer” would in English carry a meaning of the cession of territory.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested an amendment to the title which would read “pending final settlement of territorial questions at the peace settlement.”
MR. BYRNES asked what difference the title made as long as the Soviet Union got the territory it wanted.
MR. MOLOTOV asked for suggestions.
MR. BYRNES replied that as long as there is no difference between us, they should be able to find words. He suggested that the title be changed to “city of Koenigsberg and Adjacent Area.”
MR. MOLOTOV and MR. BEVIN agreed.
MR. MOLOTOV went on to state that there were certain difficulties in the text. If his colleagues agreed to his language, there would no longer be any difficulty.
MR. BEVIN stated that he had read what Mr. Churchill had said and this draft expressed Churchill’s thought clearly. He wanted to keep as close to the undertakings given by Churchill as possible. He suggested that Molotov agree to the British draft and then the Conference would be unanimous.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that he also had a good text.
MR. BEVIN then asked that the British draft be read and added that he thought it was all right. His interpreter read the draft.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that this was all right except for the word “provisionally.” The same paragraph said “pending final decision.” The idea had already been expressed. He proposed that the word “provisionally” be deleted in the first paragraph.
MR. BYRNES stated that he agreed that the only reason he could see for this difference is that the question had been raised. There must be a meeting of minds. So long as we agree with “a transfer pending final determination,” he would not insist on this word. He again asked Mr. Molotov whether he agreed that there is no question but that this is a transfer pending final determination.
MR. MOLOTOV replied “Of course.”
MR. BYRNES and MR. BEVIN then agreed to strike out the word “provisionally.”
MR. MOLOTOV then suggested that the last part of the sentence reading “subject to expert examination” be deleted.
MR. BEVIN stated that this wording is vital to the British. Churchill, speaking for the British, had made it quite clear. The Soviet delegation had at that time made no objection to these experts. He thought that during all history boundaries had been determined in such a manner.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed that it could not be otherwise. There would be no authority until the boundary had been mapped.
MR. BYRNES asked why in this case Mr. Molotov objected.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he thought this not nice but if you are so anxious we agree.
MR. MOLOTOV then proposed a last amendment. He suggested that the words “in principle” be deleted from the last paragraph since they appear in the preceding paragraph. It was enough to mention this once.
MR. BYRNES then suggested that the words “agreement of the conference” be inserted after the words “they will support.”
MR. MOLOTOV stated that this would be all right without the words “in principle.”
MR. BEVIN then suggested the words “conclusions of conference” instead of the word “agreement.” This would avoid misunderstanding.
MR. MOLOTOV then suggested the word “proposal.”
MR. BEVIN and MR. BYRNES agreed.
Austria
MR. BYRNES stated that the next question concerned Austria. The Soviet representative maintained that the Protocol should record the agreement of the three governments that the authority of the Provisional Government should be extended to all zones. The U.S. and British Governments were prepared to state that this question would be examined after the entry of their forces into Vienna.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he had no objection to this. However, the last paragraph concerning Koniev had no bearing on the subject.
MR. BYRNES and Mr. Bevin agreed that it should go out.
MR. BYRNES then stated that so far as he knew, the differences of the Protocol Committee had been settled. He suggested that the Conference agree to direct the Protocol Committee to include only important decisions of the Conference. The Protocol should certainly be limited to decisions. Any attempt to insert proposals would lead to difficulties and the insertion of other proposals.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed.
MR. BYRNES stated that the Protocol Committee could then be asked to return to its work.
MR. BEVIN agreed and asked whether the decision regarding Rumania should be put in.
MR. BYRNES stated that only a factual statement should be inserted.
Revised Allied Control Commission Procedure in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary
MR. BYRNES stated that the U.S. delegation had yesterday asked for consideration today of a paper regarding revised Allied Control Commission Procedure for Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. He had the impression that there is no serious difficulty here and would like to dispose of the matter, if possible.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he could accept this proposal but that the second sentence was not exact. He suggested the deletion of the second sentence.
MR. BYRNES suggested that this sentence be read. Mr. Byrnes noted that our representatives in these countries had been saying that there had not been regular and frequent meetings of the Control Commission and that no information had been advanced before the issuance of directives.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that the Soviet proposals contained these points.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that the difficulty is that Mr. Molotov was asking to have deleted the assurance that is really important to our representatives there. Nothing would hearten them more than to know that there would be a change and that there would be frequent meetings. He was sure that the Soviet delegation would agree that this was the right thing. He asked to have the second sentence remain.
MR. MOLOTOV insisted that it was all in the Soviet proposal in detail and in accurate form. He pointed out that we had agreed to accept the Soviet proposal as a basis for discussion.
MR. BYRNES remarked that if it was really meant that we intend to do what is in this sentence, he could not see why it was objected to.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that if it was thought necessary to keep the second sentence, it should be drafted more accurately. He had no objection. However, he thought that since the Soviet proposal had been accepted as a basis for discussion, the second sentence was not necessary.
MR. BYRNES asked what proposal.
MR. MOLOTOV went on to state that regular meetings were all right but not too frequent. He suggested the deletion of the word “frequent.”
MR. BYRNES asked why they should not have frequent meetings.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he was not opposed to frequent meetings but that the words might mean they would have to meet every day. The Soviet proposals had contained specific language regarding frequency.
MR. BYRNES suggested regular meetings weekly and added that we do not want regular to mean three times a year.
MR. MOLOTOV then suggested regular meetings two or three times a month.
MR. BYRNES replied that this was better than two or three times a year. He pointed out that in the proposed directive for Rumania it was drafted that there should be meetings every 10 days.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that they would perhaps be more frequent.
MR. BYRNES suggested that it should be stated that they would meet at least once in 10 days.
MR. MOLOTOV reiterated that perhaps the meetings would be even more frequent. He added that it was not a question for decision at Berlin.
MR. BYRNES replied that we had not been able to fix this matter otherwise.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that the Soviet delegation had made a written proposal which had been accepted.
MR. BYRNES stated that it had not been accepted as to details.
MR. MOLOTOV admitted that it had been accepted as a basis for discussion.
MR. BYRNES agreed and stated that he would now accept Mr. Molotov’s provision for meetings at least once in ten days.
MR. MOLOTOV said all right and inquired about the language concerning the importance of facilities for American and British representatives. It was not clear what was implied. The Soviet draft had contained specific proposals. Were these accepted or not.
MR. BYRNES asked for a moment to read.
MR. BEVIN asked whether Mr. Molotov referred to the document relating to Rumania as his specific proposal.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that the proposals concerned Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. He pointed out that the Conference had settled the question of the meeting at least once in ten days or oftener, if required.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that his wording “at least” would permit meetings every day, if necessary. He submitted that the language in the U.S. draft regarding the importance of facilities is the wisest suggestion. The Soviet proposal concerned two question[s]. Mr. Byrnes considered that it would be better to have general language. If the British have a copy of the Soviet proposal and will accept the language contained in their paper dated July 12 referring to Hungary, he considered the language in 3, 4 and 5 to be entirely satisfactory. It could apply to all countries and might do good and remove the source of irritation.
MR. BEVIN stated that he would accept the draft on Hungary as applicable to all countries.
MR. BYRNES stated that he would so instruct the drafting committee.
MR. MOLOTOV asked that Mr. Bevin’s proposal to extend the Hungarian proposal to Bulgaria and Rumania be accepted.
MR. BYRNES suggested reference to a drafting committee.
MR. MOLOTOV asked why it should go to a drafting committee.
MR. BYRNES replied that this would be done only to insert 3, 4 and 5 in the paper instead of the language Mr. Molotov wished to have deleted.
MR. BYRNES named Mr. Russell and Mr. Cannon.
MR. BEVIN suggested reference to the Protocol Committee.
MR. MOLOTOV thought that it should be a special committee. He named Mr. Novikov and Mr.———.
MR. BEVIN named Mr. [Hoyer] Millar.
MR. BYRNES then stated that the sentence to which Mr. Molotov had objected would be eliminated and the three paragraphs proposed by him would be inserted instead.
Freedom of the Press
MR. BYRNES pointed out in the papers concerning Poland and Rumania and Bulgaria reference had been made to freedom of the press. On the paper regarding Admission to United Nations Organization and on the Polish paper where the words “freedom of the press” were used, he had been informed that radio was not necessarily governed. He therefore suggested the addition of the words “and radio.”
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that the press and radio were not the same thing.
MR. BYRNES agreed although in some places they were construed to mean the same thing and in others not. He assumed that Mr. Molotov would not desire to discriminate against radio.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that in some cases radio was run by the government unlike the press. The American rules hardly apply in these cases. He hardly thought it was possible to find a common rule.
MR. BYRNES stated that the only result of the present wording is to give representatives of the Allied press full freedom to report to the world. He was sure that the Soviet Delegation would not feel that representatives of Allied radio should not be permitted to report. There was no essential difference between a newspaperman reporting to his paper and a radioman reporting over the radio.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested that they conform to the decision already adopted.
MR. BEVIN asked whether it was meant that correspondents and radio representatives would be allowed to repeat [report?] on the same basis.
MR. BYRNES replied that the insertion after the word “press” of the word “radio” would mean this. If this word were not included, newspapermen would be all right but radiomen would not.
MR. BEVIN asked whether Mr. Molotov objected to radiomen being able to report.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that the Soviet Delegation would not be able to deal with this question at this moment since different things were involved. He suggested that the question not be raised at all at this time. There should be neither permission nor prohibition.
MR. BYRNES remarked that every morning at eight he listened to a correspondent reporting the news from Moscow.
MR. MOLOTOV rejoined that the Soviet Government would not permit a Hearst correspondent to talk over its radio. It all depended on the situation.
MR. BEVIN stated that he did not want Mr. Molotov to put British socialized institutions like the BBC at a disadvantage as compared to private press.
MR. MOLOTOV doubted that the Conference had time to examine this question.
MR. BYRNES suggested that it be passed and that the Big Three be advised.
Chinese Acceptance of Invitation to Join Council of Foreign Ministers
MR. BYRNES announced that he had just received word that the Chinese Government has accepted with pleasure the invitation sent to them to join the Council of Foreign Ministers.
German Fleet
MR. BYRNES stated that according to the naval subcommittee the unresolved questions on this subject are__________
MR. MOLOTOV interrupted to ask for a ten-minute adjournment.
MR. BYRNES agreed.
MR. BYRNES after the adjournment again raised the question of the German fleet and merchant marine. He stated that the first unresolved question is that of distribution. The British Delegation had asked that the French share in the distribution of certain ships.
MR. MOLOTOV pointed out that it had already been decided by the Big Three that the fleet would be divided equally among the three powers.
MR. BYRNES asked for British comment.
MR. BEVIN asked whether they were now dealing purely with the fleet since he had reservations regarding merchant vessels. After receiving an affirmative answer, he agreed to the one-third division.
MR. BYRNES then passed to the question of the merchant marine.
MR. BEVIN interrupted to mention the question of submarines. There were some differences here. The question is how many submarines should be saved and how many should be destroyed and how should they be divided. Churchill had laid down the British position on this subject to the effect that only token submarines should remain. The British were very sensitive on this point. The British and American Delegations had agreed that thirty submarines should be saved and the rest destroyed.
MR. MOLOTOV remarked that the Soviet Union would like to save more.
MR. BEVIN replied that he knew this. However, if the Russians asked for a big submarine fleet after what the British had suffered, no statesman would survive. Mr. Molotov must go along with him on this. It was a tender point with the British Navy. U-boat warfare had cost the lives of 30,000 British seamen carrying supplies. The main thing, therefore, is that submarines be saved for experimental purposes only. The number suggested by the American and British Delegations would be adequate for this purpose. He hoped that the Soviet Delegation would agree.
MR. MOLOTOV after asking whether any addition could be made agreed to saving thirty submarines.
MR. BEVIN thanked him.
MR. BYRNES then reverted to the subject of the merchant marine.
MR. BEVIN stated that the British were anxious to see a reasonable amount of shipping left to care for the German economy. He was willing to have the Allied Control Commission examine the problem very carefully in order to determine the number and type of ships suitable for Baltic and other uses. When the Control Commission had determined the amount of tonnage and type, there would be a balance left. He would then agree to a division provided that the Soviet Delegation out of their one-third would take care of Poland proportionately as the British and Americans would take care of others.
MR. MOLOTOV proposed that the British-American Delegation draft be accepted. This does not mention specific countries.
MR. BYRNES remarked that Holland may make claims, and Norway also. As he understood Mr. Bevin he had agreed that after the German economy had been taken care of there would be a division, provided that the Soviet Union took care of Poland and we of the others.
MR. MOLOTOV again referred to the necessity for determining the ships necessary for the German economy.
MR. BYRNES stated his understanding that the British Foreign Minister had covered this point and had said that thereafter there would be a one-third division but that the Soviet Union would take care of Poland and we would provide for the reasonable claims of others.
MR. BEVIN interjected to state that he wished to limit distribution of the British and American portions to Norway, France, the Dutch and possibly Belgium.
MR. BYRNES inquired about Greece.
MR. BEVIN agreed that Greece should be included.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested that the question be decided in accordance with the agreement by the American and British Delegations, namely that subparagraph (d) states that part of the German [merchant] fleet shall be held for the German economy.
MR. BEVIN pointed out now that this had been accepted.
MR. MOLOTOV went on to state that the rest of the merchant fleet should be divided into three parts.
MR. BYRNES stated that this was correct and in accord with the committee report but the British Delegation wished to make clear which countries should not look to the Soviet Union for part of their share.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he understood but added that it had been provided in the [text on?] reparations that the Soviet Union will meet Polish claims and the other Allies other claims.
MR. BEVIN stated that this must be clarified. This concerns the distribution of booty, not reparations. He wished to know who has a claim to booty. The British lost 48 percent of their merchant fleet, the USA 15 percent, Norway 10½ percent, France 7 percent, the Dutch 5½ percent. He interrupted himself at this point to state that he had been quoting wrongly and that the figures mentioned by him applied to the percentage of total loss. After recapitulating he stated that the USSR had suffered one percent of the losses and that he had no figures for the Poles.
MR. MOLOTOV asked where he had gotten the Soviet figure, which was not correct.
MR. BEVIN replied that he had a figure of 240,000 tons lost. His position is that in the distribution of booty he could not admit legal claims on the British in accordance with the Churchill statement but will give a fair interpretation to what Churchill had stated in this connection. Therefore he was willing, together with the U.S. to meet the claims of the other Allies, but he asked for a definite understanding that Poland should out of this booty have their proportionate share out of the Soviet one-third. He undertook with American approval to deal with the Norwegians, the French, the Dutch and the Greeks.
MR. MOLOTOV inquired about the Yugoslavs.
MR. BEVIN said “No. Why?”
MR. MOLOTOV stated that he thought their opinion should be sought. Otherwise, they would be offended.
MR. BEVIN replied that he would leave the Yugoslavs to the Soviet Union out of their generosity.
MR. MOLOTOV asked why.
MR. BEVIN stated that he did not think that Great Britain after their tremendous losses should satisfy the claims of every other Ally. This is asking too much.
MR. MOLOTOV inquired about the United States position.
MR. BYRNES stated that in consideration of this question heretofore it had been recognized that ships, even merchant marine, was war booty in British possession, Churchill had agreed at this table to a division subject to the condition that ships under the Combined Maritime Authority would be used in the war against Japan. He wondered whether it was wise to enumerate the countries whose claims are to be considered. He thought that it might induce them to file claims. He thought some South American countries had lost ships and would like to file claims. If agreement was reached that the Soviet Government would out of its one-third care for the Polish claim and in addition look after Yugoslavia, it would make it easy.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that the question is whether there would be any ships left after their use by Russian allies against Japan.
MR. BYRNES replied that there would be [an] ample number of ships left if the Soviet Union looked after Poland only.
MR. MOLOTOV again asked if there would be any left after the Far Eastern war.
MR. BYRNES replied that no one could say but he believed that we were not losing many merchant ships at this time. He again repeated his belief that to enumerate ships would be to invite others to make claims. He wondered whether it was necessary.
MR. BEVIN stated that he only mentioned it as an example.
MR. BYRNES restated his understanding that the ships were in the possession of the British and when division had been made other claims would be determined. We did not want to commit ourselves. It would be for British and American Governments to decide whether Yugoslavia would be allowed any ships.
MR. BEVIN stated that if the Soviet Union would agree that Poland would receive the same percentage of losses as America and Great Britain gave the other Allies, then he would undertake with the United States to take care of Yugoslavia. He wanted to get this point settled.
MR. MOLOTOV reserved his views on this matter.
MR. BEVIN referred to the proposed public announcement regarding ships and submarines.
MR. MOLOTOV replied that there is a draft announcement for publication, which seems to be proper.
MR. BYRNES suggested that this question be submitted to the Big Three unless Mr. Molotov wished to let us know his view later.
MR. MOLOTOV thought it should be submitted to the Big Three.
MR. BEVIN asked what was to be submitted.
MR. MOLOTOV stated the proposal regarding the fleet and merchant marine.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that certain items had been agreed upon and that if they were not referred it would save time.
MR. MOLOTOV agreed that what had been agreed upon was all right, but he reserved his views on other sections. He referred to the last subparagraph of the British proposal.
MR. BEVIN stated that this had been withdrawn.
MR. MOLOTOV then referred to the agenda for the Big Three.
MR. BYRNES replied that the Big Three agenda had been made up as we went along.
External Assets of Germany
MR. BYRNES stated that a report had been received from the Economic Subcommittee regarding external German assets.
MR. MOLOTOV stated that this question must go to the Big Three.
MR. BYRNES said that it would be placed on the agenda.
Article 19 – Economic Principles
MR. BYRNES reported that the Economic Subcommittee had failed to agree on Article 19 of Economic Principles.
MR. BEVIN asked whether agreement could be reached now.
MR. MOLOTOV suggested adjournment until three.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that the Big Three would meet at three – the meeting adjourned.
740.00119 Potsdam/8-145
Rapporteur’s Report
Potsdam, August 1, 1945, 11:25 a.m.
German reparations
It was agreed that the heads of Government should be asked to consider the draft on this subject prepared by the subcommittee.
German economic principles
It was agreed that the report of the Economic Subcommittee on this subject should be presented to the Heads of Government.
War crimes
It was agreed that the Heads of Government should be asked to decide the one outstanding issue in this connection, that is, whether certain prominent war criminals should be referred to by name in the decision of the Conference.
Use of Allied property for satellite reparations or ‘war trophies’
A subcommittee was named to consider the U.S. paper on this subject which was circulated on July 25th. The American Secretary of State withdrew the U.S. paper circulated at the same time on “Removals from Germany of Properties of United Nations or Neutral Nationals.”
German external assets
The U.S. paper on this subject is still before the Economic Subcommittee, which will report to the Heads of Government.
Oil for Western Europe
The U.S. proposal on this subject is also before the Economic Subcommittee which will report to the Heads of Government.
Allied oil equipment in Rumania
The Foreign Ministers agreed that there should be two bilateral commissions, one British-Soviet and one U.S.-Soviet, to meet August 10 in Rumania to examine the documents and the facts in connection with this question. It was agreed that these commissions would be accorded all necessary facilities to perform their task in Rumania.
Fascist activities in U.S. and British zones in Germany and Austria
The U.S. and British representatives stated that their Governments are investigating the situation reported in the Soviet paper on this subject and that they will inform the Soviets of the results of these investigations and will at that time discuss what further steps should be taken.
Repatriation of Soviet citizens
The British representatives stated that they are looking into the situation reported in the Soviet paper circulated already on this subject and that they would deal with it as soon as they returned to London. The Soviet representatives circulated a new paper on the subject and laid great stress on the importance which they attached thereto. The U.S. and British representatives stated that they would deal with the matter as promptly as possible.
Disputed questions before the Protocol Committee
The American Secretary of State presented four questions on which the Protocol Subcommittee had been unable to reach agreement: (1) Trusteeship Territories; (2) Black Sea Straits; (3) the Koenigsberg Area; and (4) Austria. The Foreign Ministers were able to agree upon texts on all of these questions. They also agreed that only important decisions of the Conference should be included in the Protocol. They approved a suggestion that the decision reached this morning creating bilateral commissions to deal with the question of Allied oil equipment in Rumania should be mentioned in the Protocol.
Revised procedure for Allied Control Commissions in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary
The U.S. draft on this subject was accepted with the exception of the second sentence. It was agreed that for this sentence there should be substituted the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Soviet paper on the Control Commission in Hungary. A drafting committee was named to prepare the final document for presentation to the Heads of Government.
Facilities for radio representatives in Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Finland
The American Secretary of State proposed that in the papers already approved by the Conference on the Polish question and on admission to the United Nations, where certain facilities were stipulated for representatives of the allied press, the words “and radio” be added in order that these same facilities might be available to representatives of the Allied radio. The Foreign Ministers were not able to reach agreement on this question and it was decided so to advise the Heads of Government who might then determine whether or not they wished to discuss the question.
Disposition of German fleet and merchant marine
The report of the subcommittee on this subject was considered by the Foreign Ministers. It was agreed that 30 German submarines should not be destroyed. Other points in dispute were not settled and it was agreed that they should be brought before the Heads of Government this afternoon.
Report by the Drafting Committee on Reparations from Germany
[Babelsberg, August 1, 1945]
No agreement was reached by the Committee on a protocol on German reparations. The U.S. and U.K. representatives considered that, in return for the percentages of capital equipment allocated to the Soviet Union under the terms of paragraph 4 of the attached draft, the USSR had agreed to refrain from asserting a claim to German external assets, gold captured in Germany or securities of German corporations in the Western Zones. Therefore, the U.S. and U.K. representatives maintained that German external assets should be included in paragraph 3, as a source of reparation to countries other than the USSR. Lacking this, the percentages in paragraph 4 would be unacceptable to the U.S. and U.K. representatives.
The Soviet representative considered that no agreed decision had yet been taken regarding relinquishment by the USSR of a claim to external assets, gold and securities. Therefore the Soviet representatives did not accept the addition of German external assets in paragraph 3 and recommended that the matter should be referred to the Heads of Government.
The attached draft would be acceptable to the U.S. and U.K. representatives upon condition that the Soviet representatives confirm the above understanding regarding external assets, gold and securities. The Soviet representative stated that he could not agree with the way this question had been raised.
[Attachment]
German Reparation
-
Reparation claims of USSR shall be met by removals from the zone of Germany occupied by the USSR.
-
The USSR undertakes to settle the reparation claims of Poland from its own share of reparations.
-
The reparations claims of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries entitled to reparations shall be met from the Western Zones and from German external assets[.]
-
In addition to the reparations to be taken by the USSR from its own zone of occupation, the USSR shall receive additionally from the Western Zones:
(a) 15 percent of such usable and complete industrial capital equipment, in the first place from the metallurgical, chemical and machine manufacturing industries as is unnecessary for the German peace economy and should be removed from the Western Zones of Germany, in exchange for an equivalent value of food, coal, potash, zinc, timber, clay products, petroleum products, and such other commodities as may be agreed upon.
(b) 10 percent of such industrial capital equipment as is unnecessary for the German peace economy and should be removed from the Western Zones, to be transferred to the Soviet Government on reparations account without payment or exchange of any kind in return.
Removals of equipment as provided in (a) and (b) above shall be made simultaneously.
-
The amount of equipment to be removed from the Western Zones on account of reparations must be determined within six months from now at the latest.
-
Removals of industrial capital equipment shall begin as soon as possible and shall be completed within two years from the determination specified in paragraph 5. The delivery of products covered by 4 (a) above shall begin as soon as possible and shall be made by the USSR in agreed installments within five years of the date hereof. The determination of the amount and character of the industrial capital equipment unnecessary for the German peace economy and therefore available for reparation shall be made by the Control Council under policies fixed by the Allied Commission on Reparations, with the participation of France, subject to the final approval of the Zone Commander in the Zone from which the equipment is to be removed.
-
Prior to the fixing of the total amount of equipment subject to removal, advance deliveries shall be made in respect to such equipment as will be determined to be eligible for delivery in accordance with the procedure set forth in the last sentence of paragraph 6.
740.00119 (Potsdam)/7-3145
The U.S. Representatives on the Economic Subcommittee to the Secretary of State
[Babelsberg,] August 1 [1945] — 1:00 p.m.
[Extract]
There is attached the Third Report of the Economic Subcommittee to the Foreign Ministers.
With respect to the question of German external assets, the U.S. and U.K. recommended the inclusion in the Economic Principles of the following:
- Appropriate steps shall be taken by the Control Council to exercise control and the power of disposition over German owned external assets not already under the control of United Nations which have taken part in the war against Germany.
We also recommended that appropriate reference to this matter be made in the communiqué.
The Soviet representatives, while stating that they had very little interest in the matter, reserved their position pending a study of the entire problem.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Attachment — Extract]
Third Report of the Economic Subcommittee to the Foreign Ministers
The Economic Subcommittee considered the questions of a statement regarding German external assets and an Article 19 of the Economic Principles relating to payment for imports into Germany.
With respect to the question of German external assets, no decision was reached. The Soviet representatives, after a general explanation of the problem had been made, requested fuller information and reserved their position pending the furnishing of such information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
740.00119 (Potsdam)/7-3145
The U.S. Representatives on the Economic Subcommittee to the Secretary of State
[Babelsberg,] August 1 [1945] — 1:00 p.m.
There is attached the Third Report of the Economic Subcommittee to the Foreign Ministers.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
With respect to Article 19, the discussion indicated that the U.S., U.K. and USSR representatives were all in fact in agreement on two paragraphs:
Payment of reparations should leave sufficient resources to enable the German people to subsist without external assistance.
Payment for imports into Germany approved by the Control Council shall be a first charge against the proceeds of exports out of current production and out of stocks of goods.
We felt that we could not agree to report favorably these two paragraphs alone without insisting that the following be recorded in the protocol: “The above clause will not apply to the equipment and products referred to in paragraphs 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the Reparations Agreement.”
The British representatives indicated that they would concur. When the Soviet representatives refused to agree to a report that would have included a statement of the position of the U.S. representatives in this matter, it became necessary to fail to agree on any part of the subject.
It had been the understanding of the U.K. and U.S. representatives that in the event Article 19 as indicated above had been agreed upon, it would still have been necessary for you and/or the President to indicate that the general Control Council agreement proclaimed June 5 would be operative, that is, if the Control Council failed to agree, each zone commander would still be free to import into his own zone such supplies as his government considered essential, for the payment of which he might assess a first charge on exports from his own zone.
[Attachment — Extracts]
Third Report of the Economic Subcommittee to the Foreign Ministers
The Economic Subcommittee considered the questions of a statement regarding German external assets and an Article 19 of the Economic Principles relating to payment for imports into Germany.
The Subcommittee also failed to reach agreement in the matter of an Article 19 of the Economic Principles.
740.00119 (Potsdam)/7-3145
Report by the Economic Subcommittee
[Babelsberg, August 1, 1945]
[Extract]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Soviet representatives reported that they were not yet in a position further to discuss the matter of oil supplies from the East.
Harriman-Mikołajczyk conversation, 12:30 p.m.
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | Poland | |
| Mr. Harriman | Deputy Prime Minister Mikołajczyk |
Twelfth plenary meeting, 4 p.m.
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | United Kingdom | Soviet Union |
| President Truman | Prime Minister Attlee | Generalissimo Stalin |
| Secretary Byrnes | Foreign Secretary Bevin | Foreign Commissar Molotov |
| Mr. Davies | Sir Alexander Cadogan | Mr. Vyshinsky |
| Mr. Bohlen | Major Birse | Mr. Golunsky |
| Mr. Cohen | Mr. Maisky | |
| Mr. Thompson |
U.S. Delegation Working Paper
Potsdam, August 1, 1945, 4 p.m.
Suggested Agenda – Meeting of Heads of Governments August 1, 1945
1. German Reparations
The subcommittee will present its report on this subject.
2. German Economic Principles
The Economic Subcommittee has presented the report on this subject, as well as on two immediately following points.
3. German External Assets
4. Oil Supplies for Western Europe
5. Use of Allied Property for Satellite Reparations or ‘War Trophies’
A subcommittee was appointed by the Foreign Ministers this morning to consider this subject.
6. War Crimes
The question of whether or not certain prominent war criminals be designated by name remains unsettled.
7. Procedures of the Allied Control Commissions in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary
The Foreign Ministers reached substantial agreement on this subject this morning and a subcommittee was named to prepare a final draft.
8. Disposition of the German Fleet and Merchant Marine
The subcommittee on this subject reported to the Foreign Ministers this afternoon.
9. Facilities for Representatives of the Allied Radio
The U.S. Secretary of State proposed to the Foreign Ministers this afternoon that reference be made in the papers on “the Polish Question” and “Admission to the United Nations” to representatives of the Allied radio as well as to representatives of the Allied press. No decision could be reached by the Foreign Ministers and it was agreed that the Heads of Governments should be so advised.
Thompson Minutes
Potsdam, August 1, 1945, 4 p.m.
Top secret
MR. BYRNES said they had taken up many questions in the Foreign Ministers meeting. He thought it would be helpful to take them up one at a time.
German Separations
MR. BYRNES read the report of the drafting committee on the protocol of [on?] German reparations. He said the question was whether the Big Three had yesterday reached agreement on reparations when the Soviet delegate had said that he would not press the Soviet claim to 30 percent of the German gold, foreign assets, and shares.
MR. STALIN inquired what was meant by the expression “western zones” in the document.
THE PRESIDENT said it meant the zones occupied by France, Great Britain, and the United States.
MR. STALIN suggested that they might reach agreement along the following lines. The Russians would not claim the gold which their Allies had found in Germany. With regard to shares and foreign investments, perhaps the demarcation line between the Soviet and western zones of occupation should be taken as the dividing line and everything west of that line would go to the Allies and everything east of that line to the Russians.
THE PRESIDENT inquired if he meant a line running from the Baltic to the Adriatic.
STALIN replied in the affirmative and said that with respect to foreign investments, all investments in Europe west of this line would go to the Allies and all investments in Eastern Europe to the Russians. He said that for example German investments in Rumania and Hungary would fall to the Russians.
MR. BEVIN asked if German investments in other countries would be theirs.
MR. STALIN replied that they would and mentioned France, Belgium, and America as examples.
MR. BEVIN said he agreed and asked if Greece would belong to Britain.
MR. STALIN said the only questions related to Austria and Yugoslavia. Austria was divided into three zones. Yugoslavia was partly in the Russian zone. What should they do with investments there.
MR. BEVIN suggested that they be given to them.
MR. STALIN asked if he wanted Austria too.
MR. BEVIN replied that he did not.
MR. STALIN suggested that the Allies take Yugoslavia and Austria would be divided into zones.
MR. BYRNES asked what Stalin had to say with respect to the shares of German corporations that had been included in Stalin’s proposal yesterday but later withdrawn.
MR. STALIN said that the shares of enterprises located in the American zone would belong to the Americans.
MR. BYRNES said that he understood from this that the Russians would make no claim to shares of enterprises located in the American zones.
MR. STALIN replied that he would not.
MR. BYRNES pointed out that yesterday Stalin had asked for 30 percent of German foreign assets. What percent did he now ask of these assets.
MR. STALIN said he did not know but it would be very small as most of them were west of the demarcation line.
MR. BEVIN said he understood that yesterday the Soviet Government had renounced all claim to foreign assets.
MR. STALIN replied that they were speaking of the western zone of Europe and not the eastern zone. They had yesterday asked for 30 percent of the foreign assets in the west. This had been withdrawn but the Allies should also renounce those in the east.
MR. BEVIN said he understood the Russians had renounced all claim to German foreign assets yesterday.
MR. STALIN said not those in Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Hungary.
MR. BYRNES asked in the case of a Berlin corporation which owned assets located in the American zone or in the United States or in South America, if the Russians claimed a share of the property elsewhere even though [because?] the headquarters were located in the Soviet zone.
MR. STALIN replied that if the enterprises were west of the line the Russians would have no claim on them.
MR. BYRNES said that then if the enterprises themselves were in the United States or elsewhere the Russians would not claim them.
MR. STALIN replied that he would not and added that those in Norway, Switzerland, Spain and other countries in the west would all fall to the Allies.
MR. BEVIN pointed out that this was rather going back on the agreement reached yesterday and asked if Stalin would renounce all claims to German foreign assets outside the zone of Russian occupation.
MR. BYRNES asked what would happen to the previous Soviet claim on gold.
MR. STALIN replied that the Russians would have no claim whatsoever.
MR. BYRNES said he thought it was important to have a meeting of minds. Mr. Bevin’s question was whether the Russian claim was limited to the zone occupied by the Russian Army. To that he understood Mr. Stalin to say “yes”. If that were so he was prepared to agree.
MR. STALIN replied in the affirmative.
MR. BYRNES said that only a few minutes before a claim had been made to assets outside of Germany and to avoid disputes in the future it would be well to have an understanding now. As he understood it the Russians would make no claim to foreign assets unless they were in the zone occupied by the Soviet Army.
MR. STALIN said he considered Finland to be in this zone. Yugoslavia was not but the eastern part of Austria was in their zone.
MR. BEVIN said he assumed it was clear that assets owned by British and Americans in those areas would not be touched.
MR. STALIN replied of course they would not and said that they had not been at war with Great Britain.
MR. BEVIN pointed out that these assets might have been taken over by the Germans.
MR. STALIN replied that in such cases it would be necessary to decide the matter on the merits of each case.
THE PRESIDENT pointed out that doubtless Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and other countries would claim assets in their territory.
MR. STALIN replied that Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were in the Allied zone for this purpose.
THE PRESIDENT said that he agreed with the Soviet proposal.
MR. BEVIN said he also agreed.
MR. STALIN said he thought the decision should be put in the Protocol but not published.
MR. BYRNES agreed that it should be put in the Protocol to avoid misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought it should be published.
MR. STALIN said he would agree.
MR. BYRNES referred to the statement in the third paragraph of the report drafted by the committee referring to the situation of the claims from other countries to German external assets. He assumed there would be no objection to that language in view of the agreement just reached.
MR. STALIN suggested the language, “and respective German assets abroad”. He added that it could be defined in the Protocol.
MR. BYRNES suggested that they decide that the language to carry out the agreement just reached be added to the report and that the matter be referred back to the sub-committee.
This was agreed to.
Invitation to France to Become a Member of the Reparations Commission
MR. ATTLEE proposed that the French Government be invited by the three Governments to become a member of the Reparations Commission today.
MR. STALIN suggested that they also invite Poland as Poland had suffered very much.
MR. ATTLEE said he understood it had been agreed that France be invited.
MR. STALIN asked why they should not invite Poland.
THE PRESIDENT said that they had agreed yesterday that the Soviet Government could take care of Poland with respect to reparations and that the Allies could take care of the others. Why mix other hands in the pie?
MR. ATTLEE pointed out that France had a zone of occupation in Germany.
MR. STALIN asked if Attlee was anxious to have France participate.
MR. ATTLEE replied in the affirmative.
MR. STALIN then said he would agree.
Delivery of Food, Coal, and Fuel to Berlin
MR. ATTLEE read the paper which he had submitted on this question which stated that an agreement had been reached on the delivery of 40,000 tons of food per month and 24,000 [2,400] tons of coal per day by the Soviets for the British and American zones in Berlin for thirty days running from July 15. He proposed that the Control Commission should be instructed to draw up a program of food, coal, and fuel to be imported during the next six months into the greater Berlin area. The amount furnished by the Soviet Government could be considered as an advanced delivery under paragraph 4 of the Reparations Agreement.
MR. STALIN pointed out that this was a new question upon which he did not know the opinion of the Control Council. He did not think it possible to have a high standard of living for Germany in the near future. They should ask the Control Commission for the facts and for plans for the future.
MR. ATTLEE replied that it was not a question of a high standard of living. He pointed out that deliveries of capital goods from the Ruhr were to begin now and the supply of necessary food should also begin now. The quantity could be determined by the Control Commission.
MR. STALIN said that in principle of course there should be an agreement but it was impossible to discuss figures here. The military people on the Control Commission could arrange such matters better.
MR. ATTLEE replied that this was what he was asking.
MR. STALIN said he did not know how this matter stood now and added that he could not take a decision now and pull figures out of the air.
MR. ATTLEE said he did not ask for figures.
MR. STALIN replied that he had mentioned figures in his memorandum. Where had they come from?
MR. ATTLEE said that these figures had been agreed upon.
MR. STALIN replied that he did not know about it.
MR. BEVIN pointed out that a temporary agreement was already in [Page 571]existence. The British asked that they decide in principle that when the Control Commission drew up the figure, the Soviet Government would supply the goods. He asked who was going to supply Berlin when the month covered by the present agreement was up.
MR. STALIN said that they should refer the question to the Control Commission.
MR. ATTLEE said that he understood that the Russians wanted supplies of capital goods to come forward from the Ruhr regularly. They were proposing the same thing from the Russian side.
MR. STALIN said he understood. He would like to have the opinion of the Control Commission in order to have something on which to base his decision. He pointed out that there was no similarity between the agreements to supply capital equipment and food since they were to be completed within different periods of time.
MR. ATTLEE replied that the Russians were asking for advance deliveries before the value of the equipment had been set.
MR. STALIN replied that they could refuse to make those advance deliveries.
MR. BEVIN said that they did not wish to do that. They wished to accommodate each other.
MR. STALIN asked what he could do if he was not ready to decide the matter.
MR. BEVIN said then they would postpone it.
Austrian Reparations
MR. ATTLEE said he understood that the Generalissimo had said that Austria would not be called on for reparations, and that this matter was not quite clear. He asked if this were a firm decision.
MR. STALIN replied that it was and that it could be put in the Protocol.
Economic Principles for Germany
MR. BYRNES made a proposal for the inclusion in the document on economic principles for Germany of paragraph 18.
MR. STALIN inquired if this were an amendment or a new proposal.
MR. BYRNES said that a paper had been circulated some days ago and that the sub-committee had reported, recommending the inclusion of this paragraph.
MR. MOLOTOV said that perhaps this amendment would be needed as they had decided on the language with respect to reparations. If they thought it was affected by the decision just taken, they would have to refer it back to the committee. It related to the control of the property of German citizens abroad.
MR. STALIN said he had read the language and could accept it.
This was agreed to.
MR. BYRNES said that the Soviet Government had yesterday asked for time to consider paragraph 19.
MR. MOLOTOV asked if the British draft of paragraph 19 could be accepted and said they had no objection to this draft.
MR. BYRNES said he understood that the British representatives had agreed with the United States representatives that if paragraph 19 was adopted, the words proposed by the American representatives should be added. This was necessary because of the agreement on reparations reached yesterday.
MR. STALIN said he agreed.
MR. ATTLEE also agreed.
MR. BEVIN said that this disposed of the paper on economic principles. Mr. Bevin informed [was to inform?] the French that this was agreed to.
War Crimes
MR. BYRNES said that the question was whether certain war criminals should be referred to by name in the decision of the Conference. The British and American Foreign Ministers thought that this should be left to the prosecutor.
MR. STALIN said that names were necessary. If they were going to try certain German industrialists they should say so. The Soviets had included the name of Krupp for this reason. If they would rather name another German industrialist, he had no objection.
THE PRESIDENT said he did not like any of them and thought that by naming some of them the others might think they would escape.
MR. STALIN pointed out that they mentioned them only as examples. Public opinion was interested in this matter. They wondered why Hess was well fed and cared for.
MR. ATTLEE said they need not worry about that.
MR. STALIN said what was important was the opinion of the people in the occupied countries.
MR. BEVIN said that if they were in any doubt about Hess, he could give an undertaking that Hess would be handed over and he added that they would also send along a bill for his keep.
MR. STALIN said he wanted advanced [advance?] delivery.
MR. ATTLEE replied that he had already received advanced delivery on some of them. He had Goebbels.
MR. STALIN said he personally needed no undertaking. There was a question of public opinion that had to be satisfied.
THE PRESIDENT said that as Mr. Stalin knew the United States had appointed one of its most able jurists to the Commission set up to deal with this question. Justice Jackson advised him that it would be a handicap to him if persons were named before the commission was ready to bring them to trial, which he expected would be within thirty days. All of these people would be named in the indictment and the Marshal need not worry for they would be tried and punished.
MR. STALIN suggested that they might not mention so many. Perhaps three.
MR. ATTLEE suggested Hitler.
MR. STALIN said they did not have Hitler at their disposition but he had no objection to naming him.
MR. STALIN then suggested that perhaps they could say that within one month the first list of war criminals would be published.
This was agreed to.
Use of Allied Property for Satellite Reparations or War Trophies
THE PRESIDENT said a paper on this had been handed to the Soviet Delegation yesterday.
MR. MOLOTOV said he had had no recess from the meetings in which to study it. His first impression had been favorable. Perhaps they could consider it at the evening meeting.
Oil for Western Europe
MR. BYRNES said that this question was now before the Economic Sub-Committee.
Allied Oil Equipment in Rumania
MR. BYRNES said that the Foreign Ministers had agreed that there should be two bilateral commissions, one British-Soviet and one United States-Soviet, to meet within ten days in Rumania to examine the documents and facts in connection with this question.
It was agreed that these commissions would be accorded all necessary facilities to perform their task in Rumania.
The decision of the Foreign Ministers was approved.
Fascist Activities in the U.S. and British Zones in Germany and Austria
MR. BYRNES said that the United States and British representatives in Germany and Austria were investigating the situation reported in the Soviet paper on this subject and that they would inform the Soviets of the results of these investigations and would at that time discuss what further steps should be taken.
Repatriation of Soviet Citizens
The British representatives stated that they are looking into the situation reported in the Soviet paper circulated already on this subject and that they would deal with it as soon as they returned to London. The Soviet representatives circulated a new paper on the subject and laid great stress on the importance which they attached thereto. The U.S. and British representatives stated that they would deal with the matter as promptly as possible.
Disputed Questions Before the Protocol Committee
The American Secretary of State presented four questions on which the Protocol Subcommittee had been unable to reach agreement: (1) Trusteeship Territories; (2) Black Sea Straits; (3) the Koenigsberg Area; and (4) Austria. The Foreign Ministers were able to agree upon texts on all of these questions. They also agreed that only important decisions of the Conference should be included in the Protocol. They approved a suggestion that the decision reached this morning creating bilateral commissions to deal with the question of Allied oil equipment in Rumania should be mentioned in the Protocol.
Revised Procedure for Allied Control Commissions in Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary
The United States draft on this subject was accepted with the exception of the second sentence. It was agreed that for this sentence there should be substituted the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Soviet paper on the Control Commission in Hungary. A drafting committee was named to prepare the final document for presentation to the Heads of Government.
MR. BYRNES said the committee had reported that the document should read as set forth in the paper which he was now circulating. The committee’s report was accepted.
The Polish Question
THE PRESIDENT at this stage said he wished to report that the President of the Polish Provisional Government and members of the Polish Delegation had called on him this morning and he had informed them of the action which the Conference had taken with respect to Poland. The Poles had agreed to say nothing about it until the report of the Conference was made public. They had asked him to transmit the thanks of the Polish Government to all three Governments at the Conference.
MR. BEVIN said he wished to announce with reference to the matter he had raised yesterday that he had arrived at an agreement with the Poles for a reciprocal air service from London to Warsaw. He added that he was very pleased about this.
MR. BYRNES said that the United States representative had suggested to the Foreign Ministers meeting that in the documents on Poland [and on admission to the United Nations] the words “and radio” should be added wherever the press was mentioned.
MR. STALIN said he did not think this advisable.
MR. ATTLEE agreed that it would not be advisable.
THE PRESIDENT said that the United States had a different system from the other two governments. Radio was controlled in Great Britain by the government. Ours was set up on the same basis as the newspapers. Pressure was being brought on him for radio representation. He pointed out that American radiomen would have nothing to do with radio in the country concerned. They would merely act as correspondents for the radio in the United States.
MR. STALIN suggested that they arrive at an agreement with the respective governments.
MR. BEVIN asked if Mr. Stalin would have any objection to an agreement between the governments.
MR. STALIN replied that he would not.
THE PRESIDENT asked if he would object to the United States’ arranging for the same treatment to be accorded to the press and to the radio.
MR. STALIN said he would not object, but that it should not be mentioned here. This was agreed to.
Disposition of the German Fleet and Merchant Marine
MR. MOLOTOV said that the Soviet Delegation withdrew its objection to the question of Poland receiving her share of ships from the Soviet share.
MR. BYRNES said that then there was agreement on this report. If the experts were agreed, one paragraph of the report would be published in the joint statement.
MR. BEVIN suggested that the following language be used with respect to the Polish and other shares:
The United Kingdom, and the United States will provide out of their shares of the surrendered German merchant ships appropriate amounts for other Allied states whose merchant marines have suffered heavy losses in the common cause against Germany, except that the Soviet Union shall provide out of its share for Poland.
This was agreed to.
MR. ATTLEE suggested that a message be sent to Mr. Churchill and to Mr. Eden thanking them for the parts they had played in the Conference.
This was agreed.
At this point the meeting recessed to await reports of the committees. The meeting was resumed twenty minutes later.
MR. BYRNES inquired if Mr. Molotov had had time to read the document on the use of Allied property as reparations.
MR. MOLOTOV said he had not, but would try to do so before the evening meeting.
MR. ATTLEE suggested that the paper needed some examination. Its provisions were not fully equitable. MR. ATTLEE pointed out that when Allied property was removed from a satellite state, he thought the country which took it should either pay for it or credit it as reparations.
MR. BYRNES inquired if Mr. Attlee proposed doing nothing about this question.
MR. ATTLEE replied that something should be done, but the language should be improved. He also thought that paragraph three with respect to “valuta” needed discussion. He did not see why valuta should be treated any different from other exports with respect to reparations.
MR. STALIN said he thought the American draft was nearer to the correct solution of this problem than Mr. Attlee’s [suggestion?]. He suggested that it be postponed to the evening session.
Inland Waterways
MR. BYRNES said that this question which had been submitted by the President had been discussed and it had been decided to refer it to the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Protocol and Communiqué Committees could not agree to state this fact.
THE PRESIDENT said all he wanted was a factual statement that it had been referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
MR. ATTLEE said he agreed.
MR. STALIN said there was already enough in the protocol.
THE PRESIDENT pointed out that the action was taken by the Conference and he had agreed to the inclusion of a great many things in the communiqué. He was only pressing this one thing.
MR. STALIN said it had not been discussed at the Conference.
THE PRESIDENT said he had discussed it at length on three [two?] different days and a committee had had it under consideration for ten days.
MR. STALIN said the question was not mentioned in a list of questions submitted before the Conference and the Russians were not in a position to discuss it. They should not be in a hurry to dispose of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT said that he did not ask that it be disposed of, but merely that it be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers and that this be stated.
MR. STALIN pointed out that there was nothing in the communiqué in regard to the Black Sea Straits. The question of inland waterways was raised in connection with the question of the Black Sea Straits. Why should they give preference to this.
THE PRESIDENT pointed out that the question of the Black Sea Straits would be mentioned.
MR. STALIN did not think it should be mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT at first said he agreed, but then continued that he did not see why matters decided at the Conference should not be in the communiqué and in the protocol.
MR. STALIN said because it would make them too long.
THE PRESIDENT said that be was trying to prevent a situation in which it could be charged that secret agreements were concluded at the Conference.
MR. STALIN said that the answer was that there were no secret agreements.
MR. BYRNES said he wished to submit that they had agreed to refer this document to the Council of Foreign Ministers. As long as they had taken that action, could they not agree to state it. If it were not in the communiqué they would not want to make a statement in the United States about it.
MR. STALIN said that at Tehran and at previous conferences there were two kinds of decisions. One kind was included in the protocol and these were greater than those published in the communiqué. This did not mean that they were secret. It meant that there was no need to publish them. Policy decisions were put in the protocol. Decisions of a formal nature, not affecting the substance of the question, should not be mentioned in the communiqué but only in the protocol. This did not mean that decisions [not] in the communiqué were secret.
THE PRESIDENT said he had no objection if this applied to all questions, but he wanted to be free to mention this matter of inland waterways in any statement he might have to make before the Senate.
MR. STALIN said of course he had this right.
Meeting adjourned.
Cohen Notes
Potsdam, August 1, 1945, 4 p.m.
TRUMAN: I ask for the reading of the Committee’s report on reparations.
BYRNES: At the meeting of the Foreign section [Secretaries] this morning, many questions were considered which might be taken up here one by one.
First is reparations. The Committee reported no agreement on text for the protocol. The United States and British representatives consider that in return for the capital equipment allocated the Soviets, the Soviets have agreed to refrain from asserting claim to gold, industrial shares and foreign assets. Therefore, they maintain that German external assets should be included as a source of reparations for countries other than Russia and Poland. They took the view that unless this was done the percentages would be unacceptable. The Soviet representatives consider that the Soviets had not relinquished claim to German external assets. The American and British representatives agreed to the balance of the report with the reservation that the Soviets must relinquish their claim to foreign assets.
STALIN: The question which must be made clear is, what is meant by the western zones. The Soviets agree not to claim anything from the western zones.
TRUMAN: The zones occupied by America, Britain and France are the western zones.
STALIN: We don’t claim gold. As to shares in foreign investments everything west of the military demarcation line is relinquished by us. Everything east of the line should go to us.
TRUMAN: That implies [applies] only to German investments east of the line.
STALIN: For example, German investments in Rumania and Bulgaria.
ATTLEE: I agree.
BEVIN: Greece belongs to the British.
STALIN: Austria is divided into parts – how shall we deal with those.
BEVIN: You better give it to us.
STALIN: You want all of Austria? You can have part of Austria and Yugoslavia.
BYRNES: What is the status of the investments in Germany?
STALIN: The shares of enterprises in our zone are at our disposal and those in your zone at yours.
BYRNES: Suppose Berlin companies own assets in our sphere, those assets should go to us.
STALIN: If property is in your zone it would be yours whether it is in United States, Norway, Sweden or Honduras.
BEVIN: This is going back on what we agreed yesterday. Would you, Marshal, renounce all claims outside zones occupied by the Russian Army.
STALIN: We only ask for the property from Finland east as far as Austria.
BEVIN: It is clear that assets owned by Americans and British in these zones would not be affected.
STALIN: We are not at war with Great Britain.
TRUMAN: We are supposed to settle with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in regard to their reparations claim. These countries will, of course, claim German assets within their jurisdiction.
STALIN: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and western Austria are in your zone.
TRUMAN: We agree.
STALIN: Should the agreement go into the protocol? Need it be published in the communiqué?
BYRNES: We think it should go into the protocol and also [be] published in the communiqué. The committee reports should make it clear that other countries are to be satisfied from western zones and from external assets.
STALIN: From the respective external assets.
BYRNES: The committee should be asked to add appropriate language to cover this.
STALIN: Does Secretary Byrnes object to the words “respective assets” in paragraph 3?
BYRNES: Appropriate assets might do better, but I suggest that the committee fix up the language.
STALIN: All right.
BEVIN: The French Government should be invited to become a member of the Reparation Committee.2
STALIN: Why should we not invite Poland?
TRUMAN: I don’t see the reason for bringing in others.
STALIN: If the British insist on France we will not object.
ATTLEE: We have an agreement regarding the feeding and fueling of Berlin for the next 30 days. I suggest that we instruct the Control Commission to provide a program to provide uniform subsistence standards for the next six months. This is a practical matter which requires immediate action.
STALIN: That is a new question. It has not been studied. I do not think it will be possible in the near future to have a high standard of life in Germany. We must first ask the Control Council how they will provide for Berlin needs. We can not come to any decision now.
ATTLEE: I am not asking for figures, I am asking for the Control Commission to draw up a program. We understood that you wanted capital goods from the Ruhr. We want the flow of goods from the other way also.
STALIN: I want the report of the Control Council first.
ATTLEE: But you are asking for advance deliveries.
STALIN: What can I do if I am not ready to take a decision.
BEVIN: We will postpone it.
ATTLEE: There is one other point. The Generalissimo said that Austria should not be called upon for reparation. Is this a firm decision for the protocol?
STALIN: Yes, you can put it in the protocol.
BYRNES: With regard to German external assets, the United States and Britain recommend that steps be taken to control German external assets in nations not part of the United Nations which have taken active part in the war against Germany. This paper was circulated a few days ago.
STALIN: I learned of this only after we agreed on reparations.
BYRNES: The committee failed to agree on paragraph 19 of the economic principles and on the problem of oil supplies to western Europe.
MOLOTOV: We will accept the British draft on paragraph 19.
BYRNES: I believe it was understood that if Article [paragraph] 19 proposed by the British is accepted there should be added a clause at the end indicating that it is not to apply to stipulated deliveries to the Russians from the western zones.
The next subject discussed by the Foreign section [Secretaries] was war criminals. Should the prominent prisoners be referred [to] by names. British and American representatives believe that the naming of defendants should be left to the prosecutors. Soviets accepted the British draft as to language, but wished to add some names.
STALIN: Names are necessary and are very important to give proper orientation. The people should know that we are going to try some industrialists, that is why we mentioned Krupp.
TRUMAN: I don’t like any of it. If you name some, others will think they have escaped.
STALIN: People wonder about Hess living comfortably in England.
ATTLEE: You need not worry about that.
STALIN: I want advance delivery. We should satisfy public opinion.
TRUMAN: We have appointed a judge of our highest court, an able lawyer to work on these problems for us. He is very strongly opposed to giving names in advance. But the Marshal need have no doubt as to our attitude with regard to the prosecution of these men.
STALIN: We will be satisfied with three names.
ATTLEE: Our lawyers take the same view that the Americans do.
STALIN: Our lawyers differ, perhaps you will mention that the first ten principal defendants to be tried will be named within thirty days.
It was so agreed.
BYRNES: On the subject of inland waterways, the Soviet delegation wanted more time.
STALIN: We are ready. We are favorably inclined and we will discuss it tonight.
BYRNES: The economic principles for Germany and the problem of oil for western Europe were being considered by our respective committees, to which they had been referred, with regard to the Soviet proposal that action had been taken by the British and Americans in their zones to stop Fascist activity being carried on in Germany and Austria against the Soviets. The British and Americans agreed to make an investigation and to act if the results of their investigation so warrant it. The Soviet Foreign Minister also brought up the matter of the repatriation of Soviet Citizens. The British promised to investigate this problem as it primarily related to their zone. The Foreign section [Secretaries] also considered four disputes referred to them by the Protocol Committee and settle [settled these?] disputes. They instructed the Protocol Committee that only important decisions should go into the protocol. It was agreed that Rumanian oil investigation procedure should be included in the protocol. The Foreign section [Secretaries] agreed on a paper concerning a revision of the Control Commission’s procedures in Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary. The Committee’s draft was agreed to with an amendment substituting for one sentence in the Committee’s report. The new agreement for improved procedures for the Control Commission in Hungary. That is, it was agreed that the Hungarian agreement should be basis for the improved machinery in all three countries.
TRUMAN: Is the report of the Foreign section [Secretaries] on this point satisfactory?
ATTLEE: Yes.
STALIN: No objection.
TRUMAN: The President of the National Council of Poland and three delegates called on me this morning and I informed them of our decision of the provisional frontier of western Poland. They asked me to convey the thanks of the Polish Government to all three governments.
BEVIN: I am also happy to announce that the London-Warsaw air communication has been satisfactorily arranged.
BYRNES: The next question considered by the Foreign section [Secretaries] was the question whether we should add in two of our papers where we referred to representatives of Allied President [press], the words “and radio.”
STALIN: I don’t think it would be advisable to mention radio.
ATTLEE: I also think it would not be advisable.
TRUMAN: Our radio is not government owned or controlled. It is set up on the same basis as newspapers. I don’t think there should be any discrimination.
STALIN: I don’t think it is advisable to go into the matter of radio.
TRUMAN: The radio reporters report only to the United States.
STALIN: It is not advisable for us to go into this.
BEVIN: You would have no objection to arrangements between the governments?
STALIN: No.
BYRNES: The next question discussed by the Foreign section [Secretaries] was the distribution of the German merchant marine.
The Committee report was agreed to.
It was also agreed that a joint statement should be published later by the three governments.
BEVIN: I have drafted a clause relating to Poland’s participation in the distribution.
It was accepted.
BYRNES: That disposes of the questions considered by the Foreign section [Secretaries], There are some matters still in the hands of the Committee.
TRUMAN: I suggest a short adjournment of ten minutes.
ATTLEE: Before we should adjourn, I should like to suggest that the conference send a message to Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden thanking them for their part in its deliberation.
It was so agreed, and Mr. Attlee was asked to draft the messages.
A short adjournment was taken.
BYRNES: May I ask if Mr. Molotov has had a chance to read our paper on Allied property in the satellite states?
MOLOTOV: I can do it only in the evening. If that is not possible, we must dispose of it through diplomatic channel.
BYRNES: I hope that Mr. Molotov may have a chance to read the document before this evening. We will have to have an evening session in any event and I hope very much that we can agree to this paper here.
MOLOTOV: I see no difficulty in substance, but the wording of the paper must be exact.
BYRNES: We will try to make the wording exact by night.
MOLOTOV: I will try.
ATTLEE: I am not satisfied with the paper as it is drafted. It is not equitable.
BYRNES: In what respect is it inequitable?
ATTLEE: When property is removed as booty according to the document the satellite must make compensation.
BYRNES: The paper says the United States looks to the occupying power. Where it is not returned, the United States must demand compensation from the satellite. We also have a question on the point of foreign exchange. There is no more reason for foreign exchange here than there is in the case of reparations or any other support [export?]. The foreign exchange requirement ties up the satellite too tightly.
BYRNES: That is why the paper was circulated on July 26 so that these objections could be raised and considered.
MOLOTOV: I figure that the Americans are nearer the problems than Mr. Attlee. We will discuss it further this evening.
TRUMAN: Shall we consider the communiqué.
ATTLEE: Let us have the Protocol and the Communiqué Committees get to work and we will convene as soon as they have finished – say at 9:00 o’clock.
TRUMAN: I should like a mention in the communiqué of the matter of inland waterways which I brought up.
STALIN: We did not discuss it. It was not mentioned in the lists of subjects to be covered by the conference. We should not be in a hurry[.]
TRUMAN: We discussed it several times.
STALIN: Why should we give preference to the discussion of the waterways over the discussion of the Straits.
TRUMAN: The Straits are in the protocol and in the communiqué.
STALIN: Have we finished. Truman: I don’t think so.
STALIN: I suggest both be mentioned in the protocol but not in the communiqué. Truman: All right.
BEVIN: I should like to ask if [that] the French be associated with our decision on war crimes.
TRUMAN: I don’t see why if things are acted on here they should not be mentioned in the protocol and in the communiqué.
BYRNES: We only wish to say that the matter should be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
STALIN: If we go back to the practice of our previous conferences we find that there are two kinds of decisions, one kind for the protocol and another for the communiqué. The communiqué was much shorter. The other agreements were not secret. There was simply no need for their publication in the communiqué.
TRUMAN: That is all right if I make mention of the decision on inland waterways on [in?] my own report?
STALIN: Of course, you have this right.
Adjournment taken at 2:30 [5:50?] p.m.