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.