Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, European Advisory Commission, Austria, Germany, Volume III

740.00119 EW/9–445

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman)

Washington, September 6, 1945—7 p.m.

1964. From Clayton. ReEmbtels 3140 of Sept 2 and 3160 of Sept 4. Following represents Dept’s views on future of Allied Commission on Reparations (ACE) and its work. Please communicate these to Draper for his guidance at remaining meetings of ACE, which it is hoped you are attending. Please also advise Draper that Dept thinks it would be unfortunate for him, as US representative on ACE, to leave Moscow, prior to departure of French or Brit representatives.

1. In US view, future meetings of ACE should be held in Berlin alongside Allied Control Council (CC), to permit free and rapid exchanges between ACE and CC in task of CC in fixing amount and character of industrial capital equipment unnecessary to the German peacetime economy and therefore available for reparations, under policies determined by ACE. A shift in locus from Moscow to Berlin is also required because of fact number of questions concerning reparation remain for determination by representatives of US, UK and France. Such determination cannot be made effectively in Moscow.

2. US Govt now holds view that ACE should continue in existence until all principles and policies required for reparation plan have been provided and until review of CC plan mentioned in para 3 below has been completed. US delegation will assemble in Europe for future meetings of ACR after appropriate notice.

3. ACR should work in Berlin, close to CC, in order to be able to advise CC as requested by CC, or as it may choose on its own initiative to do from time to time, on policies relating to the reparation settlement. CC is likely to require policy guidance on number of specific points. In addition, final CC plan should be submitted to ACR, prior to February 1, 1946 to enable latter to judge how closely plan conforms to policies laid down by ACR.

4. US Govt is not prepared to have ACR act or make recommendation on Soviet proposal to be submitted to ACR on September 5. In US view, participation of Soviet Govt in determination of amount and character of reparation removals from western zones in Germany, whether by ACR or CC, awaits Soviet cooperation in treatment of Germany as a single economic unit for purposes of reparation and removal of industrial war potential. This means that Soviet removals of industrial capital equipment from Eastern zone must be based on plan arrived at among four powers, which will treat each zone as part of a unified Germany with respect to future standards of living and ability of Germany after reparation removals to subsist without external assistance. Concrete evidence that Soviet removals from eastern zone will be based on a common plan, or will conform [ex?] post facto to such a plan, must be forthcoming in form of Soviet submission of data on removals made to date, and willingness to permit mixed commissions of industrial experts which Soviet would send into Western Germany, to enter eastern Germany. If USSE is unwilling to collaborate on four-zone plan for reparation removals along these lines, and to treat Germany as an ecomonic unit, it will be impossible for CC to make determination of amount and character of reparation removals from western Germany in accordance with provisions of protocol. Under these circumstances, only course of action remaining would be for powers occupying western zones to make such determination for themselves.

5. If Soviet Govt is unwilling to collaborate in formulation and administration of four-power reparation plan as described in preceding para, US favors continuation of reparation negotiations primarily on tripartite basis of UK, French and US representation, with consultation with Soviet representatives on few remaining quadripartite questions.

6. US holds view that although CC has control and power of disposition of German external assets, USSE will dispose of assets in Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland and Eastern Austria without reference to US, French and UK elements in CC; and US, French and UK elements in CC will dispose of all other German external assets without reference to USSR element.²³

7. US favors creation of Inter-Allied Reparation Agency proposed by Brit Govt and including representation of all claimants to reparation from Germany. Believes creation this agency, however, can wait until meeting of claimants to reparation from western zones, other than USSR and Poland, which will fix shares. Should CC be ready now to submit to ACE lists of industrial equipment now available for interim reparation deliveries, US would favor earlier creation of agency. US is opposed to Soviet scheme whereby ACE would allocate industrial capital equipment initially between USSR and Poland on the one hand, and all other claimants on the other. US cannot support any proposal which would give USSR preferred position in securing reparation from western zone of Germany.

8. Subsequent telegram on restitution will follow.

9. Harriman, Winant and Caffery. Please communicate substance of foregoing to FonOff of Govt to which you are accredited, leaving paraphrase as Aide-Mémoire.

10. Harriman, please repeat 3140 and 3160 to London for Byrnes, Winant and to Paris. Murphy please repeat 403,²⁴ 409, 411 and 447 as above.

11. Ambassador Pauley concurs in foregoing.

Sent to Moscow as 1964. Repeated to London for Byrnes and Winant as 7652, repeated to USPolAd for Murphy and Clay as 412, repeated to Paris as 4206. [Clayton.]

Acheson

23. See paragraphs 8 and 9 of section III of the Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference in Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. ii, p. 1486.
24. For text of telegram 403, August 30, 8 p.m.> from Berlin, see p. 1526.