Office of the Historian

740.00119 Control (Rumania)/7–2345: Telegram

No. 825
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Representative in Rumania (Melbourne)
secret
Washington, July 28, 1945—1 p.m.

378. New procedure for ACC set forth in Genl Schuyler’s M–1250 July 161 and your despatch no. 410 July 172 is of course definite improvement over that which has been in effect heretofore. Organization of ACC is, however, a question which we regard as requiring agreement of all three Allied Govts signatory to Armistice and not one for determination by Soviet Govt alone. Procedure outlined in M–1250 should therefore be regarded as Soviet proposal rather than as definitely established statutes for ACC for second period.

Soviet Govt has proposed for Hungarian ACC procedure whereby directives to local Govt require agreement of three chief reps. As there is still a possibility that tripartite agreement may be reached on application of same principle in Rumania, we think it would be advisable for Genl Schuyler to defer presentation of American views on specific articles of Armistice mentioned in his tel M–1285 July 243 (reurtel 495 July 234) pending results of discussion on basic principles for operation of satellite ACC’s which may be taking place at Potsdam.

At such time as interpretation of various articles of Armistice may be discussed in ACC after tripartite agreement has been reached on its [Page 727] organization and procedure, Genl Schuyler should of course feel free to present this Govt’s views when occasion arises. On the six articles mentioned in his M–1285 his views are in general concurred in by Dept. We would not, however, regard any specific protest on Article 7 as called for at the present time since Soviet Govt has several times been apprised of this Govt’s position and matter is under discussion at governmental level as part of question of defining war booty in all ex-enemy countries. Dept approves protests already made by Schuyler under Article 8 on delivery of German-held oil shares and bank stocks (see Schuyler’s M–1264 July 18 and Deptel 372 July 255). Dept does not wish to dispute at this time claims of Soviet High Command to subsistence for troops in Rumania under Article 10 in view of clear wording of that article and absence of limitation of obligation to period of hostilities. Dept agrees with Genl Schuyler’s interpretation of Article 12, his recommendation on censorship policies under Article 16, and his proposal respecting the return of Rumanian navy.

This telegram has been cleared with War Dept.

Grew
S[amuel] R[eber]
  1. See document No. 797, footnote 3.↩
  2. Document No. 797.↩
  3. Document No. 812.↩
  4. Document No. 811.↩
  5. Neither printed.↩