740.00119 Council/5–1948: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
2167. A meeting of heads of delegations was held this afternoon to discuss security. The British first proposed that a working party be established to reach agreement on a three-power basis on a list of prohibited industries and restricted industries in Germany. When I pointed out we were not prepared to agree to establishment of a permanent level, of industry, the French asked whether we could agree that there should be no change in the level of industry except by international agreement. I replied that during the period of occupation the level of industry in the three zones must be one fixed by agreement among the occupying powers and that we might agree that during the life of the occupation statute any change in the level of industries would be a matter of international concern but we could not accept that any such permanent restrictions should be maintained in the peace settlement. This was a matter for determination at that time but it would only be fair to state that at present we were opposed to such permanent restrictions.
To endeavor to meet the French preoccupations with regard to security, I stated that the US was prepared at present to reaffirm the President’s statement of March 171 either in the communiqué or protocol to agree there should be no withdrawal of American occupation forces without consultation with French and the UK and to consult with the others regarding any threat of the resurgence of German military might for the purpose of determining what measures might be taken in the light of this situation.
In our view these measures were contemplated as providing security against Germany but with respect to the more important and immediate general question the answer to the greater threat was contained [Page 257] in the projected Senate resolution (re Deptel 17702) the text of which I communicated to the other Delegations with the understanding that it would be regarded for the present as secret. This assurance which I explained was still only under consideration gave great satisfaction and comfort.
Reverting to the question of security against Germany, Massigli asked whether the US would be prepared to agree to a limited occupation of certain areas after termination of general occupation, to which I replied that the appropriate time to consider this would in my opinion be when we consult with the other powers regarding withdrawal. This answer apparently was satisfactory.
Strang then pointed out that he understood whereas it was not possible to foresee the exact stipulations to be inserted in any peace treaty, nevertheless he could conclude there was agreement in principle upon the following assurances with respect to security which would remain in force subsequent to the termination of occupation.
- 1.
- Control of the Ruhr.
- 2.
- Prohibition on certain industries.
- 3.
- Disarmament (no creation of German armed forces or general staff).
- 4.
- Some form of inspectorate.
- 5.
- Whereas it was understood that there is no decision possible now with respect to continued occupation of certain areas after the peace treaty, nevertheless the present position of the UK, French and Benelux Governments was that this would be desirable.
- 6.
- Agreement as to consultation after signature of the peace treaty to determine in the event of a threatened resurgence of German military power what remedies might be adopted.
With respect to an inspectorate during the period of occupation the British proposed in line with the suggestion I made some days ago that a Military Security Board advisory to the Military Governors be established for the western zones of Germany to ensure the maintenance, of disarmament and demilitarization in the interests of security. The scope of the Board’s responsibilities would cover the whole field of German disarmament and demilitarization and would in particular recommend measures to the Military Governors to “(A) prevent the revival of military or para-military organizations; (B) ensure that no arms, arms materials and any other materials the manufacture of which may be prohibited by agreement among the contracting parties are produced in, or imported into, Germany; (C) prevent the infringement by the German authorities of any restrictions agreed [Page 258] among the contracting parties in respect of certain industries; (D) ensure that any military buildings or structures or any factories capable of producing armaments which may be retained in Germany are used for peaceful purposes only; (E) ensure that such scientific research as may be permitted in Germany is not directed to warlike ends; (F) inspect and supervise (I) shipbuilding, (II) the operation of civil airlines.”
It was tentatively agreed that subject to further examination this proposal would answer present requirements for an inspectorate.
A report covering the points discussed at this meeting will be drafted for submission to the governments. It was agreed, however, that this report should deal only with security against Germany and make no reference to the general question or to the projected Senate resolution.3
- Regarding the statement under reference here, see footnote 2 to telegram 1710, May 11, to London, p. 233.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 2 to telegram 2035, May 11, from London, p. 233. Additional documentation regarding the Vandenberg Resolution and the attitude of the United States toward the Brussels Pact and possible Western European Union is included in volume iii .↩
- Telegram 2186, May 20, from London, not printed, transmitted the text of a draft report on security that had been prepared (740.00119 Council/5–2048). For final text of the report, as amended and approved on May 26, see p. 291.↩