740.00119 Council/5–2548: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
2270. Delsec 1755. While we agree that it would be preferable to deal with demilitarization, disarmament and control over industry in the final settlement (reDeptel 1885, May 241), nevertheless it is necessary, in our opinion, at this time to indicate that some form of controls will be included in the final settlement. For this reason, we had previously suggested general language to indicate that some prohibitions upon German armed forces and upon war industry would be maintained without, however, committing ourselves, in any way, at this time to the specific failure of these controls or the specific limitations to be placed upon German armed forces or prohibited industries.
During a discussion of the draft report on security2 today, it was agreed for the first period that the military governors should exercise “controls” with respect to disarmament and demilitarization (re paragraph three). The words “as have been or may be agreed” were omitted as agreement on this subject among the military governors was implied in the powers reserved to them under the occupation statute (TRI 17 revised3). It was agreed that the paragraphs relating to military occupation and consultation in the first section of the report as well as paragraph 6 in the second section should be consolidated and inserted in a separate chapter relating to general provisions.
I did not suggest insertion of the word “presumably” in paragraph 5 because at this junction to do so might have increased the difficulties. If, however, you think the conference should be jeopardized even more than it is at present by insistence on this word, I shall of course offer it.
In order to meet the French requirements in respect to demilitarization and disarmament during the second period and at the same time to take care of Department’s concern, it was tentatively agreed that this section should be redrafted along the following lines:
A general statement would be inserted to the effect that it was agreed [Page 280] that Germany must not be permitted again to become an aggressive power and that prior to the removal of the forces of occupation, agreement will be reached among the governments concerned with respect to the necessary measures of demilitarization, disarmament, control of industry, and occupation of key areas.
Paragraphs dealing with the international control of the Ruhr, would remain as it reads in section two the earlier draft (re mytel 21864). The provision relating to inspection might be retained as well.
This simpler form of drafting was tentatively accepted by the heads of delegations who will examine a new text prepared by working party tomorrow. I should appreciate as early an indication as possible whether this approach is satisfactory to you.5
- Ante, p. 274.↩
- For the final text of the Report on Security, May 26, see p. 291.↩
- See document TRI/17 (Final), May 19, p. 260.↩
- Dated May 20, not printed; it transmitted the draft text of the Report on Security (740.00119 Council/5–2048). For the final text of the Report, as amended and approved on May 26, see p. 291.↩
- Telegram 2282, Delsec 1757, May 26, from London, not printed, reported that the Conference had accepted the working party redraft of the Report on Security. Ambassador Douglas pointed out at the May 26 morning meeting of the Conference, that American agreement to the Report on Security was to be viewed in the light of the expressed interest of the United States Government in support of the security of the Western European Union (740.00119 Council/5–2648).↩