740.00119 EW/3–648: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
urgent
905. For Lovett from Douglas. In regard to reparations, I had a long conversation with Bevin this morning in which I attempted to persuade him to shift his position relative to delivery of reparations to the Soviet.
- 1.
- He finally agreed that although he was not prepared now to accept our proposition, he would be willing to review delivery of reparations to the Soviet with us every month. He suggested that the matter of delivery of reparations to the Soviet might be handled by administrative action. By this he did not mean that the position which he now takes in regard to the immediate future forecloses in any way his subsequent agreement to a suspension of deliveries.
- 2.
- As to the suspension of dismantling, he agreed that he would
cooperate with us in the study which we contemplate, and that if:
(A) the plants to be retained were not too numerous; (B) were not
war potential plants and; (C) could be used effectively in the
ERP in their present sites; he
would concur in our proposal without substitution.
(Other matters were discussed with Bevin on which I will report personally when I arrive Washington on Monday.)1
- 3.
- At lunch with Massigli and Alphand for the French, Strang and Stevens for the British, Murphy and myself, a further discussion of reparations was had. The British position was as outlined above. Strang indicated that administrative action referred to administrative delay, dismantling and delivery of plants that might be allocated to the Soviet. The French position, briefly, was that they were prepared to accept our proposal in regard to the Soviet, provided this did not throw a cloud upon the title to plants to be delivered to the IARA countries. In this connection they expressed the opinion that the difficulties about legal title in the event of abandonment of quadripartite allocation machinery and substitution therefor of tripartite allocation machinery were not insurmountable.
- 4.
- As to suspension of dismantling and the retention of plants, the
French indicated that they were willing to suspend judgment as to
substitution until further facts were known covering the number of
plants to be retained, whether they could be immediately used in the
ERP, whether they affected
security, and their effect upon the level of industry.
They indicated, however, that they much preferred substitution, and would try to influence the British to accept it, even though subject to German approval.
- 5.
- Both the British and the French expressed a willingness to collaborate with US on the study, and expressed the hope that it could be concluded as promptly as possible. (Our opinion is that it must be concluded very speedily.)
- 6.
- The whole question of reparations raises the problem of allocations by the Quadripartite Control Council in Berlin. Will we proceed with the accepted practice of presenting plants to the Control Council for allocation, deleting from the list of such plants for the time being those which we might wish to retain? I will discuss this with you on Monday when I arrive, for it is important that a communication on this be sent early next week to the British, the French and Berlin.
- 7.
- At the luncheon the question was raised as to what action, if any, should be taken in the event the Soviet, having heard, and doubtless they have heard, of our proposal in regard to deliveries to the Soviet, were to obstruct by delaying tactics all allocations by the quadripartite machinery. I replied that should they take this course, a new situation would have developed, and we should face the problem in its new context.
- No record of such a report has been found.↩