Moreover, the Potsdam Agreement, insofar as Germany is concerned, is related to the common objectives of the occupation authorities in Germany. The attainment of these objectives was designed to further the purposes of the occupation of Germany, but there is no indication anywhere in the Protocol that the right of occupation depended upon attainment of the objectives. Further, to the extent that these objectives were not realized, the failure resulted from violations by the Soviet Union of the provisions of the Potsdam Protocol. The major violations were the refusal of the Soviet Union to treat Germany as an economic unit and the continuing attempts of the Soviet Union to obtain reparation payments to which it was not entitled under the terms of the Protocol. The United States is prepared to document violations of the Potsdam Agreement by the Soviet Union. It has never contended, however, that such violations affect the right of the Soviet Government to occupy its zone of Germany and sector of Berlin.
The United States denies, and is prepared to document the correctness of its position, that it has violated the Potsdam Agreement as alleged by the Soviet Government. The United States submits, however, that the issue is irrelevant to the question of whether the Soviet Union may unilaterally declare null and void an international agreement such as the Protocol of September 12, 1944, since the two agreements related to different subjects and were in no way interdependent.
It should also be noted that the Soviet Union has not, in its note, alleged that it considers the Potsdam Protocol as null and void by reason of these asserted violations by the Western powers. If the Potsdam Protocol remains in force and effect then, accepting for the sake of argument that these other distinct and independent agreements are in fact contingent upon that Protocol, how can it be maintained either logically or legally that the subsidiary agreements are voided by violation of the principal agreement although the principal agreement is not so voided? The position is, on its face, completely untenable.
[b)] Duration of Agreements Relating to Occupation of Germany
The United States considers that the Soviet Government is notably vague in its references in its note of November 27, 1958, to the specific agreements relating to Germany which it considers “were intended to be in effect during the first years after the capitulation of Germany.”
The United States believes that an examination of the various documents referred to above, taken in the historical context in which they were agreed, makes entirely clear the nature of the commitments undertaken by the four occupation authorities. Certain of the documents, or portions thereof, referred to immediate goals of the occupation, or to the administrative arrangements between the occupation authorities. Understandably, express provision was made in such cases for review after a reasonable period of time. Specifically, the statement on control machinery in Germany of June 5, 1945, is a case where such arrangements were made. Paragraph 1 of the agreement stated, “In the period when Germany is carrying out the basic requirements of unconditional surrender *** [asterisks in original].” Paragraph 8 is even more specific as to the intention of the parties: 8. The arrangements outlined above will operate during the period of occupation following German surrender, when Germany is carrying out the basic requirements of unconditional surrender. Arrangements for the subsequent period will be the subject of a separate agreement.
print version
return to list
previous document