There has never been any doubt on the part of the United States that a “two step” occupation period for Germany had been envisaged in the pre-occupation planning. Further, the United States is fully in accord with the position that the “period when Germany is carrying out the basic requirements of unconditional surrender” has long since passed. A similar introductory qualification was made in connection with the items contained in Part II of the Potsdam Protocol entitled “The Principles to Govern the Treatment of Germany in the Initial Control Period.” Just as the Control Machinery Agreement was recognized as an arrangement to cover a relatively short period, the Potsdam “Principles” in Part II were to govern in the immediate postwar period prior to the reestablishment of a central German authority when the Allied Powers would administer Germany under military government. Secretary of State Acheson pointed this out in his statement made to the Council of Foreign Ministers on May 24, 1949. A few days later, on May 28, Mr. Bevin told the Council that the Western powers considered the “initial control period” as over. Secretary Acheson said he heartily concurred in this statement of Mr. Bevin. Mr. Vyshinsky did not meet the argument squarely or counter the line of reasoning implied. He said on May 27:
[ . . . ] the [Control] Council was established for definite purposes. If these purposes were already attained, then this fact should be taken into account and new aims formulated.
Accordingly the United States does not contest that the Control Agreement and Part II of the Potsdam Agreement were limited to an “initial control period.” The record is entirely clear, however, that the limitations in these documents did not indicate that the basic occupation rights and the other occupation agreements were to terminate after the initial control period. No such proviso is contained in the Protocol of September 12, 1944; the Act of Military Surrender; the Declaration of June 5, 1945, regarding the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme authority; the statement of June 5, 1945, on zones of occupation in Germany; the statement of June 5, 1945, on Consultation with the Governments of other United Nations; the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement other than Part II; or any of the specific arrangements relating to access to Berlin.
The weakness in an argument that the September 12, 1944, Protocol became ineffective after the initial control period because of some implied relationship to the time proviso in the Control Machinery Agreement of June 5, 1945, is clearly seen by the fact that the Control Machinery Agreement, in the sentence following the one which the Soviets seek to spread to all other occupation agreements, provides “Arrangements for the subsequent period will be the subject of a separate agreement.” Accordingly, the Soviet effort to assert, at this late date, that agreements relating to the occupation of Germany were all intended to be effective only “during the first years after the capitulation of Germany” is without substance.
[c)] Forfeiture of the Occupation Rights of the Western Powers by Their Activities in Western Berlin
The United States does not consider it necessary to disprove the Soviet charges which are made in the note of November 27, 1958, regarding United States activities as an occupying authority in Berlin. It can and will do so if such action should appear desirable. The well-known fact that there is a constant stream of refugees from the Soviet-controlled areas of Germany into West Berlin is by itself compelling evidence as to which powers are properly discharging their occupation responsibilities. But no discussion of the facts is required because the Soviet charges do not relate in any way to obligations assumed by the United States in any of the agreements which the Soviet Union has denounced.
print version
return to list
previous document