SOVIET’S REPLY

Grey River Argus, 5 October 1948, Page 5

SOVIET’S REPLY

TO WESTERN POWERS

' WANTS BERLIN ISSUE KEPT CLEAR OF 0.0. FRESH TALKS OF FOUR POWERS SUGGESTED (N.Z.P.A. —Reuter Cable). (Received October 4, at 10.50 p.m.) The Soviet has sent a (Note to the Western Powers in reply to the Notes which Britain, France and the United States sent to Russia on September 26. The Soviet Note declares: “Responsibility for the situation which has arisen in Berlin rests fully with the Governments of the three Western Powers.”

. The Soviet Tass News Agency has issued the text of the Soviet Note. The Pass Agency says the Note will be dispatched on Sunday to the Western Powers. The Note began by stating: ‘‘The Berlin question did not exist until the Western Powers introduced currency reform.” It said that the currency reform was intended to dismember Germany, and to place Western Germany beyond the control of the Four Powers. WHO DIVIDED GERMANY? The Note charges the United States together with Britain with initiating a policy of dismemberment of Germany, by the establishment of a separate economic unit in the American and British occupation zones. Thereby they were violating the Potsdam Agreement for joint Four Power control over occupied Germany. The Note asserts: “The policy of the three Powers in Western Germany, which is separate from the rest of Germany, is increasingly leading to a growth of anti-democratic and Nazi elements, who were responsible for a previous aggressive policy of German imperialism. These elements have not given up their hope for revenge, Which hope constitutes a threat, not only to neighbouring countries, but to Europe as a whole.”

GERMAN WAR POTENTIAL ALLEGED

The Note continues: “Latterly, and particularly in connection with enforcement of the Marshall Plan, a real danger arose from a war economic potential being established in Germany. Such a situation violates the Potsdam Agreement, and is contrary to the interests of all peafeeloving countries”. WESTERN UNION BLAMED

The Note outlines measures which the Western Powers adopted after the London conference with the Benelux countries. The Note said that the introduction of the Western mark forced the Russians to introduce their own German currency, and to introduce the transport restrictions. The Note said: “Without these restrictions, it would be impossible to safeguard the interests of the German populations, and to secure normal economic life in the Soviet zone of Germany, and particularly in Berlin”.

THE BLOCKADE SAID TO BE DEFENSIVE

The Note claimed that the Russian transport restrictions on Berlin represented defensive and protective measures against “Western Governments’ offensive steps”. It added: “The right of the four Governments to administer Berlin has only a meaning if Germany is recognised as a single unified State, and Berlin as its capital. In view of the fact that the three Governments separated Western Germany from its Eastern part, and establishing a separate State, the right to administer Berlin by these Governments loses all sense .

NO WESTERN RIGHT IN BERLIN

The Note blamed the Western Powers for destruction of quadripartite administration of both Germany and Berlin. It said that they thereby “undermined the legal basis whicn ensured their right to participation in the administration of Berlin’,’. It said that the Soviet Government, nevertheless, had not objected to the presence in Berlin of the Western Powers’ occupation troops.

SOVIET ACCOUNT OF MOSCOW

The Note said that M. Stalin, at his meeting with the Western envoys on August 2, confirmed this, and he had proposed: (1) annulment of the Russian transport restrictions; ana (2) the introduction simultaneously of Soviet Zone currency for Berlin. The Note said M. Stalin had expressed “an insistent wish” that the Western Powers should postpone, the fulfilment of their London decisions on the establishment of the Government for 'Western Germany until after a Foui’ Power meeting had been held on Germany as a whole. The>~possibility of such a postponement had then been discussed, separately, during meetings between M. Stalin, ivi. Molotov and the Western representa-

lives. An agreement was reached on August 12 on directives to the Military Commanders in Germany, providing for enforcement of proposed measures, on condition that the four Commanders-in-Chief at Berlin should agree on their practical apphcation. It had further been agreed that the Soviet mark should be introduced, without discrimination against tne holders of Western marks, at the rate of one Western mark for one Russian; mark; and also that arrangement of banking and credit facilities should be made in all sectors without disorganisation of circulation or of stability of the currency in the Soviet zone. The agreement had also provided that the Commanders in Berlin should secure a satisfactory basis for a trade agreement between Berlin and tne Western zones, and should agree to provide sufficient currency for tne municipality and for the occupation costs. SOVIET FINANCIAL CONTROL IN EAST DESIRED The Soviet Note goes on ' to say that the agreement called for a report from the Military Commanders-in-Chief by September 7, and that it provided that four representatives of the Commanders-in-Chief should be appointed to ensure practical fulfilment of financial measures. The Note then commented: It»goes without saying that responsibility for issuing the Russian mark cannot be borne by anyone other than the Soviet Command, since the entire economic life of the Russian Zone of Germany depends on the quantity of money in circulation. Yet, in negotiations in Berlin, the Western Zones Commanders-in-Chief demanded the establishment of control by the three Powers over the issuing of money throughout the Soviet Zone, and thereby the imposition of their control over the entire economic life of 4 „ qnviet Zone. In spite of the asin the Note of the Note of the S !rt on in the Note of the three Weste?n Governments of September 26, the directive to the four Commanders?n Chief makes no provision for quad--1]? nrtitP control over the emission of Soviet Zone mark for Berlin”. h Th S e Note said that the Soviet Gov-

ernment utterly refuted such incorrect assertions, which aimed at covering up a denunciation by the Western Governments of directives to the Commanders-inrChief agreed upon by the four Powers. The Soviet Government strictly adhered to an agreed directive of August 13. The Soviet Government still regarded the directive as a satisfactory basis for an agreement, and it was also satisfied on an agreed basis for trading between the Soviet Zone and the Western Zones.

BERLIN AIR TRAFFIC The Note said that the question of establishing control over the transport of commercial freight and passengers along air routes between Berlin and the Western zones remained unsettled. The Soviet Command desired guarantees that the air transport would not be used for illegal currency and trading operations. This was unanimously admitted when M. Molotov met the Western representatives on September 18, and the United States representative had said that such satisfactory guarantees could easily be secured. The Note says: “If the three Western Governments consider this statement to be correct, the Soviet Government considers it

quite possible to regulate the question on a mutually-acceptable basis”. The Soviet says that negotiations on the Berlin question opened up the possibility of an agreement being reached between the four Powers, but the negotiations fell through despite the insignificance of remaining disagreements, inasmuch as the Government* of the United States, Britain, and France refused to fulfil the directive for the Commanders-in-Chief. AGREEMENT REPORTED

The Note goes on to say that on September 27, an agreement was reached regarding the following text of a communique which was to be published after the conclusion of negotiations: “The four Governments aslo agreed that, apart from a conference of the four Commanders-in-Chief, conferences would take place ! between representatives of the four Governments in the shape of a Council of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or other conferences of representatives of the four Powers, to discuss any unsettled question concerning Berlin, and any other unsolved problems affecting Germany as a whole. An agreement, however, on the concluding part of that agreement was not reached. This was to contain the reply of the United States, British, and French Governments to the Soviet Government’s desire that the operation of the London decision regarding the establishment of a Government of the Western part of Germany be postponed until representatives of the four Powers could discuss the question of Germany as a whole The Soviet Government was given an assurance by the three Western Powers’ representatives that their London decisions did not rule out the possibility of an agreement between the four Governments regarding tha establishment of a single Government for the whole of Germany”. BLOCKADE DENIED

The Note asserted that Britain. France, and the United States had caused the negotiations to fall through, and that they were' resorting to all sorts of unfounded and really ridiculous accusations against Russia They did everything in their power to increase noise around the question of the so-called blockade, although no blockade, in fact, existed. There were Western statements that starvation epidemics might be caused. These were without foundation. There was sufficient food in Berlin. The Soviet Government had taken measures to provide all that was required. The Russian transport restrictions could not be avoided as long as the question of the introduction of a single ; currency in Berlin was not regulated. The Note accused the Western Powers of “trying to fan the utmost feelings of disquiet, alarm, and war hysteria”, and accused them of not trying to regulate the Berlin situation. The Note strongly denied the Western allegations that the Soviet authorities had encouraged unrest m Berlin city. NO THREAT TO PEACE

The Note goes on: “The statement of the Governments of the United States, Britain, and France, alleging that a situation has developed in Berlin which constitutes a threat to international peace and security is without any basis. Such statements cannot divert attention from separate* and anti-democratic policy being pursued in Western Germany, which is transforming the latter into an obedient toof for aggressive plans of a definite group of Great Powers. If anvbody is responsible for the situation in Berlin, it is the Governments of the three Western Powers, which caused negotiations on the regulating of the position to fall through . “Regarding the decision to refer the Beidin situation .to the U.N -Security Council”, says the Note, “the Soviet Government has considered it necessary to make the following statement:—

“Firstly, the question o. Berlin is closely connected with rhe question of Germany as a whole, of the dismemberment of Germany, of the establishment of a seoarate Government in West Germany and, in accordance with Article W7 of the United Nations Charter, is a subject to be solved by those Governments which bear the responsibility for the occupation of Germany, a P d ‘L + n the subject to be transferred to the U.N. Security Council . Secondly, the United States Government’s statment a situation has arisen that allegedly threatens international peace and security does not correspond to the real state of affairs, and u nothing more than a m ea "s of exerting pressure, and an attempt to utilise the United Nations organisation for the achievement of its aggressive aims.

PROPOSAL FOR AGREEMENT Thirdly, the Soviet Government proposes that the directive to the Commanders-in-Chief agreed to on August 30, be recognised as an United States, British, and French Governments, on the basis or which agreement the situation in Berlin should be regulated. Fourthly, tho Soviet Govern-

ment proposes that the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs be convened to examine the question of the situation in Berlin, and also the question of . Germany as a whole, in accordance with the' Potsdam Agreement/’