SOVIET BLAMED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22317, 30 April 1947, Page 5

SOVIET BLAMED

RIG FOUR FAILURE GERMANY’S RULE MARSHALL'S SURVEY IMPOSSIBLE CONDITIONS (9 a.m.) WASHINGTON, Ap. 29. Failure to agree on what lie termed critical and fundamental German problems were dealt with by the Secretary of State, Mr. George Marshall, when he reported in detail on the Foreign Ministers’ conference. The problems were: (1) The limits to the powers of a central Government. (2) The character of the economic system and its relation to all Europe. (3) The character and extent of reparations. (4) The boundaries for a German State. (5) The manner in which all Allied States at war with Germany are to be represented in the drafting and confirmation of the treaty. Some of Mr. Marshall’s sharpest criticism of Russia's course at the conference centred on the disagreement over German economy. Other Zones Disregarded He said tiiat Russia had operated its occupation zone practically without regard to the other zones, and had refused to disclose what foodstuffs were available and what reparations were removed. Mr. Marshall said the Soviet authorities had bitterly attacked the economic merger of the British and American zones as a breach of the Potsdam agreement, and as the first step toward Germany’s dismemberment. They ignored completely the plain fact that their

refusal to carry out the Potsdam agreement was the sole cause of the merger. “It is difficult to regard their attacks as anything but propaganda to divert attention from the Soviet failure to implement economic unity as agreed to at Potsdam,” he said. “Certainly some progress toward economic unity in Germany is better than none.” < The Russian efforts to amend the American proposal for a four-Power pact led him to conclude that Russia “either did not desire such a pact or was following a course calculated to delay any immediate prospect of its adoption. “The negotiations on Germany involved not only the secui'ity of Europe and the world, but the prosperity of all Europe,” said Mr. Marshall. World Security Involved While the conference’s mission was to consider the terms of a treaty to operate over a long term of years, the delegates were faced with immediate issues which vitally concerned the impoverished and suffering people of Europe, who were crying out for help, for coal, for food, and for most of the necessities of life. The issues also vitally concerned the people of Britain and the United States, who could not continue to pour out hundreds of millions for Germany because current measures were not being taken to terminate expeditiously the necessity for such appropriations. All members of the Council of Foreign Ministers were in apparent agreement as to the establishment of a German State on a self-supporting, democratic basis, with limitations imposed to prevent the re-establishment of military power. Russia appeared to favour a strong central Government. The United States and Britain opposed such a Government because they thought it could too readily be converted to the domination of a regime similar to the Nazis. They favoured a central Government of carefully limited powers, all other powers being reserved to the States. There were normally always strong and differing points of view regarding the character of a governmental reorganisation. “In this case there are great and justifiable fears regarding the resurrection of German military power and concern over expressed and unconcealed desires for quite other reasons.” Turning to reparations, Mr. Marshall from current production were contemplated by the Potsdam agreement. The Soviet strongly opposed this view. They held that the previous discussions and agreements at Yalta authorised the taking of thousands of millions of dollars in reparations out of current production. This would mean that the recovery of Germany sufficiently to be self-support-ing would be long delayed. Unwilling to Co-operate “Russia’s unwillingness to co-operate in establishing a balanced economy for Germany, as agreed upon at Potsdam, has been the most serious check on the development of a self-supporting Germany and a Germany capable of providing coal and other necessities for the neighbouring States who have always been dependent on Germany for these items,” he declared. Mr. Marshall strongly contested the Russian interpretation of the Potsdam agreement as finalising Poland’s western frontier on the Oder-Niesse line. He said the perpetuation of the present temporary line between Germany and Poland would deprive Germany of territory which, before the war, provided more than one-fifth of the foodstuffs on which the German population depended. It would not help Poland to give her frontiers which would probably create disorder in the future. “We must look forward toward a future where a democratic Poland and a democratic Germany will be good neighbours,” he said. Voice on Peace Treaty Mr. Marshall declared that the United States regarded it as imperative that all States which had declared war on Germany should have some voice in the treaty to be imposed on Germany. Russia, however, opposed giving such voice in the German peace conference to more than those nations which were directly engaged in fighting. Even the British and French opposed his plan to let 51 nations sit at the German peace conference. The negotiations on the Austrian treaty resulted in an agreement on all except a few points, but these were of fundamental importance. Russia favoured and other Governments opposed the payment of reparations and the cession of Carinthia to Yugoslavia. The Russian demand for the transfer of German assets by Austria would, if accepted, “mean that such a large portion of Austrian economy would be removed from her legal control that Austria’s chances of surviving as an independent self-supporting State would be dubious. She would, in effect, be but a puppet State,” He added that all efforts to find a compromise solution on Austria were unavailing. May Resolve Differences Mr. Marshall said the deputies of the Foreign Ministers now understand the precise views of each Government on various issues. “With that they can possibly resolve some differences and surely can further clarify the problems by a studied presentation of the state of agreement and disagreement. That is the best that can be hoped for in the next few months. “It marks some progress, however painfull slow. These issues are matters

of vast importance to the lives of Europe’s people. We must not compromise on great principles in order to achieve agreement for agreement’s sake. We also must sincerely try to understand the viewpoint of those with whom we differ.” Mr. Marshall concluded his address by emphasising the bi-partisan character of the support given to the United States delegation and added: “The state of the world to-day and the position of the United States make mandatory a unity of action by the American people.” Lucidity and Firmness The New York Times in an editorial describing Mr. Marshall’s speech as distinguished alike for its dispassionate lucidity and for its firmness, says that while it did not reveal any startling news, it provided an authoritative summary of the Moscow conference and why it failed. “That summary gives added weight to the charge which Mr. Marshall levels against the Russian Government that it is responsible for that failure. It is responsible because it made agreement impossible by insisting on conditions which made inevitable not only a further drain on American resources but also a continuous economic deterioration in all Europe, leading to new dictatorships and new strife. Though Mr. Marshall refrained from ■ saying so, it is no secret that it is in such a situation that the Communists put their hope for further expansion. Despite this fateful deadlock, Mr. Marshall’s report also breathes that diplomatic optimism which is necessary to continue negotiations and avert a final break. In this optimism he is supported by Marshal Stalin.”