GERMANY’S FATE

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1947, Page 5

GERMANY’S FATE

CONFLICT AT MOSCOW Bevin Opposes Soviet Demands on Germany

LONDON, March 19. Mr Bevin, in a calm commentary on M. Molotov’s programme for Germany, rejected Russia’s reparations demands. Mr Bevin, in support of his argument against taking the Yalta a guide to the reparations programme, produced a copy of a telegram which the British Cabinet sent to Mr Churchill at Yalta. The telegram said that the total figure of £5,000,000,000 was far too great, and instructed Mr Churchill to. remember the need for leaving Germany sufficient resources to pay for tier imports.

Mr Bevin added that M. Stalin himself had urged the Allies to agree that reparations should come from capital goods, and particularly fac-

tories in western zones. M. Molotov said he still believed, after hearing the different views of Britain, America and France, that it was possible for the Foreign Ministers to find a common point of view on the level of German industry, balancing Germany’s exports and imports, and similar key matters.

Mr Bevin said Britain would not agree to putting a dollar valuation on reparations. He stated that the Ruhr was in the British zone, and would remain there until there was economic unity in Germany and Four-Power

control of German industries. M. Molotov said that Russia would accept economic unity with reparations, but economic unity without reparations was unacceptable. He could not accept Mr Bevin’s and General Marshall’s viewpoint that the Potsdam conference superseded the Yalta decision on reparations. Russia had received only £1,250,000 in capital reparations from the western zones, and therefore had been • forced to take substantial reparations from her own zone. The figures- for this would be available at the appropriate time. It would be a crime in the eyes of the Russian people if Russia did not take such reparations.

(erred to see them associated with local administrations.

General Marshall said that Russia had maintained her demand for reparations, and changed her mind about the level of German industry. He commented that Germany, after 1918, had managed to make war material because the Allies sought to rebuild her industries to get reparations. America was prepa/ed to consider the proposal to raise the level of industry. America believed that no reparations programme should be adopted if it meant the Germanswould be so burdened that no democratic government could survive. General Marshall agreed that reconciliation was possible between the view of the four Ministers, despite the difficulty about reparations. General Marshall approved the idea of fixing a definite term for reparations payments. The recipients were entitled to know what they would receive, and when, and Germany must know what resouices were to be left to her.

Secret Yalta Pad Quashed at Potsdam Says Britain and U.S.A,

LONDON, March 19.

A British Foreign Office spokesman stated that the British as long ago as July, 1946, made it clear in a declaration to the United States, French and Soviet Governments that the clauses of the Potsdam Agreement referring to reparations payments were regarded as superseding any earlier Great Power arrangements. Consequently the Y’alta protocol, the text of which M. Molotov revealed yesterday, is definitely regarded by the British Government as having been superseded by and not as being supplemented by the Potsdam agreement.

This is the same view as General Marshall expressed at Moscow yesterday.

The British declaration was made on the occasion of the merger of the British and American zones, when Britain, outlining the principles considered essential for the carrying out of the Potsdam Agreement, said: “In any case, the reparations agreement reached at Potsdam supersedes all previous agreements and discussions about reparations”.

SOVIET TAKES 200 FACTORIES FROM THE GERMANS

LONDON, March 19

At the meeting of the Big Four Foreign Ministers to-day at Moscow, M. Molotov revealed that Russia has not only taken reparations from the Russian zone in Germany, but has also transferred German factories in the zone to Russian ownership. He said that the factories, although now Russian owned, were subject to German law.

He apparently referred to a Russian combine comprising 200 factories in Eastern Germany. The Germans had previously declined to give any information about the ownership of these factories.

M. Molotov also stated that the Russians had taken reparations in the form of factory removals and from current German production.

BRITAIN OPPOSES FRENCH COAL DEMAND

M. Molotov supported M. Bidault’s demand that the Foreign Ministers should provide for definite coal deliveries to France. M. Molotov criticised the output of the German mines under British control. He said that Russia was getting better production from the German miners.

Mr Bevin said: “It i s very difficult to refuse France what she demands, but, unfortunately, I have no alternative”. The British view was that the export of coal from Germany depended on the I?vel of German industry, and no l.'xed figure could be written into the treaty. Britain reserved the right to reply later to the French demands about territorial changes in the Saar. Britain opposed M. Molotov’s plan for the resumption of the Moscow Reparations Commission’s activities. The Foreign Ministers must give instructions directly to the Control Council.

Mr Bevin opposed the Russian proposal for a reparations programme from current production, spread over 20 years, and also rejected the Russian demand for the annulment of the Anglo-American zone fusion.

Mr Bevin said the Russian idea for the level of German industry wasclose to Britain’s., but he could not agree to M. Molotov’s stipulation that the level of industry should be related to reparations from current production.

Mr Bevin refuted charges that there were cartels in the British zone. Coal and steel production were vested in the zone commander, and the situation remained fluid. He did not much like the idea of a central German Government controlling great German industries. He pre-

What is a Fascist ?

LONDON, March 19. The Soviet and American representatives clashed over the use of the words “Nazi” and “Fascist” in . a document relating to the Austrian treaty, at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers’ deputies. The Russians preferred the description “Fascist”. General Mark Clark said the Soviet press had used the word “Fascist” to refer not only to Germans, but also to members of the Allied I#.lions. The New Times applied it recently to John Foster Dulles," a member of the American delegation now in Moscow. M. Gusev said that if they took everything in the newspapers into their discussions they would stray far from the immediate subject. The deputies completed their review of all the political causes in the Austrian treaty, but again made little headway with the differences which developed in London.

Murder by Women As Protest Against Italy’s Loss of Towns

LONDON, March ID.

Maria Pasquinelli, aged 33, an Italian school-teacher, pleaded guilty before an Allied Military Court at Trieste to a charge of having murdered Brigadier R. W. de Winton as he was inspecting the guard outside British Brigade Headquarters at. Pola on February 10. The court rejected Pasquinelli’s plea of guilty. This was because the charge, which was brought under Allied military proclamation, is punishable by death. The prosecution said the Brigadier was inpecting the guard when Pasquinelli fired three rounds from a .pistol into his back. After her arrest Pasquinelli stated that she shot the brigadier as a protest against the Italian peace treaty. “I felt it my duty to protest. I would have gone to the Big Four, but I could not get near them,” she said in evidence. She added that she had lost hope that the Allies would change their decision on Trieste, but felt it necessary to rebel. She determined to assassinate the Big Four’s representative, whom she took to be de Winton. Pasquinelli told the court that she loved Fascism. She tried to join the Italian front-line troops in North Africa as a soldier. She had sought death assiduously.

WILL ITALY’S COLONIES GO?

LONDON, March 19

The British Government has invited United States, Russian and French representatives to a London conference on the future of the former Italian colonies in- North Africa, says Reuter’s diplomatic . correspondent. The commission, after the conference, will prooably go to North Africa to .investigate. The Foreign Ministers at New York failed to agree on the future of the colonies and decided to appoint representatives to inquire and report within a year of the ratification of the Italian peace treaty. The London conference may be held soon after Easter. The United States has already accepted the invitation.

Point '■ For Defence At Trial of Marshal Kesselring

VENICE, March 18.

General Kesselring’s counsel, Dr. Laternser, caught the prosecutor, Colonel Haise, unawares, and introduced as defence evidence a copy of the United States Army rules of land warfare, in support of Kesselring s defence against charges of having committed war crimes. The court over-ruled vigorous objections from Colonel Haise and permitted Dr Laternser to quote two articles from the document to the effect that hostages might lawfully be put to death in reprisal actions. Dr. Laternser said he assumed the American rules conformed with international law. Kesselring maintained that his views conformed exactly to the American rules. The Judge Advocate said that the court would hear legal arguments on the question. Dietrich Belitz, a colonel on Kesselring’s staff, .said that the German police company which was wiped out in Rome when a bomb exploded on March 23, 1944, was composed almost entirely of South Tyroleans. Nearly 100 South Tyroleans of Italian nationality were also killed or injured. Sharp reprisals were necessary because a revolt in Rome would have upset the German war in Italy.