Cablegram 142A LONDON, 19 October 1944, 5.30 p.m.
Addressed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin.
My telegram 130A of 28th September. 
I have at last succeeded in getting a reply from the United
Kingdom authorities to my enquiries as to the present situation
regarding the United Nations Commission for Europe proposed by
Eden in July, 1943 , and my request for a statement as to
opportunities for representation of smaller nations on Control
The text is as follows-
'Proposals in telegram D.365 of 19th June, 1943, were communicated
to the United States and Soviet Governments on 1st July, 1943. At
the Moscow Conference of October, 1943, they were welcomed by
Soviet Delegation and received with sympathy, though with
reservations, by the United States Delegation, and it was provided
in the terms of reference of the European Advisory Commission that
the Commission should take them into account as part of the
material for its study of the matters with which it is concerned
(telegram D.885 of 1st November, 1943 ).
2. Since the European Advisory Commission began its work, it has
been much occupied with the surrender terms for Germany and,
consequently, with the [principles]  of occupation and the
machinery of control. It has not approached the wide question of
establishing a United Nations Commission for Europe. The United
Kingdom representative  has, however, more than once referred
to this proposal in the Commission.
3. Meanwhile the discussions which have taken place with the
United States and Soviet Governments, both in the European
Advisory Commission and through the diplomatic channel, on various
aspects of the post surrender period, have encountered strong
opposition on the part of the Soviet Government, and some
reluctance on the part of the United States Government, to
bringing other States into consultation in connection with the
operation of the Control machinery.
(a) There has been separate correspondence about the objections of
the United States and Soviet representatives on the European
Advisory Commission to provisions in the surrender terms for
Germany for associating such States with the imposition of the
terms (telegram D.1247 of 1st September ).
(b) In discussions which are still proceeding on the Control
machinery for Germany, the Soviet representative  has so far
resisted United Kingdom proposals providing for consultation
between the Commanders-in-Chief of the three Powers and
representatives of other United Nations.
(c) In earlier discussions on the protocol on the occupation of
Germany the Soviet representative for long opposed the provision
that each Government might, at its discretion, include in its zone
auxiliary contingents from the Forces of other United Nations. It
emerged that one reason for this attitude was the fear that
participation in the occupation might lead to demands from other
States for a voice in the Control machinery. The United Kingdom
representative, nevertheless, succeeded in securing provision for
auxiliary contingents from other States. (Despatch D.130 of 0th
September.) As stated by Lord Cranborne in the House of Lords on
26th September , His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
would have sympathy with the view that those members of the United
Nations who have shared in the operations against Germany should
contribute to the Forces of Occupation of Germany.
4. Three Armistices have been signed viz., with Italy, Roumania
The Control Commission (now Allied Commission) is staffed on a
combined United States - United Kingdom basis, corresponding to
the Command arrangements in the Mediterranean theatre, and the
Soviet Union is represented on it. In addition, there is an
Advisory Council, on which the United Kingdom, United States,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France, Greece and Yugoslavia
The Armistice terms (Article 18) provided that the Allied Control
Commission should be under the general direction and orders of the
Allied (Soviet) High Command, acting on behalf of the Allied
Powers. The executive staff will be wholly Russian. British and
United States Missions will be attached for liaison purposes.
The Armistice terms are similar. They provide explicitly that the
Allied Control Commission is an organ of the Allied (Soviet) High
Command, to which it is directly subordinated.
5. In addition to the British Liaison Mission (see paragraph 4(b)
above), a British political representative  has been appointed
in Roumania. Similar arrangements are in train for Finland.
6. Discussions are still in progress in the European Advisory
Commission, on the Armistice terms for Bulgaria. The Soviet
representative is pressing that the Control Commission should be a
Russian body under the Soviet High Command, as in Roumania and
Finland. The United Kingdom and United States Representatives are
ready to accept this arrangement for the duration of hostilities
against Germany but have proposed that, once hostilities against
Germany are over, the Commission should become tripartite, and act
under the instructions of the three Governments. It is hoped in
any case to provide that the Control Commission will act on behalf
of all the United Nations at war with Bulgaria, but, having regard
to Soviet opposition even to United Kingdom and United States
participation, the prospects would be remote of securing their
consent to the participation of smaller countries, even those with
a substantial direct interest such as Greece and Yugoslavia.
7. While the manner of associating other countries with the
direction of the Control machinery for Germany has not yet been
settled, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have
expressed their view that nationals of other countries should be
associated with the work of control (paragraph 13 of Memorandum in
Despatch D.32 of March 25 ) and detailed arrangements for the
participation of Australian officers are already being discussed
with the Australian Service authorities.
(In this connection you have also had my telegram 131A  of
29th September and 133A  of 3rd October re Australian
civilians in personnel of Central Commission.)
8. Another direction, in which arrangements are in train for
countries other than the United Kingdom, the United States and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to play a substantial part, is
that of the various United Nations organs of co-operation recently
established or proposed.
(a) The proposals for Mine Clearance Boards (Despatch D.57 of 9th
May ) provided for the proposed zone Boards to consist of
members representing the littoral countries within the zone and
other interested naval powers.
(b) The draft Constitution  of the Food and Agricultural
Organisation, recommended by the Interim Commission on 28-29th
June, provides for a Conference of all the members of the
Organisation, which would appoint an Executive Committee,
consisting of not less than nine or more than 15 members,
qualified by administrative experience or other special
qualifications to contribute to the attainment of the purpose of
(c) The proposals for a European Internal Transport Organisation
(Despatch D.88 of 11th July ) provided for a Council
comprising representatives of all the Members, with an Executive
Board consisting of representatives of the United Kingdom, the
United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and two
other members appointed by the Council.
(d) The Agreement of 5th August  (copy sent in External
Affairs Bag 89) on the principles for the control of merchant
shipping, which was signed for the Governments of Belgium, Canada,
Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, besides the United
Kingdom and the United States, envisages a united Maritime Council
comprising representatives of all signatory and acceding
Governments and an Executive Board consisting of the United
Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands and Norway.
(e) As regards the proposals for a future World Organisation, the
Commonwealth Government are already fully documented.
9. Whilst a predominant part is accorded to the three Powers, in
accordance with their special responsibilities in the conduct of
the war and in connected arrangements in the post surrender
period, the interests of other countries have throughout been
prominently in the mind of the United Kingdom Government, and have
been pressed unremittingly on the United States and Soviet
representatives on the European Advisory Commission. In spite of
Soviet opposition their efforts have met with a considerable
measure of success. it remains the intention of the United Kingdom
Government to continue to press the claims of other countries to a
proper share in the ordering of international affairs.'