contributions are already being made by operators of Berlin and West German vehicles for this purpose. If there were actually any new problem in this connection, this could most appropriately be discussed by East German experts with the Treuhandstelle fuer den Interzonenhandel.

The proposed increases are, however, so exorbitant that they cannot be justified purely on economic grounds. Increases which would amount in many cases to fees of more than ten times the present rate would be so abnormal that this measure can only be regarded as politically inspired and intended to impede the free movement of persons and goods between the Federal Republic and Berlin, as well as between the Federal Republic and the Soviet Zone.

Any action which might have this result would clearly conflict with the obligations contained in the New York and Paris agreements of May and June, 1949. I hope therefore that in view of the responsibilities of the Soviet authorities in such matters you will have the necessary steps taken to have the proposed measure withdrawn without delay.

2

37. ROAD TOLLS IN THE SOVIET ZONE: Letter From the United States High Commissioner to the Soviet High Commissioner, 3 April 15, 1955*

In my letter of March 315 I drew your attention to the proposed introduction of drastic increases in the fees payable by vehicles not registered in the Soviet Zone for the use of roads in the Soviet Zone. I have received no reply to this letter and, despite my request that you should take the necessary steps to have the proposed measures withdrawn, the new fees were imposed with effect from April 1.

As I pointed out in my letter to you of March 31, these increases are so exorbitant that they cannot be justified on economic grounds. It is estimated by competent experts that the revenue collected from the road tax in effect prior to April 1, which in 1954 is understood to have amounted to between DM 4,300,000 and DM 5,000,000, was sufficient to provide for the maintenance of highways in the Soviet Zone used by West German traffic. If, however, in view of the economic difficulties of the Soviet Zone, the East German authorities have been unable to provide the necessary funds for road maintenance without increasing their revenues from this tax, this should be a matter for consultation between the experts concerned. Nevertheless, although the West German experts in the Treuhandstelle have expressed the wish to discuss the matter on two occasions since the new fees were introduced, on April 7 and again on April 14, the East German

See quadripartite communiqués of May 5, 1949 (ibid., May 15, 1949, p. 631), and June 21, 1949 (A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 110-112). 'James B. Conant.

G. M. Pushkin.

*Department of State Bulletin, May 2, 1955, p. 736. Similar letters were sent by the British and French High Commissioners.

Supra.

representatives have refused to do so. This refusal confirms the view expressed in my letter of March 31 that the increases can only be regarded as politically inspired and intended to impede the free movement of persons and goods between the Federal Republic and Berlin and between the Federal Republic and the Soviet Zone.

At the sixth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers at Paris in June, 1949, the Soviet Government gave certain undertakings which were set out in a communiqué issued at the close of the conference. These undertakings included the following statement:

In order to improve and supplement this and other arrangements and agreements as regards the movement of persons and goods and communications between the eastern and western zones and between the zones and Berlin and also in regard to transit, the Occupation Authorities, each in his own zone, will have an obligation to take the measures necessary to ensure the normal functioning and utilization of rail, water and road transport for such movement of persons and goods and such communications by post, telephone and telegraph.

The arbitrary action of the East German authorities in imposing these exorbitant increases, on which there was no prior consultation with the West German experts, is clearly inconsistent with the Soviet Government's undertakings, since it interferes with the "normal functioning" of road transport in the Soviet Zone.

I therefore consider that the Soviet authorities are responsible for ensuring that these increases are withdrawn without delay. Since a continuation of the present situation can only make for difficulties in interzonal trade, affect the welfare of Berlin and lead to an increase in tension within Germany, I propose that the four High Commissioners should meet in Berlin as soon as possible to discuss the settlement of this problem.

38. ROAD TOLLS IN THE SOVIET ZONE: Letter From the United States High Commissioner 2 to the Soviet High Commissioner,3 May 2, 1955 +

I have received your letter of April 30, 1955 5 in which you indicate your readiness to accept my proposal for a meeting to discuss the problem arising from the imposition by the East German authorities of exorbitant increases in the charges payable for the use of roads in the Soviet Zone by vehicles not registered in that zone.

I cannot accept that this matter, insofar as it concerns traffic between the Federal Republic and the Soviet Zone and between the Federal Republic and Berlin, is solely within the responsibility of the East German authorities. On the contrary, in view particularly

1 See the communiqué of June 21, 1949; A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 110-112.

2 James B. Conant.

G. M. Pushkin.

Department of State Bulletin, May 23, 1955, p. 834. The British and French High Commissioners sent similar letters to the Soviet High Commissioner.

5 Ibid.

of the four-power agreements of May and June, 1949,' I must insist on the responsibility of the representatives of the four powers in Germany regarding this matter which directly affects the normal functioning of such traffic.

In the light of the foregoing, I suggest that we meet to discuss this matter on May 7 at 3 p. m. in the Allied Control Authority Building in Berlin or, should you prefer, in your office.2

39. ROAD TOLLS IN THE SOVIET ZONE: Communiqué by the American, British, and French Ambassadors to Germany, May 20, 1955 3

The French Ambassador to the German Federal Republic, M. François Poncet, the United States Ambassador, Dr. James B. Conant, and the British Ambassador, Sir Frederick Hoyer Millar, met today with the Soviet High Commissioner, Mr. G. M. Pushkin, to discuss the question of tariffs on highway traffic to Berlin which have been imposed by the Soviet Zone authorities. The meeting took place at Mr. Pushkin's office in the East Sector of Berlin. The Western ambassadors proposed that German experts be designated to study the problem and agree upon a solution to be recommended. The Soviet High Commissioner rejected this proposal and declared that the matter was solely within the competence of the East German authorities. He stated that the question could be solved only by direct discussions between the West and East German authorities, and did not fall within the scope of the Four-Power Agreements of 1949. In view of this attitude, it was decided by the three ambassadors that the question should be referred to their respective governments.

40. THE SOVIET UNION AND EAST GERMANY: Statement to the Press by the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, September 28, 1955

The Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France wish to make known their view on certain points in connection with the agreements of September 20, 1955, as reported in the press, between the Soviet Union and t'e regime in the Soviet zone of Germany.5

Tey wish in the first place to emphasize that these agreements

1 See the communiqué of June 21, 1949; A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 110-112.

In subsequent correspondence it was agreed to hold a meeting in Mr. Pushkin's office on May 20. [Note in Department of State Bulletin.]

'Department of State Bulletin, June 20, 1955, p. 997.

Ibid., Oct. 10, 1955, pp. 559-560.

For the texts of these agreements, see Documents on American Foreign Relations, 1955 (New York, 1956), pp. 108-112.

415900-57-vol. 2- 8

cannot affect the obligations or responsibilities of the Soviet Union under agreements and arrangements between the Three Powers and the Soviet Union on the subject of Germany and Berlin. The Soviet Union remains responsible for the carrying out of these obligations. Secondly, the three Foreign Ministers reaffirm that the Federal Republic of Germany is the only German Government freely and legitimately constituted and therefore entitled to speak for Germany as the representative of the German people in international affairs. These three governments do not recognize the East German regime nor the existence of a state in the Soviet zone.

Finally, as regards a statement which has recently appeared in the Soviet press on the frontiers of Germany,' the three Foreign Ministers reaffirm the repeatedly expressed position of their Governments that the final determination of the frontiers of Germany must await a peace settlement for the whole of Germany.

41. THE SOVIET UNION AND EAST GERMANY: Note From the American Embassy at Moscow to the Soviet Foreign Ministry, October 3, 1955 2

The Government of the United States of America, in agreement with the Governments of the United Kingdom and France, wishes to make known its position with regard to the agreements concluded at Moscow on the 20th of September 1955 between Marshal Bulganin and Mr. Grotewohl, as published in the press.3

The three Governments declare that these agreements cannot affect in any respect or in any way the obligations or responsibilities of the U.S.S.R. under agreements and arrangements on the subject of Germany, including Berlin, previously concluded between France, the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R.

The three Governments consider that the U.S.S.R. remains bound by the engagements which it has assumed vis-à-vis the Three Powers concerning Germany, and that, in particular, the letters exchanged between Mr. Zorin and Mr. Bolz on the 20th of September 1955 cannot have the effect of discharging the U.S.S.R. from the responsibilities which it has assumed in matters concerning transportation and communications between the different parts of Germany, including Berlin.

1 An announcement was issued in Moscow, Sept. 15, 1955, declaring "the question of the frontiers of Germany was solved by the Potsdam Agreement." 2 Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 17, 1955, p. 616. Similar notes were delivered on the same day by the British and French Embassies. See also the Soviet note of Oct. 18, 1955 (ibid., Nov. 7, 1955, pp. 734–735) and the American note of Oct. 27, 1955 (ibid., p. 734).

3 For the texts of these agreements, see Documents on American Foreign Relations, 1955 (New York, 1956), pp. 108-112.

42. DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN EAST BERLIN: Letter From the United States Commander 1 to the Soviet Commander,2 November 28, 1955 3

3

DEAR GENERAL DIBROVA: I wish to bring to your attention the latest example of the lawless action of the "Peoples' Police" in the Soviet sector of Berlin. This incident occurred yesterday about noon in the vicinity of the Soviet Garden of Remembrance in Treptow. It involved two members of the Congress of the United States of America, the wife of one of the Congressmen, and an officer of the United States Army who is under my command.*

As the party was about to leave the Garden of Remembrance in an official military vehicle of Berlin Command, a member of the "Peoples' Police" ordered them to remain on the spot. The policeman then demanded that the keys of the vehicle be handed over to him, and after a show of reluctance on the part of the United States Army officer the policeman drew his pistol from his holster and cocked it menacingly. Under this threat, the officer handed over the keys. When the officer attempted to use the radio telephone in the vehicle in order to inform this Headquarters of the incident, he was prevented from doing so by another policeman who likewise drew his pistol from his holster and cocked it in a threatening manner.

The reason given by the policeman for this ruffianism was that it was forbidden by the laws of the so-called German Democratic Republic for a foreign power to maintain and operate radio transmitters in vehicles.

After approximately three hours of detention by policemen, the party was forced to follow a Soviet official in a Soviet vehicle to your Headquarters at Karlshorst. They were in turn followed by the armed policemen in their vehicle.

At that time the Provost Marshal of Berlin Command arrived at Karlshorst and was received by Colonel Kotsiuba. According to the Provost Marshal's report, Colonel Kotsiuba affirmed the statement of the policemen that the party had violated the laws of the "German Democratic Republic."

The party was eventually released approximately four hours after their original detention.

I wish you to know, General Dibrova, that of all the incidents which have affected the relations between our two Commands during the past few years, I consider this one by far the most serious. I insist that an explanation be given why the policemen assumed the authority to interfere with the liberty of the United States officials, and, furthermore, why they acted in a manner so calculated to terrify defenseless persons, including a woman. I cannot understand how Colonel Kotsiuba could condone such actions.

Maj. Gen. Charles L. Dasher.

2 Maj. Gen. P. L. Dibrova.

Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 19, 1955, pp. 1012–1013.

Those detained were Rep. and Mrs. Harold C. Ostertag, Rep. Edward D. Boland, and Lt. James T. McQueen. [Note in Department of State Bulletin]. 'Col. I. A. Kotsiuba, deputy to the Soviet Commandant in Berlin.