Deputies Meeting.

1. Yesterday I attended a meeting with Bevin, McNeil, Addison and
representatives of the Dominions, at which the peace treaties with
Germany and Austria were discussed. The basis for discussion was
Dominion Office telegram D.1167 containing the agenda for Moscow
meeting and also the invitation to London meeting of Deputies
which I presume you have already received from Washington whence
it was to be sent out.

2. Bevin indicated that it was his wish to obtain as a start at
the meeting here the general views of all the countries which
participated in the war against Germany. The Deputies would then
report these views to the Foreign Ministers when they met in
Moscow. He could not say at this stage to what extent agreement
would be reached at Moscow on the different aspects of the German
settlement and by way of explanation of his disinclination to
prophesy recalled that Molotov had not been in favour of a
preliminary meeting of the Deputies and had only yielded on the
point after British and American insistence. It was difficult
therefore to say what degree of co-operation might be expected
from the Russians or what new proposals they might have to make.

3. On the general question of procedure Bevin suggested first that
it was desirable that the Dominion Governments should make known
their views as soon as possible even if all or some of those views
were to be repeated subsequently at the Deputies meeting. Secondly
he intimated that the Foreign Ministers would want to refer back
to the Allied Council and Deputies on particular problems and in
fact there might be a protracted exchange of views with all
interested parties. Thirdly he does not dismiss the idea that
there may ultimately be a third wider conference after the London
and Moscow meetings.

4. My impression of meeting was that Bevin had vague idea of what
should be done but the United Kingdom could not give confident
positive lead because they do not know how Russia or even the
United States may react.

The New Zealand representative had no observations to make as he
had heard nothing from his Government and South Africa does not
wish to make any comment until she knows more of the plan to be
followed.

The Canadian representative, Robertson, urged that no public
statement which might fix the procedure too rigidly should be made
in the early stages as he thought the best arrangement might be
evolved as the talks progress. He also said that whereas Canada
might not be particularly interested in specific points to be
settled there was question of political prestige at home which
necessitated that Canada should take full part in the settlement
or none at all.

5. I reminded Bevin that a lot of trouble at Paris had been due to
the fact that big four had presented other countries with pre-
agreed decisions which had given rise to objections. Now it
appeared that big four entertained the idea of carrying other
nations along with them as they constructed treaty piece by piece.

I pointed out that we might wish to present our case personally as
the discussions proceeded and criticise proposals made by others.

However apart from saying that he wished to avoid criticisms such
as had been made of the procedure at Paris and referring to the
possibility of a third meeting, he was unwilling to be drawn
further at this stage.

Bevin referred to the cost to Britain of the administration in
Germany and questions which might have to be answered in the
House. In reply to this and to Robertson's remark about domestic
political considerations I argued that we all had an interest in
the peace of Europe and that the Australian Government had
Australian lives to answer for. We should be able, if we wished,
to fight against any proposal for settlement which we thought
might eventually threaten the peace of Europe.

6. If our Government has any views regarding procedure it would be
wise to state them now. Such a statement would provide a
foundation upon which we can build here or better still give a
firm line which we can take.