man economic unity. These points are: common utilization
of natural resources, a plan for exports and imports, repa-
rations, financial reform, freedom of movement, central
German administrative agencies.
Mr. Bevin, with reference to this matter, expressed
opinions which closely approach this position.
M. Biclault presented France's view. It seems to me
that here, too, there is a great deal in common with the
opinion of our other colleagues.
The Soviet delegation has stated its point of view. It
moreover expresses its readiness to work to find a basis
for the reconciliation of the opinions that were put for-
ward here.
Is it necessary to reach agreement on the level of Ger-
many's economy? We believe that this is desirable and
essential. Is it necessary to reach agreement on an export
and import plan for Germany? This, too, is of course desir-
able. And so with the other problem's—financial reform,
freedom of movement, and so on. However, the chief thing,
as we see it, is whether the problem of the economic unity
of Germany includes a> settlement of the question of repa-
rations. The Soviet Government holds that the economic
unity of Germany is a problem which certainly does in-
clude the question of reparation payments from Ger-
many.
It was said here that Great Britain cannot increase the
burden of her commitments involved in control over Ger-
many. The same has been said by other Ministers. But
that being the case, the Soviet Government is entitled no
less than any other to say the same thing.
That means that Germany must bear definite expendi-
tures arising from the occupation of her territory and from
the necessity of maintaining Allied control bodies. This is
indubitable. Germany must fulfil all her obligations to the
383