166. Telegram From Secretary of State Dulles to the Department of State0
Dulte 9. Eyes only Acting Secretary for President from Secretary.
Dear Mr. President:
We left Paris this morning. Couve de Murville was at the airport to see me off and we had a brief private talk.1 He indicated that the only significant point of difference between us seemed to be in the fact that the French believed that if there was any interference with our access to Berlin, we should instantly move with military force rather than go through the preparatory stage which we envisage. Couve said he recalled 1936 and the failure then to react promptly when Hitler moved into the demilitarized area of Germany. He said then the military people had felt that they could not act without prior mobilization and like measures, but Couve said they had been wrong. So now the French are disposed to act at once but without any preliminary steps such as total or partial mobilization, evacuation of dependents, etc.
Perhaps their zeal is due to the fact that it is we rather than they who would have to make most of the military effort as, I understand, they have very little military potential left in Germany.
We arrived at the Wahn airport about noon and the Chancellor, von Brentano and others were there to meet me. The Chancellor and I drove back together to Bonn, and since it is a drive of about an hour, we had a good chance to have an initial really private talk, which is what the Chancellor likes. Then this afternoon we met at the Palais Schaumburg with the Chancellor and several members of the government, first having a semi-private talk with the Chancellor and von Brentano on the one [Page 345] side and David Bruce and me on the other.2 The burden of this was the Chancellor’s concern about the British in general, about Macmillan’s trip to Moscow in particular and a recent statement made here by the British Ambassador that it would be inevitable to recognize the GDR.
Then we went into a larger meeting and I reported quite fully on my talks at London and at Paris with the French government and with Spaak,3 then the Chancellor and more briefly von Brentano expounded their views.
They seem to be satisfied with what I have told them about “contingency planning” in relation to Berlin. I did not however go into much detail. With respect to a conference on Germany, there seemed to be acquiescence, although chiefly discernible on the theory that “silence gives consent”. I hope to develop their attitude more definitively tomorrow when we meet again.
Faithfully yours,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 762.00/2–759. Secret; Priority.↩
- A two-paragraph memorandum of this conversation, SVE/MC–14, is ibid., Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1201.↩
- See Document 164.↩
- See Document 165.↩