Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 1

662A.00/5–2652: Telegram

No. 104
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in France¹

secret

Washington, May 26, 1952—7:23 p.m.

Telac 9. For the Secretary.²

1. We thought you might like to have our prelim thoughts and reactions on Sov note³ in event you have some exchange of views with other Mins on this subj. In gen we think Moscow’s initial analysis (Moscow’s 1881, rptd Bonn 81⁴) was well taken except that we are not fully convinced that note reflects Kremlin anger with Ger Commies handling of unification issue.

2. Dept considers note a feeble effort under the circumstances. With possibly one exception it contains nothing new, limits itself to confirming previous positions, and in gen turns to propaganda language as substitute for any constructive polit proposals. For these reasons we think it shld have little propaganda value for Sov cause in Ger.

3. The one seemingly new element is the reliance upon Potsdam agreement not only for territorial solutions but for peace treaty provisions generally and, even for defining status of all-Ger Govt prior to peace treaty. While this may possibly be a bid for that part of Fr opinion which wld like to continue fon occupation and domination of Ger, we think it will almost certainly leave Gers cold.

4. Dept is particularly struck by lack of renewal of any kind of proposal for investigation of conditions in Ger or any proposals for Ger elections. There is almost complete retreat to position reflected in first Sov note,⁵ that is, emphasis on importance of negotiating regarding peace treaty. All this seems to demonstrate an eagerness on part of Sovs to disengage on question of election and almost gives appearance of relief that we did not accept their previous suggestions. We note in passing that present note states that Sovs had previously proposed that investigation of conditions “shld be conducted” by Four-Power Comm, whereas language previously used had seemed something less than outright proposal since it said that such Comm “cld” conduct investigation.

5. Note generally bears appearance of being written “for the record.” They reiterate what they previously proposed and stress our “rejection” of their proposals. They get in some additional licks at Eur Defense Community and “Hitlerite” character of projected Ger rearmament. They end by asserting that there can be no binding quality to any “separate agreement with one or another part of Ger”. In this gen context, renewed Sov proposal for talks certainly has, in our opinion, an unconvincing and hollow ring.

6. Dept does not consider that note calls for any immediate response and Dept has not reacted in any way publicly to note. Our thoughts at this time are that an eventual reply might either (a) note Sov rejection of our proposals and break off any further exchange of communications at present or (b) might conceivably suggest some sort of low level talks. We rather incline to former suggestion at present but much will depend on development of Eur, especially Ger, reaction to note, which we do not yet know.

Bruce

1. Drafted by Laukhuff and cleared by Riddleberger, Bonbright, Barbour, Matthews, Bohlen, and McWilliams. Repeated to Bonn, Moscow, and London.
2. Secretary Acheson was in Paris for the signing of the European Defense Community Treaty and related documents.
3. Document 102.
4. Supra.
5. Document 65.