662.001/9–452 Telegram
No. 132
The United States High Commissioner
for Germany (Donnelly) to the Department of
State1
980. As previously arranged, HICOMs met with Adenauer this afternoon for discussion Sov note and reply to be made thereto. Chancellor said his views corresponded with what he understood from the press were views of other govts re character of note. In his opinion the press had not laid sufficient emphasis upon fact that acceptance of Sov agenda would mean free elections would follow all other steps and that an interim East Ger regime would be recognized as a legal govt. He considered that Sov note was a retrogressive step and thought that even those who had previously been optimistic now shared this view and recognized Sov intention was to prevent agrmt. Chancellor was nevertheless convinced door should not be closed but that western powers should state readiness to meet with Sovs on basis previously set forth in their earlier communication. They should, however, make it clear that they cannot accept Sov note as a basis for any such mtg.
In response to questions by Kirkpatrick, Chancellor expressed view that note should call attn to UN representative character of [Page 312] GDR and that western powers, instead of being drawn into debate over various points raised by Sov note, should concentrate upon issue of free elections. He added, however, that reply of western powers should also deal with attacks made upon NATO as this would particularly be helpful to him in defending Bonn and Paris agrmts before Bundestag.
Chancellor did not believe that it was neces to make an immed reply but thought it should not be delayed beyond end of Sept.
In response to my ques as to what emphasis should be placed upon Sov ref to Postdam, Chancellor said that it would suffice to refer to position previously taken and to point out that peace treaty based on Potsdam would require some form of Allied control despite Sov protestations in last note and would in any case be imposed rather than a negotiated treaty.
When I referred to possibility of emphasizing free elections rather than placing renewed stress upon impartial commission, Chancellor was insistent that reply must avoid impression that Allies are retreating from position taken in prev notes, and therefore it was necessary to keep commission idea alive.
In short, Chancellor is in agrmt with position so far taken by three western powers and this was confirmed by chairman in mtg.
In light of Chancellor’s statements, which accord in general with other views heard here, believe it is desirable that note be shortened to place greater emphasis upon free elections and avoid detailed treatment of all points raised by Sovs. Specifically we suggest dropping para five of Dept draft2 and using excellent material contained therein in publicizing western reply such as in unilateral statement to be made by Secy. Such an abbreviated version might also contrast “diktat” (word used by Chancellor and strongly recommended here) with freely negotiated settlement and state that while refusing to participate in the imposition of a dictated settlement upon the Ger people, three powers are nevertheless prepared to meet with Sovs to discuss steps to be taken to hold all-Ger elections which would lead to formation of a united Ger govt with which a treaty of peace can then be negotiated.
- Repeated to London, Paris, Moscow, and Berlin.↩
- Transmitted in telegram 1470, Document 129.↩