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

662.001/9–552: Telegram

No. 133
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State¹

secret

London, September 5, 1952—8 p.m.

1307. Fol is text proposed draft reply to latest Sov note on Ger:

Begin text. HMG have carefully considered the Sov Govt’s note of 23 Aug² about Ger. They had hoped that it wld have marked some progress towards agreement on the essential question of free all-Ger elections. This must first be settled between the four powers so that Ger can be unified, an all-Ger Govt formed and a peace treaty concluded.

2. Possibly in order to divert attention from this issue, the greater part of the Sov note of 23 Aug is, however, devoted to unfounded attacks upon the Atlantic Pact, the Eur Def Community and the conventions signed at Bonn on 27 May. HMG have no intention of entering into controversy with the Sov Govt on these questions, since their attitude has been clearly stated on many occasions. As they have often emphasized, these agreements are purely defensive and threaten no one. The Bonn conventions and the EDC treaty, far from being imposed on the Ger people and from maintaining them in a state of subservience, are a matter for free discussion and decision by freely elected Parliaments, including, of course, that of the Ger FedRep. Insofar as the Bonn conventions reserve certain strictly limited rights to the three Western Powers, the sole object is to safeguard the principle of Ger unity and to keep the door open for agreement with the Sov Union on the unification of Ger. Facts speak for themselves and HMG do not for their part fear an impartial enquiry into conditions throughout Ger.

3. HMG have noted with the deepest regret that, under the guise of presenting constructive proposals, the Sov note of 23 Aug has in one very important respect gone back upon its own earlier proposals. In its original note of 10 March,³ the Sov Govt stated, “naturally such a peace treaty must be drafted with the direct participation of an all-Ger Govt” and “the preparation of the peace treaty shld be effected with the participation of Ger in the form of an all-Ger Govt”. This was in complete accord with the views of the French, UK and US Govts. In neither of its two fol notes did the Sov Govt imply that it intended to withdraw from this position, which was indeed consonant with the statements made over a period of years by the Sov rep in the Council of FonMins. In now proposing to discuss the peace treaty before the formation of an all-Ger Govt, the Sov Govt has completely shifted its ground, thus calling in question what appeared to have been agreed. At the same time they have reverted to the Potsdam decisions. But HMG, whose views on the Potsdam decisions have been set out in their previous notes, are compelled to remind the Sov Govt that conditions have radically changed since 1945 and the idea of a peace treaty drawn up by the Four Powers and imposed by them on Ger is entirely unsuitable in 1952. The Sov Govt will also recall that the Potsdam agreement itself stated that its polit and econ arrangements were designed to govern the initial control period only. HMG cld never agree to a peace treaty being drafted or negotiated without the participation of an all-Ger Govt. Any other procedure wld turn such a treaty into a “diktat”. That indeed wld be an insult to the Ger people.

4. The Sov Govt have instead suggested that East Ger reps as well as reps of the Ger FedRep shld “take part in the (four-power) conf during the discussion of relevant questions”. HMG must at once state that they are not prepared to accept such a proposal as a substitute for the participation of an all-Ger Govt in the negots. They cannot conceive that a peace treaty for the whole of Ger cld be negotiated with or accepted by any Ger reps other than the all-Ger Govt which wld have to carry it out. Such a govt can only proceed from free elections. In any case, HMG cannot regard reps of the “Ger Democratic Rep” as expressing the will of the East Ger population. Leaving aside the circumstances in which the “Ger Democratic Rep” was set up and is “the govt” appointed, HMG have been shocked by the statement in the Sov note of 23 Aug that the measures recently enforced by the East Ger auths to prevent contact between Gers, and so further divide Ger, were taken “at the request of the population”. This assertion alone disposes of any serious claim on the part of the East Ger auths to represent any significant section of the Ger people, since it is wellknown that the first desire of all-Ger is unity in freedom.

5. HMG are, therefore, brought back again to the fundamental question of free elections. They are, however, at a loss to understand the Sov Govt’s position. The original Sov note of 10 March made no mention whatever of free elections. In their reply of 25 March,⁴ HMG stated that the conclusion of a peace treaty for Ger required the formation of an all-Ger Govt, which cld only be set up on the basis of free elections. The Sov Govt, in their reply of 9 April,⁵ conceded that it was necessary that the Four Powers shld “discuss without delay the question of holding free all-Ger elections”. They went on to say that “the recognition by the Govt of USSR, Great Britain, the US and France of the need to hold free all-Ger elections creates the full possibility for holding such elections in the immed future”. Thus some progress seemed to have been made also on this issue, altho the actual proposal in the last para of this Sov note again made no mention of free all-Ger elections and suggested only that the four govts shld examine “a peace treaty with Ger as well as the question of unification of Ger and the establishment of an all-Ger Govt”. Nevertheless, in their note of 13 May,⁶ HMG put forward a precise scheme for an impartial comm to investigate electoral conditions throughout Ger as the necessary prerequisite to the holding of free all-Ger elections. HMG were, therefore, surprised and disappointed by the further Sov note of 24 May,⁷ since the Sov Govt’s proposal, contained in the concluding section of this note, again avoided all mention of free all-Ger elections. In their note of 10 July,⁸ HMG were, therefore, obliged once again to explain the vital importance which they attach to this essential question. They concluded by making definite proposals for the discussion between the Four Powers of the holding of free elections, the formation of an all-Ger Govt and the negotiation of a peace treaty with that govt in that order, since that order alone cld produce early and effective results.

6. In their latest note of 23 Aug,⁹ the Sov Govt have yet again evaded this central issue. While the Sov Govt state that they are prepared to discuss “the holding of free all-Ger elections and the setting up of a comm to verify the existence of conditions in Ger for holding such elections, its composition and functions”, they are still not ready to settle first things first. Instead, they deem it necessary that the Four Power conf “shld discuss in the first place such important issues as a peace treaty with Ger and the formation of an all-Ger Govt”. It, therefore, now seems clear that, in the Sov Govt’s view, the negot of a peace treaty and the formation of an all-Ger Govt shld precede free all-Ger elections. This is impossible for the simple reason that until elections are held, no all-Ger Govt can be formed nor can the country be unified; and until an all-Ger Govt is formed and given the necessary freedom of action, it is useless to discuss the terms of a Ger peace treaty.

7. (Para 7 to follow Sept 6).¹⁰

8. HMG therefore, now turn to the question of the comm of inquiry, having noted that the Sov Govt still agree to the necessity for such a body. The Sov Govt have however, made a new proposal that this comm shld be composed of reps of the People’s Assembly of the Ger Democratic Rep and of the Bundestag of the Ger FedRep. HMG have maintained that such a comm, if it is to achieve useful results, shld be composed of members who are genuinely independent, objective and impartial. They cannot but consider that a Ger comm wld be no more able than a four-power comm to meet this requirement. HMG moreover, wld point out that the Sov Govt’s present proposal is similar to one made by Herr Grotewohl on the 15 December 1951. This proposal was rejected by the Bundestag, which then put forward the idea of an investigation by an impartial UN comm. It was thus the freely elected reps of 50 millions of the Ger people who themselves proposed the creation of a neutral investigation comm under UN supervision. Nevertheless, HMG remain ready to discuss any practical and precise proposals relating to the composition, functions and auth of the comm of investigation in accordance with their note of the 10 of July.

9. HMG, therefore, renew the proposal made in its note of July 10 for an early four-power mtg—in or before October—to discuss the immed formation and functions of an impartial comm of investigation on free elections. The next step wld be to discuss arrangements for the formation of an all-Ger Govt. When free elections have taken place and an all-Ger Govt has been formed, the peace settlement (including, of course, “the question of the date of the withdrawal of occupation forces from Ger”) can be negotiated. HMG most earnestly urge the Sov Govt to reconsider its refusal to join the other powers in a singleminded effort to come to grips with the problem of holding free elections in Ger.¹¹

End text.

Gifford

1. Repeated to Paris, Moscow, Bonn, and Berlin.
2. Document 125.
3. Document 65.
4. Regarding this note, see telegram 2209, Document 78.
5. Document 82.
6. Document 101.
7. Document 102.
8. Document 124.
9. Document 125.

10. The text of paragraph 7 was transmitted in telegram 1320 from London, Sept. 6, and reads as follows:

    “For the fol reasons also, HMG insist that genuinely free elections with view to the formation of an all Ger Govt must come first. Over the past 7 years there has been agreement between the three Western Govts and the Soviet Govt that a United Ger shld be ‘peaceloving, democratic and independent.’ HMG have learned by hard experience in recent years that these terms have one meaning in common parlance and another in the official Sov vocabulary. Sov official pronouncements appear to reserve the word ‘democratic’ exclusively for those societies in which the Commies have a monopoly of polit power. Similarly, the term ‘peace-loving’ is applied only to Sov Commie policies and those who follow them, while anything which implies resistance to such policies is labelled as warlike and aggressive. The words ‘free’ and ‘independent’ are used to describe states with the outward trappings of sovereignty but actually in a condition of subjection to the Sov Union. The different interpretation of these terms, as laid down for Ger in the Potsdam Agreement, is illustrated by the contrasting results of their application in Eastern and Western Ger. In the Sov Zones, and indeed in the neighboring ‘popular democracies’ of Eastern Europe, ‘freedom’ means forced labor, deportations, arrests without trials, and all the other manifestations of the police state. In these territories ‘free elections’ have hitherto meant ‘freedom’ for the electorate to cast 98 percent or 99 percent vote in favor of an official single list. It is for the Ger people to choose between these alternative ways of life. But they must be able to make their choice in genuine freedom and full responsibility. Only genuinely free elections can reflect the will of the Ger people and permit the formation of an all-Ger Govt with the necessary freedom of action to discuss and to accept a peace settlement.” (662.001/9–652)

11. On Sept. 8 the Embassies in London and Paris reported that subject to minor drafting changes Eden and Schuman had approved this text. (Telegrams 1326 from London and 1625 from Paris, 662.001/9–852) The reaction to the draft in the Department of State was quite different. On the same day Kellermann transmitted a memorandum to Laukhuff stating “that the consensus of opinion between Washington and London is somewhat less than complete,” and indicating that the two drafts could not be harmonized “without drastic concessions by either side or both.” (662.001/9–552) This feeling was reported to London in telegram 1696, Sept. 9, which advised that the new draft seemed to bear little resemblance to the Department of State draft (telegram 1470, Document 129). Pending further comments the Embassy in London was told to inform the British and French that the draft was not satisfactory and that the Department of State would probably make new proposals. (662.001/9–552)