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

662.001/9–1152: Telegram

No. 136
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State¹

secret priority

London, September 11, 1952—8 p.m.

1436. Dept’s draft reply² to latest Sov note on Ger was given and explained to British and French at short mtg this morning, and extensively discussed at mtg this afternoon. British argued persistently that London draft³ shld be used as basis for revision, but finally agreed reluctantly to work from Dept’s draft. Fol are principal points raised:

1. Brit feel strongly about retention of historical passages recapitulating Sov position on participation of an all-Ger Govt in peace treaty negots and on free elections, which Eden and top FonOff officials particularly liked. French inclined to agree with US position. We are hopeful that Brit will reluctantly go along with us on this course tho they are impressed with effectiveness of “damning Sovs with their own words”.

2. Both Brit and French feel strongly that para 2 must contain some direct refutation of accusations in first half Sov note. In this connection Kirkpatrick’s account of Adenauer’s comments⁴ placed special emphasis on value to him of covering these points. Redraft this para being prepared to eliminate defensive tone of London para 2 and also shorten it.

3. Brit and French reps seem prepared to accept idea of going diretly to subj of elections along lines Dept’s para 3. Both feel, however, that para 3 in addition to incorporating concluding sentence London draft’s para 6 shld also make point that Sovs have now shifted their ground and propose that four-power conf “shld discuss in the first place” the peace treaty. Revision Dept’s para 3 to cover this point being prepared.

4. Tentatively agree to break Dept’s para 4 into 2 short paras, one ending on lines conclusion London draft as para 3 and other concluding along lines conclusion London draft’s para 4 which carries particular appeal to Gers.

5. Both Brit and French consider that in a drastically abbreviated note para 5 is now disproportionately long. They have argued from the beginning that discussions Sov misuse of words is irrelevant. Revision this para being attempted which will shorten it without effecting its substance, particularly latter portion dealing with elections.

6. Both Brit and French pointed out that Dept’s draft eliminates entirely from the note any comment on the Sov proposal that the commission of investigation be composed of Gers. They feel strongly, and Emb agrees, that this point cannot be ignored. Short para therefore being drafted to insert in Dept’s draft after para 5, covering substance of London draft’s para 8. It was pointed out that this point is particularly important because SPD in full agreement with Adenauer that FedRep cannot meet with GDR reps.

7. Both Brit and French are unhappy about tone of Dept’s para 6, especially the first sentence, which seems to them to imply that we wld be glad to see the exchange of notes terminated. They both feel strongly that the responsibility for terminating the exchange shld rest on the Sov and that we shld carefully avoid any language implying reluctance to continue or desire to cut off exchanges. They cite in this connection opinions expressed at NAC mtg.⁵ They also regard para 6 as not necessary to the development of the argument. Redraft being attempted which wld work the last two sentences of para 6 into new opening of para 7, remainder of which remains substantially the same as Dept’s draft with fol exceptions:

(a) Brit and Fr believe, and Emb agrees, that if we omit any ref to Sov proposal for withdrawal of occupation forces, which Dept will note is covered in parenthetical clause of penultimate sentence of London draft’s final para, wld give a propaganda opening to the Sovs.

(b) Brit and French suggest, and Emb agreed, that we shld work the customary ref to consultation with FedRep etc., into the final sentence.

Working group mtg tomorrow morning will consider a newly revised text along lines indicated, which will be transmitted to Dept.

FonOff reps emphasized that they cld speak only for working level, subj to Eden’s view; Schuman has not yet commented on London draft text, and French therefore also only speaking for working level.

Gifford

1. Repeated to Paris, Moscow, Bonn, and Berlin.
2. Transmitted in telegram 1718, supra.
3. Transmitted in telegram 1307, Document 133.
4. Presumably a reference to the meeting between Chancellor Adenauer and the Allied High Commissioners for Germany on Sept. 4, reported on in telegram 980, Document 132.
5. The reply to the Soviet note of Aug. 23 had been discussed at a North Atlantic Council meeting on Sept. 4. The general tenor of the discussion was that the Soviet note was not very encouraging, but that every effort should be made by the four powers to solve the German problem. Draper reported on this meeting in Polto 260 from Paris, Sept. 4. (740.5/9–452)