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

662.001/4–2552: Telegram

No. 89
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State¹

secret priority

London, April 25, 1952—8 p.m.

4863. Herewith fol provision agreed text reply to Sov note on Ger² which is being forwarded to govts for comment. Req Dept’s views soonest.³

Verbatim text: 1. Reply to the Sov Govts note of the 9th Apr HMG wish to invite the Sov Govt’s atten to the fol essential considerations governing the election of an all-Ger Govt and the negot of a peace treaty with Ger. It remains the policy of HMG to accomplish both these objectives on terms that will assure unity with freedom and peace with security.

2. HMG are ready to begin negots with the Sov Govt on these issues at the earliest possible date. They must point out however that the Sov Govt’s note of the 9th Apr throws a little new light upon their conception of the basis for any such negots. HMG wish to ensure that a new conf shld not encounter difficulties such as have led to the failure of earlier mtgs. They are convinced that careful preparation is more likely to lead to success than to cause delay. They accordingly consider it essential to reach a clear understanding upon the scope of any future convs and upon the fundamental problems to be examined.

3. HMG desire to eliminate once and for all from internatl relations the nationalist and militarist spirit which has been the chief cause of so many conflicts. They have therefore spared no effort since the end of hostilities to estab among the nations, and especially those of Eur, peaceful relations founded upon equality and conceived in a new spirit of full coop. They have no responsibility for the failure to extend this coop beyond the present limits, Ger is divided because Eur is divided. A true unity based upon freedom of choice and mutual interest has to be re-established thruout Eur. In this way the most difficult problems, particularly the Ger probl, can be peacefully resolved. For their part HMG, in close coop with the Fr and US govts, have sought to create such unity first of all in West Eur. Marked progress is at present being made in this direction. In the FedRep important results have been secured which will make possible Ger’s free adherence to the peaceful community of Eur nations. While HMG are resolved to continue to carry out this programme which is not directed against any state, and does not threaten anyone, they nevertheless remain ready to examine any precise suggestions which wld reduce tension and strengthen peace.

4. HMG still consider that the Sov Govt’s proposals for a peace treaty are not likely to promote lasting peace in Eur. These proposals confine Ger within narrow limits while permitting her natl armed forces. They wld thus tend to create a permanent state of tension and insecurity in the centre of Eur. As regards the Ger natl forces and the Sov Govt’s erroneous interpretation of the territorial provisions of the Potsdam protocol, HMG have already made known their posit. [US–UK: They do not consider that an analogy can be drawn, as suggested in the Sov note, between Ger and Japan where conditions are entirely different]⁴ moreover the Sov Govt’s stipulation that Gershld not be included “into one or another grouping of powers directed against any peace-loving state” requires clarification. If this stipulation means an obligation similar to those assumed by all member states of the UN, then Ger’s membership of the UN wld make any such provision unnecessary. If it means a special and discriminatory obligation, HMG wld require more precise info. They cld not accept a provision which forbade Ger to enter into associations with other states, which one of the signatories of the peace treaty might choose to regard as directed against a peace-loving state.

5. A peace treaty can only be worked out when Ger unity has been re-established and an all-Ger Govt formed. The Sov Govt has failed to state what wld be the posit of the all-Ger Govt during the period before the peace treaty. This is, however, an essential point. In the view of HMG the all-Ger Govt formed as a result of free elections shld itself enjoy the liberty of action necessary to estab its genuinely representative character in internal affairs, and in external affairs to enable it to assume its responsibilties in the discussion of the peace treaty and prepare for its subsequent responsibilities. HMG consider it necessary to know the views of the Sov Govt on this subj.

6. HMG are happy to note that the Sov Govt agree in principle with the proposal which has long been before them in regard to free elections thruout Ger. However, the Sov Govt do not agree that the Intl Commission set up by the GA of the UN shld first carry out an enquiry to estab whether conditions for free elections at present exist thruout Ger. The Sov Govt base their refusal on Art 107 of the UN Charter. But this art in no way precludes the 4 Powers from resorting to the good offices of the UN: This interpretation has moreover been upheld by the UNGA whose decision taken by an overwhelming majority shld be accepted by all members of the organisation. Moreover, the ques is not simply one of procedure. Since the Sov Govt decided on the 20th Mar, 1948 to put an end to the activity of the control council the west and east parts of Ger have evolved in increasingly divergent directions. It is precisely for this reason that an impartial enquiry is needed before elections take place. The Sov Govt have themselves recognised this fact. They stated however that the responsibility for the enquiry cld be entrusted to a commission formed by the 4 Powers. HMG wld be glad of elucidation of the Sov Govt’s views in this matter, especially as regards the composition and functions of such a body. A commission composed solely of members with direct responsibilities in Ger, who wld thus be both judge and party, wld have difficulty in reaching useful decisions. The elections which the 4 govts desire wld thus be indefinitely delayed. In addit, if a commission of this character were to appear to be preparing to re-estab the 4-Power control system this wld be a step backward out of keeping with constitutional developments in the FedRep. For these reasons HMG maintain their preference for the UN commission; it is already in being, its functions have been laid down and it can take action without delay. HMG are nevertheless willing to examine any other precise proposal which wld permit of a really impartial investigation. They are ready for their part to abide entirely by the conclusions of an impartial Intl Commission. They understand that the Ger Fed Govt are also ready to do so. They wld be glad to know that the Sov Govt are likewise willing, so far as their zone of occupation in Ger is concerned, to ensure that all recommendations made by such a commission will be carried out.⁵ End verbatim.

Gifford

1. Repeated to Bonn, Paris, and Moscow.
2. Document 82.
3. Tripartite coordination of the reply to the Soviet note had begun in London on Apr. 23. (Telegram 4811 from London, Apr. 23, 662.001/4–2352) At the first meeting British and French draft replies were considered and a compromise draft, transmitted in telegram 4863, agreed on. Texts of the British and French drafts were transmitted in telegrams 4784 and 4788 from London, Apr. 22. (662.001/4–2252)
4. Brackets in the source text.

5. On Apr. 27 Holmes and Perkins held a telecon during which the former indicated that this draft was preliminary both in form and in substance. No record of this telecon has been found in Department of State files, but it is described in telegram 4912 from London, Apr. 30. (662.001/4–3052)

   Two days later McCloy commented that two points which were not clearly stressed in this draft should be featured in any reply. The first was the need for a positive statement of Allied aims in Germany and Europe; the second was the need to stress the importance of free elections. (Telegram 2585 from Bonn, Apr. 29, 662.001/4–2952)