109. Telegram From the Embassy in Germany to the Department of State1
4497. Reference: Department telegram 32102 and Embassy telegram 4451.3 Foreign Office informed us today final list of agenda topics submitted by Foreign Minister to Chancellor for approval was as reported in Embassy telegram 4451 with exception that importance of German elections and status of forces omitted. Status of forces problem, however, included among several on which Foreign Office preparing contingency papers. Additional topics in this category are: support costs, war criminals, and (only if raised by US) extent and implications of Eisenhower Doctrine, Israel question and position of Federal Republic on China trade.
Principal objective of trip is demonstration here of Chancellor’s influence and solidarity with US and therefore we believe discussion of following points should be conducted with view to how final communiqué can serve this purpose.
Two stormiest issues for Chancellor in election campaign are atomic questions and relation of disarmament to German reunification. Opposition continues to press argument that US no longer insists that progress on disarmament be contingent on corresponding progress on reunification and possibility that US and USSR will make agreement over Germany’s head. While government satisfied with Secretary’s statement to press May 144 it would be useful to restate jointly points made in Secretary’s press conference in addition to usual statements on continuing closest collaboration and consultation on disarmament and reunification. This might include statement Chancellor had won further assurances that US would not initiate any agreement on disarmament which would adversely affect German reunification. It might also give some support to government in problem making clear to public that any progress on disarmament is bound to create atmosphere more favorable for reunification. There is greatest confusion at all levels here on distinction between inspection, thinning out, neutralization and disarmament. Sensational press and opposition leaders are doing their best to discredit Secretary’s press conference by implying divergence of view between him and Stassen. Anything designed to counteract this would be desirable. [Page 248] Defense Minister Strauss has said he is recommending to Chancellor that communiqué include statement to effect that in Washington conversations it was made clear that American defense policy and plans are based on assumption that Federal Republic will make its appropriate contribution to Western defense and that US has no present intention of reducing its forces in Europe. He explicitly said he intends use this to meet opposition arguments that US must defend Germany under all circumstances in its own interests and it would be prudent to bear in mind that if Chancellor proposes this for communiqué, his party may use it to threaten reconsideration of US policy if SPD elected. As Department aware, SPD has demanded government renounce atomic weapons and refuse stationing US atomic weapons or atomic forces in Federal Republic. In this connection, statement to effect US will not station its troops anywhere without most effective means to defend themselves would serve similar purpose but would involve same possibility of exploitation.
Krone has privately raised with us possibility of Chancellor’s suggesting a moratorium on atomic tests, to be in some way tied in with his visit. While this suggestion does not seem realistic we are reporting it for what it may be worth.
Chancellor also has made considerable point of close consultation with us on latest techniques and plans for civil defense. Minister Interior Schroeder today informed Embassy Chancellor plans to mention this in Washington and shortly after his visit Schroeder will travel to US for about ten days study trip. Communiqué might state that close cooperation in field of civil defense will continue and will find expression in early visit by German Minister of Interior to undertake detailed studies with Federal Civil Defense Administration, American Red Cross, and other US agencies concerned.
Chancellor may wish communiqué to indicate he raised vested assets question and received assurances US Government doing utmost. We doubt he really wants any long discussion or expects US concessions on this point.
Re “status reunification problems,” working group is in public eye here and it will be expected Washington communiqué at least express gratification at progress and harmony and determination continue closest collaboration on this problem recognized as of vital interest to both countries and cause world peace.
European integration remains one of Chancellor’s major policy planks and recognition his contribution this field would be psychological boost. To add much to Chancellor’s internal strength, however, statement would have to stress importance of Germany’s contribution and role in these new activities.
Re buildup, believe highly desirable that Adenauer be made aware our position, as reflected in position paper for NATO Ministerial [Page 249] Meeting.5 While Embassy does not believe Chancellor could effect material changes prior election, if situation to improve after election, Chancellor should be made aware now of our dissatisfaction.
If Chancellor berates U.K. White Paper6 would perhaps be appropriate call his attention to gap created by German slippage. Reduction in German forces promised by end of 1957 of 135,000 far overshadows 13,500 U.K. cut. Should he request expression of satisfaction with buildup in communiqué, this would give opportunity explain fully our position leading to reluctance join in such statement.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 033.62A11/5–1857. Confidential; Priority.↩
- Telegram 3210 enumerated the various briefing papers that were being prepared for Adenauer’s visit. (Ibid., 033.62A11/4–2557)↩
- Telegram 4451 transmitted a draft agenda for the Adenauer talks. (Ibid., 033.62A11/4–1657)↩
- See footnote 2, supra.↩
- A copy of this document, BNM D–10/6, “German Military Buildup,” is in Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 870.↩
- The British White Paper on national defense was printed in The New York Times, April 5, 1957.↩