Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

111. Memorandum of Conversation Between the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Mr. Bundy) and the Soviet Ambassador (Dobrynin)¹

Washington, November 24, 1965, 1–3 p.m.

Ambassador Dobrynin and I had the most candid and cordial conversation of our three-year acquaintance today. In approximate order of importance, the topics we discussed are as follows:

1. European nuclear arrangements. The Ambassador raised this subject toward the end of the lunch—which is where he has usually raised the thing most on his mind in our past talks.

The moment he raised the question, I told him that I was troubled by the lack of clarity in the Soviet position on ANF and MLF and other arrangements. Sometimes the Soviet Union seemed to be saying to us that it was only the MLF that was objectionable. At other times Soviet representatives seemed to be hostile to all possible arrangements, even those for simple consultation.

The Ambassador parried by saying that the Soviet Union had a hard time telling just what we had in mind. He said that he had been unable to satisfy repeated requests from his government for an accurate account of purposes and meaning of the McNamara special committee (even his NATO colleagues in Washington had told him that they honestly did not know what it was all about). The Ambassador said that it would be easier for the Soviet Union to comment on our policy if it knew exactly what that policy was. He said that he knew there was a difference of opinion within the USG as between believers in collective weapons systems and believers in consultation. He said that he had the impression that there was not a firm decision in the USG and he implied that the Soviet Union could not express a fully defined position until it knew what it had to deal with on our side.

I pointed out to the Ambassador that this position in turn created difficulties in Washington. We were determined to move ahead with necessary defensive arrangements, while at the same time we worked for the cause of non-proliferation. The Ambassador was certainly correct in believing that different kinds of arrangements were preferred by different groups here, but I pointed out that as long as it appeared that the Soviet Union was equally opposed to all arrangements, it would be hard for anyone in this government to believe the choice we made would have any effect on relations with the Soviet Union.

The Ambassador said very earnestly that he understood this point and that for this reason it would be of the greatest value to the Soviet Government if he could have a wholly private and informal indication of the real plans and preferences of the USG as soon as they might be decided. He was sure that such a private indication of our position would be helpful, almost no matter what it was. The Ambassador cited as an example the announcement today of a 700-man reduction in our forces in Berlin. He thought that 24-hours private notice of this decision would have been most helpful in Moscow.

I told the Ambassador that I understood the value of private communication. The Ambassador, on his part, assured me that the Soviet Union would have no interest whatever in using any such private communication to undermine our relations with the Germans—he said that he thought we worry too much about that, and that this simply was not the framework within which these matters were reviewed within the Soviet Government. The Soviet Government’s concern about the Germans was real and deep, as he had told me often before. The Ambassador remarked that he had often been told by his friends in the State Department that Soviet protests in the nuclear field were merely another example of Soviet hostility toward NATO, and that he wanted me to understand that this was not the case. Of course, NATO was not a Soviet favorite, but the problem of nuclear proliferation and Germany was far different and much more serious. On non-proliferation, he added, the Soviet Government had exposed itself to severe criticism from quarters he need not name (I inferred China); that should prove its sincerity.

I told the Ambassador that we understood the Soviet concern with Germany and that indeed we shared it. I told him that I could give him categorical assurance that there was no one in the USG who had the smallest intention of allowing the Germans to have national control of nuclear weapons, and no one who would support the Germans in any effort to use any German nuclear role as an instrument of pressure against the Soviet Union. The Ambassador indicated that he believed me, but he made it equally plain that his confidence was not shared in Moscow.

My own private and personal conclusion from this extended exchange, the flavor of which I have not fully recaptured, is that we may well be able to win Soviet acceptance of any nuclear arrangement in the West which does not involve an immediate decision to build a new weapons system like the MLF, and which clearly avoids any increase in direct German access to the nuclear trigger. I believe that both the McNamara committee and the revised ANF now under discussion could meet this condition. I believe that Dobrynin is right and serious in his emphasis upon the value of early private communication with the Soviet Government when we know our mind on this matter.

Since in fact no one now wants the MLF, I think we may well be able to make some money with Moscow if we tell them privately before we sink it publicly.

In sum, I believe that what Dobrynin said on this subject may open the way for us to meet our NATO responsibilities and move at the same time toward an agreement on non-proliferation. At the very least, the Ambassador’s position seems to me to reinforce the importance of the President’s stated view that we should approach the problem of Atlantic nuclear defense with a full awareness of the concerns of the Soviet Government. (I should add that I told Ambassador Dobrynin that this was the President’s position.)

[Here follow 4 paragraphs of discussion on unrelated topics.]

McG.B.

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, McGeorge Mr. Bundy, Vol. 17. No classification marking. On November 25, Mr. Bundy sent copies to Rusk, McNamara, Ball, and Thompson. (Department of State, Central Files, POL US–USSR)