121. Telegram From the Embassy in Germany to the Department of State1
4986. Subj: Erhard’s views on Berlin. Following is the discussion on the question of Berlin, during my meeting yesterday with Chancellor Erhard. Other subjects discussed are being reported separately.2
I recounted to the Chancellor the recent series of adverse events in Berlin: The damage to our Potsdam Mission; the shooting at the Teltow Canal on June 15; the GDR denunciation of the barge and rail agreements, and the flight of GDR helicopters initiated on June 5. I asked the Chancellor for his own appraisal of whether this represented a general stiffening of the Soviet-GDR posture in Berlin.
[Page 300]The Chancellor replied that he construed these events to represent a well-planned, large-scale attempt to build up the pretense of GDR sovereignty. It was hoped thereby to show the world that there are two German states. If the Soviets and the GDR are able to make good their present threats, damages would accrue which represent a greater price than the FRG can pay. The whole future of interzonal trade is at stake.
The Chancellor deplored, along familiar lines, the granting of credits by the Western states to the GDR. (He admitted that the US is not involved, as I pointed out.) As one of the results, iron and steel, which had formerly played an important part in IZT trade, were now largely furnished to the GDR by others. The Western credits may have played a role in encouraging the GDR to seek further to diminish the right of the FRG to represent all Germans. The pass discussions held between Korber and Kohl on June 21 had ended in a few minutes. Twenty percent of the passes issued to West Berliners during the Whitsun vacations had not been used; he interpreted this to mean that the people were afraid to use them.
With respect to barge traffic, the GDR aim is to replace permanent barge permits by permits which must be granted for each trip. The GDR threat to terminate rail traffic is a “devilish” thing. The East Germans say that future arrangements must be made as between states—i.e., at the Cabinet level. If there is no new agreement they may disrupt traffic. In either case the GDR would be able to prove its two-state theory. The FRG must either negotiate at the Cabinet level, or face proof that the GDR has the right to stop shipments at the border.
Free access to Berlin, continued the Chancellor, is based on Allied agreements and the IZT. The possibility exists that IZT can be interrupted in retaliation against a denial of access; however, this could only be done if the Allies would guarantee that the necessary goods for Berlin would be provided. He referred to his recent discussion with French Amb Seydoux on this point, in which the latter had raised the question of the possible re-mounting of an airlift in such circumstances. The Chancellor asked whether this would be possible. He emphasized that the IZT does not exist for purely commercial reasons—only as a means of assuring access.
Comment: The Chancellor took a more serious view of the barge and rail problems than the FonOff projected last week. Generally speaking, I think that his assessment is overly gloomy, in that he almost seems to assume that some stoppage of rail and waterway access is likely, unless, as he says, the FRG agrees to “Cabinet level” negotiations.
Our judgment to date, in which both the French and British Embassies as well as the FonOff concur, is that the Zone, with its implication of a July 1 deadline, is probably demonstrating its standard pre-negotiating tactic of trying to maximize pressure on the FRG. As we have reported [Page 301] (Embtel 4916),3 the East Germans have in fact backed down from earlier extreme demands that international (CIM) rail rates be introduced on July 1.
The barge situation is less clear, but I also do not presently expect a “blockade.” The FRG and the GDR will probably settle down to a prolonged, and perhaps not overly comfortable dickering over barge permits—of a type familiar to us in past talks on the Hof Bridge and a fourteenth train path.
What I think the Chancellor’s views reflect, is that the weekend developments have upset a cautious German optimism of last week. Over the weekend the Zone has sharpened its air demands, posed brusque demands in the pass talks, and begun a new line of attack against FRG “war plans.” While this GDR activity has proved upsetting to the Germans, I think that it is mostly declamatory in purpose, rather than the signal for a serious test of strength on Berlin.