Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XV, Germany and Berlin

246. Telegram From the Mission in Berlin to the Department of State¹

Berlin, February 15, 1968, 1700Z.

956. Subj: Abrasimov’s February 13 letter to Ambassador McGhee. Ref: Berlin 951.²

Begin summary.

1. Abrasimov’s letters to the US and British Ambassadors are virtually identical. The French were sent a copy of the letter to Ambassador McGhee with a brief accompanying letter. This stated the Soviets and French have an interest in relaxation of tension, France has responsibilities in West Berlin, and that letters have been sent to British and US Ambassadors about Bonn’s “illegal activities” in West Berlin.

2. Abrasimov’s letter is similar in many respects to the Soviet January 6 memorandum, but contains noteworthy differences. The letter contains no implication that if Bonn continues its “illegal activities” in West Berlin the Soviet Union will find it necessary to take measures to protect its rights, as did the memorandum. In making the letter public, the Soviets are on record regarding any steps they might plan to take in connection with the March Bundestag committee meetings. The letter carefully avoids mention of these meetings and any specific threats.

3. The Mission concurs in Ambassador McGhee’s view³ that any reply should reaffirm Allied rights and responsibilities in Berlin, and that without attempting to justify FRG activities the reply should indicate that we follow carefully activities here to see that they are consistent with the legal status of the city. We also believe some reference should be drawn to the extent of East German steps to incorporate East Berlin into the GDR.

End summary.

4. Although Khrustalev told us yesterday, in response to question, that as far as he knew the Soviets did not intend “at this time” to publish the letter, the East German press carries on February 14 the text of the letter to Ambassador McGhee (Berlin 951). The East German press makes no mention of letters being sent to the British and French Ambassadors. The British here received a letter the text of which is identical to ours.

5. The French were handed a copy of Abrasimov’s letter to Ambassador McGhee, with a brief accompanying letter from Abrasimov. The letter notes the USSR and France have a great interest in relaxation of tensions in Europe. It adds that France also has responsibilities for the establishment of a normal situation in West Berlin. In this connection, Abrasimov states he has sent letters to the US and British Ambassadors on the subject of Bonn’s illegal activities in West Berlin which create tension in Central Europe.

6. While the text of Abrasimov’s letter to Ambassador McGhee is in many respects similar to the January 6 Soviet memorandum to the FRG Government, there are noteworthy differences. The letter lists many of the same “illegal activities” of the FRG in West Berlin as the memorandum. However, it makes no reference to the recruitment of West Berlin youth for service in the German armed forces, and to the holding of a Bundestag Defense Committee meeting in West Berlin. The letter asserts that Bonn is attempting to change the status of West Berlin in its favor, and that this is a “highly risky course.” The memorandum contains no such statement. It warns instead that Moscow will not tolerate the incorporation of West Berlin into the FRG, and that if Bonn holds to its course of conducting “illegal activities” in West Berlin, the USSR will find it necessary to take measures to protect its rights and interests.

7. It seems likely that Abrasimov, in his desire to meet with one or more of the Western Ambassadors in West Berlin in the second half of February (Berlin 917),⁴ would have raised FRG activities in West Berlin as his major topic. His letter presumably is intended to take the place of such meetings. In releasing the letter to the East Germans for publication, the Soviets have now put themselves on record for any steps they might plan to take in connection with the March 4–8 Bundestag committee meetings in West Berlin. It is to be noted, however, that the letter carefully avoids both mention of these forthcoming meetings and any specific threats. Its contents and fact that it was immediately published suggest that the Soviets have sent the letter primarily for propaganda purposes.

8. In view of the fact that the Soviets have addressed similar letters to the British and US, we believe it would be preferable to coordinate any possible reply. The Mission concurs in Ambassador McGhee’s view, expressed here, that any reply should be brief and reaffirm our concept about Allied rights and responsibilities in Berlin, as well as those responsibilities which have been assigned to the FRG. Without attempting to justify FRG activities about which the USSR has complained, our reply should indicate also that we keep a careful watch on activities here from the standpoint of their consistency with the legal status of the city. We believe any reply should draw attention also to the degree to which the Soviets have permitted the incorporation of East Berlin into East Germany in violation of post-war agreements with respect to Berlin. One example would be East German claims that East Berlin is the capital of the GDR.

9. The separate treatment accorded the French is a reflection of current Soviet policy toward France. We would hope that the French will agree to identical Ambassadorial replies or, failing this, coordinated replies. We hope we can avoid a situation in which the French follow the same procedure used by the Soviets.

Morris

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files,POL 28 GER B. Confidential. Repeated to Bonn, Paris, Moscow, London, USNATO, CINCUSAREUR, CINCEUR, USELMLO, and USAFE.
2. Telegram 951 from Berlin, February 15, transmitted the text of the Soviet note. (Ibid.) For text, see Documents on Germany, 1944–1985, pp. 986–988.
3. Telegram 8431 from Bonn, February 15. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 17 USSR)
4. Dated February 4. (Ibid., POL US–USSR)