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

301. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State¹

Moscow, December 23, 1968, 1515Z.

6938. Subject: Soviet oral protest on Bundesversammlung.

1. Following is unofficial translation of oral statement of protest on above subject handed me by First Deputy Foreign Minister Kuznetsov this afternoon.²

2. Begin text. The Soviet Government considers it necessary to state the following to the Government of the USA.

3. The West German authorities have announced their intention to hold a Federal assembly for the election of the new President of the FRG in West Berlin in March 1969. According to communications from Bonn there will also participate in the elections representatives of the pro-Hitlerite, neo-Nazi National Democratic Party, which is more and more expanding its activity in the FRG directed against the interests of peace and security in Europe. In spite of warnings and in defiance of good sense certain circles of the FRG are in this manner embarking on a path of deliberate aggravation of the situation around (vokrug) West Berlin.

4. The new provocation, which is being prepared by the Government of the FRG, can only have the effect of seriously burdening international relations. It is evident that in Bonn they are calculating precisely on this and assume that tension will favor their revanchist efforts to consolidate their hold on West Berlin.

5. There is not one Allied document which would permit the FRG to turn that city into a source of hostile activity against the Soviet Union and the governments friendly to it or to misuse communications, including air communications, for the transport there of the participants in unlawful political demonstrations and for the fusion of West Berlin with the Federal Republic. The Soviet Union at one time concluded with the Western Powers agreements concerning the presence of Occupation authorities in West Berlin, but it did not give its consent to any annexation of this city to the FRG.

6. In Moscow, naturally, efforts to sanctify the provocative activity of the FRG with respect to West Berlin by means of decisions of the organs of the NATO military bloc have not gone unnoticed. But it ought to be clear to everyone that neither NATO nor anyone else can give to the FRG rights in West Berlin which have not belonged to it, do not belong to it, and will not belong to it.

7. The Soviet Union and the GDR have displayed a maximum of restraint in the face of the challenge made by the FRG through its actions in West Berlin in October and November of this year. Possibly this was wrongly understood. If developments will proceed as they are now proceeding, and if the militaristic and neo-Nazi forces of the FRG continue to display in the center of the GDR their revanchist claims and their open disrespect for the interests and legal rights of the socialist countries, they must assume all responsibility for the consequences of this and will not have grounds for complaints concerning appropriate retaliatory measures to suppress such illegal activity.

8. It is desirable that nothing should be left unsaid (nedomolvok) between our governments in questions concerning West Berlin.

9. The Soviet Union has no claims on that city. The Government of the GDR has also more than once stated that it does not intend to encroach on West Berlin or to interfere in its internal affairs.

10. The three Western Powers in their turn, have repeatedly stated that West Berlin does not belong to the FRG and cannot be administered by its authorities. The Soviet Union proceeds precisely from this fact, since a different situation would exclude the possibility of mutual understanding between us on this question.

11. The entire complex of these questions has been repeatedly discussed between the Governments of the USSR and the USA and each side has underlined its desire to avoid an aggravation of the situation in and around West Berlin. Such an approach also corresponds to the broader interest of our states and to the interests of peace in Europe. The FRG must not be permitted to ignore these interests and to use West Berlin to create international complications whenever it chooses.

12. It would be best if the Government of the FRG through sober reflection were to abandon efforts to remake European political geography in its own way since such a course promises no good, first of all, for West Germany itself. The Soviet Union would welcome such a change in the policy of the FRG as well as efforts by the USA directed toward restraining the West German authorities from the provocative and dangerous steps which are being planned by them.

13. However, if events require that the Soviet Union take certain steps in connection with the intrigues of revanchist and neo-Nazi circles of the FRG in West Berlin, it will of course not hesitate to do so.

14. The Soviet Government assumes that these considerations will be examined with full attention by the Government of the USA and with a recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of our countries in international affairs and in the maintenance of peace. End text.

Thompson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files,POL 15–2 GER W. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Bonn, Berlin, London, and Paris. A handwritten note on the source text, dated January 2, 1969, from William D. Korimer of the Division of Language Services reads: “The Moscow Embassy translation of the attached Soviet statement has been compared with the original and found to be acceptable with changes or corrections indicated. See A–2334 from Moscow, 12/27/68.” Airgram A–2334, forwarding the original Russian text of the oral statement, is ibid.
2. In telegram 6932 from Moscow, December 23, Thompson forwarded an account of his discussion with Kuznetsov. Thompson disputed that holding the Bundesversammlung in Berlin could be considered “provocative,” since three of the four previous meetings had been held in the city. Thompson also questioned whether it was wise for the Soviet Union to continue its “vicious propaganda” against the Federal Republic, when the Federal Republic was obviously trying to improve relations with the Soviet Union. After reiterating Soviet opposition to the Bundesversammlung, Kuznetsov explained that “the Soviets were not closing the door to seeking a realistic basis for settlement of the German problem in the interest of securing peace in Europe. There was an opportunity now for the US and the FRG to show that they wanted to stop using West Berlin for provocative and hostile actions.” (Ibid., POL 15–1 GER W)