740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–2648: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
2816. While I appreciate the anxiety stated by you in your 1865 November 241 I must confess to bewilderment over the notion that at eleventh hour the three western commandants should cancel Berlin election scheduled for December 5. The tone of present message is so different from Department’s excellent telegrams on Berlin currency. Over past weeks and months this mission has supplied you with a rather complete picture of Berlin situation and described in detail implications inherent in the election. Evidently our reporting plus Army reporting has failed to convey adequate picture. Quite apart from Clay’s cable to Army CC–6814, November 21,2 whole series of Berlin cables on this question during past months had, I thought, built up clear view of road which was taken at end of CFM meeting December 1947. Then I recall pointing out that we could look for [Page 1269] trouble in Berlin and that bridge across Elbe would undoubtedly go out. I thought Department was prepared to meet the issue as it followed through into London negotiations of last spring. In absence of major concession on either side the die was then cast. Split city is an inevitable result of Soviet determination to force west out of Berlin. De facto, city of Berlin is split now. That is why it has seemed to us that events in Berlin have overtaken Paris discussions where main emphasis is on currency. There is not much more Soviet authorities can do apart from physical intervention in western sectors to interfere with the life of western sectors and it is evident that Soviet authorities have been working toward total internal blockade to best their ability. As the perimeter of western sector is extensive, doubtless they will be unable make blockade absolute. I do not agree that election will increase friction between democratic parties in Berlin. Contrary is true. It has brought about solidarity of SPD, CDU and LDP to a point where campaign as it related to rivalry among these three is dull and colorless. These parties dropped their internal controversies during campaign and have formed solid front against Communists. Cancellation of elections at this late date could only be interpreted one way by Berlin population and by many segments of German and European population, that is a weak-kneed if not cowardly surrender and retreat before the aggressive tactics of SED backed by Soviet military administration. It would earn for west richly deserved contempt not only of German population but of Russians themselves who would see in it confession of weakness which they would exploit to the full. For us to surrender opportunity to hold democratic elections in an important area well back of mud curtain where they can have benefit of guarantee of fairness would be disastrous. It would be political defeat equivalent in effect to battle of Leipzig. It would violate provisions of Berlin constitution and cut from under feet of western occupying powers the legal and moral ground on which we base our hope future support of Berlin population. In my opinion, if we are to go to that extent to appease Soviet authorities it would be far better to immediately announce our withdrawal from city of Berlin. As far as I know neither British nor French have suggested for a moment that election be cancelled and I am convinced that British particularly would not concur. Should appeal which you mention from SC or mediating six members on basis point one original SC resolution calling upon parties to prevent incidents of nature to aggravate present Berlin situation occur, it surely should be possible to deny that democratic elections under the Berlin constitution approved by four powers, harmonizing as it does with our general allied policy re Germany, could be described as an incident aggravating the situation. I know of no responsible western sector [Page 1270] German authorities who could be induced voluntarily to postpone elections on such ground.
While, obedient to your instruction I will talk this over General Clay, I will not show him telegram under reference or tell him Dept is entertaining such a notion unless you instruct me specifically do so because I think it will elicit some explosive reaction and there would be justified criticism of last minute vacillation and lack of courage.3
Sent Department 2816, repeated Paris Eyes Only for Bohlen 966.
- Not printed; it reported grave anxieties by several officers of the Departments of State and Army about the December 5 election, feeling that its effect as a demonstration would be reduced by SED non-participation, that it would increase the friction between democratic elements in the city, and that it would risk splitting the city definitely (740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–2448).↩
- Not printed; in it General Clay stated that the December 5 Berlin election would almost certainly result in a split city which would necessitate the immediate issuance of western currency (Department of Defense Files).↩
-
In his telegram 2, November 26, from Paris, not printed, Bohlen made the following observations:
↩“My only comment is that since the Soviets, in violation of a constitution which they themselves approved, declined to permit the holding of elections in their sector, they are entirely and alone responsible for the situation; and if we were to postpone the elections, which may be desirable for other reasons, we would in effect be confirming the right of the Soviets to act illegally. If feasible, a postponement of a few weeks to tide over the current Security Council activities on the question might afford a way out but I have no means of judging whether this would be practicable in Berlin.” (740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–2648)