Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Western Europe, Volume III

740.5/9–1650: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

top secret
priority

New York, September 16, 1950—7:30 p. m.

Secto 20. For President and Acting Secretary. Summary third meeting North Atlantic Council, fifth session, 10:30 a. m., September 16:

1. Continued discussion item 4 of agenda.

2. Schuman opened with strong statement regarding participation German manpower in defense of West Europe, making usual points. Stated we are asking for conscription Germans, not volunteers. Latter might be more acceptable. Cited German CDU Party statement participation German divisions premature. Does not believe German public opinion prepared accept. Also raised legal question whether German units can participate without adhering to NAT, which would require action by twelve parliaments. Stressed psychological obstacles. An announced decision here on principle would be to present peoples with fait accompli, and might be counterproductive to desired result. Suggest eastern European refugees might be among first to appear in German units and pointed out effect on eastern European peoples of USSR propaganda playing up theme that eastern European refugees will be the first line army of West. Agreed with Secretary’s statement yesterday that strengthening defense itself involves risk provocation. However that risk must be accepted. This additional risk need not be.

Warned that military spirit could reawaken in Germany as after first war. Stated armed Germany would be more difficult to deal with on peace treaty. Germans more difficult deal with already since proposal became known, and they feel they can demand concessions. Discounted danger developing German neutralism. Germans admire strength in anyone and their attitude will be function our strength. Problem is evolutionary and must be taken in series of steps. Warned against going too fast.

Stated French Government not irrevocably opposed to German participation. However, must be strong NAT army before German units can be integrated and must be sufficient supplies in equipment pool for that army before giving to Germans. Warned that Germans, if units formed in two years and medium term defense plan equipment not provided for three years, would insist upon recreating own munitions industry. Wants wait till our strength at acceptable minimum, although not necessarily for completion full program. Asked why take spectacular decision now, involving grave danger in Germany and Russia. Referred to Secretary’s statement yesterday and doubted would take eighteen months or two years to form and train German units. Cited police citizen lists, spirit of discipline and mass unemployed officer class.

Closed by stating did not want end on negative tone. Germany should contribute to defense Europe including Germany, but it can contribute by increase in police, providing steel and materials, strengthening labor units, and building fortified defense line in Germany. Requested we study problem and stated not opposed to talks with Germans. Does oppose immediate decision. Unavoidable publicity would be extremely dangerous. Probable that Germany will some day join defense force. This should be when sure German contribution will enhance not endanger security. Can’t be certain of that at this time.

3. Sforza (Italy) was emotionally moved by Schuman’s eloquence and wished could agree. Maybe could agree if not faced by greatest danger ever in Europe and under threat universal destruction. Must forget past and face situation as it presents itself, Reaffirmed position taken yesterday.

4. Stikker (Netherlands) believed council had elements necessary reach certain decisions now. Pointed out German occupation as severe in Netherlands as in France and Belgium. However, if US proposal put before Dutch Parliament 80 percent would favor. A Government crisis is imminent in Netherlands partly because conviction European defense not sufficient and continent cannot alone defend itself. Western Union and NAT concepts right but defense only on paper. Have only two alternatives—US, UK, and Canadian troops in Europe, or use Germans.

5. Van Zeeland (Belgium) questioned whether differences so important. Have agreed on purposes. Agreed in principle Germany must be used in one way or another. Must see now what positive steps we can take. Agreed on German economic measures. Police can help military. Must now decide where lies our interest, what will be effect on total strength, and what practical studies to be made. Stated Acheson yesterday answered French fear of attempting equip Germany until military production ample and German units integrated into total force already in being. These points show gaps narrow and positive results have been accomplished. Have full agreement on magnitude of danger and maximum effort required. US yesterday made positive suggestions constituting “revolutionary change” in US policy. Must view problem in this new light. Should try state remaining issues more precisely.

6. Acheson summed up discussion. Are talking about whether or not, and how, add German strength to our own. We are all in together, fully sharing commitments. Must now work out sense of direction. Do we want to accomplish objective, reject, or not think about it? Asked not fight problem, but solve it. Stated can be solved. Pointed out he didn’t say yesterday US proposal only way to solve. If there are other ways they should be considered. However it not constructive simply to criticize US proposal without making constructive suggestions.

Pointed out had stated difficulties yesterday. Repeated we agree integrated NAT force comes first but it is only part of problem to which Germany’s contribution to West defense is linked. Russia has force in East Germany to which it is adding strength. Gap is colossal between East and West forces. Not asking immediate specific decision but only that we all now agree on course. Hopes it will be possible do this.

Secretary pointed out all in agreement Germany must participate and some time council must take this step. We should reach agreement soon so strength in West could be increased by adding German strength in way that aided overall strength. Stated had no desire for spectacular action and wished reach conclusion not embarrassing to anyone. But cannot get anywhere if matter not faced up to. We will get in trouble if we do nothing, and while there will be difficulties if we decide to go ahead, important thing now is to get sense direction. If NAT agrees on that, progress can be made.

7. Bevin (UK) stated could neither add to nor subtract from yesterday’s statement. Agreed should reach conclusion on sense direction. Need decision so planners can get on with work. Stated situation becoming very dangerous and we must decide on the course we will follow.

8. Meeting recessed at 12:55 until 3 p. m. at which time discussion item 4 to be continued.

Department pass Department Defense, Brussels (pass to Luxembourg), Ottawa, Copenhagen, Paris (pass OSR), Rome, The Hague, Oslo, Lisbon, London, Heidelberg for Handy.

Acheson