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

740.5/10–1159: Telegram

The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State

top secret
niact

Frankfort, October 11, 1950—9 p. m.

3032. Personal for Byroade from McCloy. Following are my comments on draft Joint State–Defense working committee paper¹ re German participation in defense force reurtel 2643.² I have some general comments as to the form and contents of this paper and some specific comments on the substance.

My thought is there should be two NATO papers, the first a short decision of the NATO Council stating that they have agreed in principle that Germany should be permitted to contribute to the defense of Western Europe and requesting the occupying powers to query the German Government as to whether they will agree in principle that West Germany will make a contribution in the form of German contingents and German resources to the defense of Western Europe subject to safeguards to be worked out with the occupying powers. A second document would set forth the limitations and safeguards under which German participation would be accepted. This latter document would be agreed in NATO as the basis of discussion by the occupying powers with the Federal German Government and should not be made public. The occupying powers would be requested to undertake these discussions with the Federal Republic after the Federal Republic had formally indicated its willingness in principle to participate in Western European defense. I am informed that Adenauer would like the question posed to the Bonn Government initially in such a way as to enable him to obtain Bundestag agreement in principle and avoid discussion of specific safeguards. Further, it seems to me that this approach does not tie the hands of the occupying powers too tightly in their efforts to obtain German participation and avoids the appearance of presenting a frozen position to the Germans without any prior discussion of the problem with them. I also have in mind the matter of publicity. It will, of course, be known that certain safeguards and limitations on German participation have been discussed in NATO, but agreement on such safeguards should not be made public nor give the impression of a fixed position by the Allies prior to discussion by the occupying powers and the Federal Republic.

My specific comments on the substance of the draft follows by paragraphs:

1. No comment.

2. Second sentence. I doubt if it is advisable to state so bluntly that German participation is “essential” in order to provide a force that can effectively defend Western Europe, including West Germany. It might be better to restate this in terms of the Foreign Ministers’ declaration that they will defend Western Germany and hence Germany should be asked to contribute forces to aid in its own defense and the defense of Western Europe. In third sentence, suggest addition of the words “and willing” between “active” and “participation”. In last sentence, suggest deletion of the words “make unnecessary formation of”.

3. Feel strongly that words “and tactical air units” should be added to the end of first sentence. I think it is unreasonable to deny the Germans a tactical air force, and feel it is essential in building up a strong air-ground team, that the Germans be permitted to form their own tactical air units. Germans must have liaison-spotting planes for artillery observation. Further, tactical air support is as necessary to ground forces as artillery is to infantry. Our security should lie in fact they cannot build or have planes except as Allies provide them.

4. In first sentence, “centralized direction of procurement and supply” is not clear and was misunderstood by EUCOM. They interpreted this to mean control of L of C and issue of supplies by NATO rather than, what we judged to be the real intent, a centralized direction of production and supply through strengthening MPSB in line with proposals made in New York.
4(a) Suggest following revision:

“(A) Number of German divisions at any time should be as agreed by NATO.”

(B) Suggest re-draft as follows:

“Allies should retain general supervision of political reliability of officer personnel. However, German Federal Government will be responsible for recruitment and initial selection. At earliest possible date training of German officers should be instituted under general supervision of the Supreme Command.”

(C) Suggest re-draft as follows:

“Formation of an appropriate federal agency to perform necessary administrative, logistic, and organizational and preliminary training functions should be permitted but all non-tactical operational and non-tactical intelligence functions should be performed in international staff of Supreme Commander.”

(D) Revise to include permission for Germany to organize tactical air units and prohibition against manufacture of aircraft. There is also implication that MPSB makes determination on which Germans act. Felt that determination by MPSB should be guidance to occupying powers in operations of Military Security Board, at least until such time as Western Germany becomes full-fledged member of NATO.

5. Suggest following re-draft:

“We recommend that the occupying powers invite the Federal Republic to make a contribution to the integrated force for its own defense and to defense of Western Europe, and to undertake discussions with the Federal Republic as to the form and nature of such contributions based upon the recommendations submitted herewith. We recommend that these discussions take place immediately so that the formation of German units can be initiated at the earliest practicable time.” Meaning of the words, “subsequent to establishment of integrated force”, not clear here. Is it intended that action to initiate formation of German units will not be undertaken until Supreme Commander is appointed, or can such action go forward on appointment of COSSAC or receipt by NATO of firm country commitments of forces to integrated force? I feel that Germans should be permitted to go ahead when COSSAC appointed, and certainly not later than time when firm commitments have been received from participating countries.

We have discussed with Handy your 2493 of 29 September. Handy has forwarded to Army cable giving HICOG–EuCom views covering questions raised in reference telegram. Your questions also partially answered in my 2919, 8 October.³

Reference urtel 2459, 30 [29] September,⁴ appreciate freedom of action authorized in carrying out German manpower agreement. I am informed that Germans are submitting their plans for establishment of Guard Mobile within the week.

Forwarding by separate cable summation of unofficial German views on German participation in integrated European force.

McCloy

1. Dated October 6, p. 362.
2. Telegram 2643 to Frankfort, October 7, not printed, quoted the draft joint State–Defense working committee paper and asked for McCloy’s comments (762A.5/10–750).
3. Telegram 2919 from Frankfort, not printed (762A.5/10–850).
4. Telegram 2459 to Frankfort, September 29, not printed (762A.5/9–2750).