Office of the Historian

762A.5/10–1750: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France

top secret
niact
Washington, October 17, 1950—2 p. m.

1970. Re urtel 2009, Oct 15. Eyes only for Bohlen and Bonsal. One difficulty with the Schuman proposal is that it postpones any res of [Page 385] the Ger participation problem for many months, during which time progress with Eur def and the integrated force wld be stalled or else the US wld be committed to a plan which is unsound without Ger participation and for which the necessary funds wld not be obtained. We had hoped for real progress during the Oct 28 mtg. Progress means advancement toward a solution of the Ger problem and not mere postponement of its solution.

You may tell Mr. Schuman the fol:

1.
We do not consider it possible to create an effective def system as far to the East in Ger as possible without the participation of Ger armed forces.
2.
We are opposed to the recreation of a Ger National Army and Gen Staff, and wld cooperate fully with the other NAT countries in devising adequate safeguards including limitations on troop strength, against such a possibility.
3.
To go forward with a plan for Eur def which omits one essential factor—Ger participation—is both unsound from the point of view of security and also from the point of view of obtaining the funds adequate to carry out the overall plan.
4.
Therefore, we cannot avoid or postpone the solution of the Ger participation problem, but must make progress toward a solution. The Schuman proposal, as we read it, postpones any solution for many months. During these months one of two situations wld exist: either development of the common def wld lag while we awaited solution of the Ger question; or we wld all be acting on the basis of an incomplete and unsound plan for the execution of which the US Gov cld probably not get Congressional support.
5.
We believe that if the French find insuperable difficulties with our proposal, it is incumbent on them to propose a workable plan for dealing with the problem.
6.
As regards any French Cabinet disc on this subj, we have the fol comments:
a.
The US Gov continues to endorse with enthusiasm the principles of the Schuman plan for pooling the coal, iron and steel resources of Western Europe.
b.
We are willing to consider some application of this concept to the mil field, although we envisage certain difficulties connected with its implementation which wld have to be carefully studied in order to determine whether such an arrangement wld be militarily effective.
7.
Therefore, we wld consider sympathetically and earnestly a specific French proposal on this matter. We cannot commit this Gov, even in principle, to the proposal in ur cable. It is too indefinite for specific criticism and comment and yet raises doubts and problems.
8.
We do feel that any such initiative shld be concretely expressed before or at the Oct 28 mtg of the Def Mins.

Acheson