740.5/10–3050: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France 1
2289. For Amb no distribution. When NAT Def Comite reconvened this morning Belg pointed to risks contained US formula which might lead to reconstitution Ger army and danger thus giving powerful instrument to Ger which might enable it fol a purely Ger national policy. Suggested no point in provoking Sov now when only ten divisions available to oppose them and when much time needed form Ger divisions in view lack matériel. Also discounted US safeguards. Turning to Fr formula Belg pointed to lack details and practical difficulties presented by Eur army. Expressed thought perplexity and doubts in Def Comite over Fr proposal largely due fact it was being considered in its extreme form. Instead, recommended Fr proposal be considered in its first experimental stage. Proposed attempt to reconcile positive aspects both formulae using results two previous experiments (a) Fr Fon Legion (b) UN army in Korea where commander has accepted contribution at battalion scale. Regardless of precise methods adopted, Belg recommended efforts be concentrated on mtg deficiencies revealed in plan at D plus 30 which contrasts with more favorable showing for D day availabilities. Consequently Belg proposed estab of a mixed political-military comite which wld present its findings and conclusions within brief period.
Neth noted agreement existed on what shld not be done, i. e., no Ger army or gen staff etc., but no agreement on what shld be done. While politically difficult, Neth accept principle Ger rearmament at division level and deeply regret Fr inability agree. Re Fr proposal, expressed fear it might in fact endanger implementation of very prin which it avowedly professes to support, i. e., build up adequate Eur def in good time which requires Ger participation. Latter doubtful under Fr plan and begged for further step on part Fr to move out of impasse.
[Page 419]Ital made strong intervention on behalf US plan pointing to truly revolutionary US offer station troops Eur in peacetime and stating that if Eur might do without Ger, it cld riot do without US. In fact at least US proposal Eur force concretely promotes an increasingly united Eur. Referring Fr proposal, Ital reaffirmed strong support Schuman Plan but grave doubts concerning time necessary to put into effect Fr proposed polit and constitutional framework. Recommended mil aspects Fr plan not incompatible with creation Eur force and that therefore US plan be accepted as basis for discussion mil problem, polit problem not being within competence Def Comite.
Norwegian DefMin also referred political difficulty in Norway over principle Ger rearmament so soon after recent war. However, Norway agrees Ger units must be included in Eur Def force and Ger production used if imbalance between USSR and West to be corrected. However, Ger contribution to common defense must be a real one, making sense militarily. Must not cumulate political disadvantages Ger rearmament policy without obtaining corresponding concrete advantage. Def Comite’s task tell Council how this to be done, leaving political aspects to latter. Regretted [French]2 position which had prevented obtaining badly needed technical advice from Mil Comite. Suggested compromise of brigades or regimental combat teams instead of divisions to satisfy Fr. Concerning administration and training aspects, could not these be put under SHAPE to avoid purely Ger agency unpalatable to Fr? Def Comite cannot admit bankruptcy and Nor Rep suggested one or two day recess.
Lux supported Fr proposal and thought Comite to study Fr plan justified.
Can Rep expressed fear status of Gers in Fr proposed integrated army wld be such as to prevent Ger popular support which he felt essential. Also pointed to Supreme Allied Commander’s great difficulties in coordinating different categories of forces proposed by Fr. Issue not between accepting Fr plan or doing nothing. If cannot settle this mtg, Can ready consider Belg proposal of Mixed Commission or else reference to existing body such as Council Deps with military advisers.
Shinwell, while recognizing France’s geographical and historical position vis-à-vis Ger, stressed urgency building up immediate effective defense organization and asked several rhetorical questions:
- A.
- Is it agreed that Ger participation in def West essential? Thought answer was yes and expressed belief even Fr public wld not stand for Gers standing by while others def ended Ger.
- B.
- Why shld Fr plan be accepted if result is unstable, capable of easy disintegration and not acceptable to all including Gers? Shinwell felt no military expert wld find it satisfactory.
- C.
- Saw no merit in losing time over political conditions proposed by Fr, as only embryonic and highly controversial Eur Assembly involved.
- D.
- US plan tangible, substantial and material. Furthermore, for first time, involves US forces in Eur in peacetime. US plan cld avoid major conflict.
- E.
- Answering his last question Shinwell expressed belief Fr plan wld only excite laughter and ridicule in USSR.
Shinwell proposed Fr Govt make unequivocally clear acceptance principle Ger rearmament contained in US plan which wld tend permit quick progress even though US proposal requires more study. If we go along, might be able reconcile some of best features Fr plan with US.
Marshall then stated US Govt and people aware that possible hazards and dangers of Ger rearmament consituted threat to Eur rather than to US. US ready consider any plan but we desire it be a realistic military plan. Solution may not be US proposal as submitted but result of mtg must be militarily realistic and give us assurance of possible successful action in case of an emergency in near future and assurance of probable successful action in case emergency at later date. Realistic plan must take account time, psychological and economic factors, but mainly of realistic factors common to understanding of all soldiers.
After noon recess Moch thanked Belg for its proposal. Agreed with Belg analysis weaknesses US plan but wld refrain from further comments “in order to build and not to criticize”. Referring to his instructions, specifying willingness discuss all details Fr proposal but refuse any kind of Ger rearmament if Fr principles were refused, he then stated that at possible risk of going further he accepted Belg proposal in toto. At New York in Sept Fr only accepted the formula requesting Def Comite to recommend technical methods by which Ger cld most usefully contribute, the undesirability of recreating a Ger general staff and army being recognized by all. Fr denies today, as it did yesterday, that Ger defense or Ger Central Federal Agency wld constitute best method cope with problem. If Fr accepts reference to a joint political-military Comite, this can only be on basis principle of Ger rearmament discussed within framework of Fr plan. Adoption of Dutch and Italian proposals begin discussions on basis US proposal wld probably result in grave NATO crisis which it is our duty to avoid. Ref erring previous statements in mtg, he stressed no agreement yet reached re principle of Ger rearmament and that he wld and cld [Page 421] go no further than New York decisions concerning details such as Ger police. Past Fr efforts towards conciliation shld not now be turned against Fr: “We will accept Germans in a Eur army with a suitable political foundation but we must say no to Ger int divs in a NATO army”. He expressed confidence US wld not seek impose its will as free Eur countries not satellites and that US wld not use reprisals.
Moch thanked Belg, again accepted reference of Fr proposal to ad hoc pol-mil comite or to Deps aided by mil advisers who wld report either to NAT Council or to grp consisting of FonMins and Def Mins on condition, however, that Ger rearmament be withheld pending report.
UK Rep then expressed regret Fr were prejudging recommendation of Commission by announcing Fr refusal to consider, unless within polit framework of Fr proposal. Hoped Fr wld agree to Commission, concerning itself exclusively with mil technicalities leading to report which DefMins cld then examine.
Instead Moch insisted Belg proposed Commission study both political and technical aspects.
Ital Rep accepted Belg proposal only on condition Commission wld study US, Fr, and any other proposal which might be made.
Norway sought to clarify earlier proposal by stressing Def Comite shld perform its job and direct study forthwith of problem by civilian and military experts now present in Wash. All proposals, not just Fr, shld be considered.
Portugal agreed with Norwegian and Italian suggestion.
Shinwell then sought clarification of Belg terms of reference. Did Belg intend study to be within political framework Fr proposals only, or wld comite examine political and technical aspects of both Fr and US plans? What was meant by a report within “a short time”? Belg answered he had no preconceived ideas; that his only thought was to entrust Comite with task of pursuing Def Comite’s work and shld report either to Def Comite or to NAT Council, enlarged by DefMins within three or four weeks. Upon further questioning Belg elaborated Mixed Committee shld work within framework New York decisions. Long exchange then occurred between Moch and Shinwell as to precisely what had occurred in New York.
Comite then recessed for half an hour.
Norway then proposed subject be referred to Deps and to Mil Comite, to report back by Friday or Monday. Denmark seconded Norwegian proposal.
Belg then proposed resolution to effect Def Comite, having noted proposals made within framework Council’s resolution, having noted US and Fr plans and comments of other delegations concerning Ger [Page 422] participation in Eur def, and recognizing impossibility fully examine political and military aspects of matter, invites Deps, aided by Mil Comite, to pursue study and report fully to NAT Council augmented by Def Mins soonest possible.
Moch accepted Belg proposal without change.
Norway commented 100 percent support by Fr of Belg resolution was illuminating but nevertheless requested opinion other delegations re their proposal.
UK termed Belg proposal “Act of abdication” and as “merely passing the buck”. Strongly supported Norwegian suggestion and urged Def Comite keep matter within its own hands and use only organizations already set up. Urged this procedure be followed even if Def Comite had to wait two or three weeks. Only after Def Comite had exhausted all possibilities reach agreement, shld matter be referred to Council. Pointed out that Council might very properly again refer problem to Def Comite as it was a def problem.
Portugal expressed full support UK position.
Italy supported UK position but thought it cld agree Belg proposal if amended so that problem referred to existing Treaty orgs.
Neths agreed with Italy.
Canada expressed pessimism over solution in Def Comite at this time. Recommended reference any other NATO body.
Marshall asked Belgium to agree amendment its proposal so that report of mixed comm be made to Def Comite.
Belgium agreed if consensus of mtg.
Italy insisted Def Comite cld not “pass buck back” to North Atlantic Council.
Moch suggested problem be referred back to Deps and Mil Comite with instrs report be made to Def Comite if only mil problem involved and to joint council—DefMin group if both polit and mil problems must be solved.
Shinwell then proposed Belg terms of reference be accepted with understanding all proposals be examined and that examination be by mil comite first and Deps second and that report be made to Def Comite. Stated that if Deps considered first and Mil Comite second matter wld thus be studied as problem of federating Europe instead of def of Europe.
Moch stressed impossibility isolate mil and polit aspects as some mil complications exist under one set of polit assumptions and not under others. He thought UK efforts in this direction wld only result in delay and new Def Comite session as unfruitful as present one. Question shld go to Deps first, to Mil Comite second (in view relative rank these two bodies), then back to Def Comite if only mil problems [Page 423] involved or to Council plus Def Comite if there are both mil and political problems. However, fears Shin well has ulterior motive in seeking separate military from political aspects, which separation France cannot accept.
Marshall then stated that in view number amendments to Belg proposal, he considered it defeated and proposed that “contribution of Ger to defense of Western Eur be referred to Council Deps and to Mil Comite, meeting together after each one wld have separately studied the political and military aspects of problem. After the joint mtg a report wld be made to Def Comite. There being no opposition Marshall announced that this decision had been adopted and mtg adjourned until Oct 31, 9:30 a. m.