740.5/11–1550: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
priority
Depto 181. Council Deputies 29th meeting opened with consideration Berlin security.
[Here follows a summary of the Deputies’ discussion of (1) problems involved in holding West Berlin and (2) difficulties in moving forward on the High Priority Production Program.]
7. Discussion of German contribution to western defense was continued inconclusively with further discussion scheduled Friday, November 17. Comment centered mainly on clarification French proposal, with some remarks by Italian deputy and others.
8. Chairman called attention to the French statement of preceding meeting, Depto 174. French deputy led off with query as to timing of steps under American integrated force plan. What would be the priority for the Allies, the ratio of Germany to total forces, the first steps, the time of formation of first German units? Chairman replied that American plan called for all necessary steps to be taken with minimum of delay but did not establish a definite sequence. First the general framework, then the other steps as rapidly as possible. French deputy then said there was little difference between the two plans as to delay in the formation of units.
9. Italian deputy expressed full appreciation French position on German participation European defense, and recalled that his government had agreed with earlier French general proposals on organization NAT defense. However, NAT was created to meet real danger which now so grave that no time to waste. Protracted defense effort necessary to develop complicated political organization proposed by French which was separable from essential question German participation, would too long delay development adequate defense force. He had no specific suggestions.
10. Portuguese deputy thought divisions were necessary military units, but would defer to military advice on use of regimental combat teams. Portuguese Government did not accept supranational aspects of French proposal.
11. UK deputy thought problem divisible into short term question of meeting Soviet threat from now to say 1960 and long term problem of preventing international military resurgence between then and say 1980. He observed that if short term problem were not solved, we might never get to 1980.1 asked French deputy whether in view principle of German equality and French acceptance of US proposal that German units not exceed one-fifth of total integrated force, France would be prepared to envisage German units accounting for possibly [Page 455] 50 percent of European force. After some hesitation French deputy granted that under the French plan the German proportion might ultimately reach 50 percent of European army.
12. UK deputy commenting on French fear of resurgence German militarism twenty or more years hence suggested it might be safer to have the German units in an integrated NATO force in which they would represent a lesser proportion of the total strength. He pointed also to the complication which would be introduced by the French proposal to have a European army with common budget, etc., and also national armies on present basis. He inquired also as to the relationship between the European Defense Minister and the Supreme Commander. French deputy said that European army would have same relation to Supreme Commander as national armies.
13. Netherlands deputy thought apparent French proposal that European Defense Minister would have the role of coordinator of National Defense Ministers was incompatible with the principle of equality of German participation also proposed, since Germany was to have no defense minister. Netherlands deputy also asked for detailed report re conversations between Francois-Poncet and Adenauer. French deputy agreed to furnish one.
14. Besides German problem Friday November 17 meeting will take up PWS DFEC paper on financial and economic assumptions of current OSPB discussions Washington, and other business.
Sent Department Depto 181, repeated info Brussels 127 (pass Luxembourg as 28), Copenhagen 94, Frankfort unnumbered (pass Heidelberg for Handy as 77, Wiesbaden for Cannon as 102.), The Hague 138, Lisbon 70, Oslo 79, Ottawa 37, Paris 914 (for Embassy and OSR), Rome 189.