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

740.5/11–2750: Telegram

The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State

top secret
priority

London, November 27, 1950—11 p. m.

Depto 228. 34th meeting deputies November 27.

1. Resumed discussion of German participation by considering political aspects MC 30.¹ After noting that MC 30 was not an approved document and still subject to change, deputies endorsed paragraph 1–8 with French reservation, his agreement paragraph 5 only to extent steps taken did not adversely affect morale of other participants.

2. Paper² circulated by chairman on points of MC 30 left open by Standing Group for political consideration then taken up:

(a) German contribution NATO defense force could be either by incorporation German units European defense force or by direct contribution German units integrated NATO force. Chairman suggested deferring this question pending consideration other points.

(b) RCT could be accepted if judged desirable for political reasons. Consensus was that final views this question must await discussion with military committee although during transitory period adoption RCT appeared politically desirable.

(c) German land force must be given air support by German air units. UK deputy considered military advantage this position outweighed [political?] disadvantages. French deputy had no instructions but wished enter special reservation. There might be European tactical air force. UK deputy pointed out this question raised equality problem in acute form. Would French troops rather be supported by European or French Air Force? Danish felt RCT too small to have own tactical air. French observed division also too small for own air support. Although most deputies without instructions this matter consensus favored German air from military point of view.

(d) German production should contribute to support of German military contribution and to such other phases of common defense as within her capabilities. Generally agreed this principle already accepted by deputies. Point made that occupation powers now studying over-all problem German production and chairman agreed to advise deputies of present status that study.

(e) German contribution military units should take place earliest possible date. No dissent.

(f) Detailed plans raising and preliminary training German force should be made by occupation military authorities in concert Supreme Commander and appropriate German authorities. High Commissioners and their military commanders should be charged with responsibility of supervising German participation to extent necessary to assure that agreed safeguards applied. Comment deferred.

(g) Question enlistment by conscription or volunteers must be considered in light balance between maintaining safeguards and insuring military efficiency. Chairman pointed out relationship this question to Defense Committee report on national service, training, and mobilization procedures. Belgium doubted voluntary enlistment would produce enough men of right type and cited unfortunate morale effect if other European countries on conscript basis while Germany not. Denmark deputy stated dangers we want assurance against same in either case and real safeguard lay in restriction materials. Consensus that question must be referred to Germany and not of primary political importance NATO wise.

(h) Military committee sees no major objection to responsibility for administration and logistic functions being assumed by inter-allied agency in lieu of German agency if politically more acceptable. Little comment in view previous discussion same subject. Consensus was nobody wanted inter-allied agency for this purpose.

(i) If German units incorporated in European defense force, question political control and direction, utilization in peace time, financial contributions to cost arise. This point also deferred.

3. Summarizing discussions MC 30 chairman stated he would present paper reflecting tenor discussions German question to date. Considered lack expression opinion on MC 30 not necessarily agreement but indication little specific disagreement. Paper would reflect this attitude. French deputy insisted on link between (1) steps toward German rearmament, (2) steps toward European army, and (3) relaxation controls and asked that paper to be presented by chairman reflect that there was not agreement between French and US position this matter. Chairman stated although no attempt so far to arrive at majority and minority views, his paper would attempt reflect consensus views expressed discussions so far.

4. Most deputies reluctant take further positions pending UK statement which expected tomorrow following Cabinet consideration today.

Sent Department Depto 228, information priority Paris 1016 for Embassy and OSR, repeated information Brussels 142, Frankfort 465, Copenhagen 105, The Hague 154, Lisbon 77, Oslo 90, Ottawa 45, Rome 207. HICOG Frankfort pass Heidelberg for Handy as London’s 87, and Wiesbaden for Cannon as London’s 112; Brussels pass Luxembourg as London’s 35.

[Spofford]

1. “Report by the Standing Group to the Military Committee on Military Aspects of German Participation in the Defense of Western Europe,” November 18, 1950, not printed. A copy is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry. The main points of this paper are summarized in the memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, December 5, p. 517.
2. Not identified in Department of State files.