Office of the Historian

740.5/12–250: Telegram

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

top secret
priority
London, December 2, 1950—1 a. m.

Depto 258. (Section one of two) Deputies 36th meeting.

1.
Alphand opened discussion draft report by chairman (Depto 250, November 30 repeated Paris and Frankfort only, document pouched other addressees) with general counterattack that paper was supposedly synthesis but failed completely reflect French point of view. It was further from French view than last US paper (Depto 202, November 21). He must therefore, make a general reservation to whole paper. French Government would consider paper again at special cabinet meeting next week and wanted fullest possible report, particularly answers to following questions:
1.
Since at previous meeting no one objected to German units being limited to RCTs may French Government be informed that from political point of view there is no objection to RCT limit?
2.
To what military organizations would RCTs be attached during interim period, to existing Allied divisions pending creation European divisions?
3.
Is it agreed that interim controls would not be relaxed until a European army was in effective existence?
4.
Is it understood that if new factors arose, whole question would be re-examined, for example, if discussions with USSR made some other course desirable?
5.
What course of action would be taken if Germans refused to carry out interim measures? If they demanded abolition or drastic revision of Occupation Statute as price of participation, what would we do? Pleven had taken explicit position before Parliament and could not present any solution that did not substantially fulfill commitments he made then. Chairman’s draft contrary to Pleven’s engagement. Latter could not accept it without consulting cabinet and perhaps his “majority”. Cabinet would meet perhaps Monday or Tuesday.
2.
Consensus was that answer to Alphand’s fifth question impossible now since it would depend on terms put to Germans and of their response. Chairman pointed out that first 4 questions presented by Alphand [could] be covered in paragraph by paragraph discussion of draft paper.
3.
Paragraphs referred to correspond to numbers paragraph Depto 250. Chairman explained that paragraph 1 assumes military committee approved paper has been passed to deputies and included as annex one to draft. No comment paragraph 2 and 3. After words “German participation” paragraph 4, French deputy asked insertion “due consideration being given to morale of other participants”. This agreed in substance.
4.
Re 5(a) agreed strike out words “either directly or indirectly”.
5.
No comment 5(b).
6.
Re 5(c) discussion centered on Europe versus NATO spirit for Germans. UK and Netherlands deputies felt “Europe” reference implied acceptance French plan. Alphand complained that if everything sympathetic to French view removed he could never sell it in Paris. Netherlands deputy pointed out French free to go ahead with plan for European organization but Denmark had not adopted or recommended plan. Denmark deputy pointed out danger was nationalistic rather than national spirit. Denmark point agreed.
7.
Re 5(d) UK deputy pointed out full equality was not intended. Has agreed to qualify sentence by words “subject to limitations in MC 30”.
8.
Re 5(e) UK deputy pointed out there are two types of controls; the tripartite controls which are primarily political and economic, and those controls considered in MC 30. Relaxation of tripartite controls depended not only on German military activity but on good behavior in other fields. This paper should relate only to controls considered in MC 30. Deputies agreed. Alphand pointed out this related to his third question. He wished add “and pari passu with progressive building up of an integrated force within Europe or NATO framework”. UK pointed out this condition unnecessary since French had control as occupation power in interim period. Netherlands deputy pointed out French would condition relaxation of controls on new organization rather than on behavior of Germans. Alphand stated he had apparently misinformed his government. He had understood deputies had accepted link as given in earlier US paper (Depto 202, November 21). Chairman stated language in earlier paper carried into paragraph 6 this draft but it was not intended to imply definite link Alphand contemplated. Netherlands observed that if Germans told to accept French plan or remain under controls they would not accept interim [Page 510] procedure at all. Alphand insisted on substance (Section 2 of 2) and language earlier US paper. Unless relaxation controls linked to establishment political organization, Germans would have full equality and be in NATO in six months. Chairman pointed out no agreement this question and further discussion deferred.
9.
Re 5(f), Netherlands asked whether “training” meant equipping and readying for combat or used in limited sense. Stated solution should provide fully combat-worthy units. Consensus favored this sense and deputies accepted chairman’s suggestion linking this paragraph to provisions MC 30. Alphand repeated general reservation.
10.
Re 5(g), UK deputy suggested adding after “utilized” words “as far as possible” and replacing “without prejudicing” by “pending”. Deputies accepted first but UK withdrew second in face Alphand’s vehement objection.
11.
Alphand suggested paragraph 5(h) be something along lines his fourth question. Chairman pointed out different idea involved. Deputies accepted Netherlands substitution word “events” for “experience”.
12.
UK deputy submitted redraft paragraph 6, eliminating all references to a provisional or transitional period. Believed transitional phase might last long time and it would be unwise to emphasize provisional aspect to Germans Should be clearly understood that NATO plans must proceed. If French plan for European army succeeded, well and good; if not, its failure should not hinder NATO progress. Subject to previous reservations, Alphand stated would accept US language but never UK proposal since basic difference involved. He believed UK envisaged only one period, of declining controls, while US and French saw first period merging into second and more permanent one. Netherlands agreed with UK that provisional arrangement must become permanent [if?] superstructure did not materialize. Deputies finally agreed to original paragraph with insertion in 6(b) of “information of combat-worthy German units” after “manpower” and in last sentence “or modified” after “superseded”.
13.
Re 7(a), Alphand pointed out MC indicated division better but RCT acceptable if more politically desirable. Therefore, up to Deputies to say whether or not political considerations require it. Chairman pointed out transitional and long-term requirements differ. Netherlands Deputy pointed out RCT accepted as second best peacetime solution, but in event of mobilization, it would be necessary to form RCT’s into German divisions. Alphand objected to divisions in war as well as in peace. RCT’s would be attached to existing divisions until European divisions formed. Could not recede from French Parliament’s position. Suggested RCT’s be attached to existing divisions for training. If European army not formed, question could be [Page 511] re-examined. Chairman pointed out this matter to be considered with military and further discussion deferred.
14.
Re 7(b), Netherlands Deputy stated Hague thought Germany should have both defensive and tactical air. All Deputies agreed except Denmark and French who were without instructions.
15.
Re 7(c), Chairman pointed out intent this paragraph was to be in consonance with principles approved by military and defense committees. UK felt Germans would reject any early request they adopt conscription. Alphand pointed out provision directly contrary to Occupation Statute. UK and French Deputies preferred deletion reference to preference for conscription. Other Deputies preferred retention. Agreed retain for further discussion.
16.
Paragraph 7(d) generally accepted.
17.
Re 7(e), Norwegian Deputy suggested plans agreed to by Supreme Commander and German authorities should be reported to Deputies before implementation. Chairman pointed out position applied to overall question rather than just raising and training forces and covered by recommendation two. Deputies agreed.
18.
Re 7(f), Netherlands Deputy asked what agency would carry out those functions which German agency was prevented from carrying out under F(2). Stated should not exclude possibility of an outside agency assuming such functions. Chair stated outside agency would exercise controls but not administrative tasks. Netherlands preferred one German agency with limited functions and remaining functions done by NATO. Re last sentence paragraph 7, Alphand wished add phrase like that he had proposed for 5(e). Chair suggested this be deferred until 5(e) agreed.
19.
Chair stated he planned ask Drafting Committee to redraft paper in light of comments after review of paper completed by Deputies. Adjourned to 10 a. m., Saturday.

Department pass Ottawa. Sent Department Depto 258, repeated information Paris priority 1067 for Embassy and OSR, Frankfort priority 498 pass Heidelberg 94 for Handy and Wiesbaden, 119 for Cannon Brussels 150 pass Luxemburg 40, Copenhagen 118, Hague 161, Lisbon 83, Oslo 96, Ottawa 51, Rome 215.

[Spofford]