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

396.1 LO/5–350

Paper Prepared in the Office of European Regional Affairs as Background for the May Foreign Ministers and North Atlantic Council Meetings¹

top secret

[Washington,] May 3, 1950.

Building Up the Defensive Strength of the West

i. progress to date

We believe that a start has been made toward building up the defensive strength of the West. The main accomplishments in the past year have been: (FM D B–2/1a)² and (FM D B–2/2)³

1. An agreed strategic concept.

2. A medium term strategic plan for the defense of the NAT countries which has been approved by the Military and Defense Committees.

3. An estimate of the forces required to support this plan which has been approved by these same committees as “a first approximation.”

4. An instruction from the Military Committee to the Standing Group and the Regional Planning Groups to review this hastily drafted first edition of the plan with a view to maximum economy.

5. An instruction from the Defense Committee to the Production and Supply Board to cost the plan.

6. A request from the Defense Committee to the Defense Financial and Economic Committee for a report on the ability of the treaty nations to support additional military expenses.

7. An initiation of mutual aid between the treaty countries: U.S. Military Assistance Program (FM D B–2),⁴ gifts of certain modern aircraft, by the U.K. to France, Belgium’s offer of certain surplus military equipment to other NAT nations.

ii. u.s. position

We believe, however, in view of the present world situation and because of the disparity in strength between the Soviets and the West, that further and more rapid progress is essential:

1. To consolidate the planning achievements to date and to insure further rapid progress in planning, it is of the utmost importance that the plan be refined to its most economical dimensions compatible with security, and that the cost of the plan be determined as soon as possible so that it can be intelligently considered within the NATO and by the respective governments and so that appropriate collective measures may be adopted for its implementation or further revision.

2. To speed up the build-up of the West military strength in view of the obvious preponderance of Soviet Military power—especially land forces—we believe it necessary both to begin programming and building forces upward without waiting for further progress in the planning field. For effective coordination of programming and in order to achieve military strength most cheaply and effectively, it is essential that balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces be created. For this reason, it is highly advisable that NAT military efforts be made within the framework of the plan. Even though it should be thoroughly understood that the plan is being and will be constantly reviewed for maximum economy and effectiveness and even though it is possible that it could be fundamentally changed, the gap between Western and Soviet strength is such that first achievements under the plan will retain their value to the West.

3. We are convinced, even though the cost of the plan is not yet available, and even though the present plan may be considerably revised downwards, that greater financial effort is required of the NAT countries. We believe that the time has now come to review the past absolute priority which has been granted to economic recovery. We believe that in many countries recovery has been sufficient to permit a greater military effort without endangering the economic and political foundations necessary to national strength. We fear that the other NAT countries, especially those with large communist parties, may not realize this possibility. We should, therefore, seek to impress upon our partners the necessity of giving equal priority to economic recovery and to additional defense measures.

4. We should also seek to make certain that whatever finances are now available to the NAT countries are spent in such a manner so as to yield the maximum military strength. While difficult, in view of considerations of national pride and local politics, we should discourage prestige expenditures such as: French aircraft research, the building of French aircraft carriers and capital ships, and Dutch naval expenditures. Therefore we should seek agreement between NAT nations that that proportion of their military appropriations which is allocated to the defense of the North Atlantic Area be used so as to create balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces.

iii

We should seek to obtain approval of the U.S. position. We do not yet know our negotiating position but will explore the situation both in the International Working Group and in London in the next ten days. We expect that difficulties will be encountered, particularly with the British.

iv. the specific issues which will come up in the nat council meeting in connection with the building up of the defensive strength of the west are the following

1) The Report from the Defense Committee in seven parts.

a) A request from the Defense Financial and Economic Committee to the Defense Committee for a detailed estimate of the finances that would be required for the defense of the North Atlantic countries on the basis of the Medium Term strategic plan (1954) (Council D–4/2).⁵ While this request is only transmitted for the information of the Council, the Council should support this request by adopting the following resolution:

“The Council notes with approval the request from the Defense Financial and Economic Committee to the Defense Committee for a detailed estimate of the cost of the Medium Term plan, setting forth the priorities therein and wishes to record the importance it attaches to the early completion of this project.”

b) A report from the Defense Committee on the status of defense planning (Council D–4/3). The most significant sections of this report are:

Paragraph 1—Approval of the Medium Term plan.

Paragraph 2—The Defense Committee’s approval, as a first approximation of the forces required by July 1954 to support the Medium Term defense plan.

Paragraph 3—Instructions to the Regional Planning Groups to review the present plan to assure maximum economy compatible with the essential security of the North Atlantic area.

Paragraph 5—Instructions given to the Regional Planning Groups to prepare and submit to the Production and Supply Board lists of deficiencies and equipment with broad priorities among major items to be met by July 1, 1951. The same instructions have been given with regard to the deficiencies to be made good by July 1, 1954. (This hitherto unavailable data is essential for the costing of the plan and for judgment as to its feasibility.)

Paragraph 9—Contains a request from the Defense Committee that the Council agree to the immediate need for urgent action to insure the progressive build up of the forces estimated as being required to support the Medium Term defense plan. In response to this request the following resolution should be adopted by the Council:

“The Council

“Fully cognizant of the need for further revision and refinement of the Medium Term Plan, but convinced that it provides an indication of the nature and extent of the effort required to achieve the necessary defensive strength,

Aware that there exists a great gap between present defensive strength and the military forces which will be required after review and refinement of the plan, and convinced that additional balanced collective defensive strength must be achieved in accordance with the agreed principles of the ‘strategic concept’

Urges the governments of the North Atlantic nations to take action to insure progressive build-up of defense forces and to use that portion of their military appropriations allocated to the defense of the North Atlantic area so as to create balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces.”

c) A request from the Defense Committee to the Defense Financial and Economic Committee (Council D–4/4) that the latter undertake immediately an examination of the financial and economic capabilities of the Treaty nations to support additional military expenditures, transmitted to the Council for its information. The Council should support this request by adopting the following resolution:

“The Council notes with approval the Defense Committee’s request to the Defense Financial and Economic Committee to undertake immediately, concurrently with planning by military and production planning agencies, an examination of the financial and economic ability of the Treaty nations to support additional military expenditures for the defense of the North Atlantic area and to consider new and more adequate economic and financial dispositions, in particular for the implementation of an integrated defense program, and wishes to record the importance it attaches to early progress on this project.

In making this examination the Committee should recognize the need to increase, as a matter of urgency, collective military security against the threat of Soviet military aggression. The Council recognizes that a sound economy is the necessary basis of the required defense effort, but points out that the ability to make additional military expenditures must be judged not only in the light of economic and financial conditions, but equally in the light of the needs for defense, and believes that if there were a general understanding of the nature of the present world situation, these conditions are now such that an increased defensive effort could be sustained.”

d) A recommendation to the Council (Council D–4/5) that it issue instructions that will provide for full coordination and closest liaison between the permanent agencies of the North Atlantic Treaty organization and their respective staffs.

The Council should act on this recommendation by adopting the following resolution:

“The Council directs all NAT bodies to take steps which would insure more concurrent planning and closer coordination and directs that the NAT organization shall function continuously by the direct interchange of necessary information between the various principal committees, including their Permanent Working Staffs. (Council Directive D–1/1, September 17, 1949,⁶ should be amended accordingly.)”

e) A memorandum from the Defense Committee (Council D–4/6) informing the Council that it had agreed to amend Paragraph 8(g), D.C. 6/1 (The Strategic Concept)⁷ to satisfy the Portuguese objection. This paragraph deals with collective cooperation to regulate, beginning in peacetime, all measures of military preparation necessary for the common defense.

As this matter has already received the individual approval of all North Atlantic Treaty governments, this item requires only routine Council approval.

f) A report (Council D–4/7) on the implementation of the security system for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This report is forwarded for the information of the Council and needs only to be noted.

g) A report (Council D–4/8) on the security system for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This report amends the security system for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which was approved by the Council on January 6, 1950, and clarifies the definition of “cosmic papers.”

As this matter has been thoroughly considered by the governments of the member nations, only routine approval of this amendment is required.

v. the report from the defense financial and economic committee (dfec) council d–4/9

We have not yet been definitely informed of the exact form this report will take. However, we have reason to believe that the following recommendation will be in order:

“The Council has noted with approval the report from the DFEC and wishes to record the importance it attaches to further progress on its work projects.”

The substance, however, will be as follows:

a. Reports on the status of the first priority work projects (FECD–3)⁸

Study of total approximate defense expenditures in budgets of NAT countries.

Study of Financial and Economic Resources available for purposes of military production and mutual assistance.

Study of financial arrangements for transfer among NAT countries of military equipment, surplus stocks, materials and equipment to be used in producing military equipment.

Study of formulas and criteria to indicate the financial and economic burdens of defense in relation to the capacity of the respective NAT countries to support them.

b. A report on the increase in defense production (FECD–8).

c. Statements approved by the DFEC for Congressional use on total approximate defense expenditures and on increase in defense production.

d. DFEC request of the Defense Committee for cost and priority of strategic adequate defense plan (FECD–11). This request and the recommended resolution pertaining thereto have been covered under the Defense Committee report where it also appears.

Defense Committee request to DFEC for assessment of defense expenditures possible on the basis of financial and economic potentialities of the treaty nations.

This request and the recommended resolution pertaining thereto have been covered under the Defense Committee report where it also appears.

vi. further steps not called for by the reports from the defense committee and from the dfec

The Council should also adopt the following resolutions:

• a. “The Council, recognizing the indispensability of mutual assistance among the Treaty Powers in making progress toward the achievement of an integrated defense, and, in particular, the contribution of such assistance heretofore made by the United States, United Kingdom, and Belgium.
• Convinced that further mutual assistance is essential to rapid progress toward the strength required for the common security of the North Atlantic area.

  Recommends that each party make its maximum contribution through mutual assistance to achieve that integrated strength necessary for the defense of the North Atlantic area.”

• b. “The Council urges the governments to use their best efforts and supply the necessary instructions to facilitate and hasten the implementation of the preceding resolutions.
• The Council believes that it is important to establish a central organization in order to assist in the vigorous and effective implementation of these resolutions.”⁹

1. This paper was identified as FM D A–2/1. It was a supporting paper for FM D A–2d, “U.S. Objectives and Course of Action in the May Meetings”, April 28, 1950, p. 1001.
2. Not printed. See FM D B–2/1b, April 27, p. 72.
3. Not printed; a copy titled “Accomplishments of the North Atlantic Treaty”, dated May 1, 1950, is in the files of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
4. Not identified in Department of State files.
5. Council Document D–4/2 and others of this series, treated below, are not printed. Copies of D–4/2, 5, 6 and 7 are in the NATO Sub-Registry located in the Department of State. This repository for the official documentation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is retained in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs and access to these materials is presently on a restricted basis. More complete repositories for microfilm copy of NATO documentation are in the Central U.S. Registry in the Department of Defense and the NATO Central ATOMAL Registry in Brussels, Belgium.
6. Not printed.
7. For text of this report, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. iv, p. 353.
8. FECD–3 and FECD–8 and FECD–11 below, not found in Department of State files.
9. In a memorandum for the Secretary of State dated May 5, Maj. Gen. Leven C. Allen, Executive Secretary in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, recommended about a dozen changes in the wording of this paper, FM D A–2/1. The action taken by the Department of State on these recommended changes was conveyed to the Office of the Department of Defense in a memorandum dated May 9 from Douglas MacArthur II, Deputy Director of the Office of European Regional Affairs. The two memoranda, not printed, are in Department of State file 396.1 LO/5–550.