Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 1

740.5/10–2751: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in France ¹

secret

Washington, November 1, 1951—8:50 p. m.

2613. For Bruce and MacArthur. Ref: Paris 2485, rptd London 629, Frankfort 312, Bonn 43,² and Depto 508, rptd Paris 839, Bonn 38, Frankfort 270.³

Dept most appreciative Embtel 2485 with its excellent analysis of probable Fr reaction to Ger membership in NATO and is requesting similar analysis Ger polit scene to determine extent Ger can be pushed on accepting now something less than full equality including NATO membership.⁴

Since Dept understands possibility exists Ger might accept EDF membership only on basis positive tripartite assurance to support Ger’s NATO candidacy, if not prior to Ger EDF commitment almost immediately thereafter, and since apparently even implication Ger membership in NATO might cause fall of Fr Govt which therefore may not give NATO assurance desired by Gers, it seems we are reaching impasse.

Dept has considered UK suggestion (Depto 508) for tripartite discussion EDC–NATO relationship but believes little can be accomplished talking to Alphand as he already fully cognizant problem. Re full dress CD discussion EDC–NATO relationship, wld appreciate ur views whether this wld embarrass Alphand with Fr Govt at this time owing to inevitability whole Ger–NATO question arising this outside forum. Dept believes next step toward resolving this issue and thereby preparing for useful NATO consideration of EDF–NATO problem, in view of Sec’s presence Paris, wld be personal talk Sec–Schuman on basis Sec’s letter to Schuman and Morrison giving our support to EDF within NATO framework. (Deptel Paris 905 Aug 9⁵)

Suggest this talk with Schuman cover following: (a) What is Schuman’s understanding concerning timing in creation of EDF and extent agreement on terms of essential treaty that could provide basis NATO consideration and also could cover this area in Ger contractual talks? (b) How does he intend to handle Fr parliamentary opposition to probable Ger insistence on NATO equality, either as prerequisite to Ger participation in EDF and Contractual Arrangements, or in near future assuming Ger acceptance of these on basis assurance of tripartite support eventual Ger candidacy NATO? Dept believes point shld be stressed to Schuman that whole concept EDF in jeopardy on this issue and that US urgently desires help him overcome difficulties.⁶

London and Bonn please comment to Paris for Sec and rpt to Dept.

Webb

1. This telegram, which was drafted by European Regional Affairs Director Martin and John L. Bernard of the Office of European Regional Affairs, was concurred in by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bonbright and German Political Affairs Director Laukhuff, and was approved for transmission by Deputy Under Secretary of State Matthews, was repeated for information to London, Bonn, and Frankfurt.
2. Of October 27, p. 900.

3. Dated October 25, from London, not printed. It reported that the British preferred an early tripartite discussion of the EDC–NATO relationship prior to consideration of the question by the NATO Council Deputies. British thinking on the question generally paralleled the views set forth in telegram Depto 473, October 18, from London, p. 891. (740.5/10–2551)

   Telegram 2738, November 6, to Paris, repeated to London, informed that the British Embassy in Washington had proposed in an aide-mémoire of October 31 that informal official talks be held in London and Paris on the relationship between EDC and NATO and on the procedure for handling at the forthcoming Rome session of the North Atlantic Council the expected report from the European Defense Community Conference (740.5/11–651).

4. Telegram 2789, November 2, to Frankfurt, requested the best estimate by the Office of the High Commissioner for Germany of the possibility (1) of persuading Chancellor Adenauer to accept an arrangement providing for German entry into the European Defense Community on the understanding that the question of German membership in NATO would be held in abeyance until the relationship of the European Defense Force to NATO could be worked out and (2) of obtaining German Bundestag approval of such an arrangement if Adenauer accepted it (740.5/10–2651). For the reply to this request see telegram 351, November 9, from Bonn, p. 1576.
5. See footnote 1, p. 1164. Regarding the Secretary of State’s letter of August 9 under reference here, see also the editorial note, p. 853.
6. Secretary Acheson does not appear to have held a private conversation with Foreign Minister Schuman regarding the European Defense Community. The topic was discussed at Acheson’s meeting with Schuman and Eden in Paris on November 22, regarding which see the editorial note, p. 932.