740.5/12–651
Memorandum of Conversation, by Elwood Williams III of the Office of German Political Affairs
| Participants: | Mr. Gontran de Juniac, Counselor of French Embassy |
| Mr. Perry Laukhuff, GPA | |
| Mr. Elwood Williams, GPA |
Calling at the Department regarding another matter, Mr. de Juniac raised the subject of the EDC.
Mr. de Juniac referred to several recent articles in the press including, specifically, articles by Baldwin, Sulzberger and the military correspondent of the Baltimore Sun. In varying ways they referred to difficulties allegedly appearing around EDC and suggested various alternatives that might have to be adopted if the EDC scheme failed. Mr. de Juniac felt that the effect of these articles might be unduly upsetting as indicating that the U.S. has given up the EDC as a lost cause. He referred to his recent advices on the subject, particularly regarding the Socialist Party in France which occupies a key position regarding this matter in French politics and said that, as far as he could see, the EDC would be acceptable to the French Parliament.1 He wondered where the American news stories came from and what substance they might contain.
Mr. Laukhuff replied that he was not familiar with all the articles mentioned but that he had read the Sulzberger article. He also understood that things were going well within France, but he pointed out [Page 954] that there were other and grave problems connected with EDC and mentioned particularly the matters of a defense contribution by the Germans, the need for NATO progress and the need for the American Government to have something substantial in the way of accomplishment in this area to report to the Congress early next year.
Mr. Laukhuff said that the Sulzberger article, at least, had obviously originated in Paris and undoubtedly reflected, in some degree, the discussions between Mr. Acheson and Mr. Schuman, in which Mr. Acheson made very strongly (among others) the points that time was running out on the question of Germany’s contribution to western defense and on Congressional willingness to wait for evidence of progress on the integrated European contribution to NATO. Mr. Acheson had made it quite clear that, while we were still putting our entire support behind the EDC idea, we considered it imperative that the treaty take final form very rapidly so that by the middle of January the basis of German participation in defense and the future role of the European forces in NATO plans would be clear. Mr. Laukhuff recalled, however, that the U.S. Government has made plain from the beginning that it would seek another means of bringing about a German contribution to the NATO forces if, in spite of all its hopes and support, the EDC could not be brought to effective life.
- Telegram 3302, December 3, from Paris, not printed, reported on Ambassador Bruce’s discussion with French Socialist leader Guy Mollet regarding the Socialist attitude toward a possible European Defense Community. Mollet favored such a plan provided sufficient powers were given to the central authority to prevent German domination. Mollet felt the ideal solution would be for Britain to be a member of the EDC from the outset. At least the British would have to in some way associate themselves with the EDC. (740.5/12–351)↩