740.5/12–2051: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State
2823. Personal for the Secretary. Eden at lunch today said he was upset at report in London Times of your press conference December 19,1 from their Washington correspondent. Item referred to said:
“The Secy of State, in answer to a question, said that the European Army had been discussed for a year without any idea that the Brit were going to join it, and it must therefore be accepted that their participation was not essential. Everybody might, however, have hoped for a different answer, and still hoped that the British would find it possible to participate later.
“It is not quite clear who ‘everybody’ is in this context. Those who have been to Paris recently and seen General Eisenhower have come back with the impression that he wants a European Army, a British Army, an Amer Army, and a Canadian Army, and has never hoped for a different answer from Britain. If the Dept of Defense wants Britain in the European Army it has hidden its wishes better than it usually does, and there has not previously been any evidence that Mr. Acheson himself, or any significant number of people in the State Dept, were very eager.
“It is true that everybody concerned here has wanted for some time a warmer tone in the Brit statement of welcome, and more signs of intimate cooperation with the European Army when it exists. But the communiqué issued yesterday in Paris should surely have been satisfactory, and Mr. Acheson made no reference to it today. Instead he gave the impression that the US was dissatisfied with the Brit attitude.
“As the Congressional delegation which went to Strasbourg2 came back and made public statements about what shld be done to the Brit if they did not join the European Army, this statement has the air of having been designed to give Congress the impression that the State Dept was pushing and prodding the Brit. Or perhaps it was the first sign that the Dept is actually trimming its policy to suit Congress.”
Eden expressed view, in which he said Churchill concurred, that Eden had thought he and you were in complete agreement on this matter and that Paris communiqué was consistent with that agreement. Both he and Churchill were disturbed about it and Eden hoped I might feel like mentioning their concern to you. My own belief is that they were particularly upset as they consider that this account of your press conference detracts from what they consider to have been a successful mission to Paris.
- For the memorandum of the Secretary of State’s press conference of December 19, see p. 970.↩
- The reference here is to the Third Session (Second Part) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, November–December. For documentation on the interest of the United States in the Council of Europe, see volume iv .↩