ECA message files, lot 53 A 278, box 32, Paris Repto: Telegram
The Acting United States Special Representative in Europe ( Porter ) to the Acting Administrator for Economic Cooperation ( Bissell )1
Repto 5680. USDel TCC 40. General review of submissions on Germany concluded in single morning session, after agreement EB WG wld meet Wednesday morning with chairman Paris conf, members London group, SHAPE SCS to discuss interrelations various aspects work and clarify position for TCC. Following points developed during meeting:
1. Alphand outlined Paris conf time table consisting of interim report at Rome, hoped for draft treaty by end year, then 3 to 6 months [Page 1666] for ratification and passage Ger legislation. Alphand and Monnet agreed speed essential and that planning for Ger contingents can and shld precede ratification. However no recruitment Ger contingents even of volunteers possible before Ger ratification and, according to Alphand, changes in constitution, i.e., basic laws. Note that discussion fuzzy on legal prerequisites. Agreed recruitment cld start before institutions fully formed. Alphand stated def comm, when appointed, cld immed request SACEUR proceed, on interim basis, raise and train Ger contingents.
2. McNarney expressed view London security formula unrealistic and tended defeat our purpose. It was agreed that this is issue for Foreign Ministers not TCC. McNarney saw plenty of fear of Soviets as well. Alphand stated Paris conference has not discussed production but cld be no production by Gers for Ger forces, but would be integrated production for all members. Agreed Paris conference, with help SHAPE, wld draw up list German requirements and refer to HICOM for study Ger production capacity, consulting Gers in process. It was agreed list wld have to be prepared in some way which wld avoid entangling study with question of security safeguards and that this cld perhaps be done by concentrating on certain major items. Agreed follow same procedure for study Ger capability of meeting own infrastructure requirements. HICOM reps present indicated willingness make studies.
3. Alphand stated Paris conference unanimously agreed on 12 Ger divs as realistic total, with larger force in future not precluded. Harriman indicated EB had requested PC give figure for planning purposes and was using PC report as basis work. McNarney considered 12 as more realistic figure.
4. McNarney announced SCS team now in Ger and wld have revised costing Nov 23, with final figures later as part of TCC report. Consensus that present costing on high side, but no one at meeting challenged estimated order magnitude of costs.
5. HICOM reps agreed wld make study effect on balance payments of Ger production in conjunction with production and infrastructure studies. Agreed that reps of Paris conf, London conf, SHAPE and HICOM get together and work out procedure for getting necessary info to HICOM to permit studies to be made.
6. Stevens outlined status London work and problems thus far preventing agreement to negotiate fin contribution with Ger. London group already instructed prepare report on issue for FM mtg Nov 21, to be completed this week.
7. Reinstein stated some members London group believed cannot talk to Germans until TCC work completed. Group believed desirable EB sit with FM on Nov. 21. Harriman expressed views London group shld not delay work for conclusions TCC, stating equipment will not [Page 1667] fall like manna from heaven and TCC unable solve Ger budget problem. Plowden and Monnet agreed TCC needed results from Ger negotiations rather than vice versa.
8. After EB requested statement of views of those favoring delay for TCC completion, Alphand stated Fr had proposed yesterday in tripartite group to start talks with Germans immed on amount their total defense contribution, and explore whether Ger wld agree in principle to continued finance of Allied logistical support. He said division of total amount depended on determination of amt of Ger contribution to EDC budget and thus cld not be determined until results TCC work known, including allocation of external aid.
9. Plowden vigorously opposed Fr proposal to discuss total Ger contribution prior tripartite agreement on principles governing composition. In discussion on this proposal, UK–US agreed that cld not discuss just total budget with Gers since inevitably wld get involved in composition budget and priority of claims.
10. Gordon, acting for Harriman in latter part of meeting, suggested wld greatly simplify problem if cld agree include only two elements in Ger contribution until end 1952 or middle 1953: First, direct cost Ger contingents; second, Allied logistical support. Probably no real conflict between these two during that period, while introduction third unknown of additional net German contribution to EDF budget wld result in long delay.
11. Alphand opposed concept Ger budget for Ger forces or and limiting of Ger contribution to EDF budget to direct Ger costs. Explained Fr visualized advances to common budget for initial period of three–four months before common budget fully established.
12. Gordon explained was not proposing separate Ger budget but felt interim arrangements on lines suggested wld enable Ger participation without delay while budget details being worked out and priorities established.
13. US–Fr suggested desirability of having one group clarify issues which FonMins shld consider on November 21, bringing together London and EDF discussion. UK opposed any report by such group to FM or even joint report by London group responsible for preparing for Ger negotiations, on behalf of occupying powers. Finally, all agreed small meeting wld be held per opening para this message.
14. One of significant points which emerged from meeting was that Paris conf is concentrating on writing treaty and that inadequate attention is being paid to plannning practical steps necessary to implement arrangements when they are finally worked out. There was general agreement concerted effort should be made immediately to get more active planning work started.
- Repeated to Bonn for McCloy and to London for the U.S. delegation at the talks concerning a German financial contribution.↩