033.62A11/2–1751: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfurt 1
5856. Re urtel 6833, Feb 17 and Deptel 5803, Feb 23.2 In informal joint conversations Dept and ECA officials with Bundestag members question of whether Ger ready now before end of occupation to declare its adherence Western defense effort raised and relation this issue to justification next year Ger aid before Congress was discussed. It was pointed out to Bundestag members that aid program next year will be based to substantial extent on defense effort of PC’s and that affirmative evidence Ger willingness to participate wld create more positive atmosphere for obtaining appropriations for Ger aid. Brentano was queried separately on whether Gers had considered possibility of Bundestag resolution offering Ger econ contribution to Western defense prior to mil participation, which might furnish desired evidence Ger willingness to participate. He thought idea had merit and stated wld raise with other members. In later conversation with Brentano and Ollenhauer they presented idea of resolution expressing desire to contribute to Western defense and asking Govt after agreement with HICOM to bring in two separate budget items of occupation costs, one of which wld be labeled defense covering which voluntary appropriation cld be made. Ollenhauer pointed out that it wld be helpful to base such resolution upon some outstanding event and he suggested that termination state of war by US and other Allies might be appropriate event. We pointed out that while this timing not out of question what wld be most helpful wld be simple declaration Ger intent on their own initiative.
It was also pointed out to Gers that Allied auths including armed forces wld not agree to subj defense or other portions occupation cost budget to Bundestag examination and debate. Brentano and Ollenhauer [Page 1327] brushed this aside by saying it wld be Govt (not Bundestag) responsibility to negot with Allies on size of defense and occupation cost components of budget.
Pressed on whether Ger willing to make total contribution in same relative amt as other Eur countries, Brentano and Ollenhauer were agreed on this as matter of principle but were evasive as to amt. Both called attn to special Ger burdens arising out of last war, e.g. refugees and war damages. Ollenhauer argued that Ger expenditures for groups of population adversely affected by last war shld be considered contribution on polit side to cold war since they made these groups less vulnerable to Commie infiltration. To this we replied a Bundestag resolution expressing Ger’s wish to assume fair share of Eur defense burden wld be most useful if clear and unequivocal. It wld be more than useless however, if accompanied by statements of why Ger’s contribution shld be small.
We have impression that Bundestag members may carry above ideas further and that some type of resolution cld result. It is difficult to conceive SPD supporting resolution volunteering Ger defense contribution in any form under present conditions of Ger inequality. It seems questionable whether clear resolution volunteering econ contribution wld be passed by coalition parties, although we believe all six delegates understand problem of Congressional presentation of Ger aid program. However, they may propose only split of budget item.
Separation of budget item into occupation costs and defense contribution might well lead to increasing attempt to negot latter as well as division of categories of expenditures between the two. This perhaps is inevitable in long run. Separation cld lead to increasing Ger criticism of occupation cost item which wld then stand naked and alone. However, Ger offer to make contribution wld probably have helpful overall effect even though separation of items were troublesome.
We impressed upon Bundestag members that any views expressed by Dept and ECA officials shld not be considered as official and that if any proposal is made on our side it will be through HICOG.