Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 2

962A.61/2–551: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfurt¹

confidential

Washington, February 7, 1951—6 p. m.

5435. Frankfort’s 6483, February 5.² Department much struck by German press reaction to Eisenhower’s statement about German participation in European defense. General’s attitude that German participation can wait and is not essential to progress now in defense field seems to have had very salutary result in causing many German papers to become alarmed lest Germany has over-played hand in hanging back while making broad demands for equality. We think this most healthy development.

Department considers this German reaction could be deepened with good effect by fresh initiative on our part as regards NY revision of Occupation Statute.³ It has long been obvious that revised Occupation Statute falls far short of meeting German hopes and demands and that NY decisions have been overtaken by rush of events. Even if and when German commitment on debts is obtained and Occupation Statute promulgated we will probably receive nothing but complaints from Germans. German opinion will assume in spite of all explanations that we are only willing to make these “niggardly” concessions and expect to buy German defense therewith.

Under circumstances Department considering advisability of suggesting that HICOM meet with Adenauer and representatives of Bundestag Committee dealing with debt commitment to discuss possibility that no useful purpose would be served by issuing NY revision of Occupation Statute, in view of long period which has elapsed since September and in view imminence of fresh discussions concerning more fundamental revision of relations. Could be pointed out that revised Occupation Statute was intended as moderate interim stage in liberalization of Occupation Regime and was not intended to meet situation resulting from discussion of German defense participation. Germans could be told that we consider it might be better, therefore, to drop matter and concentrate entirely on discussions on contractual relations. This move would appear to have certain advantages whatever German reaction might be. It might serve further to strengthen alarm aroused by Eisenhower’s removal of emphasis from Germany and induce greater efforts to associate Germany with Western cause. It might in this way speed up both military and political discussions. If, on other hand, Germans really value some of advances made in revised Occupation Statute and would urge us to go through with original plans, we might then do so, having thereby forestalled any complaints about delays or inadequacies in revision.

Would appreciate early expression your views so that if you perceive no serious objection, Department might instruct Paris and London to urge this suggestion upon Foreign Offices with view to obtaining governmental agreement to change in NY decision along these lines. Paris and London please do not discuss with Foreign Office at this time, but give Department any estimate possible of French and British reaction if such suggestion were made.⁴

Acheson

1. Repeated to London and Paris.
2. Not printed; it reported that in the German press for February 5, the greatest amount of space had been devoted to General Eisenhower’s various statements on Western defense. (962A.61/2–551)
3. For the text of the report of the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany to the Foreign Ministers at New York in September 1950, including recommendations for revision of the Occupation Statute, as approved by the Foreign Ministers, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. iii, pp. 1248 ff.
4. On February 12 Embassy Paris reported that the French Foreign Ministry probably shared this view, but “would in any event want NY decisions implemented before contractual arrangements contemplated in Brussels are concluded.” Because of this attitude Embassy Paris felt there were disadvantages to the proposed course of action as far as the French were concerned. Telegram 4759, February 12 (762.0221/2–1251). Embassy London reported a similar feeling in the British Foreign Office, even though realizing that the revised occupation statute would fall far short of meeting German hopes. (Telegram 4511, February 19, 762A.0221/2–1951)