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

396.1–ISG/2–2751: Telegram

The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State ¹

secret

Frankfurt, February 27, 1951—8 p. m.

7045. Reference (a) Deptel 5814 repeated London Tosig 444, Paris 4460.² (b) Deptel 5801 repeated London Tosig 440, Paris unnumbered.³

Financial advisers met February 26 with Dittmann of Chancellor’s office on debt assurance. Revision of original HICOM letter dated October 23 required modifications to Chancellor’s letter and new draft reply by High Commissioners explained in detail. Dittmann seemed understand all changes and reasons therefor. He agreed only substantative modification seemed to be deletion sentence regarding private commercial debts which, he indicated, was included at insistance of bankers led by Vocke, Abs and Pferdmenges rather than Foreign Affairs committee Melville (British) discussed this matter with Abs who said he will take advice of allies. Cattier will see Vocke and Leroy-Beaulieu (French) will see Pferdmenges in attempt to convince them soundness allied reasoning in deleting reference commercial debts.

Dittmann hopes he can clear revised instruments at meeting Foreign Affairs committee February 28. Anticipates no difficulty provided we can convince bankers as discussed above.

At close of meeting, Melville told Dittmann that allies still wished FedRep submit signed instruments to Bundestag. Dittmann argued that, since under revised agreement FedRep was assuming no new debts and was recognized as full partner in future negotiations, he saw no reason why it was necessary to submit formally to Bundestag. He explained that any later agreements setting forth specific obligation of FedRep would, of course, have to be submitted to Bundestag. Since Dittmann argument appeared valid, Cattier agreed he would raise with his government. Perhaps this question should be discussed ISG. Department please comment.

Reference paragraph 2, reftel (b), agree course of action proposed. British and French here have no objection. Reference paragraph 4, reftel (b), re-drafting press release referred to special committee at last council meeting. Department’s views will be taken into consideration and revised text transmitted. Will comment timing later.

McCloy

1. Repeated to London and Paris.
2. Not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 1427.
3. Not printed; it told Cattier to proceed in accordance with the proposals contained in Sigto 462 and Sigto 463 and stated that the Department of State intended to make the basic documents available to representatives of interested governments. (862A.10/2–2351)