Truman Library, Acheson papers
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
Memorandum of Conversation With Mr. John Foster Dulles
I telephoned Mr. John Foster Dulles on the afternoon of December 19 after my return from Paris,1 telling him that I thought it would be desirable for me to give him a full report of my talks in Paris with the Foreign Ministers both in and out of NATO meeting and of my impressions of the situations in both Germany and France and of the present status of the ratification of EDC. I made this call at the suggestion of Mr. Bruce, with whom Mr. Dulles had discussed the proposal for the early appointment of a High Commissioner to Germany. Apparently he had in mind the possibility of appointing Mr. Robert Murphy.
Mr. Dulles mentioned to me over the telephone that he would like to hear what I had to say before making an appointment and asked whether in the light of my discussions in Paris I would think the man referred to above would be a good appointment. I said that he was an excellent man, was doing an extremely good job where he was, was badly needed there, and I thought would not be so effective in Germany because of the great importance of German-French relations and in view of the perhaps unfounded view in Paris that Mr. Murphy was not sympathetic with the French. Mr. Dulles said that he would be returning to Washington the following Wednesday; that no decision was contemplated immediately; and that he would discuss the matter further with me then.
Mr. Dulles accordingly called upon me at the State Department on Wednesday December 24. I showed him my report of my conversation with Monnet; told him of the reports made to me by Reber and Debevoise and of the Chancellor’s conviction that despite his [Page 33] troubles he would successfully surmount the court issue and would have the agreements ratified by the Bundestag in January and by the Bundesrat in February.2 I reported to him also my conversation with Pleven and Schuman regarding action by the French Chamber following German ratification. I told him of the Chancellor’s desire to have a High Commissioner appointed as soon as possible, who would be a strong man with whom he could work on intimate terms. I also told him of the Chancellor’s desire for some expression by the new Administration of its support of EDC and that the latter should be in the framework of European unity and not merely as a military matter. I suggested that this might be done in a New Year’s message from General Eisenhower to General Ridgway and his former comrades at SHAPE, which need not stress the military aspects, but could point out that they were part of a larger movement of profound historic significance.
He said that he had been working on this and had talked with General Eisenhower and Mr. McCloy. General Eisenhower’s belief was that his views were so well known regarding his support for EDC that it was unnecessary to repeat them. I stressed that repetition was most important.
Mr. Dulles then turned to the matter of the High Commissioner. He said that they were now considering President Conant of Harvard and had had some talk with him. He wished this to be kept very secret. I told Mr. Dulles of my talks with Mr. Conant at the end of 1951 and of the difficulties which he then had in leaving his present post on short notice. I did not know what his present situation was. I also said that at one time Mr. Conant had had grave doubts about any sort of rearmament of Germany and that this was a matter which should be carefully explored, because such an attitude on the part of the High Commissioner at a time when the Chancellor was in a very bitter battle might be disastrous. He said that he would look into this.
I then informed Mr. Dulles of the status of the John Carter Vincent matter, saying that on a review of the hearing before the Review Board, it seemed to me that the Board was passing judgment, not on Mr. Vincent’s loyalty, but on the question of his judgment on the controversial issues of China policy. I thought that if the loyalty program got into this field, it would destroy the Foreign Service, and I was, therefore, thinking of seeking a board composed of an eminent judge and several people familiar with the Foreign Service to consider the matter, advise me whether my fears were founded and advise me further whether I should exercise the legal [Page 34] power in accordance with the Board’s recommendation or in some other way.
I said that some members of the Board I had in mind, and mentioning them, had wondered whether they could finish their work before January 20 and what Mr. Dulles’s attitude toward their work would be thereafter. They did not wish to start upon a task which he would want to discontinue. After some discussion, in which Mr. Dulles showed an appreciation of the dangers to the Foreign Service, which I had suggested, he said that I might say that he would regard the work of the Board as helpful and would be glad to talk with any members who might wish to talk with him. He stressed the fact that the appointment of the Board and the whole procedure should be wholly my responsibility, and not a joint responsibility. I said that I fully appreciated this.
I then brought Mr. Dulles up to date on developments in Iran, including our talks in London and Paris during the past week and with developments in Egypt.
I mentioned to him that Senator Carl Hayden had told me that there was a great deal of activity on the Hill regarding the so-called Bricker amendment dealing with the treaty making power. I said that Senator Hayden had suggested that I bring this to Mr. Dulles’s attention, as he might wish to find out from his Republican colleagues whether amendment action was contemplated, since this might be a grave embarrassment to Mr. Dulles. Mr. Dulles made a note of the matter and said that he would look into it.
In conclusion he said that he would be in and out of Washington and that at any time I had matters which I thought should be brought to his attention, he would be glad to call upon me.
- Acheson had attended the Tenth Session of the North Atlantic Council held Dec. 15–18, 1952. Regarding this meeting, see the editorial note in vol. v, Part 1, p. 348.↩
- Reference is to the ratification by the Federal Republic of Germany of the Contractual Agreements of 1952; for documentation, see volume vii.↩