S/S–NSC files, lot 63 D 351, NSC 135 Series
The Counselor (Bohlen) to the Secretary of State 1
Mr. Secretary: As I hope to get off at the end of this week for a couple of weeks leave, I may not be back before the NSC 114 Series (now NSC 135/1) will come up for consideration before the Council. The policy paper,2 the only one to be adopted formally by the Council, is I believe in complete harmony with the views worked out at the meetings with you. Part I of the Staff Study is exactly the same as worked out with you. Part II,3 despite our efforts to have it laid aside, had to be revised since almost all of the members of the Senior Staff felt a study of this nature was necessary to support the policy statement. It has been revised in close consultation with S/P and is, I think, in harmony with the policy paper. The “Summary and Conclusions”4 is merely a convenient pulling together of the two staff papers.
There is only one point in the paper as a whole on which S/P still has any doubts and that is the portion dealing with civil air defense, paragraph 60 in Part II of the Staff Study and the corresponding paragraph in the summary of the conclusions. They feel that the last sentence warning against applying a disproportionate amount of resources to defensive purposes is unnecessary and possibly misleading in that our efforts in this field are far from adequate and that the warning therefore is unnecessary. I do not feel that this is too important since the major parts of the paragraphs deal with the necessity of further and improved efforts in the field of civilian defense and it is one that Defense and JCS seem to feel rather strongly about. However, you may wish to discuss it with S/P and you could, of course, at the Council meeting propose some rewording. Aside from this point, I believe that the paper is acceptable to the Department as it stands and I would have no suggestions for changes at the Council meeting. Mr. Walmsley and Mr. Smith 5 will both be here in my absence and they could fill you in in regard to any portions which you yourself may have questions [Page 88] about and particularly as to the attitudes of the other Departments and agencies thereto.
There is one point of considerable importance and that is the manner of implementation of paragraph 9 of the policy study6 calling for a reexamination of existing and contemplated programs in the light of this paper and the terms of reference set forth in paragraph 9. Our view, which I believe is shared by the other Departments, is that this could best be done by a special group set up under the President’s direction by the Secretaries of State and Defense with the participation of other directly interested agencies such as MSA, ODM etc. Jimmy Lay has had doubts about this procedure. Some confusion has arisen in regard to the timing of this examination and its relation to the budgetary submissions called for by the President by October first. It is, of course, obvious that any such study could not possibly be completed by October first so that the last sentence of paragraph 9 7 of the policy paper will be deleted. There was a discussion in the Steering Committee of the Senior Staff as to the material that this reexamination would encompass. Our view, supported by Defense and CIA with JCS uncertain, is that this examination should be made on the basis of the programs recommended by October first to the President for fiscal 1954. If in certain aspects the reexamination could be completed in time to possibly have some effect on the fiscal 1954 budget, it could be used for that purpose. If not, as is more probable in view of the time element, there might at least be guidelines for possible increases or revisions through a supplementary budget or at least guidelines for the preparation of fiscal 1955. If you approve of this procedure, there is a draft Presidential Order, prepared by S/P, calling for the necessary mechanism which you could submit to the Council for adoption.
I am sorry I will not be here to deal in more detail with the paper but I honestly feel that it is in as good shape as it possibly could be and still be agreed by all Departments and agencies concerned. In fact, I consider that the paper as a whole represents a good analysis and recommendations for the situation in the world that we face in the foreseeable future.
- Copies to Matthews, Ferguson and Walter Walmsley, Jr. of the Office of the Counselor, Department of State and NSC Staff Member.↩
- Reference is to NSC 135/1, Aug. 15, p. 80.↩
- Reference is to Parts I and II of the Annex to NSC 135/1, NSC Staff Study on Reappraisal of United States Objectives and Strategy for National Security, Aug. 22, infra.↩
- Reference is to the Draft Statement Submitted to the Senior Staff, Aug. 12, p. 73.↩
- Bromley K. Smith of the Office of the Counselor, Department of State.↩
- Reference is to NSC 135/1, Aug. 15, p. 80.↩
- Bohlen is referring to the last sentence of paragraph 9a of NSC 135/1.↩