Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

740.5/2–2852: Telegram

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

secret
priority

Bonn, February 28, 1952—7 p.m.

1747. Inform Defense. AgSec from Slater. Fol is brief summary report informal mtg of three HICOMers held 28 February.

1. FedRep fin contrib to Western def.

I opened mtg with statement my disappointment at report that Fr were now taking position they wld not agree to accept ltr from three FonMins to Chancellor² with inclusion of footnote contained in para 3 of Bonn sent Lisbon 20 of 26 February.³ I informed mtg that I had informed Adenauer at 1900 hours 26 February (in accordance with reftel) that his proposals had been accepted and, therefore, it wld be very embarrassing to reopen this matter with him. Kirkpatrick then said cable report of FM mtg⁴ stated that altho Schuman cld not accept amendments to texts as contained in reftel, Fr cld accept both footnotes. (Word footnotes—in plural—appeared twice in his cable from Lisbon as it had in ours to Lisbon.) I pointed out Chancellor had made it abundantly clear that acceptance of either amendments to text or insertion footnotes which clearly stated FedRep’s reservation were a condition to his agrmt to global contrib. Voting implications were also mentioned by him in explaining his proposals. Further, I did not believe he was attempting to obtain an overriding position for FedRep vis-à-vis Fr.

After considerable discussion and telephone calls between Berard and Schuman, Fr agreed to accept both footnotes provided that the one contained in Chancellor’s reply wld clearly indicate that the vote [note?] merely stated a Ger position without being binding on the FonMins. Berard said Schuman’s main concern was that discussion on voting issue shld not be prejudiced by current exchange of ltrs. After clearance with Paris after the mtg, Berard gave me fol wording which I will personally give to Chancellor, as chairman, later this afternoon to determine if agreeable with him.

The footnote shld now commence with the phrase: “The three Fon Mins have taken cognizance of the position of the FedRep according to which the FedRep proceeds on the assumption that in the sense of the EDC treaty etc.” Same as footnote in reftel.⁵

Kirkpatrick insisted real problem to be solved now was not exchange of ltrs or presence of footnote, but rather question of voting formula within EDC. Question of ltrs wld be academic if Ger conditions for a rep vote in accordance with their contrib were not accepted. Kirkpatrick said that Fr wld, in his opinion, be most ill-advised not to include in their over-all contrib for voting purposes the amt which they expend on the Indochina campaign. (Fr had previously indicated Paris had not yet decided whether to include Indochina expenses.) If France did not include this figure, Ger might have a preponderance of voting strength within EDC, a fact which was of vital concern to UK. (In this connection, Fr replied their govt did not wish Benelux to be in position to review or pass on Fr expenses in Indochina as Fr Govt wanted free hand this matter. Benelux wld probably claim expenditures were too high.) While I agreed with Kirkpatrick that voting issue was of primary importance and must be resolved as soon as possible if further progress was to be made on subj of fin contrib, I stated it was still to Allied advantage (if only psychological) to have signature now on fin contrib commitment.

2. Publication war criminals records.

In accordance with para 2 of London sent Dept Secto 16 rptd info Paris 1780, Bonn 310, Lisbon 143 of 18 February,⁶ we agreed to instruct experts to compile facts on records of war criminals with particular ref to those who fall in fol categories: (a) those who have had previous criminal convictions; (b) those who had personally committed murder (as opposed to those who had given orders to others to do so); and (c) those who had been convicted of concentration camp atrocities. I added and they agreed that guilty mil leaders shld also be included. It was further agreed task shld be completed by end of March in order that info cld be made public in advance of Bundestag consideration of proposed contractual provision establishing mixed boards on clemency and criminals of war.

I took occasion to announce that except in special cases involving compassionate grounds, I did not intend to take any action on outstanding petitions which have been or wld be submitted to me, but rather that I intended to leave such cases for consideration by mixed board when established. Kirkpatrick indicated he hoped to finish review which he was currently undertaking in about two months time.

3. Security safeguards being reported separately in next two fol cables.⁷

Mccloy

1. This telegram was repeated for information to Paris and London.
2. For the proposed text of the letter under reference here, see telegram 22, Feb. 26, from Lisbon to Bonn, p. 260.
3. Not printed.
4. For reports of the Acheson–Eden–Schuman meeting of Feb. 26, 5 p.m. under reference here, see p. 167–174.
5. Telegram 1824, Mar. 4, from Bonn, briefly reporting on an informal session of the Allied High Commissioners that day, indicated that the High Commission had agreed that the text of the letter from the American, British, and French Foreign Ministers to Chancellor Adenauer, as amended here, should be sent immediately to the three capitals for signature by the Foreign Ministers. (740.5/3–452)
6. Not printed. It reported upon the Acheson–Eden–Schuman–Adenauer meeting of Feb. 18, 10 a.m. For a record of that meeting, see the Laukhuff minutes, p. 60.
7. Telegram 1748, infra; telegram 1749 is not printed, but see footnote 5, infra.