Office of the Historian

Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 102: Telegram

The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Nash) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Foster)1
top secret
priority
Lisbon, February 21, 1952—11:15 p.m.

LibDef 11. Def Mins today considered items referred to them by Council and took fol major action.

  • Item 1. Approved mil effectiveness of arrangements proposed by Paris conf on EDC (MC 40 final2) and noted that Council action this subject will be on joint CD–MC report on NATO–EDC relations (C9–D/73).
  • Item 2. Noted report by MC on mil progress in NATO MC 5/4 (final)2 and recommended that Council note this report.
  • Item 3. Recommended Council approval of command arrangements regarding Greece and Turkey (MC 38/2 final4) after Italians withdraw their reservation.
  • Item 4. Requested Council to urge national action on implementation of mil status agreement (C9–D55).
  • Item 5. Noted recommendations summarized in para 18A (1) of mil comments on TCC report (MC 39 and MC 22/12 final)6 and approved remaining recommendations contained in para 18 and recommended similar Council action. Agreed to recommend an amended para 5 (A) of TCC draft resolution (C9–D/13) to read “recognizes that the force targets recommended by the TCC represent a buildup which would greatly facilitate the eventual achievement of the force requirements formulated by the Mil Com, referred to in MC 39 (final) and hereby noted, these requirements being subject to future revision”.7

At US instance Def Mins agreed they should have additional meeting to consider certain aspects of TCC report before this matter is discussed in plenary session now scheduled for 22 Feb. TCC supplementary report does not contain an agreed 1952 firm force plan. We [Page 120] propose to table at next meeting of Def Mins firm force plan for NATO based on country comments on TOC report. This plan to be agreed by nations and recommended for Council approval. For this purpose we are negotiating with France to arrive at French force plan for 1952.

Special comte of ministers appointed to consider infra problems8 commenced work today. Details on this subject and on 1952 force plan will be cabled later.

  1. This telegram was transmitted through the facilities of the United States Air Attaché in Lisbon.↩
  2. Not printed, but see footnote 4, p. 115.↩
  3. For the text of document C9–D/7 (Revise), Feb. 21, see p. 251.↩
  4. Not printed, but see footnote 4, p. 115.↩
  5. Not printed; for a summary of the substance of MC 38/2, see telegram 710, Feb. 13, to Ankara, p. 269.↩
  6. Not printed, but see footnote 6, p. 115.↩
  7. Neither printed, but see footnote 4, ibid. ↩
  8. According to the account in Acheson, Present at the Creation, p. 623, a meeting of the U.S. Delegation at some point early in the Lisbon session of the North Atlantic Council revealed a sharp difference of view between Harriman and General Bradley regarding the adequacy of the military forces which the Temporary Council Committee had recommended as being within the economic capability of the NATO countries. Acheson sought to resolve the dispute by having Harriman formulate language which would characterize the proposed force levels in a manner which would satisfy General Bradley. No documentation on these events has been found in Department of State files. No records of any U.S. Delegation meetings at Lisbon have been found. Presumably, the language quoted here represented a resolution to the conflict alluded to by Acheson.↩
  9. Regarding the Special Committee on Infrastructure referred to here, see footnote 10, p. 116.↩