Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 1

662A.00/7–352: Telegram

No. 121
The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Embassy in France ¹

secret priority

Bonn , July 3, 1952—8 p.m.

18. For Jessup from McCloy. Fol is second part summary of meeting Chancellor–HICOMers June 3 on text reply to Sov note.²

Ward made introductory statement indicating three Mins had done their best to take Chancellor’s point of view fully into account. Text statement follows by air.

In conclusion, he emphasized that High Commissioners were authorized to assure Fed Govt that if Sov Govt shld be prepared to hold four-power meeting, three Foreign Ministers have agreed they wld not allow such meeting to drag on once it has become clear that Russian objective was obstruction and delay.

Chancellor said he was grateful for positive assurances given re return to Potsdam regime, but expressed dissatisfaction with general tone of note³ finding it far weaker than Allied reply of May 13.⁴ He said it had been drafted to give full consideration to Fr internal polit problems but none to his own difficulties. He mentioned fol specific objections:

(a) As regards neutralization of Ger, third sentence in para 6 of present draft was much weaker than third sentence of para 3 in May 13 note. Gen sentence in first para of present draft referring to previous notes and proposals was inadequate and shld be strengthened.

(b) Note of May 13 had made it clear that prior to conf, understanding must be reached on examination of fundamental problems. No mention this examination of fundamental problems contained in present draft.

(c) Present draft speaks of free elections, but, in contrast to note of May 13, does not spell out conditions for such free elections. In particular, present draft does not reiterate stipulation that conditions for free elections must be maintained in all parts of Ger, not only on day of voting, but also prior to and thereafter.

(d) Draft does not make clear what composition on commission of investigation wld be. If UN Commission is to be discarded, it shld be made clear that members of commission are not to be nationals of occupying powers.

(e) With ref to first sentence of para 7, Chancellor asked whether three Mins expected Sovs to indicate positive acceptance of condition contained last clause this sentence. He asked what reaction of three govts wld be if Sovs merely passed over this part of sentence in silence during this part of discussion, Chancellor again emphasized that he was not opposed to limited four-power conf at right time but it was quite evident that he is reluctant to see one held before ratification. He regretted fact that reps of Fed Govt had not been invited to participate in discussions on note in London and said that he felt this was not in keeping with agreements just signed. With ref to first sentence of para 7, he also felt that as a matter of appearance it was not appropriate that authorities of Fed Rep and Berlin shld be placed on the same level.

Chancellor’s memo covering these points, and suggestions for modified language will be submitted late this afternoon and forwarded immediately by separate cable.⁵

McCloy

1. Repeated to London and Washington; the source text is the copy sent to Washington.
2. For the first part of the summary, see telegram 17, supra.
3. Document 118.
4. Document 101.
5. Telegram 52 from Bonn, July 4. (662A.00/7–452)