396.1 LO/11–353

No. 280
The Soviet Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Embassy of the United States1

Soviet Government acknowledges receipt note Government United States America of October 18,2 which is answer to note Soviet Government of September 28.3

In its note of October 18, just as in former note of September 2,4 Government United States America avoids principal questions posed by government whose examination has aim of contributing to settlement unresolved international problems and strengthening peace. Meanwhile, necessity for such settlement has become still more pressing.

It is also impossible to ignore fact that latest note Government United States America is once again result separate collusion three powers, i.e., United States America, England and France. Accordingly, new meeting Ministers Foreign Affairs three powers at London,5 like preceding meeting at Washington,6 in no way facilitates task settlement unresolved international problems. On contrary, such meetings cannot but limit initiative and possibilities attainment agreement between interested powers, fact which naturally is contrary to interests international cooperation.

In its note of September 28, Soviet Government drew attention Government United States America, as well as Governments Great Britain and France, to necessity examination measures for lessening tension in international relations by Ministers Foreign Affairs [Page 659] United States America, England, France, Chinese People’s Republic and Soviet Union. In this regard, Soviet Government has been guided by fact that governments indicated powers are also expressing desire to reach such an understanding as would lead even in near future to lessening international tension, and this, in its turn, would make possible attainment positive results in settlement urgent (Nazrevshi) international problems. In advancing this proposal Soviet Government proceeded from fact that favorable conditions have been created for this at present time, especially in connection with conclusion armistice in Korea.

It is well known what a favorable effect statement government Chinese People’s Republic had on achievement armistice in Korea. This government, together with Government Korean Popular Democratic Republic, took initiative which led to agreement on termination bloodshed in Korea. It would be completely natural to expect further steps toward easing international tension from both interested parties. Refusal to consider question of easing tension in international relations could not be considered other than as unwillingness to contribute to settlement unresolved questions, and thereby to contribute to strengthening peace and international security.

One of chief elements bearing witness to great tension in international relations is fact that during course recent years armaments race is increasing ever further, including atomic and hydrogen weapons, military groupings of some states against other states are being formed, network of military bases established by certain states on territories of other states is growing rapidly, and so forth. If Government United States, like Government USSR, recognizes that such a situation increases threat new world war and that examination of above mentioned most important international questions must not be postponed for an indefinite period, then in that case there should disappear objections to undertaking examination question of measures for lessening international tension without further delays. In contrary case it would be impossible to assure appropriate conditions for resolution of urgent international problems, to settlement of which Government United States America also attaches great importance.

In its note of October 18, Government United States America refers to fact that several questions raised in Soviet Government’s note of September 28, including disarmament question, are already being considered or will be considered by General Assembly of United Nations. However, it is impossible to acknowledge this reference as in any degree well founded. In United Nations, several important questions related to maintenance international peace have been considered from very beginning of organization. This [Page 660] refers especially to such questions as limitation and regulation of armaments, prohibition atomic and other types weapons mass destruction, impermissibility establishment military bases on foreign territory, impermissibility propaganda aimed at preparation new world war. However, as is well known, solution these important questions in United Nations has encountered serious difficulties. As a result, armaments race being carried on by certain countries not only is not decreasing, but is continuing in still greater measure, in connection with which tax burden which broad sections of population these countries bears on its shoulders is increasing without interruption, and weapons of mass destruction are becoming ever more destructive and dangerous, especially with appearance hydrogen bomb. Full settlement Korean question has great significance for easing tension in international relations. At present time this requires that question of national unification and establishment stable peace in Korea be settled on basis armistice reached. Convocation political conference on Korea should answer these ends.

Soviet Government has already noted in its note of September 28 that convocation this conference is facing serious difficulties in connection with examination question of conferences. There still exists clear under evaluation significance agreed actions on this question with such directly interested states as Chinese People’s Republic and Korean Popular Democratic Republic. As should be completely obvious, success Korean political conference depends to great extent on coordination actions most interested parties and on participation in this conference of other neutral states which contributed to attainment armistice in Korea and which can offer substantial help in settlement whole Korean question. In accordance with existing understanding, there is already taking place a meeting between the parties at Panmunjom, called for examination of unsettled questions connected with preparations for Korean political conference.7 If Government United States America and government certain other countries bearing responsibility for difficulties which have arisen in settlement Korean question, in particular for difficulties connected with decision of question, are really striving for success this conference, then they cannot fail to take into account above mentioned legitimate demands of Korean-Chinese side which, as has been shown by consideration of question conference composition at Seventh Session UN General Assembly, are shared by majority states Europe, Asia and Africa.

[Page 661]

Easing of tension in international relations also depends to great extent on settlement question mutual relations with Chinese People’s Republic, re-establishment China’s legitimate right in UN and its participation in decision fundamental questions relating to maintenance peace and security of peoples. To ignore necessity urgent decision questions relating to re-establishment national rights Chinese People’s Republic and to delay implementation of China’s participation with full rights in settlement urgent international problems is to contribute to further maintenance international tension. It is impossible to limit matter to participation Chinese People’s Republic in Korean conference, inasmuch as positive results of this conference are also in no small measure connected with recognition of rights and legitimate interests Chinese people in settlement other important international problems. It is also necessary to recognize as impermissible a situation whereby in recent years there have taken place a number of acts of aggression in relation to Chinese People’s Republic provoked by certain powers.

From all this it follows that for regulation urgent international problems having great significance for lessening international tension, to say nothing about special problems relating to situation in South East Asia and Pacific Ocean, it is urgently necessary to call conference of Foreign Ministers of five powers: US, England, France, Chinese People’s Republic and Soviet Union.

In reply to Soviet Government’s proposal concerning calling conference composed of Foreign Ministers of five powers to examine means to lessen tension in international relations US Government expressed its readiness consider causes of such tension with view to eliminating them. At same time, however, US Government stated that it “wishes do this under circumstances which would create reasonable hope of achieving positive results and would ensure that viewpoints of directly interested governments would be properly represented”.

Thus, stating its readiness to examine causes of present international tension in order eliminate them, US Government there and then refuses call conference of five powers at present time. This evident from fact that it advances various preconditions directed toward postponement calling above-mentioned conference for indefinite period. If US Government in future continues insist on these preconditions, it will be evidence that it does not in fact desire easing international tension and corresponding settlement unresolved international problems.

In refusing convocation five power conference US Government points out that it has agreed to convocation Korean political conference where all these powers might be represented. However, [Page 662] that this statement of US Government is without foundation if only for fact that position it has taken rejecting participation of neutral countries in Korean conference makes participation of USSR in this conference impossible. One must not forget that it is impossible at Korean conference to consider general question of lessening international tension, urgent consideration of which can not be denied at present time.

In its note of September 28 Soviet Government drew attention to fact that recent political developments in West Germany have increased alarm in peace-loving countries of Europe. Ruling circles in Western Germany openly set as their goal the accelerated implementation of plan for remilitarization. Measures for creation of regular army, air force and navy are being carried out. Hundreds of industrial enterprises are being converted to serve military needs. West German monopolists who in their time inspired Hitlerite aggression are engaged in re-establishment war industry. Those generals who created Hitlerite army and carried out Hitler’s military plans are again assuming leadership over creation armed forces West Germany. Present Bonn Government which expresses aspirations aggressive circles West German monopolists and Hitlerite military leadership already feels no necessity hide its aggressive aims in regard neighboring states. Ruling circles in West Germany openly advertise their revanchist plans, fact which creates increasing threat European security. West German revanchists, who have raised their heads recently, are trying secure support of aggressive circles other states.

In this situation one cannot fail see danger in endeavors of ruling circles West Germany to hasten in every way ratification and entry into force of both Paris and Bonn agreements,8 with which are bound up their calculations for acceleration remilitarization West Germany and for realization their revanchist plans in Europe. In these circumstances one should recognize as particularly impermissible those attempts at crude pressure which have recently been undertaken in relation, for example France, to overcome public resistance to Bonn and Paris agreements.

Inasmuch as Paris agreement concerning so-called European army including West German armed forces means creating regular army in West Germany, West German revanchists stop at nothing to achieve this agreement’s entry into force. In addition West German revanchist circles are exerting continuous pressure to hasten entry into force of Bonn agreement also. They intend utilize [Page 663] this agreement as well, which leaves West Germany for decades in position of occupied country, in order subsequently free their hands having joined North Atlantic military group of powers and having secured support of most aggressive forces this group.

Entry into force of Paris and Bonn agreements would mean that remilitarization West Germany will get fully under way. And then, as is witnessed by grievous experience peoples of Europe, West German revanchists will cease paying any attention to many paragraphs these agreements. Then they will do everything possible involve parties to these agreements in adventures, which will facilitate their starting a war for accomplishment their criminal revanchist aims.

Peace-loving peoples of Europe, and above all West Germany’s neighbors, cannot fail take this into account. Lessons of history will-known to all whereby neighboring countries, which German militarists never hesitated to dig up pretexts for attacking, became first victims of aggressive German militarism.

In connection with this it is understandable that US Government’s note of October 18 touches on so serious a question as that of European security, to which Soviet Government has always attached greatest significance. One cannot but admit that only such a solution of German problem as will guarantee restoration national unity of Germany as democratic and peace-loving state and also guarantee interests security all other European states will accord with interests peace-loving peoples Europe as well as interests German people itself. This means that formation special military group of European states directed against some states of Europe such as creation of so-called European army now being undertaken has nothing in common with real European security.

One should not forget that there exist Franco-Soviet treaty 1944 and also Anglo-Soviet treaty 1942 according to which USSR and France as well as USSR and England assumed obligations undertake joint measures against possible new aggression on part German militarism which in addition is in accord with aims of ensuring security all European states. To forget these important obligations would not be in interests of France and England. As regards Soviet Union for its part now as previously, it is fully ready not only not to weaken these obligations but also take into account existing new possibilities for ensuring security in Europe.

However, position of US Government regarding German problem expressed in referenced note as well as in its previous notes does not at all accord with interests ensuring European security since they ignore not only above-mentioned obligations but also provisions Potsdam conference 1945 according which US, England, USSR and France which adhered to them agreed to assist by joint [Page 664] efforts in re-establishment unity German state, creation all-German democratic government and conclusion peace treaty with Germany. Government Soviet Union considers it necessary again call attention of US Government to great importance for assuring European security of observance principles and aims of Potsdam agreement regarding Germany.

Soviet Government still considers that only by joint efforts of four powers can European security be assured and can one prevent re-establishment aggressive German militarism toward which West German revanchists are striving. It is thus necessary for US, England, France and USSR together with representatives West and East Germany to agree that in accordance with interests strengthening peace and European security solution of principal that there be no further delay in decision concerning Germany connected therewith, i.e., problems of peace treaty with Germany and re-establishment unity of German state on democratic and peace-loving principles.

Namely by reason of above considerations Soviet Government proposed consider at conference Foreign Ministers such questions as: Calling peace conference to examine question of peace treaty with Germany, creation provisional all-German Government and conduct all-German elections.

In addition Soviet Government considered and considers it important to examine question of lightening financial-economic obligations of Germany connected with consequences war.

As before, in its note of October 18 US Government did not express its attitude toward these questions which have paramount significance for solution German problem. Instead, it confines itself to statement that in conference under reference it would “utilize this occasion to expound its ideas on questions already raised in its previous notes”.

This statement of US Government means that it as before seeks to limit consideration of German problem to question of all-German elections organized by occupation authorities and not by German people itself inasmuch as US Government again evades considering question of immediate formation of all-German democratic government. Moreover, until such all-German Government is formed, it is impossible hold truly free all-German elections and ensure solution basic tasks set by four-power Potsdam agreement, i.e., assist re-establishment Germany as democratic and peace-loving state.

Moreover, impossible consider German problem independent of other important problem directly relating to security of Europe, i.e., question of situation which has arisen in connection with ever-widening network American military bases on territory certain European [Page 665] states. As Soviet Government has already repeatedly stated, these military bases are being created principally in regions bordering Soviet Union and countries of Peoples Democracy which in itself is evidence that these bases have nothing in common with tasks of defense of countries participating in North Atlantic bloc and are intended for use for aggressive ends. Such American bases have been established, as is well-known, on territory England, France, Italy, Turkey, Norway and number other countries. Only recently agreement was concluded regarding establishment new American military bases on territory Greece, which has nothing in common with national interests Greek people. How far business of creating American military bases in Europe has gone is witnessed by fact that recently agreement was signed between US and former accomplice of Hitlerite Germany, Franco Spain, which is becoming military ally of North Atlantic group of powers and is making its territory available for establishment American naval and air bases. In view these new facts no one can assert that North Atlantic bloc serves defensive aims.

In addition, open pressure is being systematically put on certain other states of Europe, and Near and Middle East and, in particular, on Iran to oblige them to make their territory available for foreign military bases despite legitimate protests from wide circles of public in these countries who realize that establishment of such bases serves aggressive aims and is incompatible with national sovereignty and independence these countries.

Measures being carried out now in remilitarization West Germany and directed toward turning West German territory into Place d’Armes for preparation and carrying out revanchist aims of West German militarists and also aggressive plans of North Atlantic bloc have direct connection with creation above-mentioned military bases.

It is not difficult to understand that in such a situation when on the territory of a number of states of Europe, North Africa, Near and Middle East are being organized more and more new foreign military bases, and when plans are being carried out for remilitarization of Western Germany—that a threat is being created to security of Soviet Union as well as a number of other states which is leading to further aggravation of tension of the international situation and is increasing threat of new world war. All this indicates that settlement of German problem in conformity with interests of guaranteeing European security is inextricably bound up with decision of question of liquidation of these military bases. Any other attitude to this question would mean interests of genuine guarantee of European security are being ignored.

[Page 666]

In connection therewith Soviet Government would like to receive clarification from Government of US as well as from Governments of England, and France as to whether their statement on willingness to consider German question at meeting Ministers Four Powers and their recognition of importance of guaranteeing European security means that they will not place themselves in a position whereby on the one hand it is proposed to examine German question at conference and on the other simultaneously to adopt measures for ratification of Paris and Bonn agreements by those states which have so far not ratified them. Receipt of such clarification is necessary in view of fact that ratification of these agreements and their entry into will make impossible restoration Germany as unified state and thereby render pointless also consideration of German question at meeting of Ministers Foreign Affairs of Four Powers, such meeting would be bound in advance by agreed separate obligations of three powers and Bonn Government of Adenauer for inclusion Western Germany in North Atlantic bloc and creation of West German revanchist army. All that is said above shows that given genuine desire to settle urgent international problems it is necessary to reach understanding concerning urgent consideration of measures for reduction of tension in international relations and this requires convocation of conference of Five Powers. It is possible to hope that examination of above-mentioned measures will facilitate also decision of German question which, as is evident, is inextricably bound up with problem of guaranteeing of European security.

On basis of foregoing Soviet Government reaffirms proposal contained in its note of September 28 for calling of conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and at that meeting:

To examine measures for the reduction of tension in international relations with participation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of USA, England, France, Chinese People’s Republic and Soviet Union;
To consider German question including all proposals advanced during course of preparations for conference with participation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of USA, England, France and Soviet Union.

In connection with question of Austrian Treaty mentioned by Government of USA, Soviet Government considers it necessary to recall that it is awaiting answer of Government of USA and also of Governments of England and France to its note of August 289 on this question and notes that discussion proposed by Soviet Government [Page 667] of this question through normal diplomatic channels has not yet taken place.

  1. Transmitted in telegrams 545 and 546 from Moscow, Nov. 3. This translation should be compared for minor textual differences with that in Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 30, 1953, pp. 745–748.
  2. Supra.
  3. Document 271.
  4. Document 268.
  5. For documentation on the London Foreign Ministers meeting, Oct. 16–18, see Documents 291 ff.
  6. For documentation on the Washington Foreign Ministers meeting, July 10–14, see vol. v, Part 2, pp. 1582 ff.
  7. For documentation on the meetings at Panmunjom, beginning Oct. 26, to discuss the agenda for the Korean Political Conference, see vol. xv, Part 2, pp. 15781657, passim.
  8. For text of the European Defense Community Treaty, signed at Paris May 27, 1952, see Documents (R.I.I.A.) for 1952, pp. 116–162; for text of the agreements, signed at Bonn May 26, 1952, see Documents 50 ff.
  9. Regarding this note, see Document 882.