272. Telegram From the Embassy in the Federal Republic of Germany to the Embassy in the United Kingdom1
54. London Eyes Only for the Secretary. Washington Eyes Only for Herter. Paris Eyes Only for Perkins. London’s 104 July 31, repeated information Department Dulte 6.2 Following is text of Chancellor’s reply to Secretary’s letter transmitted in reference telegram:
“My Dear Mr. Dulles:
“I thank you for your letter in which you explained motives for formulation of new Western proposal at London disarmament conference, which was given me yesterday evening between ten and eleven o’clock. I have no objection to basic features of proposal; on contrary, I hope they will lead to positive result in negotiations.
“I understand text of memorandum to mean that in no case will European inspection zone be proposed unless Soviets simultaneously agree to Arctic inspection zone or to even larger one covering both US and USSR.
“As far as extension of European inspection zone is concerned, I agree with you that also here, a zone should be proposed preferably including all Europe. Moreover, I also agree with view expressed in your letter that it should not at first be stipulated in memorandum which smaller European zone could be used in negotiations as ultimate fallback position. There was unanimity in NATO Council that extreme minimum should be zone between the 5th and 35th degrees east longitude. Before precise details are presented on this in London negotiations, NAC should again take up this question. I strongly fear [Page 678] that European inspection zone which does not cover all Europe as, for example, zone between the 5th and 35th degrees of east longitude or even narrower zone, could lead to dangerous domestic political reactions in Germany. Fear could arise that such narrow inspection zone could lead to military thinning out and to jeopardizing previous NATO forward strategy.
“Opposition in Germany, which at moment is advocating disarmament, inspection, and military thinning-out, with reference to alleged questionable value of NATO defense, would then most likely reverse its position and accuse Federal Government, NATO, and Western powers of having given up previous strategic defense concept and made Germany into battlefield of future wars. It would then maintain this development was confirmation of their earlier arguments.
“I believe, therefore, question of extending zone should once more be reviewed carefully with these thoughts in mind.
“Formulations in memorandum on mobile ground inspection are in contradiction to decision recently taken by NAC.3 I therefore consider it necessary to obtain approval of these formulations by NAC or from all member governments. I completely respect point of view which you advanced, which from standpoint of American military security speaks for combination of air and mobile ground inspection. Fears which we have relate primarily to possibility that such intensive inspection system in restricted part of Europe would approach in alarming manner a system of demilitarization or neutralization. In no case, therefore, could we agree to proposal which envisages system of ground inspection within zone which is smaller than zone subject to aerial inspection and which, in particular would cover Germany and, at most, one or two satellite states. I understand memorandum to mean this possibility will in no case come into question, and that for moment possibility is being considered of proposing area to be covered by ground inspection which would exceed that covered by aerial inspection. I would, therefore, welcome it if NAC were also brought into this last phase since I fear NATO solidarity would be jeopardized if other Members of Council feel they have been bypassed.”
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–157. Secret; Niact. Repeated niact to Paris and to the Department of State, which is the source text.↩
- Document 269.↩
- The position of the NAC on mobile ground inspection is contained in Polto 245 from Paris, July 25. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/7–2557)↩