122. Memorandum of a Conversation, Federal Civil Defense Administration, Washington, May 29, 19571
SUBJECT
- Civil Defense in U.S. and Germany
PARTICIPANTS
- German side:
- Chancellor Adenauer
- Foreign Minister Von Brentano
- Ambassador Krekeler, Germany Embassy
- Commander Klug, Defense Ministry, Bonn
- Mr. Selbach, Personal Aide to Chancellor
- American side:
- Mr. Peterson, Federal Civil Defense Administrator
- Ambassador Bruce
- Mrs. Howard, Special Assistant to Administrator, FCDA
- Mr. George, Office of European Regional Affairs
The meeting was arranged, at German request, to discuss protection of the civilian population. It was anticipated in this connection that Chancellor Adenauer might wish to et some details concerning the program under which the U.S. will test certain shelters of German design at the Nevada proving grounds this year.
Mr. Peterson welcomed the Chancellor and stated that rather than attempt to give a set briefing it might be more useful if he could deal with matters of specific interest to the German side. Since the conversation thereafter consisted entirely of questions put by the Chancellor, with replies by Mr. Peterson, it will be reproduced below in that form.
Q. We understand that at one time you were thinking in terms of civil defense by means of evacuation from the cities, but that you have now shifted over to a shelter program. Is this correct?
A. Not entirely. At the time we were stressing evacuation only, the danger from fallout was not fully appreciated. Fallout shelters can be built fairly cheaply, however, and while our thinking now is still in terms of evacuation, we are also stressing the need for adequate shelter against fallout, so that the lives of people who may have gotten safely away from the cities will not be endangered by fallout some distance away.
Evacuation is practicable today only because we believe we can count on 3–5 hours warning against attacks other than from submarines. The coming of the inter-continental ballistic missile, which will cut warning time down to 15–30 minutes, will clearly mean that evacuation is impossible. We have no shelters at present, however, [Page 289] and will have to rely solely on evacuation until shelters are built or until the ICBM is here.
Q. A couple of years ago you had tests which called for moving the Federal Government out of Washington. Is this still the plan?
A. Yes, if time permits,
Q. Would this involve all government officials? A. No, just those essential to maintain vital functions of government.
Q. Do you have special shelters outside Washington?
A. We have re-location sites, some underground, for all necessary personnel.
Q. Who pays for these, the Federal or State Governments?
A. The Federal Government. We are encouraging State and municipal authorities to take similar action.
Q. If shelters were constructed for the population in New York, for example, would the Federal, State, or City Government pay for them?
A. This has not been decided. FCDA has made a proposal, now under consideration by the President, which would call for the Federal Government’s bearing the greater part of the cost. It is our feeling that if the States and municipalities give the necessary land, and maintain the shelters when built, this would be a fair proportion of the burden for them to carry.
Q. Is there any legislative or other authority making it compulsory that new buildings have adequate shelters built-in at time of construction?
A. No, and unfortunately the Federal Government is setting a bad example in this respect. The new State Department building, for instance, has no provision for shelters.
Q. Obviously the State Department counts on obtaining peace.
A. We all hope so. But I did not mean to emphasize the State Department particularly—it is general throughout the Government. I am certain that we will eventually come to a shelter program. We will be forced to put some of our industries underground, as in Norway, Sweden, and I believe, Russia.
Q. I am sure you are aware of this, but the Russians built the Moscow subway 60 meters underground. Bulganin told me that they can protect the entire population of Moscow, that the subway, for instance, can be furnished with food and water, and sealed off to protect those inside. I don’t know, of course, whether it is true that adequate shelter provision has been made for the entire Moscow population.
A. Well, everything the Russians say is not necessarily true. And all of it is not necessarily untrue, for that matter.
[Page 290]We have made a study in St. Louis, a typical American city, which shows that if there were adequate shelters capable of bearing an over-pressure of 30 pounds per square inch, 60% of the population could be saved in event of an attack, even giving the enemy every advantage of surprise, accuracy of bomb delivery, etc.
The shelters we are testing for you are capable of withstanding 180 pounds per square inch, and I think you are definitely on the right track.
Q. We are glad to hear this. I would like to get additional details in the civil defense field, and I would like if possible for Minister of Interior Schroeder to come over in June for this.
A. He would be quite welcome.
Q. Good, then Ambassador Krekeler will be in touch with you as to details of the visit. One more question at this time—do you have authority to tell the States what to do or is FCDA’s capacity purely advisory?
A. In wartime, I would have virtually unlimited power as the President’s representative in this field. In peacetime, however, FCDA has very limited powers. This is one of the major difficulties we face.
I might say that the best civil defense work in the free world is being carried out in Norway and Sweden. They have teeth in their laws, they can draft people for civil defense, and most important, they are going underground, and really getting adequate shelters. There is no question in my mind that they are better prepared than any other country in the world to withstand an atomic attack.
Q. You are aware of Dr. Schweitzer’s statements on the danger of fallout. What do you think of this?
A. There is no question, of course, that radioactivity can be transferred (from grass to cow to milk to human beings, etc.). But to our best knowledge there is no threat to human life from atomic tests, and we do not feel that tests have contributed significantly to the total radioactivity in the world. If war comes and hundreds of bombs are dropped, that will of course be another question.
As far as tests are concerned, the sooner we quit testing the better, but as much as we abhor war, we cannot accept a dishonorable peace either, so that testing unfortunately remains necessary in view of what the other side is doing.
The Chancellor had no particular comment on this, but asked if, when Mr. Peterson referred to a real threat from fallout, he meant fallout occasioned by large-scale use of bombs in war. Mr. Peterson confirmed this, and the Chancellor observed that radioactive clouds would endanger all countries, whether or not they were involved directly in a war.
This concluded the conversation, which lasted about 40 minutes.
- Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 888. Confidential. Drafted by Scott George.↩