267. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State 0

5465. Reference: Deptel 9217.1 Paris for Embassy, USRO and Thurston. Selwyn Lloyd was my week-end guest and high-flights into Berlin most prominent subject discussed. He began by expressing irritation that he had been accused of sowing discord between USG and HMG on this subject because his one abiding determination was to smooth over disagreements of this sort whenever they arose. Lloyd added that when in Washington he and Herter had agreed that high-flights could provoke Soviet reaction and should be conducted with discretion.2 Herter had told Lloyd that he had secured postponement of [Page 623] second high-flight and Lloyd had so told members of his Foreign Office staff. Lloyd stated further that Foreign Office press briefing on this subject (Embtel 5370)3 may have construed recurrence of high-flights as indicating disagreement between State Dept. and other elements of USG, or indeed journalists present may have invented the story out of whole-cloth.

Lloyd added, however, that in his opinion the unfortunate suggestion that HMG opposed American action over high-flights and believed State Dept. had been over-ruled by Pentagon on this matter had been planted in Washington rather than in London. Comment: Despite this statement, I judge from the protracted way in which Lloyd ruminated over this subject that he felt somewhat on defensive. End comment.

Lloyd stated that in replying to House of Commons questions he would state that USG and HMG were in full agreement that high-flights should be conducted with discretion. I suggested somewhat stronger wording indicating that the high-flights in fact had been conducted discreetly but elicited no specific comment. Since subject of high-flights is far down list of questions for reply during question period April 22, this topic may not be reached and may have faded somewhat from public mind on next occasion Foreign Secretary answers questions, April 27.4

Meanwhile partial change has occurred over week-end in treatment of high-flights by some newspapers and is not likely that this change is entirely spontaneous. For example, Daily Telegraph, after discussing high-flights with Embassy officers, stated April 17 that “it is possible …5 to put up good arguments (for and against high-flights). It seems highly doubtful, however, whether British well advised to press their view to point of making it serious issue between two countries. Impression this gives to world is one of Britain unwilling to take any risks in face of Soviet threats. This belief … carries far more dangers to Western unity than any incident likely to arise (from high-flights).”

Sunday Observer which had strongly criticized influence of Pentagon on US foreign policy decisions stated somewhat piously April 19th that “it is doubtful if section of British press has done much service to Western Alliance by showing such excessive alarm over American decision [Page 624] to fly occasional transport plane above 10,000 feet … over air corridor to Berlin.

BBC news broadcast and several newspapers gave heavy weekend coverage to State Department’s claim that British press showing “timidity.” Somewhat surprisingly this charge has provoked so far no angry editorial reaction except in Daily Mail. (For full press summary see Embtel 5460).6

Whitney
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 762B.5411/4–2059. Secret; Priority. Repeated to Bonn and Berlin.
  2. Telegram 9217, April 17, authorized Whitney to bring to Lloyd’s attention U.S. concern over British press treatment of the C–130 flight to Berlin. (Ibid., 762B.5411/4–1659)
  3. See Document 248.
  4. Telegram 5370, April 16, reported on an April 15 Foreign Office Press Department off-the-record backgrounder that reflected British nervousness about the high altitude flights to Berlin. (Department of State, Central Files, 762B.5411/4–1659)
  5. Lloyd answered written questions on the flights on April 20 and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs John Profumo answered oral questions on May 4. For texts of these replies, see 604 House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, cols. 6–7 and 605 ibid., cols. 23–24.
  6. All ellipses in the source text.
  7. Dated April 19. (Department of State, Central Files, 762B.5411/4–2059)