Office of the Historian

179. Memorandum of Conversation1

Washington, June 25, 1966.

SUBJECT

  • Troop Reductions

PARTICIPANTS

  • Ambassador Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, USSR
  • Llewellyn E. Thompson, Ambassador-at-Large, Department of State

In a conversation with the Ambassador today, I referred to the press reports about possible Soviet troop reductions. Dobrynin said he had nothing official on this but indicated that a reduction was quite possible. He asked if I thought that we would be interested in any reduction by way of mutual example. I pointed out that the question of whether or not the French troops would remain in Germany was still open and there might be a considerable reduction there if the French and Germans did not succeed in working out arrangements for them to stay.

Dobrynin indicated his view, which he said was based on informal talks with the French and other reports, that it was almost certain that a way would be found for the French troops to remain. I said I also had no specific information, but I did not think that it was at all certain.

The Ambassador asked if I thought a troop reduction on our part in Germany would cause much of a political stir here. I replied that as on [Page 420] most matters, there would always be some division of opinion, but I did not think that this was the kind of thing that would stir up much public interest here. On the other hand, with all the problems that NATO now had, it did not seem to me a very good time for us to be thinking about such a matter. He said he could understand this. On the other hand, I said that my personal view was that the Soviets did not need twenty divisions in East Germany. I said that one problem, of course, was that our troops would have to come all the way across the Atlantic, whereas theirs did not have so far to go.

Dobrynin said the Soviets had raised this subject many times and indicated that he thought his Government would be quite prepared to carry out reductions on the basis of mutual example. He indicated that in his view a mutual reduction need not necessarily be on a one-for-one basis.

  1. Source: Department of State, S/S–I Files: Lot 79 D 246. Secret; Limdis. Drafted by Thompson and approved in S/AL and S/S on June 25.↩