Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XL, Germany and Berlin, 1969–1972

116. Telegram From the Embassy in Germany to the Department of State¹

Bonn, September 11, 1970, 1526Z.

10460. Subj: Barzel on US Trip and Present Situation in FRG.

1. In conversation with EmbOff² Sept 9, CDU faction leader Rainer Barzel said he was extremely pleased with his recent visit to US. Particularly with the openness and frankness of his exchange with Secretary Rogers and the President.³ He expressed his warmest gratitude to those who had made the arrangements for trip. Barzel said he believed his tour to US, France and UK had had a constructive outcome in drawing attention to need to take energetic steps in Western European integration to counterbalance potential negative effects of German Eastern policy, which he continued to believe might have a basically disorienting effect on German public, loosening its allegiance to West and placing it in an undesirable intermediary role between East and West. Barzel also believed his visits to Britain and France might have had constructive impact with regard to measures needed to retain US forces in Europe and to a common position on Berlin.

2. With regard to the situation within CDU, Barzel said his more moderate position on FRG-Soviet treaty and his offer to collaborate with Brandt in working out a common position on Berlin had been unanimously approved by party executive board in its Sept 8 meeting.⁴ On his own initiative Kiesinger had stated his agreement with the position taken by Barzel. It is true that Franz Josef Strauss had not been heard from and that he would probably continue his all-out opposition to the FRG-Soviet treaty and to FRG Eastern policy. Strauss would probably conduct the Bavarian state election campaign on this basis and, if election results were good, would claim the election as a plebiscite in favor of his hard-line position on Eastern policy. Nonetheless, Barzel insisted that he had made his final choice in favor of conciliatory posture of safeguarding German national interests and that he would not be brought away from it by Strauss’ opposition. Barzel said he felt the CDU’s executive board decision to continue Kiesinger as party chairman until the party convention in October 1971 had been the only realistic thing to do. There had been too much atmosphere of political assassination and regrade within the party and if determined effort had been made to drop Kiesinger in order to satisfy those elements in party and CDU electorate who wanted changed party leadership, the party would have lost [garble—just?] as much as it would gain criticism, from other CDU supporters, about callous treatment of past CDU party chairmen.

3. Barzel described his meeting with Chancellor Brandt, from which he had just returned. Brandt had been extremely anxious to get in touch with him from the very moment of his return from his trip to US. In that morning’s meeting, Barzel said he told Brandt that latter would have to take determined action to accelerate Western European integration and to bolster the NATO Alliance in order to counter the negative, disorienting effects of the treaty with the Soviets. Brandt had agreed that such action would be necessary and should include actions to maintain presence of American forces in Europe at their present level. The conversation had turned to Berlin. Brandt said he agreed with the points Barzel had made in his press conference the previous day in the States on Berlin settlement. (Barzel’s points: the Soviets should recognize “realities” of existing agreements between Western powers and FRG regarding latter’s relationship to West sectors; FRG financial aid to Berlin, Federal presence in Berlin, and the fact that the FRG represents Berlin abroad; these political, legal, financial, economic and cultural links must be retained; access be unimpeded and travel possibility for Berliners must be improved and relieved of discrimination; Berlin must not become a third German state.) Barzel asked Brandt to read once more the text of Barzel’s press statement, which he had available. Brandt did so on the spot and said once more he agreed fully with Barzel’s views. Brandt and Barzel agreed to meet next Wednesday⁵ for detailed discussion of German negotiating aims on Berlin in an effort to work out a common position.

4. Barzel said that Brandt’s policy was clearly to clutch the CDU to his bosom and thus to immobilize it in its efforts to bring down his government. But the CDU was not going to relinquish this possibility. Barzel said he was convinced that somewhere in the verbatim records of German discussions with Soviets in Moscow there was a German commitment making permanent the engagements FRG had undertaken in the text of FRG-Soviet treaty on renunciation of force, and thus making this treaty equivalent to a peace treaty. If he found evidence of this, he would use it to bring the Brandt government down. Continuing economic difficulties in Federal Republic and continuing attrition of the FDP party organization throughout country would provide a basis for splitting off FDP deputies in this event.

6. Comment: Barzel seems to have concluded that he could not have displaced Kiesinger as party chairman at this time even if the CDU made a successful all-out effort to bring down the SPD government over issue of FRG-Soviet treaty. He has also expressed some uncertainty about the possible negative reaction to such a CDU action of German public opinion, governmental and public opinion in Allied countries, as well as Soviets and Eastern Europe, and about CDU capabilities to split off a sufficient number of FDP Bundestag deputies. Consequently, Barzel has thrown his influence on the side of a more moderate CDU policy towards SPD, abstaining from outright effort to bring down the SPD/FDP government at this time. He may have reached an understanding with Kiesinger to back the latter’s continuation as party chairman in return for moderation of Kiesinger’s opposition to the SPD’s Eastern policy. It is not clear whether Barzel genuinely believes that verbatim records of FRG-Soviet discussions in Moscow actually contain the evidence he claims may exist of a secret FRG-Soviet understanding making conclusive the terms of the FRG-Soviet treaty or whether he is using this theory, which he has widely disseminated among his CDU colleagues, as a device to control and channelize the desire of the CDU rightwing to bring down Brandt government over the issue of FRG-Soviet treaty. Barzel has now come full circle back to his position at the outset of Brandt government in favor of a bipartisan foreign policy, a position he insists he will maintain in face of all internal party opposition, although there is some uncertainty as to whether he will not once again leave this position if Strauss again opens up a major attack.

Rush

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 7 GER W. Secret; Limdis. Repeated to Berlin.
2. The officer was Jonathan Dean. In a September 11 letter to Sutterlin, Dean gave the following account: “Barzel said that the President had indicated some distaste for the SPD’s Eastern policy, but went on to tell Barzel that he felt that he had to take a responsible attitude in this matter. From the point of view of political responsibility, one could not lightly make trouble in American relations with a major ally. Personally, he found Barzel’s conception of Eastern policy more attractive than the SPD version. But, he said, he would only intervene if it became unmistakably clear that it was leading towards a catastrophic development whose prevention was absolutely necessary in terms of American national interests; in this case, the intervention would be decisive.” (Ibid., EUR/CE Files: Lot 85 D 330, Chrons (1969), Letters (Outgoing))
3. See footnote 7, Document 115.
4. A separate report on the meeting of the CDU executive board is in telegram 10358 from Bonn, September 9. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 7 GER W)
5. In a September 16 conversation with Dean, Barzel reported on his “long and useful talk with Brandt on Berlin.” Barzel told Dean that “he thought there were definite prospects for a common CDU–SPD position on the Berlin talks.” (Telegram 10712, September 16; ibid.)