37. Editorial Note
On October 20, 1969, President Nixon and Assistant to the President Kissinger met Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin in the Oval Office to discuss several issues, including proposals to negotiate a settlement on Berlin. In a memorandum to the President, October 18, Kissinger concluded that Dobrynin, who had requested the meeting ostensibly to deliver an “affirmative message” on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, “obviously has something more basic to convey, since protocol would have called for him to give the response to Secretary Rogers with whom Dobrynin had conducted the earlier conversations on this matter.” In reviewing specific points Dobrynin might raise, Kissinger briefed the President on Berlin:
“In your letter to Kosygin last April you suggested talks, if they could improve the situation in West Berlin. Kosygin replied in June to agree to talks but without any suggestion of readiness to deal with the issues. You decided not to pursue the matter further, at least until after the FRG election. Subsequently, the US, UK and France, with German approval, proposed four-power talks and also suggested that the FRG could talk with the GDR. The Soviets agreed to four-power talks in September, but again with no indication of flexibility on substance. Gromyko, when he was here, tried to probe whether we preferred bilateral or four-power talks. If Dobrynin raises the matter, you should tell him that we are flexible on procedure but our only interest in any talks is to see whether the situation in Berlin can be improved so that periodic crises will not occur. (On balance, I believe we should not pursue this bilaterally, except perhaps in close touch with the allies. The French especially are extremely skeptical about any prospects for success and they are undoubtedly correct. If we do too much bilaterally, we will merely arouse allied suspicions and encourage Brandt, who needs little, to strike out on his own.)”
Kissinger also addressed the recent advent of German Chancellor Willy Brandt. “If Dobrynin raises Germany, and especially if he warns about the danger of fascism and revanchism,” he advised Nixon, “you should tell him that with Brandt in power the Soviets have an historical opportunity for a genuine and equitable improvement of relations with the FRG. History will judge them harshly if they abuse this opportunity.” (National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 489, President’s Trip Files, Dobrynin/Kissinger, 1969 [Part 1])
According to the memorandum of conversation, the meeting began at 3:30 p.m. with a discussion of a Soviet proposal to announce that the SALT talks would begin in Helsinki on November 17. Noting that Soviet President Podgorny valued direct communication, Dobrynin then read an aide-mémoire on the “present state” of Soviet-American relations, expressing dissatisfaction with such “concrete [Page 107] questions” as the Middle East, Vietnam, and China. The aide-mémoire first addressed the issue of European security:
“It is known, for example, that the Soviet Government has expressed readiness to follow the path that would facilitate doing away with the existing military blocs and groupings which, without doubt, would make a most positive impact on the world situation. Unfortunately, one has to conclude that those statements have not met a positive response from the US Government. On the contrary, it is noted in Moscow that the activity of NATO is now on the increase.
“Or take, for instance, the question of drawing a line through the vestiges of the Second World War in Europe and fixating the situation that has developed there. We on our part have always expressed readiness and proposed concrete ways for a just settlement of the questions involved, with due regard to the existing realities. The American side, however, acts contrary to the obligations assumed by the United States under the Allied agreements. Why could not the US, together with the USSR as great powers and allies in the past war, make necessary efforts at last in that important field?
“The Soviet side stands prepared now to start an exchange of views with the US also on the question of West Berlin. Such an exchange of views, in our opinion, can be useful if both sides are guided by the aim of contributing to a relaxation of tension in Europe and of preventing in the future frictions and complications dangerous for the maintenance of peace and stability in Europe.” (Ibid.)
After listening to this “candid” presentation, the President expressed his own disappointment, in particular, with the apparent Soviet refusal to help end the war in Vietnam. As for European security and Berlin, Nixon said that these matters could be “dealt with later at a very high level, if we can make a breakthrough somewhere.” But when Dobrynin asked how the two sides might achieve a breakthrough, Nixon ignored the question and changed the subject. (Ibid.)
In an October 21 memorandum to the President, Kissinger assessed the outcome of the meeting. “I suspect Dobrynin’s basic mission was to test the seriousness of the threat element in our current posture,” he wrote, “and to throw out enough inducements (SALT, Berlin, direct informal contact with you) to make it politically and psychologically difficult for you to play it rough over Vietnam.” Kissinger also repeated, in somewhat stronger terms, his previous advice on the proposed Berlin negotiations:
“The Soviets again agree to talks with us but give no indication whatever that these might lead to the improvements we seek. As you know, there has also recently been an offer by ourselves, the British and French, with FRG support, to talk to the Soviets. They agreed in much the same vague terms used in Dobrynin’s text. I think we should not encourage the notion of bilateral US-Soviet talks on Berlin at this stage. [Page 108] The Soviets would use them to stir up suspicions among the Allies and to play us off against each other. I believe we would do best to keep this issue in the quadripartite forum for the moment and not to press too much ourselves. Since there may be a misunderstanding of our position in Moscow (you first raised the possibility of talks in your Berlin speech and then in your letter to Kosygin last March), we should probably tell the Soviets that we are not now interested in bilateral talks.” (Ibid.)
For the participants’ memoir accounts of the meeting, see Nixon, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, pages 405–407; Kissinger, White House Years, pages 145–146, 305, 408; and Dobrynin, In Confidence, page 202.