762A.00/12–2850: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfort
secret
Washington, December
28, 1950—7 p. m.
4585. For McCloy.
- 1.
- Believe it essential we press ahead with development US positions for negots both in HICOM and ISG re Ger defense forces and contractual arrangements. Pending receipt your views as to general outline of plan for putting relations on contractual basis, we propose to explore further main lines of suggs in DepTel 4222 Dec. 12, in light of Brussels discussions.
- 2.
- Assume Gers will stall pending clarification of situation re possible 4-Power talks. They will doubtless be willing to explore probem but not to approach any binding agreements. Negots will therefore tend to be indecisive and protracted with Sovs in position adversely to influence Gers propagandawise towards delay. Believe we must bend every effort to achieve results earliest without regard to possibility or existence talks with Sovs. Brit Emb here states Brit Govt puts great emphasis on this point.
- 3.
- Study urtel Bonn 414 Dec 22 indicates Adenauer still speaking to HICOM in terms of rather limited objectives. Thus he apparently spoke of “equality” only with reference to mil contingents and not politically. Attitude also carried some flavor of willingness to undertake defense commitments on basis Allied promises rather than Allied performance. Our impression strongly remains that Ger opinion now [Page 818] such that promises no longer sufficient and that Ger participation will be obtained only as part of package including detailed agreements and specific timing for achieving substantial Ger pol as well as mil equality. Wld seem, if you agree this analysis, we must guard against being lulled into too limited planning by Adenauer’s moderateness and by Fr reluctance to go far enough, which we will undoubtedly encounter.
- 4.
- How work is to be divided between HICOM and ISG remains unclear and hampers planning for latter’s Jan mtgs. Realize this question depends somewhat on course of conversations with Gers but believe attempt to determine certain categories of subjects which ISG cld work on wld be helpful. Two suggs come to mind here which may help you. First, HICOM might concentrate on more clearly internal matters re winding up occupation and future relations with Ger while ISG takes up questions involving general Ger external relations (such as status of treaties, membership in int’l organizations). Second, HICOM might work out agreements to be made between Occ Powers and Ger, while ISG handles wide multi-lateral agreements possibly including some of necessary arrangements with NATO (This sugg stems from subject divisions outlined ourtel 4222). HICOG cld work on necessary bi-lateral agreements.
- 5.
- We understand ISG can proceed without further instructions to consider necessary ways and means of bringing other countries into negots and agreements.
Acheson