662.001/8–2952: Telegram

No. 129
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom1

secret priority

1470. Fol is Dept’s draft proposed reply to Sov note on Ger.2 for discussion in the various capitals and for London’s guidance when coordinating talks begin:

  • “1. On July 10, the US Govt proposed to the Sov Govt that there be a four-power mtg to seek agreement on the composition and functions of a Comm to investigate whether the conditions necessary for free elections exist in all four zones of Ger and in Berlin.3 The US note pointed out the obvious fact that if any progress is to be made towards sealing the breach now steadily being widened betw the Sov Zone of Ger and the greater part of the country which is under the jurisdiction of the Fed Rep, the first question to be settled is how free elections can be held throughout the country. It was further made clear in the note of July 10 that if this first step cld be undertaken seriously and successfully, future mtgs cld turn to the problems of forming an all-Ger Govt, determining its status, and finally to the terms of a peace treaty to be negotiated with that all-Ger Govt. The US Govt had hoped that in spite of earlier refusals by the Sov Govt to join in practical steps to bring about unity in Ger, the concrete and moderate proposals of July 10 wld induce a more cooperative spirit.
  • “2. It is with renewed disappointment therefore that the US Govt has noted the Sov Govt’s negative reply of Aug 23. Instead of joining the Western powers in an effort to get at the key-log in the jam on Ger unification—i.e. the problem of elections, for which there must first be suitable conditions created, if a free and democratic all-Ger Govt is to result—the Sov Govt offers only a renewal of its earlier insistence on talking first about a Ger peace treaty. Having discussed this point, the Sov Govt wld talk about formation of an all-Ger Govt and finally, apparently as a matter of quite secondary importance, wld talk also about elections and a Comm to investigate the existence of suitable conditions for elections.
  • “3. With respect to the gen statements of the Sov Govt on the Ger problem in this, as in previous Sov communications, the US [Page 306] Govt observes that these statements are drawn up in large part in terms inadequate to serve as a basis for profitable discussion of the gen aspects of the subj in question.
  • “4. The Sov Govt, for example, refers to the Atlantic Pact as an instrument which pursues aggressive aims, and proceeds to discuss the question of the right of a future Ger Govt to assoc itself with other nations for peaceful purposes in the light of this interpretation of the aims of the Atlantic Pact. This represents a unilateral, arbitrary assertion of the Sov Govt, to which neither the US Govt nor any other member of that pact wld be able to agree and which is, therefore, unacceptable as a basis of discussion.
  • “5. Similarly, the Sov Govt refers to the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement calling for the restoration of Germany as a ‘united, independent, peace-loving, democratic state.’ The US Govt has learned from the experiences of recent years that these words have meanings for the Sov Govt entirely diff from those with which they have been traditionally associated in either the Russian or Eng (Fr) languages. It notes that Sov statesmen reserve the use of the word democratic exclusively for those societies in which monopolistic or dominant political power is exercised by elements recognizing the polit auth of the Commie Party of the Sov Union. The term independent appears to have a similar connotation, and is used most frequently in Sov terminology to denote states having the outward trappings of sovereignty but which are actually in a state of marked subordination to Sov Commie influence. The term peace-loving, as used in Sov official statements and materials, appears to denote anything which promotes the polit aspirations of Commie Parties recognizing the auth of the Commie Party of the Sov Union; and by the same token it appears that anything which implies resistance to the aspirations of such Commie Parties is portrayed as evidence of war-like and aggressive intent. The Sov Govt by these distortions of the meaning of terms pretends that there has occurred some measure of reconciliation of the points of view of the Govt of the US, the UK and Fr and of the Sov Govt. The US Govt fails to see wherein the previous differences have been bridged in reality.
  • “6. The US Govt accordingly feels that in existing circumstances discussion had best be confined to the practical steps which each of the parties is prepared to take with a view to overcoming the division of Germany and restoration of that country to normal peacetime status. In its latest note as in the first note, the Sov Govt continues to put the cart before the horse. It continues to relegate to the background the simple and practical question of agreeing on a Comm to see whether free elections can actually be held in all of Ger. Until this is done and suitable conditions exist, elections [Page 307] cannot be held. Until elections are held, no all-Ger Govt can be formed nor can the country be unified. And until an all-Ger Govt is formed and given a suitable status of freedom, it is useless to discuss the terms of a Ger peace treaty. The US Govt for its part wishes to see est for all of Ger an all-Ger Govt which will faithfully reflect the actual electoral strength of all important polit elements in Ger willing to accept the obligations of loyalty and restraint implicit in the operation of a genuine parliamentary system. The Govt of the US is compelled to remind the Sov Govt that conditions have radically altered since 1945 and that the idea of a peace treaty drawn up by the four powers and imposed by them on Germany is entirely unsuitable as procedure in 1952, given the enormous strides made in the Fed Rep towards independent and democratic Govt, a progress we wld expect to go even further in a unified Ger. The Sov Govt must recall that the Potsdam Agrmt stated by its own terms that its polit and econ principles were designed to govern the initial control period only. Nor is the situation aided by the Sov Govt’s sug that reps of the Ger regime in the Sov Zone take part in a four-power mtg for ‘the examination of approp questions.’ Until free elections are held which include that area there will be, unfortunately, no Ger Auth properly qualified to speak for the population of the Sov Zone on such matters as a peace treaty.
  • “7. Furthermore, since the Sov Govt rejects as ‘an insult to the Ger nation’ all suggs of an impartial internatl Comm to investigate existing conditions in Ger for their bearing on the holding of free elections, the diff in points of view on this problem do not appear to be growing less. While repeatedly expressing willingness to consider any practical proposal for attaining the desired results, the US Govt has continued to insist that what is needed is a Comm whose members stand apart from the various contentions about conditions, whose members are free from influence by the Occ Powers and who are therefore able to make a useful report. It is no insult to the Ger nation to insist that the best way in which true conditions in the Sov Zone can be exposed and corrected lies through the creation of an uncontrolled outside body. The freely-elected reps of fifty million of the Ger people have themselves declared on Sep 27, 1951 by a unanimous vote of all the non-Commie parties that no fruitful results could come from an attempt to work with the reps of Communism who have imposed their will on the other 17 million Gers.4 It was thus the Ger people themselves who [Page 308] then proposed the creation of a neutral internatl Comm under UN supervision.
  • “8. The US Govt must insist again on the necess of starting four-power discussions at the only point from which they can logically start, which is the formation of a Comm so that elections can be organized. The need for such a Comm is reinforced more strikingly day by day. The Ger people and the world want to know the truth about alleged conditions of freedom in an area from which kidnappers can issue forth and to which kidnapped persons can be taken and held for weeks, months and years without trial or sign of life. Recent events strengthen this demand. The Ger people and the world want to know the truth about alleged conditions of freedom in an area where farmers and villagers are dispossessed overnight without recourse, in the name of security against non-existent ‘spies, diversionists, terrorists, etc.’ The people of Ger and the world are not convinced by the information conveyed by a steady stream of thousands of refugees fleeing every month from the Sov Zone that suitable conditions exist there for the holding of free elections. The necess for an impartial Comm is abundantly clear from the ‘elections’ staged in the Sov Zone in the autumn of 1950, which the Ger people know to have been anything but free and democratic. The world has noted the decision taken at the Jul conference of the Commie Socialist Unity Party that the Sov Zone shld press forward on the road to Communism, thus alienating the Sov Zone still further from the major part of Germany and clearly pushing aside the attainment of a unified democratic Ger. It is precisely because developments in the Sov Zone have not proceeded in the manner envisaged by the Potsdam Agrmt that the proposals of the Sov Govt are now unrealistic.
  • “9. Under all these circumstances, the US Govt cannot feel that any progress has been made in the six notes which have previously been exchanged. It is anxious, however, to avail itself of any opportunity, however slight, to find a way of ending the division of Ger, now so arbitrarily maintained. This division exists as a festering sore in Eur. It will not be healed by discussions about a hypothetical peace treaty with a country yet lacking all semblance of a unified Govt. It will only be healed by energetically tackling the problem of unifying the country through free elections.
  • “10. The US Govt therefore renews the proposal made in its note of Jul 10 for a four-power mtg to discuss the formation and functions of an impartial Comm of investigation in order to prepare the way for a subsequent discussion of the program for the formation of an all-Ger Govt. It most earnestly urges the Sov Govt to reconsider [Page 309] its refusal to join the other Powers in a single-minded effort to come to grips with the problem of holding free elections in Ger.”

Bruce
  1. Drafted by Laukhuff and cleared with Bonbright, Riddleberger, EE, and S/A. Also sent to Paris and Bonn and repeated to Moscow and Berlin.
  2. Document 125.
  3. For the U.S. note of July 10, see Document 124.
  4. For the statement of governmental policy on German unity approved by the Bundestag on Sept. 27, 1951, see Documents on German Unity, vol. i, pp. 209–210, or Papers and Documents, pp. 41–44.