Khrushchev announced on November 10⁸² that the Soviet Union would hand over to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) those functions relating to Berlin which are still exercised by the Soviet Union. He said the three Western powers henceforth must deal with the GDR on Berlin questions.

2. Khrushchev declared that the time had come to reject that part of the Potsdam Agreement which concerned Berlin. Actually, the four-power occupation of Berlin rests on somewhat informal agreements reached by the commanders-in-chief of the victorious forces after the capitulation of Germany in 1945. In recent years the Western powers have based their claims to access to West Berlin more on established practices than on the uncertain basis of the 1945 understandings. The cessation of the Blockade in 1949 confirmed these arrangements, but did not impart any precision to them.

3. Several motives may lie behind the Soviet action. The most important seems to be the desire to bolster the status and prestige of the East German puppet régime and indirectly to strengthen the solidarity of the Soviet Bloc. Other probable motives are to strengthen the Communist campaign against equipping the West German defence forces with nuclear weapons, to bring about four-power talks on a German Peace Treaty (without discussion on reunification), and to cause discord within the NATO alliance. Khrushchev may also have in mind the possibility of using this means to lead up to a Summit Meeting on Germany.

4. The Western powers have always made it clear through their pronouncements and actions that they would resist any attack or pressure on Berlin and that they fully intend to keep the Western garrisons in the city. In 1954 the NATO Council formally welcomed the declaration of the UK, USA and French Governments that they will treat any attack against Berlin ... as an attack upon their forces and themselves. (Canada associated itself with this statement. The Canadian Government has often given public support to the maintenance of a free West Berlin, and partly to give evidence of this keeps a small mission in the city.) The Western powers are also prepared for pressure short of an attack, such as renewal of the Blockade imposed in 1948. They have built up food reserves in West Berlin adequate for about a year and if the need arose would have aircraft available to sustain an air lift to fulfil the needs of the 2,200,000 citizens of the Western half of the city.

5. The consensus is, however, that for the foreseeable future, the Soviet Union will not employ military force, or impose a full Blockade. The announcement last week of a trade agreement between the two Germanies tends to confirm this. There is also general agreement in Western capitals that the probable first step will be for the USSR to test Western reactions by the substitution of GDR officials for Russians at the military check points on the rail and road routes into Berlin and in the four-power air safety centre. The USA, UK, France and West Germany are seeking to co-ordinate their views, but there is still a sharp divergence of opinion on how best to meet this expected move. The possible courses of action for the Western powers are:
   
   

   1. To ignore the GDR guards and to use force if necessary to maintain Western rights on the autobahn and rails;

   2. To stop using road and rail and to institute an air lift to maintain the Western garrison of 10,000;

   3. To accept, under protest, the transfer of control functions to GDR officials, provided there is no increase in the degree of control exercised.

6. The UK is inclined to support the third course; in dealing with East German officials it would state that it regards them merely as agents of the USSR. This would still confer a degree of de facto recognition on the GDR. However, this might not be entirely disadvantageous since, as in Korea, it could be useful, should serious trouble develop, to be able to distinguish between the forces of the USSR and those of its satellites. In addition, practical Western counter-measures could thus be reserved to meet Soviet steps which constituted a more direct threat to the presence of the Western troops in Berlin.

7. According to telegrams received this morning, the three Western powers are discussing the advisability of sending a note to the Soviet Union for the purpose of reminding the Soviet leaders of their various legal commitments with respect to the city. This note which would express the expectation of the Western powers that the Soviet Union would live up to these obligations, would be presented without waiting for the formal communication from the Russians that is anticipated and thus would, to some extent, take the initiative from them.

8. Chancellor Adenauer and most United States officials apparently oppose the slightest concession and consider that the United Kingdom approach would mean embarking on the slippery slope towards abandonment of the Western position in Berlin. The State Department has told our Embassy that the United States is contemplating the possibility of sending a truck convoy through to Berlin under armed guard as a sign of firmness.

N.A. R[OBERTSON]

⁸² Voir/See United States, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Documents on Germany, 1944-1961, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961, pp.339-343.

⁸³ Note marginale:/Marginal note:
Noted 26/11/58. E.D. Fulton] Your telegram S-523 of November 26 to Washington, Ldn, Bonn, Paris, NATO & Embassy, was approved by Mr.Fulton & authorized by the U/SSEA Nov 26/58. Sent. auteur inconnu/author unknown