[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
connected with NATO. The present position already Grotewohl: From a general estimation, I agree with
weakens NATO, but signing a peace treaty with Germany, what has been said here. I just have one reservation. It
this would mean normalizing the situation in Europe. But seems to me that the comparison with Japan appears a bit
then how could the Americans keep Denmark, formal. Signing a peace treaty with Germany and with
Luxembourg [and] Greece in NATO? Japan are two different things. Japan was a single state at
And even the seemingly strong tie of de Gaulle with the moment of the signing of the treaty, but Germany is
Adenauer this is a relative understanding. In France the divided. If we sign a peace treaty, the good conditions will
issue of the removal of American bombers from their be complicated. However, in the West, they will try to
country was raised. present the signing of a peace treaty with the GDR as the
Now a few more words on the peace treaty. When the deepening of the division of the country. If there is a peace
Western powers want to sign any sort of treaty, they don t treaty signed with the GDR, this would mean that there
think about anything. This was how it was, for example, would be written into it something about the acceleration
with the conclusion of the treaty with Japan [which the of militarism in the GDR, whereas the problem lies in the
U.S. signed with Japan in 1951 and didn t include the acceleration of militarism in West Germany. Since at the
Soviets]. And they weren t blamed by us for the signing of current time we can t count on the conclusion of a peace
separate peace treaty. Therefore, in order to unmask them, treaty with Germany or with two German states, then,
we must write directly in the communiqué: we will obviously, this national problem stopping the arming of
achieve the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. (p. 7) West Germany must be resolved now by other
But if the reactionary forces will hinder this, then we agree means, by the fulfillment of the resolutions of the 5th
to conclude a peace treaty with two German states. And if Congress. We cannot separate these issues.
the Western powers don t want this, then we will conclude What we need to study now, what we need to resolve
a peace treaty with the GDR. is to determine our relations to the occupying powers and
In concluding a peace treaty with 2 German states or to the occupying authorities. The Western powers
with the GDR, all agreements on the occupation will cease currently are formulating their entire policy on the
their operation. There is no point in discussing West Berlin principle that they are allegedly defending freedom and
separately from the issue of the peace treaty, since this Western culture. They declare that for the defense of this
doesn t have equivalent value. These aren t two questions freedom they must maintain the occupation of West
but one question. Berlin is an issue derived from the Berlin. This explains the fact that they are fighting
problem of a peace treaty. But we must clearly speak in persistently for their formulation of preserving their rights
the communiqué about the status of the free city of West of occupation.
Berlin[;] otherwise we will be accused of agreeing to Thus N.S. Khrushchev s proposal not to give a
swallow up West Berlin. Clearly we must also speak about concrete time period in the communiqué is correct. This
guarantees. will make our position more flexible. Proceeding from
Ulbricht: We agree. this, we must find such a formulation in the communiqué
We also heard that [U.S. Secretary of State Christian] which will present the liquidation of the occupation
Herter wants to exclude the German question and agree regime as a necessary process of development in order to
only on the cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons. He make that understandable to everyone.
is looking here for a path to a summit conference. As for The most decisive thing in all the negotiations is to
us, we think that without any reduction of tensions, we win time, and time can be won only through negotiations.
cannot move forward including on the German question. So, I agree with you.
Thus, if the Western powers want to talk about Ebert: I would like to speak about the issue of a
disarmament, it wouldn t be bad, because then we would peace treaty and about Berlin. I agree that a peace treaty
again come to the question of a peace treaty, but from the and Berlin are one issue. But for our activity in Berlin, it is
NEW EVIDENCE ON THE BERLIN CRISIS 1958-1962 215
important to emphasize that by preserving the current As is well-known, on that day everyone in the GDR
situation, we can find a way to normalize the situation in expected that something would happen. Therefore, it is
Berlin (pushing off from their concessions to bring about better not to decree a concrete date, but to preserve
the stopping of subversive activity, propaganda, etc.). freedom of movement for oneself. It will alleviate our
Their proposals on this are already a step towards the political work, although it may also seem that we are not
normalization of the situation. I must emphasize that consistent.
normalization is possible not only on technical issues Mikoian: I would like to respond to Comrade
(connections, transport, etc.) but also in political relations. Grotewohl regarding the analogy between the peace treaty
The normalization of life in the city is the basis of our with Germany and the peace treaty with Japan. Of course,
proposals on Berlin. Thus we must obtain such a there is a difference between a peace treaty with Germany
normalization more persistently and as soon as possible, and a peace treaty with Japan. But in this case, the issue is
since this will be understood by the whole population. different. The analogy with Japan helps us. The Western
Khrushchev: I think that the comments made by powers fought against Japan together with us and signed
Comrade Ebert are correct and they must be taken into an act on its capitulation. And we all should have signed a
account in preparing the communiqué. peace treaty with Japan together. But they themselves
Bach: We were very surprised that the last proposal violated that principle. It is a very serious argument in our
of the Soviet Union in Geneva10 was seen as an ultimatum hands against them.
by the Western powers. What Comrade Khrushchev said They think that so long as there isn t a peace treaty,
regarding the answer to Eisenhower is a question of all conditions connected with the capitulation are still
diplomatic tactics. We all agree with these tactics. active, and the occupation rights remain in force. When we
Comrade Khrushchev emphasized that even if we don t proposed concluding a peace treaty with Germany, it was
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]