110.12/3–3051
Memorandum by the Director of International Security Affairs (Cabot) to the Secretary of State
Subject: Report on Trip to London and Paris by Under Secretary Webb and Mr. Cabot, March 19 to 26, 1951.1
A visit of three days in London and two in Paris is insufficient to justify a general report on NATO progress, but we would like to record a few impressions.
On the whole, the advance toward a proper military posture for the defense of Western Europe has been good. The greatest need is for psychological stimulus. Europe lacks confidence and a sense of urgency. Progress is being made but European political leaders are reluctant to face unpleasant decisions and tend to follow rather than lead public opinion in levying for their country’s defense.
Europe’s lower living standards make it unfair to expect burdensharing comparable to our own. From the following tables, showing defense expenditure as percentage of gross national product, it is apparent which countries are the laggards.
[Page 104]|
1949 Percent |
1950 Percent |
1951 Percent |
|
| Belgium | 2.7 | 3.0 | 4.3 |
| Canada | 2.7 | 4.0 | 8.8 |
| Denmark | 1.8 | 1.8 | 3.0 |
| France | 5.7 | 7.3 | 9.7 |
| Italy | 3.9 | 5.1 | 5.7 |
| Luxembourg | 1.2 | 2.3 | 3.3 |
| Netherlands | 4.1 | 4.9 | 5.1 |
| 7.6* | |||
| Norway | 2.9 | 3.5 | 5.0 |
| Portugal | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| United Kingdom | 5.9 | 6.2 | 8.7 |
| United States | 5.1 | 7.9 | 15.0 |
The improvement in periods of compulsory military training are on the whole more satisfactory. Belgium has extended national service from 12 months to 18 months for the class of 1950 and has a bill pending to increase service to 24 months. Denmark’s period is 12 months which must be raised to meet announced plans. France has 18 months of national service with exemptions limited to real physical disability. Italy has raised from 12 to 15 months with a legal service of 18 months now authorized. The Dutch national service period of 12 months can be extended to 18 under present law, which Dutch authorities have now announced they intend to do. Service in Norway has been raised from 9 to 12 months and cannot be raised further at this time on account of lack of officers. The United Kingdom has recently increased its service from 18 to 24 months.
Although the proposed forces are deficient for the Medium Term Defense Plan, confidence is increasing that present proposals can be met and that the deficiency in units will be easier to meet as additional arms become available.
The greatest advance in the past six months has undoubtedly been in organization, particularly in supplementing the complicated committee structure with a command structure both in the military and in the production field. The appointment of General Eisenhower and the building up of his staff in SHAPE have had a profound effect in encouraging Europe and are no doubt doing a great deal to accelerate the accomplishment of the plan. Mr. Herod, who has been in Europe only three weeks, has made great progress in building his permanent working staff of the Defense Production Board.
Partly because we have been late in arriving at a proper organization, defense production has lagged in Europe and is still less than satisfactory. The AMP plan of aiding specific production programs by granting the estimated component of the total cost represented by materials and equipment obtainable only in dollar areas has proved [Page 105] too complicated to be much of a stimulus. At best the task of augmenting the manufacture in Europe of military end-items will be a difficult one. We have only disincentives to offer. The incentive is for our allies to delay their production programs in hope that the items covered by these programs will be furnished without cost under our MDAP. Our avowed purpose of furnishing under MDAP only end-items which cannot be produced in Europe will be difficult to enforce without endangering the whole Medium Term Defense Plan.
Coordinating our end-item assistance with our European production program will take great effort. We now have careful plans for coordination at the country level, the regional level and the Washington level and have the will to make it work. Success will depend on complete cooperation with Defense and ECA. Visiting back and forth between the staffs in London, Paris and Washington should also help.
-
In telegram Todep 304, March 16, not printed, Webb informed Spofford and Gifford that he and Cabot felt the need for discussions with them and their staffs including Batt and Herod and with Generals Handy and Kibler. Webb said that they, accompanied by W. J. Sheppard, planned to arrive on the morning of March 20. The purpose of their visit, he said, was to get better informed on NATO and the MDAP and what the U.S. overseas elements felt were the major problems on which Washington could be helpful. (740.5/3–1651)
In telegram 4849 to Paris, March 16, not printed, Webb called attention to the copy of telegram Todep 304 repeated to Paris and informed Bruce and MacArthur that he, Cabot, and Sheppard would arrive in Paris at noon, March 23, and depart for New York and Washington on Sunday evening, March 25. Webb said he hoped to converse with Bohlen, Bonsal, and Katz (740.5/3–1651). In addition to discussion with those mentioned above, Webb, accompanied usually by Cabot, talked with Morrison, Gaitskell, and Makins in informal meetings at London (740.5/3–3051) and with General Eisenhower (740.5/3–3151), Petsche, and Parodi (740.5/3–2151) in Paris. There may have been others.
On March 28 Webb and Cabot made an oral report to President Truman on their trip to Europe during which they summarized the contents of the source text. The President authorized them to tell the press about their visit and the attitude of the American officials in Europe. (Secretary’s memoranda, lot 53 D 444, Secretary’s memos, January–March 1951)
↩ - Includes additional defense expenditure that Dutch Government has announced will be its new program for the year. [Footnote in the source text.]↩