Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

740.5/12–1553: Telegram

The United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Meeting to the Department of State ¹

secret
priority

Paris, December 15, 1953—11 p.m.

Secto 5. Subject: NAC meeting December 15, a.m.—[Items] III and IV.²

Agenda item III—military progress of NATO.

1. Chairman military committee noted large number of changes in personnel holding high posts and singled out for praise General Ridgway and Admiral Lemonnier. He then called on Admiral Edelsten, CIC channel,³ who underlined importance defense channel area against enemy air attack, submarine raiding and mining. He pointed particularly to shortage in minesweepers, escorts and maritime aircraft, noted undefended state of channel ports and need for better radar, fighter cover and AA guns.

2. SACLANT pointed to progress in general planning and infrastructure program in his area. His two principal problems were (1) need for immediate steps to man headquarters fully to meet requirements simple alert, and (2) logistic support planning being held up due slow progress on developing bilateral agreements with individual nations. He furthermore noted general leveling off in defense expenditures due to politico-economic factors might have impact on future plans; if there were to be a long-range deficiency it might be necessary for SACLANT to re-plan for 1956 and later.

3. General Gruenther in his oral report considered progress made more than encouraging as reported by Ministers previous day actually “fantastic” considering difficulties faced. He noted SHAPE now examining forces to be available four years hence, plus impact new weapons, and asked council not to prejudge effect new weapons. He was giving this study first priority and it would go forward to standing group in several months, then to council. He pointed to 400-mile central European front and noted real need for German defense participation.

It would be premature to consider new weapons could even with German contribution fill this gap adequately. Two particular problems he cited were need for more effective reserves and adequate air forces. He reminded council of SACEUR’s role to defend all Europe if enemy attacks. Therefore deficiency in tactical air power may be even more crucial than in ground forces. Gruenther underlined importance of well-informed NATO public and usefulness of Parliamentary visits to NATO headquarters.

4. Council took note progress report, MC 5/8 final.⁴

5. Chairman Bidault called attention to CSGM–37–53⁵ on NATO standardization of small arms ammo and congratulated Belgians, Canadians, French, United Kingdom and United States on their agreement to adopt standard round of small arms ammo. Chairman invited any others to participate in this agreement as soon as possible and asked council to approve draft press release circulated as enclosure (b). US Secretary Defense made statement welcoming this decision on standardization. He noted progress to date in this field encouraging, although problems and limitations on standardization substantial and numerous. He added US considers benefits from increase of standardization activity in NATO in terms of costs, production and simplification of re-supply, dictate continued effort broaden areas of weapons standardization initiated.

Item IV.

Council noted estimate of military risk, MC 45/2 revised,⁶ without discussion.

1. Repeated to the other NATO capitals and to Bonn, Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, and Heidelberg.
2. No other record of this meeting has been found in Department of State files.
3. Adm. Sir John Hereward Edelsten, R.N., Commander in Chief, Channel Command (CINCHAN), and British Commander in Chief, Portsmouth.
4. Not printed; a copy of this report by the Military Committee on the military progress of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dated Dec. 9, 1953, is in the NATO Registry files in Brussels. It was the sixth progress report submitted to the Council, and covered four types of projects: (a) major military projects on which notable progress had been made, (b) status reports on projects that had been directed by higher NATO authority, (c) status reports on projects of a controversial nature, and (d) status reports from subordinate organizations of the Standing Group.
5. Not printed. A copy of this memorandum to the Secretary General, dated Dec. 11, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 173.
6. Not printed; a copy of this cosmic top secret document, dated Dec. 9, is in the NATO Registry files in Brussels. It concluded that the estimate of military risk had not changed since the spring of 1953, when the subject was last considered at the Paris North Atlantic Council meeting.