The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 24 (2013)“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”:
The Cold War and the Atlantic Alliance during
the Johnson Administration

Itsuki Kurashina*

Introduction
In the middle of the 1960s, the American proposed Multilateral Force(MLF) was an important focal point in negotiations between the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union, as well as among the members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. The MLF was a proposal to put part of US
strategic nuclear missiles under the common control of NATO members.
Washington expected the MLF to modify the sense of inequality between
the allies possessing nuclear weapons (the nuclear powers) and those without such weapons (the non-nuclear powers) and to discourage the latter’s
own nuclear development. Without such measures, the US government
feared, unsatisfied non-nuclear powers, especially the Federal Republic of
Germany (West Germany), might develop their own nuclear arsenals. The
MLF was designed to avoid nuclear proliferation within the alliance and totighten its unity.
Copyright © 2013 Itsuki Kurashina. All rights reserved. This work may be used,with this notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may
be distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission
from the author.
*Associate Professor, Hiroshima City University

165

166

Itsuki Kurashina

Yet, the MLF failed to calm frictions among the allies. Rather, it renewed concerns about West German nuclearization and challenged NATO.
Not only the Soviets but also several NATO allies grew worried about
German soldiers’ participation in nuclear operations through the proposed“mixed-manned” MLF fleet. In the face of hesitation by NATO allies otherthan West Germany, several officials in Washington recommended new
policies. Some of them found nuclear proliferation outside of Europe—such as in the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—more dangerous andproposed acceleration of negotiations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). Eventually, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to prioritize the NPT and to block German participation in nuclear operations—that is, he decided to abandon the MLF.
This abortive project reveals an important aspect of the Cold War. Even
though it was called a “war,” US-Soviet confrontation after World War II
was not a direct, open armed conflict. Rather, it was a mixture of ideologicaland geopolitical rivalry, avoidance of direct military clashes, and limited
cooperation. Also, the two powers struggled for “men’s minds and hearts”
and to achieve friendly relations with countries all over the world. Their
allies were indispensable as military cooperators, economic partners, andindicators of the attractiveness of ideologies. Yet, superpower relations andintra-alliance relations were not necessarily compatible. Actually,
superpower relations could disturb the intra-alliance relations, and viceversa. These conflicts grew frequent in the 1960s, and the MLF was one
clear example. It sat at the juncture of superpower relations andintra-alliance relations, and its fate was largely influenced by their mixture.1
In this article I focus on the Johnson administration because the 36th
US president finally abandoned the MLF. The project was first proposed at
the end of 1960 by the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower. President
John F. Kennedy doubted the usefulness of the MLF but made no clear
decisions on it. Why, then, did the Johnson administration mark the endof the MLF? How did Johnson deal with this legacy of his predecessors?
And how did changes in superpower relations, intra-alliance relations,and the US international position, influence it? In order to consider thesequestions, I examine Johnson’s policy toward the MLF in comparison withthose of his predecessors.2
Study of the Johnson administration is advancing. Newly available documents have resulted in studies that tend to focus on issues other than Vietnam and to emphasize Johnson’s leadership and his accomplishments.3 In
regard to US-European relations, many studies stress Johnson’s contribu-

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

167

tions to sustaining NATO despite challenges by French president Charlesde Gaulle. Other studies stress his success in agreeing to the NPT with theSoviets and overcoming the MLF controversy.4 Yet, these studies fail toexplain the problems in Europe in its long-term context because of theirfocus on individual administrations.5 In this article I compare Johnson’s
policy with those of his predecessors and examine both continuity and difference to reveal long-term changes in US-European relations.

I. The United States and German Nuclear Acquisition
In the late 1950s and 1960s, the spread of nuclear weapons was one of
the most important issues for the US government. The MLF was one of themeasures proposed to prevent nuclear development by Western European
allies, especially West Germany. Eisenhower first proposed to NATO in
1960 that the United States put its middle-range nuclear missiles under thecontrol of NATO. Later, the Kennedy administration revised the plan sothat nuclear missiles would be deployed on mixed-manned surface ships
while Washington would keep control of the nuclear warheads on thesemissiles.6
Preventing West German nuclearization was an important part of US
policy. Even before the official establishment of West Germany in 1949,
the US government was concerned about the country’s future. Its potential
in military and economic fields was indispensable for containing Soviet
expansion, but its recovery rekindled the memory of German threats. The
policy of “double containment” was designed to modify this dilemma:
West German entry into NATO in 1955 would mobilize its potential, while
NATO would restrict West German freedom of action in the future.7
Acquisition of nuclear weapons by West Germany would break thisfragile balance. The threat posed by a nuclear-armed Germany would
make relaxing East-West tensions difficult. West Europeans would recall
the damage inflicted by the Germans during the two world wars in thetwentieth century. And the West Germans, confident with having their own
nuclear weapons, might challenge United States in its leading position in theWestern alliance. Yet, if Washington simply dismissed Bonn’s demands toimprove its security, the Germans might feel their security was neglected.
That would disturb US-German relations and the US alliance in Europe.8
Washington tried to solve this problem by a combination of two policies: nuclear sharing within NATO and arms control negotiations with theSoviets. The first was a promise to the NATO allies that they could use US

168

Itsuki Kurashina

nuclear weapons if necessary. Such a promise was expected to make an
independent nuclear force by a European county unnecessary. The second
was seeking an international agreement to prevent the emergence of new
nuclear powers. This aspect was part of US-Soviet negotiations under Eisenhower; after the conclusion of the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in
August 1963, nonproliferation came to the top of the agenda.9
However, neither nuclear sharing with Europe nor nonproliferationagreements with the Soviets could satisfy both superpower relations andintra-alliance relations. Pursing an agreement with Moscow, Washington
could encourage dialogue and reduce tensions between the two superpowers.
A treaty not to allow West German access to nuclear weapons could havecalmed Soviet worries. Yet, this effort raised suspicions among European
allies that Washington might sacrifice their interests to improve US-Soviet
relations.
On the other hand, nuclear sharing could calm allies’ concerns about
the credibility of US deterrence and contribute to the alliance’s defense.
Washington pursued two forms of nuclear sharing. A hardware solution,such as the MLF, meant physical participation of allies’ soldiers in nuclear
weapons operations, while a software solution allowed allies’ participationin planning and targeting of nuclear weapons without physical access tothem. The problem was that neither form of potential sharing eliminatedthe impression that nuclear sharing was little more than “de facto proliferation.”10 In particular, the MLF and other hardware solutions could givethe impression that West Germany had its finger on the nuclear trigger. It
not only invited criticism from the Soviets but raised doubts within thealliance. Thus, successive administrations tried to find a proper balance
between these two policies.
The Kennedy administration took this dilemma very seriously. It tried
to reduce the possibility of a nuclear clash with the Soviets and, for that
purpose, tried to secure sole control of nuclear weapons in the West for theUnited States. So Kennedy was reluctant to support the MLF, which would
give US allies physical access to nuclear weapons. He was also willing tonegotiate arms control under the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC), and reached an agreement with the Soviets on the PTBT in
1963. This interest in arms control made Kennedy uncomfortable with the
MLF, a feeling that the Department of Defense shared. On the other hand,
the Department of State remained supportive of the project.11
Intra-alliance controversies forced the Kennedy administration to
support the MLF, however. In the face of the growing autonomy of French

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

169

president de Gaulle and de Gaulle’s friendship with Konrad Adenauer,West Germany’s chancellor, Kennedy concluded that improvement of
US-FRG relations was the task that was most in need of facing. He
tried to convince the Germans that the United States, not France, could
protect them from the Soviet threats and improve their position in NATO.
The MLF was a proof of US support to the West Germans that should
strengthen the pro-United States wing in Bonn, which included the vicechancellor Ludwig Erhard and the foreign minister Gerhard Schröder.12
Even after Erhard and Schröder confirmed German ties with the UnitedStates and NATO, skepticism about the MLF was whispered about very
discreetly in Washington. In mid-July, McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy’s
national security advisor, warned Secretary of State Dean Rusk to avoid“any impression that the United States is trying to ‘sell’ the MLF to reluctant
European purchasers.” Yet, in his conversation with State Department
officials in August, Bundy did not oppose a US-West German bilateralagreement on an MLF in case other European countries did not participate.13
It is likely that Bundy held back from openly opposing the MLF rather thanthat he had changed his mind within a month. Even the president felt obliged
to hide his disfavor of the MLF. In his July 10 conversation with Averell
Harriman, US representative in PTBT negotiations, President Kennedy
authorized him to indicate to the Russians that the United States might not
stick to the MLF. This was contrary to Harriman’s official instruction not tocompromise the MLF with the Soviets, which Kennedy had authorized. Yet,the record shows Kennedy did not clarify the exact quid pro quo of the
MLF. This vague authorization, along with his refraining from opposing theofficial instructions to Harriman, shows that even the president could notquestion the MLF openly.14
This history shows that before the administration of Lyndon Johnson,
Washington failed to decide its future course, on either the MLF or a
nonproliferation treaty. Abandoning the MLF would have likely improved
US-Soviet relations, but this decision was not taken due to concerns
about the state of US-European relations. The MLF was expected to be an
anchor that connected Europeans, especially the Germans, with the UnitedStates. Yet, it was not clear whether the MLF would really satisfy that
expectation.

II. Johnson and the Mlf
In the beginning of 1964, the Johnson administration was willing to170

Itsuki Kurashina

pursue the MLF. In April, the president authorized the State Department
to hasten negotiations with allies and to consult with Congress, suggestingthat Washington meant to put the MLF into force by the end of the year.
Yet, the administration quietly began to shift course. Only seven months
later, Johnson withdrew his support for the MLF and decided to observe
West European negotiations from the sideline.
The close of MLF negotiations was set for the end of 1964 in order
not to disturb the German general election in autumn 1965. Meeting thisschedule became a priority for Washington. Thus, at the meeting of April
10, the president authorized the State Department to hasten the MLF negotiations.
Advocates of the MLF in Washington believed that US real support wasnecessary to realize this project. During the April meeting, Thomas Finletter, US ambassador to NATO, warned that US reluctance to take a clear
position on the MLF had complicated negotiations in the past. Because
Washington had been “diffident about the MLF,” European supporters
could not persuade others that Washington truly wanted the MLF. George
Ball, the under secretary of state, also assured the president that, with the
US initiative, reaching agreement with the allies had “substantial possibility.” In the end, the president directed State Department officials to informthe Europeans that “the MLF was the best way to proceed.”15
Some scholars claim that the MLF supporters in the State Department
misled the president, who paid little attention to the MLF issue.16 These
supporters expected that the British and Italian governments would follow
clear US initiatives, but this expectation turned out to be wrong. Rome
could not solve this controversy within its governmental coalition, especially with the socialist party. And the British were expected to have ageneral election in the autumn.17 Yet, this cannot fully explain the decision
to hasten the MLF negotiations on April 10. It is true that one loud voiceof the MLF skeptics, the Defense Department, was not present at the meeting. Others, such as Bundy and William Foster, the director of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, were present, and they expressed theirreservations about the MLF. Yet, they refrained from questioning the State
Department’s estimate of European reactions.18 This restricted attitude of
the MLF skeptics indicates that there was a general reluctance to criticize
the MLF continuing into the Johnson administration.
A factor that generated this reluctance was also continuing: theperceived weakness of US-West German relations. Erhard became thechancellor in October 1963, and his open-hearted support for close US-

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

171

West German relations reassured Washington. Yet, his domestic position
was not stable because of opposition within his own Christian Democratic
Union (CDU) and its sister party in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union(CSU). Former chancellor Adenauer, former defense minister Franz-Josef
Strauss, and others criticized Erhard’s failure to sustain rapprochementwith France.19 These pro-France politicians, the so-called Gaullists, inBonn were the same people who had repeatedly requested West German
access to nuclear weapons. Thus, it was difficult to exclude the possibility
that a future Gaullist government in Bonn might follow the French course
and acquire its own force de frappe. Such a government would be morecooperative with Paris and more independent from Washington. So,
when Chancellor Erhard asserted that the failure of the MLF could raise
concerns about future West German actions, he did not sound hyperbolic.20
The MLF appeared as a measure to secure Erhard’s position and unite
the CDU/CSU government because both the Gaullists and the Atlantikers,
as the pro-United States wing was called, supported the project.21 Bonnrepeatedly expressed its desire to sign the MLF agreement by the end of1964 or early 1965. Wilhelm Grewe, West German ambassador to NATO,promoted this schedule. He insisted that the Britons and the Italians would
join if the United States and the West Germans clarified their position.
Grewe even claimed that a US-West German bilateral treaty should not be
excluded if the other allies didn’t go along with it. At the end of March,
Grewe asked Secretary of State Rusk if they could rush the schedule.22
Washington’s decision on April 10 was a response to the West German
request to hasten the negotiations.
The April 10 decision backfired—it worried other European allies.
The British government, for example, expressed concerns about US
inflexibility in the proposed schedule. It also claimed that any decision was
impossible before their general election in October. In addition, London
proposed modification of the MLF’s surface ship force by expanding itwith bombers and land-based missiles, even though US officials insistedon the original MLF proposal.23 France also grew worried about the MLF’s
impact on its position as the only nuclear power in continental Europe,and tried to discourage other European nations from participating in it.
Naturally, de Gaulle’s first target was the West Germans. During his visit
to Bonn in early July, de Gaulle was reported to have expressed “openopposition” to West German participation. Later, the French ambassador
expressed directly to the US government his concerns about the MLF’s“divisive” impact on NATO and Europe. And the MLF actually divided

172

Itsuki Kurashina

the German government because de Gaulle encouraged Gaullist criticism
against the governmental policy.24
In the face of European reluctance to adopt the MLF, concerns about
the existing policy surfaced in Washington. Within the State Department,
assistant secretary William Tyler wondered whether the United States
had made “a very great mistake” by trying to impose the MLF on theEuropeans. Later, he sent Bundy a “non-letter” that discussed European
worries about the MLF’s “divisive” effects and US failure to mobilize
support for it except in Bonn. Probably stimulated by this “non-letter,”
Bundy started a staff study that proposed a review of the April 10 decision.
Even though MLF advocates in the State Department reported theirconfidence in being able to persuade the Europeans, doubts about the
MLF’s prospects were spreading.25
It was in this context that, after the Labour victory in the British general election, the new prime minister Harold Wilson proposed the Atlantic
Nuclear Force (ANF). Similar to the proposal of the Conservative government, the ANF would combine the British and US national nuclear forces
with a smaller multilateral nuclear force than the original MLF. Bundy
regarded this proposal as a possible alternative to the MLF, which “would
be hard to achieve in view of hardening French opposition,” and tried tomodify US insistence upon the MLF.26
In his memorandum to President Johnson on November 8, Bundy
reported that British hesitation and French opposition complicated the
MLF negotiations, and the opinions in the US government were not united.
Yet, officials at “lower levels of the Government” had been handlingcurrent US policy, and they could repeat the same mistakes. Bundy
recommended tighter control of the MLF with White House clearanceof all activities and documents relating to the MLF. He carefully hid his
own skepticism in this memorandum but, later, he informed Ball of his
conclusion “to let the MLF sink out of sight.”27 The ANF was a catalyst
that pushed the MLF skeptics to the surface.
Johnson took Bundy’s recommendation. On December 6, the president
decided not to press the British to accept the MLF in his forthcoming
meeting with Wilson. In the middle of December, he approved National
Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) No. 322. It ordered US officials
not “to press for a binding agreement at this moment” and to “encourage
direct discussion among Europeans.”28 Once the United States stood aside
from the MLF debate, and the MLF’s future became even more doubtful.
It is noteworthy that President Johnson’s withdrawal from the MLF was“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

173

the result of accumulating complaints about the project within the Western
bloc. The ANF, another hardware solution, was the only alternative for a
moment. Software solutions, such as information sharing and consultationon the use of nuclear weapons, were not seriously discussed yet. The arms
control negotiations was a negligible factor. Even though the possibilityof clashes between a nonproliferation treaty and the MLF was considered,
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency did not participate in Bundy’s
review of the April 10 decision. Bundy even did not mention the arms control agency in his November 8 memorandum. He recognized the lack ofalternatives to the MLF under the current considerations and asserted that
future negotiations over alternatives could not be “worse than the MLF istoday.”29
On their side, the Soviets repeatedly criticized the MLF in the ENDC
meetings and in other opportunities, but the United States did not seriously
consider this criticism. Rather, the view of Foy D. Kohler, the US ambassador
to the Soviet Union, that Moscow would accept the MLF when it became a
reality was widely shared.30 The Chinese nuclear test on October 16, 1964,
did not seem to influence Bundy’s decisions, even though it might lead to awider impact later. It was Ball, an MLF advocate, who referred to theChinese test as “the forces for proliferation” and urged the United States tospeed up MLF negotiations.31 In 1964, the Johnson administration did nottake arms control negotiations very seriously.
In contrast to his two predecessors, Johnson first pursued the MLF at thecost of improvement in US-Soviet relations for arms control. His major
motives were to calm West German worries about vocal Gaullist criticism.
It can be considered as an extension of Kennedy’s policy in face of the de
Gaulle-Adenauer friendship to solidify West German ties with the UnitedStates. However, when this policy initiative to improve the European alliance shook the Atlantic Alliance itself, Washington reconsidered it. It was
still an open question which direction the US government would take tosolve the problem of nuclear proliferation in the alliance.

III. Persistence of the Mlf
Even if the effects were not immediate, NSAM No. 332 marked a turning
point in US policy toward the MLF. After this decision, Washington
gradually shifted its emphasis away from the MLF. Yet, this step was very
slow because the administration did not find an alternative to nuclear sharing
to calm the West Germans. Arms control negotiations at the ENDC did not

174Itsuki Kurashina

advance either due to the hardened Soviet position on nuclear sharing.
Abandoning the MLF, the Johnson administration could not yet find a newpolicy on nonproliferation.
The difficulty in finding an alternative to the MLF emerged in the final
report of the Task Force on Nuclear Proliferation, otherwise known as theGilpatric Committee report. President Johnson established the committee
after the Chinese nuclear test, and it submitted its report on January 21,
1965. The report recognized nuclear proliferation as a grave threat to US
security and recommended negotiations for a nonproliferation agreement,
a comprehensive test ban agreement, and nuclear-free zones.32 Following
this report, Bundy requested Secretary of State Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to consider reaffirming US support for the “principle” of a nonproliferation treaty at the end of March. In June, at Bundy’s
initiative, the president approved NSAM No. 335 that authorized the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency to prepare a proposal for nuclear nonproliferation.33 The Gilpatric Committee opened the way for the nonproliferation treaty.
Yet, regarding the MLF/ANF, the Gilpatric Committee could not present
a united opinion. Instead, its report recognized the division. While somemembers believed the MLF/ANF was indispensable for deterring West
German nuclear acquisition, others claimed that software solutions could
be enough. This group argued that West German possession of nuclear
weapons would not meet its national interest. The Soviets and French were
expected to oppose the hardware solutions like the MLF, which would also
weaken US security guarantees. Such opinions emerged despite their being
MLF supporters in the committee. It is also noteworthy that the committee
neglected Rusk’s reference to hardware solutions in Asia. The standard
justification for the MLF, that physical access to US nuclear weapons wasnecessary to discourage the development of national nuclear forces, now
grew less persuasive. Still, there was support for the MLF in Washington
and among some allies, especially in Bonn.34 The resiliency of support for
the MLF became apparent soon after the adoption of NSAM No. 332. Just
after this decision, the State Department abolished its office dedicated to
the MLF and incorporated its tasks into the Bureau of European Affairs.
When the media reported this change, the Erhard administration inGermany panicked and Gaullist criticism sharpened. German ambassador
to the United States Heinrich Knappstein compared criticism of Foreign
Minister Schröder in the cabinet to “a storm.” George McGhee, US
ambassador to West Germany, also reported that Schröder was “at a loss as

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

175

to how next to proceed with the MLF” because Bonn believed US support
was indispensable to move the MLF forward. In order to reassure Bonn,
Rusk denied that there had been “a fundamental shift” in US policy.35
The alleged change of policy on the MLF was not the sole reason forWest Germany’s “near crisis of confidence with respect to its external
relations.” For almost a year, Bonn’s new reunification plan had failed to get
the endorsement of the three Western occupation powers. It was frustrating
for the West Germans, whose feeling for reunification was, according to
Knappstein, “approaching a state of hysteria.” The Erhard administration
was under severe attack for its failure to get Western support, and it was not
unrelated to the MLF debate. Among the Western occupation powers,
France was most adamant in rejecting the endorsement, and Foreign
Minister Couve de Murville indicated that French rejection was a response
to Schröder’s open and strong support for the MLF. Clashes with France
over the MLF spilled over into the reunification problem and shook
confidence in the West German government’s foreign policy.36
Contradictory to its repeatedly expressed support for the MLF, Bonn
showed unwillingness to go ahead with the project. British Prime Minister
Wilson visited Bonn in early March. Serious negotiations to settle theirdifference were expected, but Erhard decided not to discuss this problem
before the general election in September. After his visit, Wilson reported to
President Johnson that Chancellor Erhard did not press the nuclear issue inorder not to disturb France and the Gaullists in his own party. Discussions
in NATO also slowed down. Erhard visited the United States in June, but
this did not advance the project of nuclear sharing either, though Erhard
repeated his request for US commitment to the MLF.37
Bonn’s confused attitudes complicated US perceptions of the Germans,and President Johnson downgraded his evaluation of Erhard. Adenauer hadannoyed Washington by repeatedly requesting US assurance of defense ofWest Germany. Now Johnson found Erhard had the same habit, and he cameto question Erhard’s hold on domestic politics. Receiving reports of West
German demands to promote the MLF, Johnson expressed his irritation with“repeated and renewed German questions.” Bonn’s thinly veiled rejectionof Washington’s request to show West Germany’s commitment to the war in
Vietnam also disappointed Johnson. In spite of a US request, West Germany
did not agree to send medical staff to Vietnam. Bonn’s reluctance to provide
financial support for the US and British armies in Germany only madematters worse.38
Bundy contributed to the president’s changing perception by expressing

176

Itsuki Kurashina

doubts about the seriousness of Erhard’s problems with the MLF. At thesame time, Bundy seemed to be working to improve the president’s viewof the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). He arranged a summit
meeting with SPD leader Willy Brandt in spite of Johnson’s early rejectionof the idea. Before the meeting, Bundy also called the SPD “the most consistently pro-American political force in Germany today.” It is not clear
whether Bundy favored the SPD or simply wanted to remain neutral on
Germany’s domestic politics. In any case, his willingness to treat the SPDas an alternative marked a clear contrast to Eisenhower’s policy, which
regarded CDU/CSU leadership consistent with US interests.39
At the same time, other Europeans showed their hostility to the MLF. In
the summer, London drew up a draft treaty on nonproliferation that prohibited “any association of states” from getting control of nuclear weapons.
This would make the MLF/ANF impossible, so Washington, with Bonn’sbacking, demanded that the British draft be revised.40 Analyzing the background of the British draft, the US Embassy in London assessed that it reflected British concerns about West Germany’s eagerness for the MLF. The
French government also expressed serious concerns about the MLF. In his
meeting with US ambassador to NATO Finletter, French foreign minister
Couve de Murville stated that the MLF would be “the first step toward thebuilding of a German force de frappe.” President de Gaulle also insisted toUnder Secretary of State Ball that “with reference to nuclear matters” theGermans could not be equal to other Europeans.41 Opposition to the MLF
was shared by London and Paris. They were likely pleased with the US
and West German hesitation.
The deadlock over the MLF did not mean better prospects for alternatives
to the MLF. Most important, the Soviets hardened their position not only
against the MLF but also against any form of nuclear sharing. The Soviet
delegates submitted a draft nonproliferation treaty to the General Assemblyof the United Nations on September 24, 1965. Washington wondered if theSoviet draft prohibited the MLF as well as other hardware forms of nuclear
sharing. Secretary of State Rusk’s discussion with the Soviet ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin failed to clarify the Soviet position. Later, however, thechairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Alexei Kosygin, wrote to
President Johnson and claimed that any physical access of non-nuclear
powers to nuclear weapons was unacceptable to the Soviets. Also, theEuropean non-nuclear powers’ “participation in decisions on the question of
nuclear strategy” were signs of proliferation.42 That meant a software
solution was not acceptable for Moscow, either.

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

177

The last point was especially problematic because it could makealternative solutions to the MLF impossible. Secretary of Defense
McNamara had proposed new measures to expand nuclear consultation andinformation sharing at the NATO ministerial meeting in May 1965. The
idea was to create a select committee within NATO to discuss nuclear
issues; this later developed into the Nuclear Planning Group.43 Within theState Department, a study group proposed combining this nuclear
consultation with a hardware solution to solve the MLF deadlock three days
before the Soviet nonproliferation proposal.44 The Soviet’s new positionindicated that, as the MLF supporters claimed, Moscow was not seriously
concerned about the MLF but was instead trying to exploit it to weakenNATO.
At this juncture, the general election in the FRG seemed only to worsen
the situation. The Erhard administration secured victory and, after that,
FRG officials began to once again stress the desirability of the MLF. The
US State Department also argued that nuclear consultation could not
substitute for a hardware solution. John Leddy, assistant secretary for
European affairs, recommended that Rusk support Bonn’s demand for a
hardware solution in the face of opposition from Bundy.45
However, West German adamancy was more appearance than reality. In
mid-November, the US Embassy in Bonn informed the State Department
about Bonn’s possible acceptance of a compromise based on nuclear
consultation and new arrangements for existing nuclear forces. The key was
Bonn’s acquiescence to “at least postponing any decision for the creation of
new forces.” This was similar to the State Department’s proposal on
September 21. This news somewhat calmed the MLF opponents in theJohnson administration. For example, Bundy recommended a “real Johnson
break-through” on the MLF at the end of November, but, just before theJohnson-Erhard meeting in December, he reported to the president that
renewed pressure on Erhard would be unnecessary. Even though someelements of the West German ideas were unacceptable, they were worth
listening to.46
Examining the reasons for German modification of the MLF is not the
purpose of this article. Still, US documents show that Chancellor Erhard
continuously faced a difficult domestic situation even after the election
victory. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research within the State Department
reported that the Gaullists remained influential within the CDU/CSU. As aresult, Erhard could not make his policy toward the MLF prevail. Also,
Erhard had to pay close attention to de Gaulle’s attitude in the middle of the

178

Itsuki Kurashina“empty seat” crisis, or paralysis of the European Economic Community due
to French refusal to participate to any decision making. The US Mission to
the European Communities informed the State Department that, considering
the French opposition, insistence on pursuing the MLF could give de Gaulle
an “additional instrument for blackmailing” EEC members. So, it was
desirable to postpone the MLF for a few months. In response, Leddy claimed
that Bonn might prefer an early decision to “present the French with a fait
accompli.”47 Erhard, who could not fully control the Gaullists within his
own party, chose to compromise on the MLF.
Given West Germany’s more flexible position, withdrawal from the
MLF was almost in sight. Of course, the problem was not settled completely. It was only in April 1966 that the president approved NSAM No.
345, which authorized negotiations about nuclear consultation and postponed the hardware solutions. It took almost a year for the United States
and the Soviet Union to officially obtain Soviet acceptance of nuclear consultation in NATO and agreement on the wording for the nonproliferation
treaty’s first article.48 Yet, the basic problem was solved by the end of 1965
because all parties finally agreed that the MLF was not achievable.
Debates over the MLF in 1965 show that the Johnson administration did
not take the initiative to resolve the dilemma. In the end, the West German
government solved it by indicating its willingness to withdraw from theplan. In one sense, this was a success of “education”—scrutinizing the
problem by themselves, the West Germans gave up on the MLF.49 Clear
divisions within the US government show that this educational effect wasmore by accident than by US policy design.

Conclusion
In this article I have shown that the MLF’s demise was more the result of
intra-alliance relations than superpower relations. The MLF failed to fulfill
its original purpose of calming tensions within NATO. It was designed tostrengthen the weakened credibility of US extended deterrence, but actually
it raised worries about Bonn’s possible access to nuclear weapons andsharpened frictions among Europeans. This intra-alliance tension led to thedecision by the United States to “let the MLF sink” under its own weight.
US-Soviet relations played a relatively small role in this development. It
does not mean that the will to relax tensions between the two superpowers
had no influence on the eventual abandonment of the MLF. Yet, as far as the
documents indicate, it was not hope for better superpower relations that

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

179

encouraged the Johnson administration to reconsider its proposed policy of
nuclear sharing. For Washington in 1964 and 1965, the prospect of USSoviet détente was not a strong enough goal to sacrifice close ties with
European allies. This revelation encourages further examination of theJohnson administration, especially the emphasis on the administration’scontribution to improving US-Soviet relations.
This article also helps in understanding the nature of the Cold War,especially the mixture of superpower and intra-alliance relations. MLF
supporters and skeptics in Washington, Western European capitals, andeven Moscow, expressed concern about the future of Germany if they had
access to nuclear arms. All sides worried about the possibility that West
Germany might take its own course and start a third world war in Europe.
What divided the various actors were the measures considered suitable toprevent such a possibility: Would the MLF be another anchor to connect
the FRG to the West, or would it be a fig leaf to hide the emergence of apowerful, militant Germany. Even in the mid-1960s, worries about the
military might of Germany had not yet been wiped out. These continuous
worries influenced the development of US policy in the Cold War.
The MLF episode also exposes the signs of the transformation in intra-alliance relations. The Johnson administration eventually gave up the
MLF, the proposal that the Erhard administration supported, in the face ofdomestic and French criticism. This abandonment of an ally is at variancewith the United States giving full support to Saigon, an unpopular government in South Vietnam. And the MLF was not the end of the issue, because
President Johnson initiated the fall of Erhard on the issue of troop-stationing costs.50 This seems to indicate a change in the relative importance ofWestern Europe for the United States: European states grew less importantas Cold War allies and were more the cause of concern as economic competitors.51 The MLF demise was a result of the widening gap within the
Atlantic Alliance.

Notes
This article is the result of research supported by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scholars(B), 2012, number 22730142.
1
See Melvyn P. Leffler, For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet
Union, and the Cold War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007), quote at 111; Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Francis J. Gavin, “Blasts from the180

Itsuki Kurashina

Past: Proliferation Lessons from the 1960s,” International Security 29, no. 3 (Winter2004-5); Lawrence S. Kaplan, NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 29–55; Anna Locher, Crisis? What Crisis? NATO,de Gaulle, and the Alliance, 1963–1966 (Baden-Baden, Ger.: Nomos, 2010); Helga
Haftendorn, NATO and the Nuclear Revolution: A Crisis of Credibility, 1966–1967(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996); Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third
World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005); John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997); Kenneth A. Osgood, Total Cold War: Eisenhower’s Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006).
2
For the MLF, see John D. Steinbruner, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New
Dimensions of Political Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002 [1974]);
Andrew Priest, “From Hardware to Software: The End of the MLF and the Rise of the
Nuclear Planning Group,” in Transforming NATO in the Cold War: Challenges beyond
Deterrence in the 1960s, ed. Andreas Wenger, Christian Nuenlist, and Anna Locher(Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2007); Pascaline Winand, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and theUnited States of Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), 203–43; McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (New York:
Vintage, 1988), 487–505.
3See, for example, H. W. Brands, ed., The Foreign Policies of Lyndon Johnson: Beyond Vietnam (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1999); Warren I. Cohen
and Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, eds., Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World: American
Foreign Policy, 1963–1968 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Jonathan
Colman, The Foreign Policy of Lyndon B. Johnson: The United States and the World,
1963–1969 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010); Hal Brands, “Progress Unseen: US Arms Control Policy and the Origins of Détente,” Diplomatic History 30, no.
2 (April 2006); Hal Brands, “Non-Proliferation and the Dynamics of the Middle Cold
War: The Superpowers, the MLF, and the NPT,” Cold War History 7, no. 3 (August2007).
4
Thomas A. Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Andrew Priest, Kennedy, Johnson
and NATO: Britain, America and the Dynamics of Alliance, 1962–68 (London: Routledge, 2006).
5
Shane J. Maddock, Nuclear Apartheid: The Quest for American Atomic Supremacy from World War II to the Present (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2010).
6
David N. Schwartz, NATO’s Nuclear Dilemmas (Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, 1983).
7
Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Germany, America, Europe: Forty Years of German Foreign
Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989); Thomas A. Schwartz, America’s
Germany: John J. McCloy and the Federal Republic of Germany (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1991).
8
See also Susanna Schrafstetter, “The Long Shadow of the Past: History, Memory
and the Debate over West Germany’s Nuclear Status, 1954–69,” History & Memory 16,
no. 1 (Spring/Summer, 2004), 123–30.
9Itsuki Kurashina, “Binding the Germans and Talking with the Soviets: US Disarmament Policy and the Junktim with German Reunification, 1955–1960” (PhD diss.,
Rutgers University, 2004); David Tal, The American Nuclear Disarmament Dilemma,
1945–1963 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2008).

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

181

10
George H. Quester, Nuclear Diplomacy: The First Twenty-Five Years (New York:
Dunellen, 1970), 172.
11
For Kennedy’s strategy, see John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Francis J. Gavin, “The Myth of Flexible Response: United States
Strategy in Europe during the 1960s,” International History Review 23, no. 4 (December2001); Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2000).
12
Frédéric Bozo, Two Strategies for Europe: De Gaulle, the United States, and
the Atlantic Alliance, trans. Susan Emanuel, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
2001); Hans-Peter Schwarz, Konrad Adenauer: German Politician and Statesman ina Period of War, Revolution and Reconstruction, The Statesman, 1952–1967, trans.
Geoffrey Penny (Providence: Berghahn, 1997); Jeffrey Glen Giauque, Grand Designs
and Visions of Unity: The Atlantic Powers and the Reorganization of Western Europe,
1955–1963 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002). Regarding US-European relations under Kennedy, see Toshihiko Aono, “It’s Not Easy for the UnitedStates to Carry the Whole Load: Anglo-American Relations during the Berlin Crisis,
1961–1962,” Diplomatic History 34, no. 2 (April 2010).
13
Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office)(hereafter cited as FRUS with year of publication) 1961–63 XIII, 603–4, 606–7.
14
FRUS 1961–63 VII, 789–90, 779–85.
15
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 35–37.
16
Maddock, Nuclear Apartheid, 225-26; Colman, Foreign Policy, 97–99.
17
Special National Intelligence Estimate 20-64, January 6, 1964, box 5, National Intelligence Estimate, National Security File (hereafter NSF), Lyndon B. Johnson Library,
Austin, Texas (hereafter LBJL).
18
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 35–37.
19
Ronald J. Granieri, The Ambivalent Alliance: Konrad Adenauer, the CDU/CSU,
and the West, 1949–1966 (New York: Berghahn, 2003); Alfred C. Mierzejewski, Ludwig Erhard: A Biography (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
20
Bonn 3184 to the Dept, March 6, 1964, box 24, Subject, NSF, LBJL; on Strauss
see, Pertti Ahonen, “Franz-Josef Strauss and the German Nuclear Question, 1956–
1962,” Journal of Strategic Studies 18, no. 2 (June 1995).
21
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 112–15.
22
Polto Circular 60, February 28, 1964, box 24, Subject, NSF, LBJL; Secun 3 to theDept, March 25, 1964, box 24, Subject, NSF, LBJL.
23
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 41–43, 59–60; London 6356 to the Dept, June 22, 1964; Polto Circular 71, May 7, 1964; Polto 1861 to the Dept, June 20, 1964, all in box 24, Subject, NSF, LBJL.
24
Bonn 284 to the Dept, July 23, 1964, box 24, Subject, NSF, LBJL ; FRUS 1964–68
XIII, 92–93; FRUS 1964–68 XV, 145–46.
25
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 76–77; Letter, Tyler to Bundy, October 9, 1964; Memorandum from Klein to Bundy, October 10, 1964; Research Memorandum, Hughes to Rusk,
October 28, 1964, all in box 23, Subject, NSF, LBJL; Memorandum, Rostow to Rusk,
October 12, 1964, box 258, Records of S/PC 1963–64, lot no. 70D199, RG 59, National Archive and Record Administration, College Park, Maryland (hereafter cited asNARA).
26
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 95–100.
27
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 103–7, 121–22; For the ANF, see Terry Macintyre, An-

182

Itsuki Kurashina

glo-German Relations during the Labour Governments 1964–70: NATO Strategy,
Détente and European Integration (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press,
2007).
28
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 133–34, 165–67.
29
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 121–22.
30
Deptel Todis 1317, February 14, 1964, box 11, Subject, NSF, LBJL; FRUS 1964–
68 XIII, 64–67; FRUS 1964–68 XI, 112–17.
31
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 95–100.
32
F o r th e C o mm i t t e e re port , se e F R US 1964–68 X I, 173–82; Brands“Nonproliferation” and Gavin “Blasts from the Past” present different interpretations.
33
Memorandum, Bundy to Rusk and McNamara, March 27, 1965, box 35, Subject,
NSF, LBJL; Memorandum, Keeny for Bundy, April 12, 1965, ibid; FRUS 1964–68 XI,
216–17; Brands “Nonproliferation” , 106.
34
FRUS 1964–68 XV, 179, 154–62, 163–68.
35
Ibid., 187–91, 191–94; FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 169–72, 172–74.
36
FRUS 1964–68 XV, 191–94, 201–4, quotes at 191, 201; Paris 3647 to the Dept,
December 21, 1964, box 170, Country, NSF, LBJL.
37
Bonn 3342 to the Dept, March 5, 1965, box 185, Country, NSF, LBJL; FRUS
1964–68 XIII, 190–91, 209–10; Memorandum, Rusk to Johnson, June 2, 1965, box
190, Country, NSF, LBJL; FRUS 1964–68 XV, 291–92.
38
FRUS 1964–68 XV, 209–10; Hubert Zimmermann, Money and Security: Troops,
Monetary Policy, and West Germany’s Relations with the United States and Britain,
1950–1971 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Fredrik Logevall, “America
Isolated: The Western Powers and the Escalation of the War,” in America, the Vietnam
War, and the World: Comparative and International Perspectives, ed. Andreas W.
Daum, Lloyd C. Gardner, Wilfried Mausbach (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003); see also Yuko Torikata, “Reexamining de Gaulle’s Peace Initiative on the
Vietnam War,” Diplomatic History 31, no. 5 (November 2007).
39
Memorandum, Bundy to Johnson, January 12, 1965, box 25, Subject, NSF,LBJL; Memorandum, Bundy to Johnson, January 17, 1965, box 2, Memoranda
to the President, NSF, LBJL; Memorandum, Bundy to Valenti, March 30, 1965;
Memorandum, Bundy to Johnson, April 8, 1965; Memorandum, Bundy to Johnson,
April 14, 1965, all in box 3, Memoranda to the President, NSF, LBJL.
40
FRUS 1964–68 XI, 217–19, 233–35; Bonn 202 to the Dept, July 20, 1965, box
186, Country, NSF, LBJL.
41
London 213 to the Dept, July 16, 1965, box 13, Subject, NSF, LBJL; FRUS 1964–
68 XIII, 231–33, 239–42.
42
FRUS 1964–68 XI, 259–61, 277–81.
43
Priest 2007, 151–52; Deborah Shapley, Promise and Power: The Life and Times ofRobert McNamara (Boston: Little Brown, 1993), 401–3.
44
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 244–47; “Studies on Atlantic Nuclear Problem,” undated,box 29, Records of Under Secretary George Ball, lot no. 74D272, RG 59, NARA.
45
Bonn 1019 to the Dept, October 11, 1965, box 25, Subject, NSF, LBJL;Memorandum of Conversation, November 5, 1965, box 194, Country, NSF, LBJL;FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 261–62.
46
Bonn 1417 to the Dept, November 16, 1965, box 192, Country, NSF, LBJL; FRUS
1964–68 XI, 264–67; Memorandum, Bundy to Johnson, December 19, 1965, box 192,
Country, NSF, LBJL.
47Intelligence Note, Hughes to Rusk, October 19, 1965, box 25, Subject, NSF, LBJL;FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 269–71, 274–76. For the “empty seat” crisis, see N. Piers Ludlow,

“Let the MLF Sink Out of Sight”

183

The European Community and the Crises of the 1960s: Negotiating the Gaullist
Challenge (London: Routledge, 2006).
48
FRUS 1964–68 XIII, 374–75; FRUS 1964–68 XI, 388–91; Memorandum, Rusk to
Johnson, November 28, 1966, box 26, Subject, NSF, LBJL
49
Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe, 230–31.
50
Zimmermann, Money and Security, 201–7.
51
This conclusion is partly stimulated by Yoshihiko Mizumoto’s comment during the2012 annual conference of the Japanese Association of International Relations. Gavinin “Blasts from the Past,” 131–33, claims that West Germany had grown less importantfor Johnson.