11/4/43

MR. ALTSCHUL: Is there any real fear that the East Germans will turn on their brothers instead of turning on the Soviet?

GENERAL WHEELER: I understand that there is a sizeable group in East Germany and apparently Mr. Adenauer has a real fear of it.

COLONEL LINCOLN: Well, isn't it also conceivable that it might start the other way, with the West Germans joining their brothers?

GENERAL McCORMACK: Well, this has been said before. But another way to look at it is this, if we had sense enough even to leave a division, even stripped down, in Korea, why there wouldn't even have been a Korean War.

DR. JOHNSON: On this question of whether it would be wrong for the Europeans to use atomic weapons in their own defense, we might ask ourselves if we were endangered by Soviet forces, would we be wrong to use atomic weapons to drive them out in preference to their taking over the country, or not? There is no question in my mind as to what I'd decide. I would prefer using them, to having them take over without because of the dangers that might ensue to our American way of life.

MR. HOOPES: Well, I agree fully with you. It seems to me that there is a question of psychology involved. If the Europeans possess the means of their own defense and feel themselves both responsible for it and in possession of weapons which give them a reasonable chance against the Soviets, then I think that the will to resist is enhanced.

11/4/44

DR. JOHNSON: Well, from an operational point of view, you have to do it to find out. It seems to me that we ought to do it. I would say that we are forced to it because, otherwise, Soviet forces face us with a terrific advantage on the ground and we can only eliminate that by providing atomic weapons to our allies. Otherwise, we have insecure planks, and if anyone has weapons or means to finish it off, it increases his confidence. We'd have to try it and find out whether this would actually happen in Europe. I would say that would be a very economical and sound type of investment from a political and morale point of view.

MR. HOOPES: Atomic weapons in the hands of Europeans would come close to substituting for SAC which has been the principal element in the NATO terms, which is now, for practical purposes, neutral.

MR. DEAN: I don't think I would mind their having it in their hands, but the one thing I wouldn't want to encourage them in would be a weapons program of their own. In other words, I think it is one thing to hand some over so that they can reasonably defend themselves, but it's a far different thing to encourage a fourth or a third power in the manufacture of weapons. France is a great possibility here. They have the capability to do it, and they have some pressure from the military to make them do it. It's a matter of great national pride. But what the French would like ten years from now I don't know. I just don't want them making their own. This is an argument that if we can control the giving of them, and to some extent, therefore, the use of them, then I think that's quite a different thing.