United States would be willing to begin minor mutual reductions of conventional armament and armed forces concurrently with the installation of the inspection system, down to a first-stage force level of 2,500,000 men.

9. And finally, the principal foregoing measures, if accepted by the Soviet Government, should be applied to Communist China to the appropriate extent when, and as, the political situation permitted. The United States, however, would reserve the right to withdraw from any commitment if it proved infeasible to apply the agreement to "communist China or other USSR satellites" having a significant military potential.68

Now, after two years of effort, the United States Government had evolved a comprehensive disarmament policy. Its main features included the cessation of production of fissionable materials for weapons purposes, reduction of existing stocks of nuclear armaments, minor reductions in conventional forces, and measures to forestall surprise attack—all under strict international inspection and control. During the development of this policy the Joint Chiefs of Staff had often objected to specific elements proposed for it. But this was a role that followed inevitably from their basic responsibilities. Charged with maintaining the military security of the United States, the Joint Chiefs of Staff could not endorse the adoption of any disarmament provision that would, in their judgment, weaken the United States in relation to the Soviet Union. In particular, they consistently opposed any measure whose successful application depended on Soviet professions of good faith. The Joint Chiefs of Staff insisted that no disarmament agreement could be viewed as acceptable that did not place in operation a proven procedure for inspection, verification, and detection of violations.

On 12 January 1957, the United States formally proposed to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly the essential points of the policy in the annex to NSC Action No. 1553. The General Assembly took no action, however, other than to request the Disarmament Commission to reconvene its Subcommittee in the near future to consider all the various proposals offered to date. When the Subcommittee met in London on 18 March 1957, the United States offered its proposal of 12 January, which then became the subject of lengthy and serious negotiations.69

Thaw and Freeze in Europe

6

Nowhere were the vital interests of the Western and communist blocs more directly in conflict than on the continent of Europe. It was here that the Soviet Union had first extended its domination over neighboring states after World War II. It was here that the United States had committed its resources both military and economic and exercised its diplomacy to contain the Soviet encroachments. The result was a freezing of Europe into two hostile camps divided by the Iron Curtain. To the east of that barrier lay the Soviet satellite empire of subservient communist states; to the west lay the democratic nations, most of whom were linked to each other and to the United States by the Western European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The power blocs of East and West waged a constant cold war of propaganda, economic pressure, clandestine activities, and diplomatic maneuvering, each side attempting to improve its position relative to the other.

The death of Josef Stalin in March 1953 removed the leader identified in Western minds with aggressive Soviet expansionism and raised hopes that some of the frozen positions of the cold war might thaw. Early in his tenure the new Soviet Premier, Georgi Malenkov, reasserted that part of the Leninist-Stalinist doctrine that spoke of the advantages of periods of peaceful coexistence between the capitalist and communist systems, though without discarding the more familiar concept of an inevitable ultimate conflict between them. While Soviet actions on the international scene continued for the most part to belie any devotion to conciliation, Malenkov was to issue a new call for peaceful coexistence and mutual consideration of each other's legitimate interests during an interview with an American newsman early in 1955.1

The Austrian State Treaty

The first evidence in deeds, rather than words, that Soviet policies of the postStalin era might permit a thaw in the cold war in Europe came during April

1955 when the Soviet Government indicated a willingness to complete the treaty that would restore full sovereignty and independence to Austria. The subject of intensive and exhausting negotiations among the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the USSR since 1947, the Austrian State Treaty had been all but ready for signature on two separate occasions, only to be set back by some new instance of Soviet intransigence.2

Austria, which had been incorporated into Hitler's Greater German Reich in 1938, had been occupied by the victorious allied armies advancing from the east and west in 1945. The full fruits of peace were denied to the Austrians, however, because of conflicting interests of the Soviet Union and Western democracies. Soviet objectives, perhaps because of the presence of Western forces in Austria and the weakness of the Austrian Communist Party, did not include the absorption of Austria into the Soviet satellite empire but consisted primarily of extracting as much wealth as possible from the country. To justify their raids on the economy of their zone of Austria, the Soviets cited an ambiguous clause in the Potsdam Agreement of 1945 that allowed them to meet their reparation claims against Germany in part from appropriate German external assets but did not define what those assets were.3

Secondary objectives were to support the claims of Yugoslavia to territorial and monetary reparations, and to justify the continued stationing of the Red Army in Hungary and Rumania, obstensibly to protect Soviet military communications with Austria. To facilitate the attainment of their objectives, the Soviets found it convenient to perpetuate their occupation of eastern Austria by delaying the conclusion of a treaty.

These Soviet purposes conflicted at every point with those of the three Western powers. Their objective was to restore Austria as a fully independent state that would not only act as a force for stability in Central Europe but might also be brought into the system of Western collective defense represented by NATO and WEU. Austrian general elections since 1945 had returned center and moderate socialist governments to power and had resulted in crushing defeats for the Austrian Communist Party. As a result, the Western democracies had little reason to fear that an independent Austria would join the Soviet bloc. It was in their interest, therefore, to conclude a treaty restoring Austria to full sovereignty as soon as possible.

Four-power treaty negotiations had begun in 1947 and the conferees quickly reached agreement on such basic matters as reestablishment of a sovereign and independent Austria, prohibition of any form of economic or political union between Austria and Germany, liquidation of Nazi laws and institutions, and limitation of the Austrian armed forces to 50,000 men and 90 aircraft. But it was not until 1949 that the two remaining major issues-the definition of German assets and reparations for Yugoslavia—were finally resolved. Changing international relationships had at last hastened the disposal of the latter issue. By this time Marshal Tito had split with Moscow, and the Soviet Government ceased to support the Yugoslav claims, which were then resolved by limiting Yugoslav reparations to Austrian property in Yugoslavia. After arduous bargaining, the economic issues were finally settled by agreement that the Soviet Union would

receive, in full settlement of its claims, 30-year concessions of 60 percent of the oil fields and refineries, all the assets of the Danube shipping company, and $150 million in freely convertible currency to be paid by Austria in six years. With all the major issues resolved, the completion of the treaty was confidently expected, but the Soviet Union suddenly refused to agree to the remaining minor articles.

No further movement on the Austrian treaty occurred until the Big Four foreign ministers met five years later, in 1954. At this conference, held in Berlin during January and February, V. M. Molotov proposed that a group of deputies complete the draft of the treaty within three months but with a new article added whereby Austria would assume obligations: (1) not to join any alliance or coalition aimed against any of the World War II allies; and (2) not to permit foreign military bases on its soil or employ foreign military instructors or military specialists. In addition, Molotov proposed that the occupation forces remain in their respective zones in Austria until the signing of a German peace treaty.4

The new article would effectively bar Austria from membership in NATO, and Molotov's further suggestion appeared likely to keep Soviet troops in that country for some time to come. For these reasons the three Western foreign ministers found the terms unacceptable. They offered, instead, to agree to the Soviet versions of all the other disputed articles in the existing draft treaty. Molotov refused to accept this alternative, and the conference adjourned with the disagreement over the Austrian treaty still unresolved.

Somewhat unexpectedly, this impasse broke a year later when the Soviet Union offered to make major concessions on the disputed issues. Following negotiations between delegations headed by Austrian Chancellor Julius Raab and Molotov in Moscow, the two issued a memorandum on 15 April stating that the Soviet Government was now willing to agree to evacuation of all occupation forces by 31 December 1955 and to soften its economic demands by substituting annual oil shipments of 1,000,000 tons for 10 years and a lump sum payment of $2,000,000 for the oil and shipping assets that were to have been delivered to the Soviet Union under the draft treaty. In return, the Austrian Government agreed to make a declaration of its intention not to join any military alliance nor to permit foreign military bases on Austrian territory and to maintain a permanent neutrality similar to that of Switzerland. The Soviet Union, for its part, agreed to participate with the other three major powers in guaranteeing this state of neutrality and Austria's territorial integrity.5

Four days later, on 19 April, the Soviet Government sent identical notes to the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and France pointing out that, in the light of Austrian-Soviet conversations, completion of the Austrian State Treaty should now be possible. The Soviets proposed a conference of the four occupying powers for that purpose at the earliest possible date.

In view of these developments, the State Department concluded that early new negotiations on the Austrian State Treaty were now a probable necessity. In a paper prepared on 20 April for submission to the NSC, the Department proposed that the Secretary of State be authorized to negotiate and conclude the treaty. In these negotiations he was to agree to the Soviet proposals on Austrian neutrality, including abstention from military alliances and prohibition of foreign

military bases on Austrian soil. But these provisions should not preclude Austria from obtaining military equipment for its security forces from the Western powers. It was recommended that the Secretary of State also agree to the Soviet proposal for a four-power guarantee of Austrian neutrality and territorial integrity, so long as it could not be construed as giving a legal basis for unilateral Soviet action against Austria. The State Department was particularly concerned that the guarantee not provide a basis for Soviet reoccupation."

Department of Defense officials learned that the Secretary of State expected to raise the subject of Austria in the National Security Council the following day, 21 April. In informing the Joint Chiefs of Staff of this development on 20 April, an OSD official characterized the Secretary of State's intention as that of requesting what was in effect "blank check" authority to conclude an Austrian Treaty on the most favorable terms that could be obtained. Secretary Dulles was said to consider it of paramount importance that the United States not stand in the way of a settlement of this long-outstanding issue on terms that were acceptable to the other powers.

A quick response was requested from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the military implications of such a treaty, particularly with regard to covert military planning. Because of the shortness of time, no formal JCS views were requested, but Admiral Carney, the Acting Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked to be prepared to consult with the Deputy Secretary of Defense and to discuss the issue in the National Security Council should the occasion arise.7

When the Council met, Deputy Secretary Robert B. Anderson explained that while the Department of Defense had no basic disagreement with the State Department position, he felt the whole matter was being rushed through without adequate interdepartmental discussion. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, he pointed out, had not even had an opportunity to discuss the problem formally. He proposed a delay of one week in reaching decisions; during that time a high-level StateDefense group could give careful consideration to the problem. The Under Secretary of State, however, emphasized the urgent nature of the matter, and stressed that Secretary Dulles needed authority to act. President Eisenhower agreed.

At the conclusion of the meeting the Council recommended and the President approved granting authority to the Secretary of State to proceed with the negotiation of the Austrian State Treaty on the basis of the existing draft but with authority to depart from it if necessary to avoid placing the United States in the position of blocking a treaty. In recognition of the fact that the views of the Defense Department had not been adequately considered, the Council suggested an exchange of views between the Departments of State and Defense on the military aspects of the treaty and agreed to consider the matter further on 28 April.8

In preparation for the further NSC meeting the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted their comments on the military aspects of the Austrian treaty to the Secretary of Defense on 22 April. The Joint Chiefs of Staff pointed out that they had previously expressed the view that US military objectives could be achieved only if the occupation of Austria was terminated under conditions that would (1) enable the Austrian Government to thwart incorporation of Austria into the communist bloc by subversive means, (2) permit training and equipping of adequate Aus