completely the danger to France.

On the matters relating to West Berlin, we consulted with the comrades from the GDR. They fully support

these steps.

Gomułka: We have our trade agreements with the FRG. We ship goods to West Berlin.

Khrushchev: You can keep those agreements, but you should speak with the GDR about transport. The GDR also trades with them. They supply them with briquettes, and they receive coke, which they give to Poland....

[Source: AAN, KC PZPR, p. 113, t. 27. Translated by Douglas Selvage.]

Douglas Selvage recently submitted his dissertation, 'Poland, the German Democratic Republic and the German Question, 1955-1967," at Yale University and received his Ph.D. in December 1998.

1

1 Research for this article was supported in part by a grant from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the National Endowment for the

Humanities, the United States Information Agency, and the US Department of State, which administers the Russian, Eurasian, and East European Research Program (Title VIII).

2 See the general background in Hope M. Harrison, "New Evidence on Khrushchev's 1958 Berlin Ultimatum," Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) Bulletin 4 (Fall 1994), pp. 35-36.

3 Hope Harrison, CWIHP Working Paper No.5: Ulbricht and the Concrete 'Rose': New Archival Evidence on the Dynamics of Soviet-East German Relations and the Berlin Crisis, 1958-61 (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, May 1993), 12-16; Vladislav Zubok, CWIHP Working Paper No.6: Khrushchev and the Berlin Crisis (1958-62), (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, May 1993), pp. 3-9. On the role of the domestic power struggle in the Soviet Union, also see Robert Slusser, The Berlin Crisis of 1961: Soviet-American Relations and the Struggle for Power in the Kremlin, June - November 1961 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), passim.

4

* Hansjakob Stehle, The Independent Satellite: Society and Politics in Poland Since 1945, transl. D.J.S. Thompson (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1965), pp. 38-40. On the East German and Soviet notes from September, see Harrison, Ulbricht and the Concrete 'Rose,' pp. 8-12.

5 On the Rapacki Plan, see Stehle, Independent Satellite, 230-37; and the most recent study, which makes use of Polish archives: Piotr Wandycz, “Adam Rapacki and the Search for European Security," Gordon A. Craig and Francis L. Loewenheim eds., The Diplomats, 1939-1979 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 289-317.

the "Grotewohl Plan." The major difference between the two initiatives had been the GDR's insistence that the two German states first sign an agreement on their own, which would have signified Bonn's recognition of the GDR. The Poles, in contrast, had been willing to settle for a series of unilateral declarations by Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the two German states not to permit the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory—a solution that would not have forced Bonn to recognize the GDR. Stehle, Independent Satellite, 225-26. On GDR interference with the Rapacki Plan see, e.g., Dept. IV, MSZ, “Notatka," 28 February 1958, and MSZ, "Wyciąg z raportu politycznego Ambasady Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej w Berlinie za okres od 1.IX.1957 r. do 28.II.1958 r.," n.d., both in AAN, KC PZPR, p. 110, t. 17.

8 On the 1953 events, see Christian F. Ostermann, "This Is Not A Politburo But A Madhouse," CWIHP Bulletin 10 (March 1998), pp. 61-72.

9 John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 131; Vladislav Zubok and Constantine Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin's Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 197-98.

10 Zubok and Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin's Cold War, pp. 190-94.

Among the Western powers, De Gaulle's France, it turned out, took "the most uncompromising line" towards Khrushchev's ultimatum. Ann Tusa, The Last Division: A History of Berlin, 1945-1989 (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), p. 117.

12 Harrison, “New Evidence,” pp. 35-36.

13 On the confrontation in Warsaw, see L.W. Głuchowski, "Poland, 1956: Khrushchev, Gomułka, and the 'Polish October,"" CWIHP Bulletin 5 (Spring 1995), pp. 1, 38-49.

14 Andrzej Korzon, “Rozmowy polsko-radzieckie w maju 1957 roku," Dzieje najnowsze 25 (1993), pp. 121-30.

15 Andrzej Werblan, “Nieznana rozmowa Władysława Gomułka z Nikitą S. Chruszczowem,” Dziś 4 (May 1993), pp. 75-84, esp. p. 82.

16 In an address to party journalists in November 1957, Gomułka justified the closing of Po Prostu by pointing to Poland's geopolitical situation. He stressed the need to combat anti-Sovietism in Poland; otherwise, given the Germans' revisionist aims, Poland would become a truncated "Duchy of Warsaw." "Słowo kołcowe tow. Wiesława na spotkaniu z dziennikarzami dnia 5.X. 57," 5 October 1957, in AAN, KC PZPR, 237/V-255.

17 Andrzej Albert [Wojciech Roszkowski], Najnowsza historia Polski, 1914-1993, 5th ed., vol.2 (London: Puls Publications, 1994), pp. 368-71.

18 Stehle, Independent Satellite, pp. 39-42.

19

A Polish transcript of the talks from October 11 to November 11, 1958, has recently been published in Tajne dokumenty Biura Politycznego: PRL-ZSSR 1956-1970, introduction by Andrzej Paczkowski (London: “Aneks,” 1998), pp. 191-120. The relevant section can be found on pp. 112-14. 20 In a speech in October 1958, Dulles had drawn a parallel between the U.S. commitment to Taiwan during the Taiwan Straits Crisis and its commitment to Berlin. In talks with the Soviet ambassador to the GDR, M. Pervukhin, Ulbricht interpreted Dulles' statement as a warning that as soon as the crisis in the Far East was resolved, the “imperialists” would turn their attention to Berlin. Zubok and Pleshakov, Inside the

* Kremlin's Cold War, pp. 198-99.

21 Stefan Ignar, Vice Chairman of the Polish Council of Ministers.

These two summit meetings, between Soviet leader
Nikita Khrushchev and East German leader and

Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) First Secretary Walter Ulbricht, took place in June 1959 during the second Berlin Crisis (1958-61) while the Conference of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of the U.S., Soviet Union, Britain, and France (with the two Germanys sitting in as observers for the first time) was occurring in Geneva, Switzerland.' The CFM met from May 11-June 19 and July 13-August 5 to discuss Germany.2 Much of the discussion at the two Soviet-East German summits was about strategy towards the Western Powers concerning Berlin and Germany at the CFM. A top-level East German delegation was in the Soviet Union from June 8-20, visiting Moscow, Riga, Kiev, and Gorki and holding these two summit meetings with the Soviet leadership as well as learning about Soviet economic, cultural, and other institutions.

The Geneva CFM was convened in response to Khrushchev's ultimatum of 27 November 1958 to the Western Powers about Berlin and Germany. In the ultimatum, Khrushchev demanded that a peace treaty be signed by the four powers with both Germanys or with a united Germany and that West Berlin be transformed into a "free city" within six months or he would sign a separate peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany) and turn over to the GDR control of access routes between West Germany and West Berlin.3 The six-month deadline was due to expire on 27 May 1959. The Western Powers relented beforehand, agreeing not yet for a summit of the heads of state (which is what Khrushchev really wanted), but proposing a meeting of the foreign ministers to discussed the issues raised in Khrushchev's ultimatum, as well as other topics. If progress was made at the CFM, then there might be a summit of heads of state. The Western proposal for the CFM on Germany, with the Four Powers and German representatives, was sent to Moscow on 16 February 1959. The Soviets responded on March 2 saying that they really thought a summit of the heads of state would be the most appropriate forum for discussing the German question, but if the West refused, they would agree to a CFM, with Czech and Polish, as well as East and West German, observers. In a note on March 26, Washington held to its position, supporting initially only a CFM and only with observers from the two Germanys. The Soviets accepted on March 30 the plans for the Geneva CFM to convene on

May 11 to discuss a German peace treaty and Berlin.

Thus, in less than six months, Khrushchev achieved two major objectives: negotiations with the West on Berlin and Germany, and de facto recognition of the GDR. Khrushchev made it clear to Ulbricht at their June 1959 summits that he had used the threat of a separate peace treaty threat as a "Damocles' sword" to force the West to the negotiating table. On June 18, he told Ulbricht: "I don't know whether we will bring this issue of the signing of a peace treaty with the GDR to realization; however, such a prospect acts in a sobering way on the Western powers and West Germany. This, if you will, is pressure on them, Damocles' sword, which we must hold over them." Presidium member Anastas Mikoian agreed: "Before they didn't want to talk about Berlin at all, but now they are forced to carry out negotiations with us on it."

Now that Khrushchev had actually gotten the West to the negotiating table, however, it was not clear how hard he really wanted to push his adversaries. As he told Ulbricht on June 9, "Earlier we said that in the event of the Western powers' refusal to sign a peace treaty with the two German governments, we would sign a peace treaty with the GDR. But now it is necessary to create a safety valve. Therefore we are proposing the creation of an allGerman committee," which he imagined would spend "one or one and a half years, until 1961," working out a plan for unification. In fact, Khrushchev told Ulbricht on June 18, "Let's not set a time limit. . . Let's act more flexibly on this issue. . ." Paul Scholz4 agreed with this idea for a very different reason. He pointed out that due to Khrushchev's 27 November 1958 ultimatum, on 27 May 1959, "is well known, on that day everyone in the GDR expected that something would happen. Therefore, it is better not to decree a concrete date, but to preserve freedom of movement for oneself." He did not want the GDR to be in the embarrassing position again of not reaping the gains that Khrushchev had publicly promised it.

Khrushchev did not expect much from the CFM itself. On June 9, he said to Ulbricht that the conference "won't have any tangible results . . . since the situation itself still doesn't have a basis for positive resolutions." Besides, "not one self-respecting prime minister will allow his foreign minister, due to prestige considerations, to sign an agreement on concrete issues." They would save this honor only for themselves. Thus, "Geneva-it's a test of

strength, it's a sounding out of positions."

Aside from forcing the West to the negotiating table by his ultimatum, and using the CFM for a "sounding out of positions," Khrushchev saw the CFM as a way to buy time during which to improve the GDR economy and its competitiveness with West Germany and West Berlin. Khrushchev believed that after one to one and a half years, "They will be weaker and we will be stronger." "In 1961 the GDR will start to surpass the FRG in standard of living. This will have very great political significance. This will be a bomb for them. Therefore, our position is to gain time." Ulbricht agreed that "it's clear that the signing of a peace treaty with the GDR would exacerbate the situation, for which we are not now prepared. Economically we still cannot exert influence on the West; therefore, we must win time." GDR Prime Minister Otto Grotewohl reminded those at the meeting that "in our conditions economic problems turn into political ones." The final communiqué of the meetings, published in Pravda on June 20, stated: "The delegations emphasize that the main influence on the situation in Germany and also to a significant extent in Europe, in the sense of the consolidation of peace and democracy, is exerted under the current circumstances by the successes of the workers of the German Democratic Republic in answering the economic tasks which were determined by the resolutions of the 5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany." The Soviets and East Germans understood how important an improvement in the East German economic situation was.

Khrushchev wanted some sort of agreement with the Western Powers which would help legitimize the GDR regime in the international arena and thus also help stabilize the situation within the GDR by reducing the number of refugees fleeing the country for West Berlin and West Germany. Having both West Germany and East Germany participate at the CFM as observers was seen as a big step forward for the GDR and for Khrushchev's strategy. Khrushchev told Ulbricht at their meeting on June 9 that the West's "invitation of the GDR to the conference, which signifies de facto recognition of the GDR," was an indication that the Western strategy of "rollback" had been “unrealistic” and that the West now realized that its “efforts to subvert the countries of Eastern Europe from the socialist path of development had completely failed."

Now that Khrushchev had achieved what he called Western "de facto recognition of the GDR," however, he was not going to push for de jure recognition. As he told Ulbricht on June 9, “We don't think it's worth it now to push the West to the wall, so we won't give the impression that we are seeking the recognition of the GDR. The Americans don't want to recognize the GDR. They can't do this for prestige reasons. That, and we would be offended. They didn't recognize us for 16 years, and you want them to recognize you after 10 years. You need to wait at least 17 years. In any case, such a stating of the

issue, such an intention from our side, would hinder the relaxation of tensions." One wishes for a tape recording of this meeting to hear the tone of Khrushchev's voice as he said this to Ulbricht! Khrushchev keeps playing both sides in these summits with Ulbricht; on the one hand standing up for GDR interests, yet on the other hand, not wanting to place decent relations with the West too much in jeopardy. Similarly, on June 9 Khrushchev recounted a Russian. expression to Ulbricht: "If you have thrown your adversary to the ground, you don't need to then kneel on his chest. We don't need to show that we won." But on June 18, he declared: "we must always understand with whom we are dealing. They are bandits. If we were weak, they would long ago have resolved the German question to their advantage... we must not forget that if we let down our guard, they will swallow us up." Thus, he blustered, "The more the Western powers know that there is a balance in the area of atomic weapons and rockets, the better it is for us." Perhaps emboldened by the USSR's 1957 achievements in orbiting a satellite (Sputnik) and testing long-range ballistic missiles to exaggerate Soviet nuclear strength, Khrushchev vacillated between pressuring the West and then pulling back.

Ulbricht, for his part, seemed more subdued than he became in meetings later in the Berlin Crisis. He did, however, as usual, push for more Soviet economic aid. At a certain point in the meeting on June 9, when Khrushchev seemed to think he has just ended the meeting by "summing up the exchange of views" and "expressing his sincere gratitude" for the "complete unity of views" between the East Germans and the Soviets, Ulbricht then went on "to speak more about the situation in the GDR" and the economic difficulties, which were particularly problematic, since the East Germans “compare the standard of living in the GDR with West Germany and West Berlin." Khrushchev promised to consider the GDR's requests, but clearly worried about how much the Soviets could afford to help the GDR. “We must reckon with our real capabilities. I would like to remind you that we began the competition with capitalism naked and with bare feet. The people believed us not only due to the promises of sausage and beer, but also due to the teachings of Marx and Lenin."

Beyond fishing for more economic aid, however, in these summits, Ulbricht was not really more militant than Khrushchev on the peace treaty or West Berlin. Instead, he seemed to agree that the GDR needed to "buy time” until it was in a better economic position to risk Western retaliation against a more hard-line strategy, such as signing a separate peace treaty and turning over to the GDR control of the West Berlin access routes.

In terms of reaching a settlement on Germany and/or Berlin among the Four Powers at the Geneva CFM, no real progress was made. Both sides talked of an interim agreement on Berlin and a reduction of Western troops in West Berlin, but the Soviets continued to insist that if no final agreement were made to change the status of West

Berlin, after the interim period of a year or a year-and-a-half, the Western troops would have to leave West Berlin and the latter must be transformed into a demilitarized international "free city" with no subversive and propaganda activities directed against the GDR or the Communist bloc. The West would not agree to most of this. The Soviets also continued to insist that a peace treaty be signed with both Germanys or a united Germany and called for an all-German committee, made up equally of East and West German representatives, to draw up plans for German unification. The West put forward a package deal of stages toward German unification (which would ultimately include free elections throughout Germany) which was incompatible with Soviet proposals. The West insisted on Four Power rights in Berlin, as guaranteed in the 1945 Potsdam agreements, and the Soviets insisted that those were no longer just.

After Gromyko announced on June 9 that the Western powers could maintain their rights in Berlin for one more year and Khrushchev announced on June 19 that an allGerman commission could have a year-and-a-half to come up with plans for reunification and a peace treaty, the West, feeling these were deadline threats, called a recess to the CFM. Given that the East German delegation was in the Soviet Union at this very time, as Michael Lemke points out, there was reason for the West to believe that they were meeting to plan "new measures in case there was no agreement on West Berlin at Geneva. One should increase the `pressure' on the Western Powers, urged Valerian Zorin, the First Deputy Foreign Minister of the USSR." As the transcripts from the two summit conversations indicate, Khrushchev was clearly following a strategy of keeping up pressure on the West on West Berlin and a German peace treaty, although his feeling of "not wanting to set a deadline" and wanting to be "more flexible" clearly was momentarily forgotten when he and Gromyko set renewed deadlines in June. And the final communiqué of the Soviet-East German meetings states, in the usual threatening way, that if no agreement is reached on a peaceful resolution on the German question, the Soviet Union and other interested countries will sign a peace treaty with the GDR.

In the meantime, in spite of President Eisenhower's vow that he would plan a summit meeting with Khrushchev only in the event of significant progress at the Geneva CFM, due to an apparent misunderstanding within the U.S. bureaucracy, an invitation for a summit meeting was issued to Khrushchev on July 11, and on August 3 it was announced that Khrushchev would visit the United States. Thus, when the CFM reassembled from July 13August 3, it was not surprising that no progress was made. Khrushchev had already received his invitation to the U.S., something far more important to him than a CFM.

Document No. 1

"Short Summary of the Talks with the GDR PartyGovernmental Delegation on 9 June 1959"

Secret. 4 July 1959.

Soviet officials taking part in the talks: N.S. Khrushchev [First Secretary, Presidium member, and head of delegation], A.I. Kirichenko [Presidium member and Central Committee Secretary], F.R. Kozlov [Presidium member and Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers], A.I. Mikoian [Presidium member and First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers], V.V. Kuznetsov [First Deputy Foreign Minister], V.S. Semenov [Deputy Foreign Minister], M.G. Pervukhin [Ambassador to the GDR].

The following assisted in the talks: Deputy Head of the CPSU CC Dept. N.T. Vinogradov, [and] heads of departments at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, N.M. Lun'kov, and A. Ya. Popov.

Taking part in the talks from the German side: the GDR party-governmental delegation. [The document does not list who was in the East German delegation. Minister President Grotewohl's files,' the published communiqué,8 and the records of the summits indicate that the delegation included W. Ulbricht (SED First Secretary, Politburo member and head of the delegation), O. Grotewohl (Minister President and Politburo member), F. Ebert (Mayor of Berlin and Politburo member), B. Leuschner (Politburo member, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and Chairman of the State Planning Commission), E. Correns (President of the National Council of the National Front), H. Loch (Deputy President of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany), J. König (Ambassador to the USSR), H. Homann (Vice President of the Volkskammer and Deputy Chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany, A. Bach (Vice President of the Volkskammer and Chairman of the Christian Democratic Union, P. Scholz (Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Deputy Chairman of the Democratic Farmers' Party of Germany), and R. Korb (Stasi official, Head of Central Information Groups).]

Assisting in the talks was also GDR Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Collegium member A. Kunderman [who was also the head of the Foreign Ministry's Department on the Soviet Union].

Khrushchev: Let me welcome the GDR partygovernmental delegation and give the first word to the guests.

Ulbricht: There is a series of issues which it is imperative for us to discuss.

I would like to start with the conference in Geneva. As is well known, the Soviet Union's proposal about a peace treaty at the Geneva conference was opposed by the Western powers' package of proposals. In sum, its core comes down to liquidating us not immediately, but step by step, in three stages.

Also in connection with the Geneva conference, the question is: what can our delegation do for the further development of initiatives[?] We would like to exchange views with you on this. We think that an important step for developing this initiative was Gromyko's proposal to create a commission of the representatives of the two German states. However, neither the West nor the Bonn government has responded to this proposal. Therefore, we should think about what we should undertake in this regard in the future.

Moreover, I would like to note that the proposals of the Western powers completely ignore the question of the prohibition of West German nuclear arms. Thus, our delegation in Geneva first of all raised the question of the prohibition of atomic arms and rocket installations in West Germany. This is the first issue which, in our view, must occupy the commission.

We also proposed to the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany] to conclude a non-aggression pact, a treaty on the renunciation of the use of force between the two German states. Adenauer rejected this proposal, but it met with support among the West German population (in particular from the FDP [Free Democratic Party] and SPD [Social Democratic Party]). Our proposal was understood by all and accepted, because it demands that both sides renounce something. We gave you the draft of this treaty and would like to know your view on this issue.

However, in any case, the question of a peace treaty remains at the center of attention. As regards us, proceeding from the above considerations, we emphasize especially one part-the prohibition of West German nuclear arms, [a position] which has the understanding of the FRG population.

The second issue about which we would like to exchange views is West Berlin. As is well known, the Americans are raising the question of preserving their rights in West Berlin. But we think that the issue of the preservation of occupation rights can't be raised now. We think that since 14 years have passed since the end of the war, it is time for a peace treaty.

The USSR proposed keeping a symbolic force in West Berlin. For our part, we are prepared to give a guarantee of access to West Berlin.

So where are the disagreements?

In the fact that the Western powers don't want to carry out negotiations on guarantees with the GDR, although we already control them [i.e., guarantees of Western access to West Berlin] about 95%. Thus, the issue is the following: we must give a guarantee in the name of the GDR separately from four power agreements. Although in fact this will be an agreement of five powers. Gromyko is trying to achieve this at the conference [in Geneva]. But the West is not agreeing to it.

If an agreement of the four powers is reached at a summit on this question, we are prepared to publish a declaration on guarantees separately.

We also need to decide which tactics to follow on the

issue of reunification. Our delegation in Geneva raised the question of whether we should publish in Geneva our declaration concerning a confederation. This question was discussed in the Politburo. But doubts arose among us about the utility of such a step at the current moment, since the Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs is not especially suitable for this.

Maybe it would be better to do this at a summit conference?

At the conference in Geneva, Gromyko raised the question of having an all-German committee study the questions of the preparation and conclusion of a peace treaty and the reunification of the country. If the Soviet comrades don't object, maybe we could discuss with the Soviet side how an all-German committee could study the peaceful resolution of the German question, and could give an instruction to our [Foreign] Minister [Lothar] Bolz to make corresponding proposals in Geneva and announce that we are also ready to discuss the question of reunification in this commission.

The next issue is a summit conference. If at a summit conference the positions move closer together and if some sort of agreement is reached, we would welcome all this, because we think that this would facilitate a return to a discussion of the issue of a peace treaty. However, the details of this can be dealt with later.

This, in short, is what I wanted to say.

Khrushchev: We have discussed all of these questions and believe that Geneva has given good results. It showed the unrealistic policy of [U.S. Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles which is aimed at the so-called "liberation" of Eastern Europe. This policy, which is directed at a blockade of Eastern Europe, the subversion of these countries from within, etc., is completely bankrupt. And it was clearly shown that efforts to subvert the countries of Eastern Europe from the socialist path of development completely failed.

Instead of this, they came to the conference in Geneva [and] agreed to the invitation of the GDR to the conference, which signifies de facto recognition of the GDR. Thus, the situation as a whole has turned out favorably for us. As regards the question of the unification of Germany, this problem is now used by the West only for propagandistic goals. The information which we have completely supports this. When our responsible comrades spoke about this question with representatives of the West, the latter directly said that the reunification of Germany is impossible.

De Gaulle, for example, said: "We are not for two Germanys, but really for three and even four." Eisenhower implied to Gromyko that the USA considers unification impossible at the present time, remarking that, in his view, it is a long process.

Macmillan and Adenauer also think this way. The latter is especially afraid of German unification and as long as he is alive-there won't be reunification.

We correctly announced in Geneva that we are for