Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 185–208 | Cite as

What Role for NATO? Conflicting Western Perceptions of Détente, 1963–65

  • Anna Locher
  • Christian Nuenlist
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Memorandum of Conversation (MemCon) Dobrynin-Thompson, 10 September 1963, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) 1961-63, VI: 306.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard W. Stevenson, The Rise and Fall of Détente: Reflections of Tension in U.S. — Soviet Relations, 1953–83 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    By ‘small allies,’ we refer to NATO member states other than the major powers US, Britain, France, and the FRG, thus including ‘middle powers’ such as Canada or Italy as well as ‘small powers’ such as Belgium or Denmark.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    On the ‘little dttente’ of 1963, see Jennifer W. See, “An Uneasy Truce: John F. Kennedy and Soviet-American Détente, 1963, “ Cold War History 2, 2 (2002), 161–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4a.
    Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–63 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
  6. 4b.
    Christof Münger, Kennedy, die Berliner Mauer und die Kubakrise: Die westliche Allianz in der Zerreissprobe, 1961–63 (Paderbom: Schöningh, 2003). On Johnson’s foreign policy beyond Vietnam, seeGoogle Scholar
  7. 4c.
    Thomas A. Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 4d.
    Max Guderzo, Interesse nazionale e responsabilità globale: gli Stati Uniti, l’Alleanza atlantica e l’integrazione europea negli anni di Johnson, 1963–69 (Firenze: Aida, 2000).Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    Khrushchev to Kennedy, 27 October 1962, FRUS 1961–63, VI: 178–181; Kennedy to Khrushchev, 28 October 1962, Ibid., 182.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Rusk to US Embassies, 20 December 1962, FRUS 1961–63, XIII: 463.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Record of NAC meeting, 13 December 1962, 10:15am, NATO Archives, Brussels (NA), C-R(62)58-e, 5–18; Record of NAC meeting, 13 December 1963, 3:15pm, NA, CR( 62)59-e, 5–19.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Bundy to Kennedy, 30 January 1963, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston (JFKL), National Security Files (NSF), Box 402.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    Trachtenberg, Constructed Peace, 355–379.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    Record of NSC meeting, 25 January 1963, FRUS 1961–63, XIII: 491.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    Handwritten notes by Grewe, 10 April 1963, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes (PAAA), Berlin, Nachlass (NL) Grewe, Bd. 87.Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    Record of NAC meeting, 10 April 1963, NA, C-R(63)19-e.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    Record of NAC meeting, 23 May 1963, 10:15am, NA, C-R(63)29-e, 5–10.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    Record of NAC meeting, 23 May 1963, 3:30pm, NA, C-R(63)3-e, 17.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    Rusk to Department of State (DoS), 22 May 1963, US National Archives, College Park (USNA), Record Group (RG) 59, Conference File (CF), Box 334.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Rusk to DoS, 24 May 1963, JFKL, NSF, Box 248. On Stikker see Dirk Stikker, Bausteine für eine neue Welt (Wien: Econ, 1966), 432–447.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    Rusk to DoS, 22 May 1963.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    CBS Int. Rusk, 24 May 1963, USNA, RG 59, CF, Box 334.Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    Cyrus Sulzberger, The Last of the Giants (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 985.Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    Kendrick Oliver, Kennedy, Macmillan, and the Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1961–63 (London: Macmillan, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 20a.
    Brian White, Britain, Ddtente and Changing East-West Relations (London: Routledge, 1992), 89–107.Google Scholar
  26. 21.
    See for example Kennedy’s address at the American University in Washington, 10 June 1963, Public Papers of the President: John E Kennedy (PPP): 1963 (Washington DC: GPO, 1964), 463.Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    Record of NAC meeting, 3 July 1963, NA, C-R(63)36-e. See Hughes to Rusk, 8 July 1963, JFKL, NSF, Box 265.Google Scholar
  28. 23.
    Editorial note, FRUS 1961–63, VII: 762ff.Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    Schaetzel to Rostow, 8 July 1963, USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM, RPA 1957–66, Box 7.Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    Rostow to Kennedy, 8 July 1963, JFKL, NSF, Box 265.Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    Paper, “Elements for a Package Deal with Moscow,” 3 July 1963, JFKL, NSF, Box 265; OH Int. Kaysen, JFKL, 129.Google Scholar
  32. 27.
    Instructions for Harriman, 10 July 1963, FRUS 1961–63, VII: 785–788; MemCon Kennedy-Harriman, 10 July 1963, FRUS 1961–63, VII: 789f.Google Scholar
  33. 28.
    For the telegrams between Harriman and the White House, see JFKL, NSF, Box 187; FRUS 1961–63, VII: 799–863.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    Record of NAC meeting, 29 July 1963, 3:30pm, NA, C-R(63)41-e; Circular telegramGoogle Scholar
  35. 29.
    July 1963, USNA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files (CDF) 1963, Box 3799.Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    OH Int. Rusk, JFKL, 225.Google Scholar
  37. 31.
    See Kendrick Oliver, “West Germany and the Moscow Test Ban Treaty Negotiations, July 1963,” in Controversy and Compromise: Alliance Politics between Great Britain, Federal Republic of Germany, and the United States of America, 1945–1967, ed. Saki Dockrill (Bodenheim: Philo, 1998), 151–171.Google Scholar
  38. 32.
    MemCon Adenaner-Rusk, 10 August 1963, FRUS 1961–63, VII: 873–876.Google Scholar
  39. 33.
    Charles de Gaulle, Discours et messages: pour l’effort 1962–65 (Paris: Plon, 1970), 112–130.Google Scholar
  40. 34.
    For an assessment of de Gaulle’s foreign policy in 1963, see Note by Blankenhorn, 14 August 1963, PAAA, B 150, Bd. 11.Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    Khrushchev to Kennedy, 26 July 1963, FRUS 1961–63, VI: 301f.; Memorandum of meeting with the President, 2 August 1963, FRUS 1961–63, V: 726.Google Scholar
  42. 36.
    Harriman to Kaysen, 28 July 1963, JFKL, NSE Box 376.Google Scholar
  43. 37.
    Ibid.; Rostow to Rusk, 8 August 1963, USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 256.Google Scholar
  44. 38.
    Record of NAC meeting, 29 July 1963, NA, C-R(63)41-e.Google Scholar
  45. 39.
    Record of NAC meeting, 21 August 1963, NA, C-R(63)46-e.Google Scholar
  46. 40.
    Record of NAC meeting, 28 August 1963, NA, C-R(63)47-e. See Wilhelm G. Grewe, Riickblenden: Aufzeichnungen eines Augenzeugen deutscher Aussenpolitik yon Adenauer bis Schmidt (Frankfurt a.M.: Propyläen, 1979), 605–610.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    Tyler to Rusk, 20 September 1963, USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM: RPA 1957–66, Box 12.Google Scholar
  48. 42.
    MemCon Rusk-Schröder-Home, 27 September 1963, USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM: RPA 1957–66, Box 3. Rusk had already one week earlier noted that since NATO blocked further agreements on NAP and GOP he expected next détente steps rather on a bilateral level: MemCon Rusk-Schröder, 20 September 1963, USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 252.Google Scholar
  49. 43.
    MemCon Kennedy-Gromyko, 10 October 1963, FRUS 1961–63, V: 791ff.; MemCon Rusk-Gromyko, 10 October 1963, FRUS 1961–63, V: 785–791. On Khrushchev, see Douglas Selvage, “The Warsaw Pact and Nuclear Proliferation, 1963–65,” CWIHP Working Paper 32 (April 2001): 6–11.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    Background paper, “Status of East-West Relations,” 31 October 1963, USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM: RPA 1957–66, Box 3.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    Memorandum, “Stikker’s 4th Visit to Washington,” 1 October 1963.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    Finletter to Rusk, 26 November 1963, USNA, RG 59, ANF, Box 3696.Google Scholar
  53. 47.
    MacArthur to Rusk, 12 December 1963, USNA, RG 59, CF, Box 334.Google Scholar
  54. 48.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, Paris, 16 December 1963, 10:15am, NA, CVR( 63)73, 7; Record of NAC Meeting, Paris, 16 December 1963, 10:15am, NA, CR( 63)73-e, 7.Google Scholar
  55. 49.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, 16 December 1963, 10:15am, 17.Google Scholar
  56. 50.
    Ibid., 19.Google Scholar
  57. 51.
    Rusk to US Embassies, 16 December 1963, USNA, RG 59, CF, Box 334.Google Scholar
  58. 52.
    Memorandum, “East West issues,” 20 January 1964, USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM: RPA 1957–66, Box 4; Verbatim record of the NAC Meeting, 16 December 1963, 3:15pm, NA, C-R(63)74, 51.Google Scholar
  59. 53.
    Rusk to US Embassies, 16 December 1963.Google Scholar
  60. 54.
    Extract of remarks by Martin in Memorandum, “East West issues,” 20 January 1964.Google Scholar
  61. 55.
    Extract of remarks by Schröder in Memorandum, “East West issues,” 20 January 1964.Google Scholar
  62. 56.
    MemCon Rusk-Schröder, 20 September 1963, AAPD 1963, II: 349. See also Franz Eibl, Politik der Bewegung: Gerhard Schrgder als Aussenminister, 1961–1966 (München, Oldenbourg, 2001), 256–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 57.
    Rostow to Harriman, 30 July 1963, JFKL, NSF, Box 376.Google Scholar
  64. 58.
    Rostow to Rusk, 8 August 1963, and S/PC paper, 23 August 1963, “Steps in a Process toward Detente,” both in USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 256.Google Scholar
  65. 59.
    Briefing paper, “Review of Outstanding World Problems: NATO,” 30 October 1963, USNA, RG 59, CDF 1948–63, Box 1.Google Scholar
  66. 60.
    Memorandum, 1 November 1963, “The President’s Meeting with Erhard,” USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 252.Google Scholar
  67. 61.
    Talking points for Secretary, [December 1963], USNA, RG 59, EUR/RPM: RPA 1957–66 Box 12.Google Scholar
  68. 62.
    Rusk (Paris) to DoS, 15 December 1963, USNA, RG 59, CDF 1963, Box 4230.Google Scholar
  69. 63.
    Scope paper for NATO ministerial meeting, 6 December 1963, FRUS 1961–63, XIII: 635–639. For a more positive assessment of Johnson’s early détente efforts, see Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe, 22–25.Google Scholar
  70. 64.
    Handwritten notes by Grewe on meeting with Stikker, 6 December 1963, PAAA, NL Grewe, Bd. 87.Google Scholar
  71. 65.
    Rusk to US Embassies, 16 December 1963.Google Scholar
  72. 66.
    MemCon Zinchuk-Manning, 20 December 1963, USNA, RG 59, CDF 1963, Box 3696. Final communiqué, 17 December 1963, https://doi.org/www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c631216a.htm.
  73. 67.
    Ignatieff to Hooton, 19 December 1963, Canadian National Archives (CNA), 20-CDA-9-Pearson, File 27.Google Scholar
  74. 68.
    Ignatieff to Martin, 24 February 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-1, File 3–12, attachment on “Non-Military Cooperation in NATO.” On Ignatieff, see Paul Martin, A Very Public Life 11: Safeguarding the Cornerstone (Ottawa: Deneau, 1984), 460.Google Scholar
  75. 69.
    Record of NAC meeting, 17 January 1964, NA, c-r(64)2-e.Google Scholar
  76. 70.
    MemCon Rusk-Stikker, 18 March 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 25–30; Record of policy planning discussion, 31 March 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XVII, 8–12.Google Scholar
  77. 71.
    Rostow to Rusk, 25 March 1964, USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 259.Google Scholar
  78. 72.
    Pascal Morf, Building Bridges: Die amerikanische Deutschlandpolitik unter Lyndon B. Johnson zwischen Allianzpolitik und Détente, 1964–66, MA thesis (University of Zurich, 2001), 18–80; Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe, 133. See also Rostow to Rusk, 20 January 1964, USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 243.Google Scholar
  79. 73.
    MemCon Rusk-Stikker, 18 March 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 29; MacArthur to Rusk, 11 May 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson Library (LBJL), NSF, International Meetings and Travel, Box 34.Google Scholar
  80. 74.
    Schwartz, Lyndon Johnson and Europe, 39–46; Helga Haftendorn, “Das Projekt einer multilateralen NATO-Atomstreitmacht (MLF),” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 54, 2 (1994), 417–450.Google Scholar
  81. 75.
    Paper, “The US and Germany: A Policy of Movement,” 3 April 1964, LBJL, NSF, Countries, Box 183; Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of a Presidency, 1963–1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971), 471ff.Google Scholar
  82. 76.
    Record of NAC meeting, The Hague, 12 May 1964, 11:30am, NA, c-r(64)22-e, 4.Google Scholar
  83. 77.
    Ibid., 5. For the development of the Soviet and Warsaw Pact disarmament policies, see Selvage, The Warsaw Pact and Nuclear Nonproliferation.Google Scholar
  84. 78.
    Finletter to Rusk, 12 May 1964, USNA, RG 59, CF, Box 349.Google Scholar
  85. 79.
    Record of NAC meeting, The Hague, 12 May 1964, 11:30am, 7.Google Scholar
  86. 80.
    Record of NAC meeting, The Hague, 12 May 1964, 3:30pm, NA, c-r(64)23-e, 4, 14.Google Scholar
  87. 81.
    The Hague to Ottawa 225, 13 May 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-12-1964-Spring.Google Scholar
  88. 82.
    The Hague to Ottawa 230, 14 May 1964, Ibid.Google Scholar
  89. 83.
    Ibid.; see also Martin, Very Public Life II, 459.Google Scholar
  90. 84.
    Record of NAC meeting, The Hague, 12 May 1964, 3:30pm, NA, c-r(64)23-e, 9–12.Google Scholar
  91. 85.
    Ibid., 40f. Since January 1964, de Gaulle started to review his policies toward the East. Maurice Vaïsse, La Grandeur: Politique Etrangère du Général de Gaulle, 1958–69 (Paris: Fayard, 1998), 118.Google Scholar
  92. 86.
    Annual Political Appraisal 1964: Report by the Secretary General, 24 April 1964, NA, c-m(64)35-e.Google Scholar
  93. 87.
    Circular airgram, 8 October 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 83–89, 84; MemCon between Rusk and Brosio, 28 September 1964, USNA, RG 59, CF, Box 358; Brosio report, “Soviet Policy after Khrushchev,” 1 February 1965, NA, PO/65/56.Google Scholar
  94. 88.
    For Brosio’s role in the process of détente, see Bruna Bagnato, “Handling the Alliance in a Time of Change: Manlio Brosio and the Transformation of NATO,” paper presented at international conference on “NATO, the Warsaw Pact and Détente,” Dobbiaco, 26–28 September 2002.Google Scholar
  95. 89.
    Paper on “US Policy toward Europe,” 9 October 1964, USNA, RG 59, S/PC 1963–64, Box 258.Google Scholar
  96. 90.
    Bennett Kovrig, Of Walls and Bridges: The United States and Eastern Europe (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 108; Morf, Building Bridges, 77–80.Google Scholar
  97. 91.
    Scope paper for NATO ministerial meeting, 8 December 1964, LBJL, NSE International Meetings and Travel, Box 34.Google Scholar
  98. 92.
    Records of NAC meetings, Paris, 15 December 1964, 10:15am and 3:30pm, NA, c-r(64)54-e, c-r(64)55-e.Google Scholar
  99. 93.
    Record of NAC meeting, Paris, 15 December 1964, 10:15am, 18f., 44; Record of NAC meeting, Paris, 15 December 1964, 3:30pm, 5–6.Google Scholar
  100. 94.
    Ibid., 5, 11.Google Scholar
  101. 95.
    Ibid., 8ff.Google Scholar
  102. 96.
    White, Britain and Drtente, 114–120.Google Scholar
  103. 97.
    Record of NAC meeting, Paris, 15 December 1964, 10:15am, 32. See also MemCon Johnson-Wilson, 8 December 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 146–152.Google Scholar
  104. 98.
    Horst Osterheld, Aussenpolitik unter Bundeskanzler Ludwig Erhard 1963–66 (Düsseldorf, Droste, 1992), 213; Grewe, Rückblenden, 622.Google Scholar
  105. 99.
    MemCon Rusk-Spaak, 9 May 1964, Fondation Paul-Henri Spaak (FPHS), 48/614/8789, 1.Google Scholar
  106. 100.
    NATO Paris to Ottawa, 20 May 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-12-1964-Spring; The Hague to Ottawa, 13 May 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-12-1964-Spring; Tyler to MacArthur, 2 April 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 31–34.Google Scholar
  107. 101.
    NATO Pads to Ottawa, 20 May 1964; Record of NAC meeting, The Hague, 12 May 1964, 3:30pm, NA, c-r(64)23e, 4–5.Google Scholar
  108. 102.
    See e.g. Circular document, 25 June 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-12-Spring; Briefing notes for Pearson meeting with Brosio, 1 October 1964, CNA, MG 26-N3, vol. 273, 1; Memorandum by D L (1) Division to Robinson, 11 January 1965, CNA, 27-4-NATO-1; Ottawa to NATO Pads, 10 November 1964, CNA 27-4-NATO-12-1964-Fall, 3. In general, see Gregh Donaghy, “Domesticating NATO: Canada and the North Atlantic Alliance, 1963–68,” in International Journal 52:3 (Summer 1997): 445–463.Google Scholar
  109. 103.
    MemCon Brosio-Martin-Hellyer, 2 October 1964, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-1, 3; MemCon Rusk-Brosio, 13 December 1964, LBJL, NSF, International Meetings and Travel, Box 34.Google Scholar
  110. 104.
    MemCon Brosio-Martin-Hellyer, 2 October 1964, 5; Martin, Very Public Life II, 468.Google Scholar
  111. 105.
    Paper, “Future of the Alliance,” attached to Ottawa to NATO Pads DL-458, 5 March 1965, CNA, RG 25, 27-4-NATO-1, File 22–20.Google Scholar
  112. 106.
    NATO Paris to Ottawa, 21 April 1965, RG 25, CNA, 27-4-NATO-1.Google Scholar
  113. 107.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, London, 11 May 1965, 11:00am, NA, c-vr(65)20. See also FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 198–210.Google Scholar
  114. 108.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, London, 11 May 1965, 11:00am, 24–5.Google Scholar
  115. 109.
    The Canadian paper was also controversial within the Ottawa administration. On the fate of the US initiative, see Knappstein an Auswärtiges Amt, 24 May 1965, AAPD 1965: 896–898.Google Scholar
  116. 110.
    Robinson speech, 6 October 1965, CNA, MG 31-E83, vol. 22, 13.Google Scholar
  117. 111.
    Martin to Ignatieff, 5 October 1965, CNA, MG 31-E 83, vol. 13, 13–9.Google Scholar
  118. 112.
    Annual Political Appraisal 1965: Report by the Secretary General, 24 April 1965, NA, c-m(65)40.Google Scholar
  119. 113.
    Record of NAC meeting, London, 11 May 1965, 3:15pm, NA, c-r(65)21-e, 8–9.Google Scholar
  120. 114.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, London, 12 May 1965, 3:15 pm, NA, c-vr(65)21, 18.Google Scholar
  121. 115.
    Ibid., 30.Google Scholar
  122. 116.
    Ibid.; Record of NAC meeting, London, 11 May 1965, 3:15pm, 24.Google Scholar
  123. 117.
    The Soviet Union was not prepared to agree on a NPT as long as the United States were considering the MLF. MemCon, 29 April 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 43f. See also MemCon, 5 December 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XI: 129–135; MemCon, 7 January 1965, FRUS 1964–68, XI: 154–162.Google Scholar
  124. 118.
    A revised version of the 1957–58 Rapacki plan, the Gomulka plan aimed at the freeze of nuclear weapons in Central Europe, the prohibition of production of nuclear weapons, the imposition of safeguards, and the establishment of GOP.Google Scholar
  125. 119.
    AAPD 1965 II, 588, footnote 13. Already in 1958 and 1964, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Britain had preferred to avoid antagonizing Poland.Google Scholar
  126. 120.
    Grewe to Auswärtiges Amt, 27 July 1965, AAPD 1965, 1291; Record of NAC meeting, 26 July 1965, NA, C-R(65)34-e. See also Grewe, Rückblenden, 587; Robert S. Jordan, Political Leadership in NATO: A Study in Multinational Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview, 1979), 215.Google Scholar
  127. 121.
    Record of NAC meeting, 26 July 1965, 29.Google Scholar
  128. 122.
    On the need to “avoid any schism in NATO,” see Rusk to Stewart, 22 July 1965, FRUS 1964–68, XI: 229–231.Google Scholar
  129. 123.
    Glenn T. Seaborg, Stemming the Tide: Arms Control in the Johnson Years (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1987), 153–176Google Scholar
  130. 123.
    Adrian W. Schertz, Die Deutschlandpolitik Kennedys und Johnsons (Krön: Böhlau, 1992), 321–344. See Memorandum, “PPC Consultants’ Discussion of Atlantic Affairs,” n.d., LBJL, NSF, Countries, Box 163; Neumann Memorandum, “Post-election shifts in German politics: Growing importance of nuclear issues,” 1 November 1965, LBJL, Francis Bator Papers, Box 26.Google Scholar
  131. 124.
    Rusk to DoS, Paris, 18 December 1965, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 285–288, 286.Google Scholar
  132. 125.
    See e.g. Rusk to DoS, Paris, 18 December 1965.Google Scholar
  133. 126.
    MemCon between Rusk and Erhard, 4 June 1965, FRUS 1964–68, XV: 284–289, 286.Google Scholar
  134. 127.
    Kovrig, Of Walls and Bridges, 109. The “Vietnam factor” is instrumental, but does not explain everything. Both superpowers did deliberately not engage in mutual crises and throughout the whole period of the war cared for East-West stability. Despite the war, progress on East-West détente became possible in 1967/68. Ilya V. Gaiduk, “The Vietnam War and Soviet-American Relations, 1964–73: New Russian Evidence,” CWIHP Bulletin 6–7 (1995–96), 232–3.Google Scholar
  135. 128.
    MemCon between Rusk and Erhard, Washington, 4 June 1965, FRUS 1964–68, XV: 284–289. See also Study, “The Atlantic Alliance Basic Issues,” 18 February 1966, LBJL, NSF, Agencies, Box 36. The war in Viemam also affected Soviet readiness to discuss disarmament measures with Washington. Raymond L. Garthoff, “The Aborted U.S.-U.S.S.R. Summit of 1965,” in SHAFR Newsletter 32, no. 2 (June 2001), 1ff.; Vladislav M. Zubok, “Unwrapping the Enigma: What Was Behind the Soviet Challenge in the 1960s?” in The Diplomacy of the Crucial Decade, 149–182.Google Scholar
  136. 129.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, Paris, 14 December 1965, 10:15am, NA, c-vr(65)50, 10, 15–7.Google Scholar
  137. 130.
    Martin to Ignatieff, 5 October 1965, CNA, MG 31-E 83, vol. 13, 13–9.Google Scholar
  138. 131.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, 14 December 1965, 10:15am, 36–7.Google Scholar
  139. 132.
    Frédéric Bozo, Deux stratégies pour l’Europe: De Gaulle, les Etats-Unis et l’Alliance atlantique, 1958–1969 (Paris: Plon, 1996), 138–145Google Scholar
  140. 132a.
    Georges-Henri Soutou, «La décision française de quitter le commandement intègre de l’OTAN,» in Von Truman bis Harmel: Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Spannungsfeld von NATO und europtiischer Integration, ed. Hans-Joachim Harder (München: Oldenbourg, 2000), 185–208.Google Scholar
  141. 133.
    Bozo, Deux stratégies, 133–137; Vaïsse, Grandeur, 413–451. France’s steps were closely followed in Washington; see e.g. Bohlen to Rusk, 30 November 1964, FRUS 1964–68, XIII: 122–126.Google Scholar
  142. 134.
    Record of NAC meeting, London, 11 May 1965, 3:15pm, 25–6.Google Scholar
  143. 135.
    Verbatim record of NAC meeting, Paris, 14 December 1965, 3:30pm, 28.Google Scholar
  144. 136.
    Ibid., 27ff.Google Scholar
  145. 137.
    Andreas Wenger. “Crisis and Opportunity: NATO’s Transformation and the Multilateralization of Détente, 1966–1968,” Journal of Cold War Studies 6, 1 (2004): 22–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of the Journal of Transatlantic Studies 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Locher
    • 1
  • Christian Nuenlist
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Security StudiesZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations