Extracted text

OCR Page 1 of 14
12/13/53 Reel 6, Track 2, Page 1 MR. ACHESON: They set up a group with Dana Wilgress [sounds like] on it and various we people who were knovledgable in this field and I don't lonow who he- had worling ui th them. I don't lon whether we he had anyone, or a weakthenthey were doingthicowthin wereour MR. NITZE: No ure had some people who cooperated with this effort. I think they are intelligence people and, both from the State Department and the military establishments, because it came out as a coordinated m.co presentation MR. PERKTHS: Well Chuck Spafford vas our repr sentative in the group, but he got his Graenther's information both from Al Guenther's people and Mashington military and State Department. MR. NITZE: That's right. MR. PERKINS: And we had a great deal to do with writing the report, as I remember it, but I've forgotten who actually did the detail work. MR. ACHESON: As I recall it, we went along with the reports pretty well. There was one part of it which I think we did not like and we had a substitute. We were going to say we yould agree with this report except a certain & without part of it and as to that the U.S. vieus are thus and so. I think they NE HS not afonce pthemetting were quite andious to have that happen. During the reached a compromise by which they roached a good part of ours and modified somo of and it was put together. I have afecling that that vasddone in Rome. MR. HARRIMANT: In the TCC discussions this question, as I recall, didn't como up. There was acceptance by the ministers that should develop substantial forces and the discussion, of course, surrounded what each country, what in the specific country we were analysing was able to contribute and--to the force, and you had definitely done a good job of that at Otawa because there was no argument as to whether the NATO forces should or should not be expanded. They all agreed thnt they should be expanded and the discussion was what was possible and fair for each country to do.