Ask the Scholar

Page 13 of 20
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 13

OCR

TRUMAN (Page 13) S. NATIONAL SERVICE" July ARCHIVES AND as s : Social Democrats urged that the Federal government should give closer study to the Soviet note of March 10, calling for a German peace treaty, in order to determine whether it offered a "genuine chance" for negotiation with the Soviet Union. Adenauter replied that it had been established an Nate by the Bundestag that the primary aim of West German policy was the reunion of Germany in freedom and within a united Europe. He said that the Soviet Union, as indicated by its note, wished to reduce Germany to an inferior status and that the note falsified the provisions of the Potsdam agree- ment regarding German frontiers. He stated further: "With all our strength we must seek reunion with the help of the Western allies. " Ollenhauer, acting leader of the Social Democrats, expressed the view that "the only peaceful way to reunion" was "through the unity of the four occupying powers," and stressed that "nothing must be done to hinder or encumber the unity of the four powers on German reunion." A government resolution approving the policy of Adenauer on reunion and on the contractual agreement was passed by the government majority. Adenauer and the Allied High Commissioners resumed their negotiations on April 4th and continued them on the 9th. A communique stated on the 9th that "excellent" progress had been made. On April 28th a spokesman for the Allied High Commissioners expressed the "official hope" of the High Commi ssioners and Adenauer that, as a result of their meeting of the 28th, the contractual agreement would be completed by May 20th. Opposition to limitations of sovereignty under the contrac- tual agreements was expressed by the coalition parties of the Federal government in early May. The chairman of the parliamentary group of the German party stated on the lst that his party would never give their votes for "a second Versailles, II and the Free Democratic party demanded on the same day that the Occupation Statute be abolished and that "allied interference in German affairs be made impossible.' Revisions of the agreements requested by the government coalition parties were submitted ty Adenauer to the High Commissioners on May 13th. It was reported on the next day that allied negotiators had agreed to reword several provisions in an attempt to overcome objections. On May 16th the federal constitutional court at Karlsruhe refused to grant an interim injunction, applied for by the Social Democrats, which would have barred Adenauer from signing the contractual agreements until the court had ruled on the constitutional question of whether the agree- ments involved a change in the Basic Law of the Republic and would thus require a two-thirds majority for ratification.

Page data

Page
13
Source index
0
Type
photo
Media ID
3a15e7b55946faf2
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
75848880
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data
{
    "id": "75848880",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Synopsis M, Developments Subsequent to Lisbon, March-June, 1952",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880",
    "collections": [
        "Dean Acheson Papers",
        "Princeton Seminars Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 20,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity
{
    "localId": "75848880",
    "label": "Synopsis M, Developments Subsequent to Lisbon, March-June, 1952",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880"
}
Document source metadata
{
    "id": "75848880",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Synopsis M, Developments Subsequent to Lisbon, March-June, 1952",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880",
    "collections": [
        "Dean Acheson Papers",
        "Princeton Seminars Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 20,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848880",
    "naId": 75848880,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "logicalDate": "1953-01-01",
            "year": 1953
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
    "seq": 13,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722150-14-13.jpg",
    "mediaId": "3a15e7b55946faf2",
    "ocrText": "TRUMAN\n(Page 13)\nS. NATIONAL SERVICE\" July\nARCHIVES AND\nas\ns\n:\nSocial Democrats urged that the Federal government should\ngive closer study to the Soviet note of March 10, calling\nfor a German peace treaty, in order to determine whether\nit offered a \"genuine chance\" for negotiation with the\nSoviet Union. Adenauter replied that it had been established\nan Nate\nby the Bundestag that the primary aim of West German policy\nwas the reunion of Germany in freedom and within a united\nEurope. He said that the Soviet Union, as indicated by its\nnote, wished to reduce Germany to an inferior status and\nthat the note falsified the provisions of the Potsdam agree-\nment regarding German frontiers. He stated further: \"With\nall our strength we must seek reunion with the help of the\nWestern allies. \" Ollenhauer, acting leader of the Social\nDemocrats, expressed the view that \"the only peaceful way\nto reunion\" was \"through the unity of the four occupying\npowers,\" and stressed that \"nothing must be done to hinder\nor encumber the unity of the four powers on German reunion.\"\nA government resolution approving the policy of Adenauer\non reunion and on the contractual agreement was passed by\nthe government majority.\nAdenauer and the Allied High Commissioners resumed their\nnegotiations on April 4th and continued them on the 9th.\nA communique stated on the 9th that \"excellent\" progress\nhad been made.\nOn April 28th a spokesman for the Allied High Commissioners\nexpressed the \"official hope\" of the High Commi ssioners\nand Adenauer that, as a result of their meeting of the 28th,\nthe contractual agreement would be completed by May 20th.\nOpposition to limitations of sovereignty under the contrac-\ntual agreements was expressed by the coalition parties of\nthe Federal government in early May. The chairman of the\nparliamentary group of the German party stated on the lst\nthat his party would never give their votes for \"a second\nVersailles, II and the Free Democratic party demanded on the\nsame day that the Occupation Statute be abolished and that\n\"allied interference in German affairs be made impossible.'\nRevisions of the agreements requested by the government\ncoalition parties were submitted ty Adenauer to the High\nCommissioners on May 13th. It was reported on the next\nday that allied negotiators had agreed to reword several\nprovisions in an attempt to overcome objections.\nOn May 16th the federal constitutional court at Karlsruhe\nrefused to grant an interim injunction, applied for by the\nSocial Democrats, which would have barred Adenauer from\nsigning the contractual agreements until the court had\nruled on the constitutional question of whether the agree-\nments involved a change in the Basic Law of the Republic\nand would thus require a two-thirds majority for ratification."
}