Images (16)
Document
| id |
id
75850711
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 1610/11/53 - Reil 6, track 2 - Page 1
MR. ACHESON:
Well, Ed, all I can say is - I think we have already said - we were
not in a position to do anything earlier. We had to act in September;
it would have been much better if we could have been in a position
to do something earlier. If it was a blunder, it was a blunder on
account of the organization of the whole United States Government.
There was no way that I know of in which it could have been.
MR. PERKINS?:
Well, Ed, you would have been extremely unwise to discuss it even
informally before a US position had been reached.
MR. ACHESON:
It would have been impossible.
VOICE:
Impossible.
MR. ACHESON:
,
Absolutely impossible.
DR. OPPENHETMER:
Because nothing could have been more important than the military
commitment.
TRUMAN,
(Confused)
ARCHIVES "VATIONAL RE ADMING ORDS & of
DR. OPPENHEIMER:
responsible for the actual defense of Europe
Esta
MR. BARRETT:
What it got down
DR. OPPENHETMER:
That's not a small (chip?).
important
MR. BARRETT:
It seems to me the/thing to untagle here is that you were stuck with
the date of the meetings in New York, and if they had just (tactfully?)
come two or three weeks later, this could have have been better
MR. PERKINS?:
Well, I would like to ask Paul again, because I feel quite strongly
on this, that the agreement on the package deal had been reached
some weeks prior - this is at the working level - had been cleared
all through the Pentagon, and it was the Secretary of Defense's office
that we couldn't get lines up on this thing, and that took some weeks
to do. That is, with prompt action there, we could have gotten the
thing better handled. It might not have been perfectly handled. Am
I wrong about that, Paul?
MR. NITZE:
My recollection is that this thing went very fast after agreement in
Relations
belongs_to
belongs_to