Record of meeting between N.S. Khrushchev and W. Ulbricht

November 30, 1960

Ulbricht: How will things develop in Berlin? We will maintain our tactics directed toward strengthening the position of the capital of the GDR and restricting interference by West Germany. However, the situation in Berlin has become complicated, not in our favor. West Berlin has strengthened economically. This is seen in the fact that about 50,000 workers from East Berlin are now still working in West Berlin. Thus, a part of the qualified working force goes to work in West Berlin, since there are higher salaries there. We still have not taken appropriate countermeasures. The situation with the intelligentsia is also not favorable. For example, teachers in the West earn 200-300 marks more than in the East. Doctors also earn two times more there. In addition, by leaving for West Germany they receive large one-time grants there. All of these circumstances exert influence on the less politically conscious part of the intelligentsia. Why don't we raise our salaries for this category of people? First of all, we don't have the means. Secondly, even if we raised their salary, we could not satisfy their purchasing power with the goods that we have, and they would buy things with that money in West Berlin. But still, we will try to do this. In addition, a group of children from East Berlin study in schools in West Berlin. We have a law against this, but we have not yet implemented it, since we didn't want to provoke conflicts.

How will relations between the two German governments develop? Something in West Germany changed after the statement of the Bonn government on June 20, 1960, in which it proclaimed itself the government of the entire German state. Now Bonn declares that it supports the status quo, i.e., the preservation of the remains of the war in Germany. They assert that the German question does not need to be resolved in the framework of Germany and Europe and that Germany can develop only in alliance with the U.S.A., i.e., as a satellite of the U.S.A.

The domestic situation in the FRG has become strained in recent years. They maintain that we, the GDR, have strengthened our activity in the FRG. This is partially true. But they are trying to limit any contacts between the two German states, including sports and cultural, and they are arresting our people who are going to West Germany. This means that they are cementing the division of Germany and are afraid of our political propaganda.

We would like to ask you a question about what will happen in 1961. The thing is that we can't repeat our campaign in favor of a peace treaty as we did before the Paris summit. We can only do this in the event that we actually achieve something. Otherwise, we would be forced to make too big a turnaround. Thus, we are interested to know what tactics we should adopt now. Regarding West Berlin all is clear. Now, regarding a peace treaty. We do not have peaceful coexistence now with Adenauer. We have to induce him to adopt peaceful coexistence with us.

We propose making the following propositions: ceasing hostile propaganda by both German states, returning to the earlier Soviet proposal about concluding a non-aggression treaty between the NATO and Warsaw Pact states, stopping the atomic armament of the Bundeswehr, and proclaiming a 10-year unconditional peace, as we say, "a divine peace."

Thus, we would continue to confront each other, but under conditions of peace. If Adenauer refuses this, and the Western powers refuse to conclude a peace treaty, then the Soviet government will conclude a peace treaty before the Bonn elections [in September 1961]. But then an economic blockade would be declared not only against us, but also against the U.S.S.R. This is confirmed by what Strauss has said. In connection with this, we must carefully tally our forces. Therefore, for now we will be careful with propaganda about a peace treaty, since among our population there is already a mood taking shape where they say -- you only talk about a peace treaty, but don't do anything about it. So we have to be careful.

We have set forth our political views. Regarding economic questions, we would like to hear what Comrade Khrushchev will say.

Khrushchev: I would like to clarify one question. I thought that after Paris [the aborted May 1960 four-power summit], when we rejected the possibility of a summit meeting under the existing circumstances, you were in agreement with us that we could not conclude a peace treaty.

Ulbricht: Yes, then we could not do that. But now the situation has become complicated.

Khrushchev: At that time we acted correctly, we took the right step, since otherwise we could have created the impression that we provoked the breakup of the summit in order to conclude a peace treaty. We showed that we did not want that, but that we were trying to create the maximum favorable opportunities for the conclusion of a peace treaty. If we look at what was said in the Western press also and at the meetings which we had here with representatives of the Western powers and even West Germany, then it is clear that this policy brought us a huge success.

For example, I recently met with the FRG Ambassador [Hans] Kroll. Of course, he is an intelligent person and doesn't tell the press what he told me. All the same, when I asked him whether he thought they would absorb the GDR and change the existing German borders, he said that he did not think so. In the U.S.A. there were also interesting meetings -- with Douglas and [Walter] Lippmann. They also support a peace treaty with Germany and the creation of a free city, of course on the basis of a united Berlin. But we rejected this proposal on Berlin, since there can be no question that East Berlin, the capital of the GDR, be included in a free city.

Thus, we have not lost the two years which have passed since the time of the initiation of our proposal, but have shaken up their position. However, it is both our and your fault that we did not think everything through sufficiently and did not work out economic measures. We should have examined the question of the economic liberation of the GDR from the FRG more closely. But we were taking life easy, for the time being Adenauer didn't give it to us on the nose. We will clear up who was more guilty, but we, the socialist camp as a whole, acted incorrectly here. We must create the conditions so that the GDR economy will not be vulnerable to our enemies. We didn't know that the GDR was so vulnerable to West Germany. This is not good; we must correct this now.

Secondly, after the war, many of the conditions which violate GDR sovereignty remained. But all of this was already won de facto by the West. Now, when you want to liberate yourself from this, you will aggravate the situation. But this is not favorable to us now, since we gave our word that we would not change the existing situation until the meeting of the heads of government. And if we change something now, this will look as if we are violating our word. Since we already missed this opportunity, we cannot now correct the situation unilaterally. Let us wait until the moment before which we said we would not change the situation. There isn't much more [waiting] to endure now.

The other question is whether to aim for a peace treaty with the GDR in 1961. It is less probable that there will be a peace treaty with the two German states. When we put forward the question of a peace treaty we also grant the possibility of concluding an interim agreement, i.e. an agreement between the four powers on a temporary status for West Berlin for an established time, during which both Germanys must agree on their issues. If they do not agree, then we would be free to conclude a peace treaty with the GDR. This was our concession to Eisenhower so as to save his prestige and not create the impression that we would expel them from West Berlin. This continues to remain true now. You Germans probably will not agree amongst yourselves and then we will sign a peace treaty with you, and the Western powers will not conclude any peace treaty at all. But this does not worry us.

We will not achieve anything with them. Then we will have to exacerbate the situation and sign a peace treaty. When will we sign it, in 1961?

Ulbricht: No!

Khrushchev: Why?

Ulbricht: We don't have the heart.

Khrushchev: Politically or economically?

Ulbricht: Just economically. Politically I am in favor.

Khrushchev: In the political regard, we are almost certain that the Western powers will not start war if we sign a peace treaty with the GDR. Economically, do you think that they will declare a blockade, economic war? I think they won't. We don't trade with the United States in general. England would not carry out a blockade, Italy is even less likely to, France also wouldn't. Only West Germany remains. But I am convinced that West Germany also would not do this, since it wouldn't get anything out of it. West Germany, for example, exerted pressure on Italy when we concluded a good deal with Italy. But Italy did not reject this deal and in exchange for our oil even sold us two tankers on which we can transport oil to Cuba. The Japanese also sell to us, which is advantageous since an economic slump is projected in Japan.

Thus, we would lose little economically from it, since the existing situation really would essentially be preserved. However, politically our situation would improve, since it would mean a defeat of the West. If we don't sign a peace treaty in 1961, then when? If we don't sign it in 1961, then our prestige will have been dealt a blow and the position of the West, and West Germany in particular, will be strengthened. We could get away with not signing a peace treaty if an interim agreement on West Berlin is concluded. If there is not an interim agreement, then we will sign a peace treaty with the GDR and let them see their defeat. They will not start a war. Of course, in signing a peace treaty, we will have to put our rockets on military alert. But, luckily, our adversaries still haven't gone crazy; they still think and their nerves still aren't bad.