- Corporate body
International Military Staff Memorandum - Logistics Division
International Military Staff Memorandum - Logistics Division
Military Staff Memorandum Logistics Division
The LMPT was subordinate to the Standing Group (SG). It reported on its work to the SG Director, the SG Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the International Planning Team of the Standing Group (IPT). The Standing Group and all its subordinate groups (including the LMPT) were abolished in July 1966 after France decided to withdraw from the integrated military structure (see MCM-90-66(REV) and GF(66)D-27).
Because the main partners of the Standing Group (hereinafter referred to as SG) were based in London (e.g. the Council Deputies, the Military Production and Supply Board, the Defence Financial and Economic Committee), it was deemed appropriate to set up a London branch of the Standing Group (LBSG). The LBSG's terms of reference were submitted by the International Planning Team (IPT) (see SG-112-3) to the Military Representatives Committee (MRC) and approved by the latter on 15 March 1951. (See SG-112-3-FINAL) The LBSG was set up in NATO's headquarters in London but reported to the SG secretariat in Washington. It took over the SG secretariat-related tasks of the Western European Regional Planning Group (WERPG) and also served as the private secretariat for the LBSG Director and his team. One of its assignments was to archive NATO documents, but also to circulate correspondence from the SG to NATO bodies and vice versa. The LBSG had no power of decision. Its role was to liaise between the SG and the Military Representatives Committee on the one hand and the Council Deputies on the other. Its Chairman split his time between London and Washington, where the SG was based. He liaised between various NATO bodies (including the Council Deputies) in London and the SG. This involved presenting the SG views to the various NATO bodies (on military matters) and informing the SG about questions raised by the bodies on those topics. (See CSGM-003-51) The LBSG was abolished on 9 May 1952 when the Council decided to base the International Staff in Paris. (See SG-112-11-DEFINITIF) It changed its name to Standing Group Liaison Office (SGLO) Paris.
This chronological series contains the messages sent by the SG liaison secretariat (in London then in Paris) to the SG (in Washington) and later to the Military Committee (MC).
LOSTAN messages were often requests for SG positions. The SG replied by means of STAND messages via its secretariat.
LOSTAN messages covered the whole range of International Staff (IS), International Military Staff (IMS) and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) activities.
They were produced from July 1951 to July 1966.
The TYP chronological series contains the records on the Ten Years Plans. During the Ministerial Session held on December 1959, the United States Secretary of State C. A. Herter proposed that NATO start a long-range planning for the 1960’s. This plan should address the various aspects of national political, programmes (tactics in dealing with the Soviet bloc, public information to promote support for NATO Policies), military (balanced forces) and arms control, programmes, scientific and economic programmes as they concerned NATO (increase of the European contribution to NATO’s defence and aid to the less-developed areas to avoid spread of communism) (see C-R(59)44).On 6 July 1960 Secretary General P-H Spaak proposed a list of first thoughts on the Ten Years Plans including the following items: political consultation, military, economic, information and science problems to be discussed at the next Ministerial Meeting of December 1960 (see PO(60)775). Comments were received from the US, Belgium and Germany as contributions for the discussions of the Permanent Representatives (see TYP/US(60)1, TYP/G(60)1 and TYP/B(60)1). These discussions led to the submission of a progress report to the Council at the December 1960 Ministerial Session (see C-M(60)111). After consultation with Ministers, Delegations sent new recommendations which were taken into account in TYP(61)1. A report on the future procedure for the long-term planning and memoranda on NATO Strategy and nuclear weapons, political consultation, civil emergency planning, competence and objectives of NATO in the economic field and Psychological action was circulated by the Secretary General to the Delegations (see TYP(61)5 and TYP(61)15). The purpose of this report was to prepare the Long-Term Planning Report to Ministers for the Oslo meeting on 9 May 1961 (see C-M(61)30-PART 1, 2, 3 and 4).
The VKC chronological series contains the records of the Long-Term Scientific Studies for the Standing Group NATO (Von Karman Committee). During the 24th Meeting of the Military Committee (MC) in Chiefs of Staff Session it was decided that the Standing Group (SG) should make a study on the strategic concept and the military plans which may be necessary in the 1970’s in the light of anticipated scientific advances. This decision was in accordance with US Secretary of State Mr. Hertel’s proposal on defining long-term goals for the Alliance.On 18 November 1960 the Standing Group approved the establishment of a committee to direct a study of the scientific factors which may have an effect on the military art in the 1970’s. The committee would be known as the von Karman Committee and would be dissolved by the Standing Group after completion of their studies. The study would be directed by Dr. von Karman as Chairman of a Steering Committee consisting of representatives of the three Standing Group nations (US, UK and France) and of scientists of two non-Standing Group nations, namely Dr. G.S. Field (Canada) and Dr. K. Fisher (Germany). The Standing Group members would be designated by the national Ministries of Defence concerned (see SGM-0630-60).The Committee decided that two distinct multinational exercises would be needed. The first exercise was conducted entirely by scientists from member countries who were grouped into working groups and instructed to forecast the state of the art up to 1970/75 for the following fourteen subjects: I. Surveillance and Signal Processing Techniques. II. Navigation. III. Geophysics. IV. Telecommunications. V. Data Processing. VI. Weaponry. VII. Aircraft. VIII. Ships and Submarines. IX. Ground Vehicles. X. Chemical, Biological and Radiological Defence. XI. Logistics. XII. Energy Conversion. XIII. Human Factors and Life Science. XIV. Space Science and Technology (see VKC EX 1 GP 01).The second exercise comprised eight working groups on the following development areas: I. Reconnaissance and Detection. II. Anti-Submarine Warfare. III & IV. Weapons. V. Mobility. VI. Survivability. VII. Communications. VIII. Human Factors (see VKC EX 2 GP 01).Both exercises would produce a report for each subject by the working groups. A Final Report was finally issued in September 1961 merging all the findings (see VKC FINAL) and pointing out other 4 subjects that needed to be studied: I. Environmental Warfare. II. Electronic Warfare. III. Command and Control. IV. Man-Machine Relationship. In December 1961 the Military Committee decided that the Von Karman Committee would carry out further studies in these four areas in a third exercise divided into 2 phases. The first phase would take care of Environmental and Electronic Warfare, while the second phase would be focused on Command and Control and Man-Machine Relationship (see VKC EX 3 PH 1 GP 01).In September 1963 a Supplementary Report was issued including the results of the studies of the third exercise (see VKC SR).
The AGV chronological series contains the records of the MBFR Ad Hoc Group in Vienna. The Ad Hoc Group Vienna was established by the North Atlantic Council in November 1972 to allow for comprehensive consultation, co-ordination and representation between NATO governments at the exploratory talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions to be held in Vienna the following year (PO/72/413(Revised)).On the NATO side, seven NATO governments with territories or forces in Central Europe as well as representatives of Denmark, Italy, Norway and Turkey took part on a rotational basis in the exploratory talks. The objectives of the open ended ad hoc group were to: 1. Give day-to-day information on the progress of the talks to those governments not represented in them; 2. Provide the necessary day-to-day consultation and co-ordination of the conduct of the talks; 3. Ensure that the North Atlantic Council and the Secretary General were properly informed on the talks. NATO Military Authorities were also represented in the ad hoc group, as was a representative of the Secretary General. The Ad Hoc Group Vienna ceased its activities in February 1989 when both sides agreed at the 493rd Plenary meeting to put an end to the MBFR negotiations without any agreement of substance being signed and with the prospects of new talks on conventional forces in Europe to open the following month.
A Military Committee Memorandum, MCM is a document in which the Military Committee issues views, guidance, requests, advice or instructions for immediate or near term use. It remains extant until the issue under consideration has been resolved or superseded. It is the appropriate correspondence for the Military Committee to conduct business with the Secretary General, except on long term policy matters. MCMs are approved by the Military Committee only and no “Final Decision” procedure is applicable.The reorganization of the Military Committee in 1958 resulted in the discontinuance of the separately maintained series of Military Representatives Committee Memoranda (MRM) and the Military Committee in Permanent Session (MC/PS). These were incorporated into the ongoing series of Military Committee Memoranda (MCM). The consequence was that the number of MCM leaped from just 23 MCM in 1957 to 208 in 1958.
This series contains 7 memoranda from the first meeting of the Military Committee (MC) held on 6 October 1949. The MC was to provide policy guidance to its executive body, the Standing Group (SG). From the second meeting, held on 12 December 1949, the file naming format was changed from MM to MCM as can be seen in the eighth document, MCM-8-49.
Between 1950 and 1953, the Military Representatives Committee issued documents on a variety of Defense topics.
Memoranda were originally created for the Military Representative’s Committee between 1950 and 1957 on a variety of subjects. The reorganization of the Military Committee in 1958 resulted in the discontinuance of the separately maintained series of Military Representatives Committee Memoranda (MRM). Memoranda representing the ongoing business of the new entity, the Military Committee in Permanent Session (MC/PS), were incorporated into the ongoing series of Military Committee Memoranda (MCM). The consequence was that the number of MCM leaped from just 14 MCM in 1957 to 177 in 1958.
The MC fonds contains the records of the Military Comm In accordance with Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the guidance given by the Working Group on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during the first Council session in Washington in 1949, the Defence Committee(1) rapidly established the Military Committee (C1-D-1/1 and C1-D-1/2).During its few sessions held behind closed doors in Washington, the Military Committee gave policy guidance on military matters to the Standing Group, and advice on military questions to the Defence Committee and other bodies, and it recommended military measures for the unified defence of the North Atlantic region to the Defence Committee. The Military Committee was directly subordinate to the Defence Committee, and each member nation was represented by its chief of staff or a deputy. Iceland, which had no military forces, was represented by a civilian. Each member state in turn held the Chair of the Military Committee for one year (C1 D-1/2, DC 1/2).Two other groups which also sat in Washington came directly under the Military Committee: - the Standing Group(2) , the executive body, set up at the beginning, responsible for Military Committee everyday business;- the Military Representatives Committee (MRC), created at the end of 1950, to ensure communication of information and points of view between the Standing Group and Alliance member states not represented on it (C1 D-1/2, DC 1/2, DC 24/3 (Final) and MRC 1 (Final)).From 1951 to 1972 the Military Committee underwent various changes as NATO’s main structures were reorganized to meet the Organization’s increased responsibilities effectively. In the context of improving coordination between the various bodies, after the Defence Committee was disbanded, in 1951 the Military Committee became the Organization’s highest military authority, under the direct authority of the Council. In Lisbon in 1952 the Council decided not to make changes regarding the military bodies, and to further intensify its links with them (D-D(51)86 (Final) and C9-D/4 part 6).Because of the extensive criticisms of the highest military structures, and in response to the solutions proposed, in 1957 the Military Committee began to operate continuously, in the form of the Military Committee in Permanent Session (MC/PS), previously known as the Military Representatives Committee. Each chief of staff designated a permanent military representative to sit on that committee. The Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC/CS) was to meet at least twice a year, if necessary away from the permanent headquarters in Washington. The permanent military representatives settled matters falling to the Military Committee, except for those requiring the full approval of the chiefs of staff. The Chair of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session was held for one year by each member state in turn. The Standing Group remained the executive agent of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session, but also became that of the Military Committee in Permanent Session. Each chief of staff designated a permanent military representative for the continuous sessions of the Committee. The Chair of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session was assisted by the standing Chair, i.e. the Chair of the Military Committee in Permanent Session. The latter, designated by the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session, was appointed for a term of two years, which could be extended by up to one year. The Chair was a purely international function, preferably held by an officer of a country not in the Standing Group, who had to convene the members, chair all permanent sessions of the Military Committee, and also attend all meetings of the Standing Group (MC 57/1, C-R(57)49 and MC 57/1 (Corrigendum 4)). The reorganization at the end of 1963 only affected the chairmanship of the Military Committee. From that time the permanent Chair was to chair both chiefs of staff and permanent sessions, still for a term of two to three years. A Presidency which changed every year was also established. The incumbent’s role in particular was to chair the opening and closing sessions of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session (MC 57/1 (Corrigendum 5)).The withdrawal of France from the Alliance’s integrated military structure led to the abolition of the Standing Group in 1966, and to the transfer of the Organization’s headquarters to Belgium and the Netherlands. In acquiring the powers of the Standing Group the Military Committee became the real centre for Alliance military policy and plans - it made recommendations on military problems to the Council and the Defence Planning Committee, and gave instructions to the Allied commands and subordinate military authorities. The International Planning Staff, in the personof its Director, came under the authority of the Military Committee Chairman. The Military Committee Representative (MCREP) to the Council, previously the Standing Group Representative (SGREP), provided liaison between the Military Committee and the Council, and with other bodies. The MCREP was assisted by a multinational staff and an administrative officer, and together they formed the Office of the Military Committee Representative. The military bodies previously under the Standing Group now came under the authority of the Military Committee. These were the Military Agency for Standardization (MAS), the Advisory Group on Aeronautical Research and Development (AGARD), the NATO Defence College (NDC), the Allied Communications Security Agency (ACSA), the Allied Long Lines Agency (ALLA), the Allied Naval Communications Agency (ANCA) and the Allied Radio Frequencies Agency (ARFA). From 1967 the Military Committee disposed of an executive body, the International Military Staff (IMS), made up of officers from MC member states. The Director IMS was designated by the Military Committee in Chiefs of Staff Session, and was responsible to the Military Committee for the working of the IMS (C-M(66)59, C-R(66)26, MCM-85-66 (Revised), MC 112, MC 2/4 (Final) and MC 2/5 (Final))(3).
This series contains 13 memoranda between 1954 and 1958 sent from the Standing Group to the Chairman of the MC. They consist of summaries of Standing Group activities.
Military Committee Representative
A Military Committee document contains longer-term policy that has been approved/agreed/endorsed by the Military Committee (and the NAC, where necessary). It remains in force until superseded or cancelled.
The MPSB chronological series contains the records of the Military Production and Supply Board(1) . In accordance with Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the guidance given by the Working Group on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during the first Council session in Washington in 1949, the Defence Committee (DC) and then the Council (C) approved the directives on the creation of the Military Production and Supply Board (C1-D-1/3 and C2-D-1/5). The Military Production and Supply Board was first directly subordinate to the Defence Committee(2), and then from May 1950 it came under the Council Deputies(3). It was made up of a representative of rank equivalent to Under-Secretary for each signatory state. It only met as required, and the time and place of its meetings were determined by the needs of the moment. A Permanent Working Staff (PWS) based in London was thus needed for everyday business. Each member of the Military Production and Supply Board designated a deputy there, and it was supported by an international secretariat. The Military Production and Supply Board was also represented by a liaison group in Washington to ensure cooperation with the Standing Group(4) (C2 D 1/5, DC 1/3, MPSB 1, D-D/2, D-D/168 and C5-D/2). The Military Production and Supply Board was to look into production and military supplies, in close cooperation with the military bodies under the Defence Committee and other bodies in the same field, and it made recommendations to the Defence Committee. It thus considered the economic and financial repercussions of the defence effort, paying attention to the instructions of the economic and financial bodies set up by the Council, with which it had close working relations. It also encouraged moves towards coordinated arms production, standardization and technical improvement. The Board entrusted the Permanent Working Staff with preparing an integrated supply and production plan to meet military requirements, and with investigating associated problems for short-term studies, such as lists of rare strategic materials. The work was based on the nine major categories of equipment defined by the Standing Group: combat aircraft, artillery, large calibre ammunition and explosives, electronics, combat vehicles, small arms and small arms ammunition, engineering equipment, transport vehicles and shipbuilding (C2-D-1/5, DC 1/3, MPSB 1, D-D/2 and D-D/168). Through the Permanent Working Staff the Board established groups of experts on the production of finished military equipment in each category affected by deficits. There were nine of these groups or task forces(5) : the Combat Aircraft, Artillery, Ammunition and Explosives, Electronics, Combat Vehicles, Small Arms and Small Arms Ammunition, Engineering Equipment, Transport Vehicles and Shipbuilding Task Forces. These were each made up of experts, a member of the Permanent Working Staff and representatives of the military side of the Organization; they started work at the end of summer 1950 in London, with the aim of submitting reports in two months. Most of the work was completed by November. Each task force reviewed the nations’ abilities to produce an urgently-needed equipment category, and made proposals to increase production. The recommendations of the Defence Production Board (which succeeded the Military Production and Supply Board) concerned chiefly the artillery, infantry support weapons, tanks, transport vehicles, engineering equipment, escort vessels and minesweepers (DC 4/4, MPSB SECRETARIAT MEMORANDUM No. 88, PWS(WP)(50)73 (Draft))(6) .To achieve certain immediate defence production increases before the task forces concluded their work, at the request of the Council Deputies and on the basis of information (which was incomplete for lack of time) from the Military Production and Supply Board, in August 1950 the Permanent Working Staff provided estimates of manufacturing capabilities which could be used to produce additional equipment (DC 4/4).The Board was also responsible for setting up the Committee on Industrial Mobilization Planning. This was a committee of experts representing Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, tasked with reviewing industrial mobilization programmes and with submitting proposals for future coordinated action. The Committee began its work at the beginning of September 1950, in Washington (MPSB SECRETARIAT MEMORANDUM No. 88, DC 4/4).Finally, five groups of experts were created chiefly to consider the question of spare parts: the Groups of Experts on Artillery Spare Parts (GE(B)), Vehicle Spare Parts (GE(L)), Electronics (GE(D)), Small Arms Spare Parts (GE(F)) and Interchangeability of Vehicle Components (GE(K)). Following the conclusions of a working group set up by the Permanent Working Staff, six other groups were transferred from the Western Union Military Supply Board at the end of 1950, i.e. the Groups of Experts on Radio Components (GE(N)), Electronic Valves (GE(Q)), Propellants (GE(J)), Explosives (GE(C)), Steel for Guns (GE(O)) and Steel for Armor Plating (GE(P)) (DC 4/4, SECRETARIAT CIRCULAR No. 23, PWS(WP)(50)73 (Draft), SECRETARIAT CIRCULAR No. 23).The Board operated from 24 October 1949 to 11 January 1951. Following on the resolution of 19 December 1950 and the various proposals arising from it, the Council adopted a Defence Committee recommendation to replace the Military Production and Supply Board by a Defence Production Board with wider powers than its predecessor. The Military Production and Supply Board was dissolved as part of the 3 May 1951 reorganization (C6-D5 (Final), D-D(51)86 (Final)).
The Military Representatives Committee (MRC) was created during a joint session of the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Committee on 18 December 1950. The MRC was composed of Military Representatives (Mil Reps) of the national Chiefs of Staff. It was in permanent session in Washington, D.C. to enable a close working relationship with the Standing Group (SG). The Chairman of the Standing Group also served as the Chairman of the MRC. The MRC was very closely tied to the Standing Group, serving to represent all nations to the more exclusive group. The SG served as the steering and executive agent of the MRC, and consulted it on all matters that concerned national forces, or where national action would be required. The SG Planners also includes the MRC in any of the studies they conducted that required MRC approval, Council or national action or were of national interest. The Mil Reps received regular briefings from the SG’s International Planning Teams on topics such as the Annual Review, Intelligence Estimates and Review of Emergency Defense Plans. Additionally, the Mil Reps or their staffs were invited to give presentations relating to their own countries and of general interest to NATO.Another aspect of the MRC was that, as representatives of their Chiefs of Staff, the Mil Reps were authorized to deal with all military matters which arose while the Military Committee (MC) was not in session. At the time the MC only met twice a year, therefore the MRC dealt with the majority of matters which arose for the MC. In 1957, the MC agreed the MRC should move beyond collaboration with the SG, by expanding the national composition of the planning teams. The MRC was invited to submit candidates whom were to be fully included in the day to day work of the planning teams, which functioned multinationally. The change and internationalization of the Standing Group’s planning teams also coincided with the change of the Military Representatives Committee to the Military Committee in Permanent Session (MC/PS).
The AC/276 chronological series contains the records of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions Working Group. Following the Harmel Report on the Future Tasks of the Alliance of December 1967, which had recommended in paragraph 13 that the "Allies (would) study disarmament and practical arms control, including the possibility of balanced force reductions", the Council in Permanent Session tasked the Political Committee at Senior Level to undertake studies on the matter and in June 1968, during the ministerial meeting held in Iceland, Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR) was adopted as an official NATO policy. A series of studies were launched in various political and military fora in 1968 and 1969, submitting basic ideas and models for force reductions. In May 1970, at its ministerial session in Rome, the North Atlantic Council invited the Warsaw Pact to hold exploratory talks on MBFR. The Council agreed to establish an MBFR Working Group to develop mutual and balanced force reduction models, presenting an illustrative indication of the forces that would be withdrawn or disbanded on both sides, specifying the number of troops in identifiable types of units with the associated equipment (PO(69)634 Annex Decision of the Council).In order to carry out this task, the Council requested that the Chairman of the Military Committee set up under his authority a military/civilian working group open to all Member countries for the development of MBFR models. Close cooperation was to be maintained with the Senior Political Committee reinforced, as necessary, by disarmament and defence planning experts. On 12 January 1970 Lt. General T.R. Milton was appointed Chairman of the Working Group. He immediately established a Staff Group to undertake the basic analytical work for the model-building. This Staff Group was divided into:1) a Model Development Group, to produce the outline of the MBFR models and to establish the types of military units to be considered;2) a NATO and Warsaw Pact Analysis Group to support the work of the model development group with data;3) a Military Considerations Group to apply military judgement factors to the model development.France decided that it would not participate in the deliberations of the Working Group but would continue to take part in the discussions at the level of the Senior Political Committee. In January 1971 the North Atlantic Council agreed that the MBFR working group should pursue its activities under its political guidance and that of the Senior Political Committee.Four sub-groups were set up by the MBFR Working Group: A. Sub-Group on Data Evaluation (AC/276(SGDE)) which was renamed Sub-Group on Data Support (SGDS); B. Sub-Group on Tactical Air (AC/276(SGTA));C. Sub-Group on Verification (AC/276(SGVE));D. Sub-Group on Movement Constraints for NATO and Warsaw Pact Forces. In February 1989, during the final plenary meeting in Vienna, NATO and the Warsaw Pact formally agreed to terminate their work on the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions and to open new negotiations on Conventional Forces In Europe (CFE). This marked the end of the work of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions Working Group.
The AC/87 chronological series contains the records of the NATO Conference on Information Policy. This conference, which was chaired by the Chairman of the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations, was held on 25-28 January 1955 in Paris. Its goal was to take stock of the work being carried out by the member nations in the area of information dissemination. The participants noted the delegates' reports and verbal statements on national information programmes on behalf of NATO for 1954 and the projects for 1955, as well as several proposals for future action. On this occasion, the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations was invited to review the Danish proposal seeking to organize exchanges and study tours under NATO sponsorship for the heads of youth movements, as well as proposals from the Director of Information regarding civil defence and those awards which might be given by NATO. A resolution was adopted at the end of the Conference.