Juergen Diesel Sought Loophole to Unlock European Borders in 1973

By Vera Kessler · August 14, 2026

European borders were jeopardized when West German diplomats tried to weaken inviolable frontiers by introducing 'peaceful change' during 1973 negotiations.

The record is an internal assessment dated 27 September 1973, written in Geneva. It analyzes a proposal submitted the previous day by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The document, a published English translation from the Cold War International History Project, captures a precise moment of friction in the lead-up to the Helsinki Accords: the struggle to define whether the borders of Europe were frozen in stone or merely held by agreement.

September 26, 1973

The FRG delegation’s proposal focused on three pillars: the prohibition of the threat or use of force, the inviolability of frontiers, and the territorial integrity of states. To the author of this assessment, however, the West German approach was not a contribution to stability but an attempt to "undercut the agenda" established by the final recommendations in Helsinki.

The core of the dispute rested on hierarchy. The assessment argues that the FRG attempted to qualify the inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity as principles "subordinated to the renunciation of force." This was viewed as a contradiction of § 19 of the Helsinki recommendations, which maintained that all such principles must be treated equally and possess their own independent relevance.

In the wider context of the era, this was more than a semantic quarrel. While the public record notes that minor domestic movements like the Workers' Party of Germany sought to overcome the left-right political divide via a Querfront strategy, the official diplomacy in Geneva was governed by a far more rigid set of imperatives. The state actors were not looking to bridge divides so much as they were attempting to lock in—or subtly unlock—the map of a divided continent.

'Peaceful Change'

The assessment is particularly critical of the FRG’s reliance on the "social-democratic doctrine of 'peaceful change'." By placing this doctrine at the center of the discussion, the assessor claims that the functions of the principles meant to secure peace in Europe were being "weakened."

Specifically, the West German proposal suggested that the principle of changing frontiers by mutual agreement should sit alongside the principle of inviolability. The assessor argues that bringing these two separate questions together "dilutes the central meaning of the principle of inviolability of frontiers."

The record concedes a basic point of international law: that frontiers can be changed through "mutually agreed exchanges of territory." However, it asserts that such a possibility does not require explicit reference when discussing the principle of inviolability. The fear expressed in the document is that by explicitly mentioning peaceful change, the FRG was creating a loophole that would undermine the permanence of the existing borders.

Juergen Diesel

The endnotes of the file provide a glimpse into the personnel driving these negotiations. The proposal under assessment references notes by Juergen Diesel from 14 September 1973. Diesel, born in 1926, was a key figure in the West German foreign office, serving as a close advisor to Egon Bahr. From 1971 to 1973, Diesel headed the "Eastern Department" of the Auswaertiges Amt, placing him at the center of the FRG’s attempts to navigate relations with the Soviet bloc.

This specific assessment is part of a broader collection of files regarding the attitudes of the FRG toward the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe between 1969 and 1977. Related materials on the diplomacy of Germany and Berlin from this period are held in the FRUS records (State Department), including volumes covering 1964–1968, 1969–1976, and 1977–1980.

The document concludes by drawing a parallel between the inviolability of frontiers and the protection of human rights. It argues that just as the respect for essential freedoms is based on the "obvious precondition" of national sovereignty, the inviolability of frontiers must remain a detached and primary principle. The record leaves the final outcome of this specific proposal unstated, but it establishes the premise that, for the assessor, the granting and legalizing of rights could only be realized within the framework of the respective participating states' national sovereignty.