800.51W89 France/1036
The Ambassador in France (Straus) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 1.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that after being ignored by the French press and by the public for a long period, the question of the French war debt to the United States was raised in an election speech delivered by former Premier Herriot at Lyons on April 9, 1936. The full text of the address, as published in Le Temps of April 10, 1936, is enclosed herewith, and as of interest to the Department the following translation is provided of his statement in so far as it related to the French war debt to the United States:
“At the end of 1932, almost willingly, I was forced out of office because of the American debt question. As a matter of fact, I stood up for an idea which was not quite popular, but I defended the honor of the signature of France. I defended it all the more since, in the case under consideration, it was not only a question of the war debts, but of debts which had been contracted for the reconstruction of France; these debts were not debts from government to government, but represented 60 millions* subscribed by American citizens who had, in all confidence, rushed to the banks to afford us necessary assistance. Furthermore, we purchased the war stocks which remain to this day unpaid. Having certain ideas on probity, I say today that if it were necessary to begin over again, I would do so. When I hear citizen Pierre Taittinger say that I wanted to reduce France to servitude, I feel inclined to shrug my shoulders. What I would not accept, and still refuse to accept, is that it could be said ‘France does not want to pay’.
“The Chamber of Deputies did not follow me, and I returned to the side lines.
[Page 580]“In 1933, I was President of the Radical Socialist Party, and President of the Committee for Foreign Affairs. I upheld the Radical Party on the Committee, even when I was not of the same opinion as the Government, as for the question of the Pact of Four.21 I supported the Government as President of the party, and, as a matter of fact, I only took two initiatives, namely: a mission as Delegate of the French Government to the United States, and a private voyage of study in Russia. I went to the United States because, by a démarche which, in my opinion, was an honor to me, Mr. Roosevelt had asked to see me.22 While I had no official post, Mr. Roosevelt nevertheless wanted to see me so that, together, we could seek ways and means of settling the problem of the debts.
“I saw Mr. Roosevelt, who is a great democrat, the chief of American democracy, and I found myself face to face with a man very well disposed towards France. I think I may resume, as follows, the terms in which he expressed himself to me: ‘Make a gesture’. (‘Faites un geste’). Perhaps some day I will publish the notes which I took at the time, and they will, I think, interest the French people. Mr. Roosevelt explained: ‘I am in an impossible situation vis-à-vis the American public which is composed not only of employers, but of workmen, and employees. Give me something on account, whatever you want. I shall be only too glad to assist you, if I can, in all international affairs.’
“You know what followed; at the present time I am quite concerned with the thought that Mr. Roosevelt will perhaps be the last American President friendly towards us. Who knows whether one of these days we shall not see at the White House some German-American? However this may be, my views were rejected; and the Right covered me with insults.
“I now invite your attention to the following. If, in 1932, the Americans came to our assistance, today, surrounded by immense difficulties, the Americans refuse to aid us. They are in another planet. Oh! if we were sufficiently wise not to forget our friendships! I hope that the day will never come when we shall have need of petroleum and of credits. Where shall we find them? I am, I repeat, for the respect of signatures and of contracts.”
Le Temps then proceeds to quote the following reply made by Mr. Herriot to an interruption made during the speech on the subject of the Hoover moratorium.
“Those who are against payment of the debt explain their attitude by stating that it is because the Hoover moratorium had thrown the machinery out of gear. If you will examine the texts you will see that Mr. Hoover said: ‘You are free to accept or not to accept, but this will in no way tie up the question of the French debts towards [Page 581] the United States’. I myself did not vote in favor of the acceptance of the Hoover moratorium. Others, on the other hand, voted for it. France, therefore, is held to its undertaking. What I cannot understand is that those who voted the moratorium refused to accept the consequences. I also beg to invite your attentions the fact that I did not vote in favor of the debt settlement project established by our ambassador in 1926,23 for the reason that this project did not embody safeguard clauses. After these votes had been taken the situation changed entirely. France has given its word, and under these circumstances, I intend to adhere to it.”
The details thus furnished by M. Herriot relating to his conversation with the President during his visit to the United States in 1933 appear to have now been made public for the first time. The comparatively brief and guarded statements relating to the results of his mission made by the former French Premier upon his return to France were the subject of the Embassy’s telegram No. 205 of May 8, 1933, and the Embassy’s despatch No. 3560 of May 9, 1933.24
As concerns M. Herriot’s apparent reference to the text of the arrangement reached with France25 on the application of the Hoover moratorium, and the independence of the war debt payments, the Embassy’s records of the moratorium negotiations which took place in Paris in June and July 1931 indicate that at a meeting held between the French and American representatives on June 29, 1931, a communication along the lines of his statement was made by Mr. Mellon to M. Laval, based on instructions contained in paragraph 7 of section 4 of the Department’s telegram No. 298 of June 27, 10 p.m., 1931.26 This was reported to the Department in the last two paragraphs of the Embassy’s telegram No. 373 of June 29, 5 p.m., 1931.27 The possibility of the eventual revision of the war debt agreements raised by M. Flandin during the negotiations were reported in the fourth paragraph of the Embassy’s telegram No. 379 of June 30, 5 p.m., 1931,28 which indicated that the American negotiators, in reply, stressed “that it would be absolutely useless for the French Government or anyone else to harbor such a hope”, and in this connection the American negotiators pointed out the plain statement covering this point in the President’s moratorium proposal published on June 20, 1931.29
[Page 582]The present attitude of M. Herriot towards the question of the war debts, and his apparent understanding of the terms of the moratorium agreement would appear to present a certain interest in the event that the Left parties obtain the upper hand, in the coming elections, and M. Herriot be given a place in the new government. It is for this reason that his recent declarations in this connection are referred to at some length.
It seems worth noting that, as far as is known, the resurrection of the war debt question by M. Herriot has not provoked any comment or notice in the French press.…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respectfully yours,
- Note: apparently a misprint. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- Agreement of Understanding and Cooperation between France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, signed at Rome, July 15, 1933; see Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. i, pp. 396 ff.↩
- See ibid., pp. 494–501, and Department of State, Press Releases, April 15, 1933, p. 247.↩
- Agreement signed April 29, 1926; see Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. ii, pp. 91 ff.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Dated July 6, 1931, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. i, p. 162.↩
- Ibid., p. 88.↩
- Ibid., p. 101.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See telegram No. 262, June 20, 1931, 8 p.m., to the Ambassador in France, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. i, p. 33.↩