710.Consultation (2)/435: Telegram
The Chargé in France ( Murphy ) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 25—3:15 p.m.]
145. Your 58, July 12, 9 a.m.56 was received on July 19, 7 p.m. I conveyed the President’s message contained in the Department’s 171 of June 17, 11 a.m., to Baudouin57 on July 20. Ambassador Charles-Roux, Secretary General of the Foreign Office, today handed me in reply a note dated July 24 which in translation reads as follows:
“By letter dated July 20th you were kind enough to transmit the text of a communication addressed on June 17th last to His Excellency Mr. Biddle by the Secretary of State on the subject of the French colonial possessions in the Western Hemisphere.
As you suppose in your letter the communication in question had not yet been delivered to the French Government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs nevertheless was aware of the démarche made on June 19th [18th?] in respect of the German and Italian Governments for the purpose of informing them of the wishes of the United States Government not to recognize any transfer of American territory by a non-American power to another non-American power.
In the second paragraph of its communication of June 17th the United States Government examines the eventuality of the constitution of an inter-American trusteeship for the French possessions in the Western Hemisphere should conditions make such a step necessary. In the present state of the affairs the French Government does not understand all such conditions in [apparent omission]. The political status of the French possessions in Guiana and the Antilles is not affected by the terms of the armistice;58 the inhabitants of these colonies who are French citizens demonstrate their loyalty in many [ways?].
The French Government does not ignore the present considerations which the United States Government have in mind as well as their desire to maintain peace throughout the New World. As in the past it desires to adapt its own policy to the principles which happily have preserved pacific [relations?] on all sides until this day in these regions. It is in this spirit and on the basis of mutual respect of the sovereign rights of each state that it remains disposed to examine the different problems which may arise in the Western Hemisphere.
Accept Mr. Chargé d’Affaires the assurances of my highest consideration. Signed Paul Baudouin.”
In handing me the foregoing note Charles-Roux said that his Government totally failed to comprehend the necessity for our communication. He said frankly that it seemed that ever since the debacle [Page 498] leading to the armistice that the American Government, one of the oldest and most esteemed friends of his country which had not even expressed the faintest note of the disaster which had overtaken France, apparently was inclined rather to weaken his Government’s position than to strengthen it. France is engaged, he said, in a terrible struggle to maintain its independence and its colonial possessions. Our present attitude in respect to the western possessions serves to weaken the French position in regard to all French possessions at a time when support from an old friend is most to be expected. He said that our lack of sympathy was manifest not only from the failure of our Government to express even its sympathy over France’s misfortune but that the American people and the press also had neglected to manifest a spirit of friendship and understanding.
I told Monsieur Charles-Roux that he could rest assured of profound American sympathy for the people of France of which there could be no doubt even in the absence of formal protestations. I emphasized that communications have been totally inadequate and that it is difficult from here to estimate American sympathy laboring as it must be under the shock of events. Ambassador Bullitt would, I know, convey to the President a true picture of conditions. I was certain that many Americans did not understand France’s failure to transfer its naval forces to its ally prior to the armistice negotiations. Charles-Roux restated the French position. I replied that a great many Americans, I was sure, did not doubt the French intentions in respect of the naval units. They permitted themselves possibly the luxury of doubting German intentions and French ability under the circumstances of sinking the ships as [at] a given time as they had planned.
Charles-Roux asked a number of questions regarding the volume of assistance the United States is at present supplying the British and whether the American Government intended to intervene. I replied that cut off as we are from sources of authentic information concerning developments in the United States I had no idea.
The Secretary General said that the proposition for the return of the French Government to Paris–Versailles has now been before the Reich Government for the past 11 days with no indication from the latter as to its intentions. He said that curiously enough the proposition originated with the Germans who evidently believed then that it would not be acceptable. When the French accepted the Germans grew reluctant. Charles-Roux said that it was true that the Reich had proposed a quid pro quo which included the use of French naval and air bases in North Africa but that the Germans had not requested the right to reoccupy Lyon and Clermont-Ferrand as rumored.
[Page 499]He added that the rumor that Daladier59 and Mandel60 were under arrest at Marseille is unfounded. The commission for the investigation of war guilt has not yet been established but it is under consideration by the Council of Ministers.
- Not printed.↩
- Paul Baudouin, French Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- For text of the Franco-German armistice agreement of June 22, 1940, see Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918–1945, series D, vol. ix, document No. 523, p. 671.↩
- Edouard Daladier, ex-Premier of France.↩
- Georges Mandel, French ex-Minister of the Interior.↩