840.70/3–2745: Telegram

The Ambassador in France ( Caffery ) to the Secretary of State

1456. The subject of EITO and Department’s 1119, March 2228 were discussed informally today with Charguereaud of Foreign Office. Lebel29 is ill and was unable to be present. The result of the interview may be summarized as follows:

Charguereaud has not seen the text of the reply to the joint US–UK–French démarche in Moscow (reference Embassy’s 1147, March 10 and Embassy’s 1382, March 2330) but he had been informed of its substance (reference Department’s 1165, March 2431). He had lately returned from London where he had received the impression—largely from press reports—that the tactics of the Russians were directed at hastening the formation of the new provisional Polish representation at the San Francisco Conference.32 Under the circumstances, Charguereaud was inclined to defer temporarily consideration of the interim arrangement proposed by the British (reference Department’s 892, March 631) in the hope that these tactics might succeed and that a solution of the problem was not far off. He observed however that since the French did not participate in the Yalta Conference, they were in no position to form an opinion as to the prospects.

[Page 1400]

The French Government has already indicated its willingness to participate in the interim arrangement should this be considered necessary with the qualifications noted in Embassy’s 642, February 11,33 namely, (a) that the arrangement be informal, (b) that they could withdraw on 30 days notice. Charguereaud added that he would expect Soviet participation in this arrangement at least in the capacity of observer. The French could not however agree to participate in a revival of the EITO Conference without Soviet participation for the reasons given in numbered paragraph 2 of Embassy’s 642, February 11.

Sent to the Department, repeated to London as No. 187 and to Moscow as 37 of March 27.

Caffery
  1. See footnote 27, above.
  2. Claude Lebel of the French Foreign Office.
  3. Neither printed.
  4. Not printed.
  5. United Nations Conference on International Organization, April 25–June 26, 1945, For documentation, see vol. i, pp. 1 ff.
  6. Not printed.
  7. Not printed; it reported that the French were vitally interested in the recovery of their displaced transport equipment, much of which was in the areas occupied by the Russians and that they were afraid this question would not receive uniform treatment in the various zones of occupation should the Soviet Union not participate in revival of the Conference (840.70/2–1145).