851.00/7–1246: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 13—12:35 p.m.]
3432. It is known that the apparent contradiction between the French Communist and German Communist positions with regard to Germany, especially the Ruhr, has been the subject of debate in Communist circles here for some time and there are grounds for believing that Duclos visited Berlin as early as April for the purpose of ascertaining whether the German and French Communist “lines” could be brought more into focus. It was found, however, that pending further clarification of the matter on the part of the Kremlin it would be best for the German Communists to plug for the territorial integrity of Germany and for the French to play along with the popular Bidault thesis. The latter at least according to Communist circles here possessed the virtue of putting an end to unilateral British control of Ruhr and further extending Soviet influence in the west as well as serving as a popular platform on eve of June elections.
[Page 466]An indication of the party line was given last night when an important Communist informed a member of my staff that Molotov’s declaration72 laid the foundations for bridging the gap between the German and French Communists and was in line with Leninist-Stalinist doctrine of “protecting the German proletariat by opposing British imperialism in the Rhineland”. The source continued to effect that no basic differences existed between German Socialist Unity Party and the “class conscious workers of France” and that pending the growth of German Communist Party it was “only natural that French Communists should demand that Ruhr and Rhineland be placed under international rather than British control”.
Informant’s explanation conforms with Magnien’s statement in today’s Humanité to effect that Molotov’s proposal for Inter-Allied control and France’s demand for the political and economic internationalization of the Ruhr are not insoluble; furthermore, Magnien stresses the points on which Paris and Moscow are in general agreement and cleverly omits any mention of the basic difference between the French demand for detachment of the Ruhr and Molotov’s rejection thereof. Already Humanité is stressing vital importance to France of reparations, particularly coal, and is insisting that only by an international control of the Ruhr as outlined by Molotov can France’s national economy recover. At same time Magnien blames British and by inference ourselves for France’s failure to receive reparations, of which the most vital item in eyes of all French is coal. By violently dragging the red herring of coal into the debate, Communists undoubtedly hope to divert attention from their abandonment of Bidault and thus regain at least somewhat the loss of popularity which will result inevitably from Soviet rejection of French thesis.
To Dept as 3432; repeated London 529; Moscow 287; Berlin 274.
- On July 10 Molotov had spoken in the Council of Foreign Ministers, at Paris, on the future of Germany and the peace treaty with Germany; see volume ii.↩