The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 12—6:50 p.m.]
1752. ReEmbtel 232, Jan 8, 6 p.m.,33 repeated Moscow as 14, to Paris as 21 and Berlin as 22. We are told that Foreign Office paper on economic aspect of Ruhr and Rhineland problem has been cleared through official levels and is now before Ministers. Official who participated in drafting it states that it advocates alternative proposal to that of French, Foreign Office favoring international economic control of Ruhr without its separation from Reich either politically or economically. It envisages indefinite duration for such control and indefinite military occupation of the Ruhr.
Their thought is that pressure in British [Britain] and US for demobilization will not permit military occupation of these two zones for any very long period and that in these circumstances indefinite occupation of Ruhr by small forces with close economic control of its industries would over the years give maximum efficiency of control over German war potential with minimum effort. They would not favor any separate tariff regime for Ruhr but would permit it to remain integral part of German economy for benefit of whole country. Their thinking on political side has not progressed as far but tends to oppose any political separation of Ruhr and Rhineland. While they foresee future German agitation for removal of international economic control of Ruhr and see certain advantages if it were subject to outside political control as well, they are inclined to believe disadvantages would be greater. They do not favor separate political regime for Rhineland but might agree to French retention of bridgeheads.
Sent Dept as 1752, repeated Berlin as 169, Paris as 112 and Moscow as 64.
- Not printed.↩