740.00119 Control (Germany)/4–2246
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Clayton) to the Secretary of State
Subject: General Clay’s Views on Internationalization of the Ruhr
I am in close agreement with the views expressed by Gen. Clay in his paper “Internationalization of the Ruhr”.87 They are also, I believe, in line with views developed in the Department in recent weeks.
Gen. Clay is opposed to political detachment of the Ruhr from Germany. He believes that Germany without this area cannot have a self-sustaining economy and that were it detached, we and the other western occupying powers would have to assume a continuing burden of relief in our zones. He believes, further, that the German population of the Ruhr would agitate in perpetuity for reunion with Germany. In short, he considers the proposal to detach the Ruhr from Germany to be inimical both to the economic and political stability of Europe. I agree.
Gen. Clay also rightly opposes as impractical any formula for detaching the Ruhr politically but not economically from Germany. He also opposes detachment of the Palatinate and Baden as serving no useful economic or security purpose. Gen. Clay does not oppose the detachment of the Saar and its incorporation into France. The Saar is intimately allied with the economy of Lorraine, and Gen. Clay notes that the German people are probably reconciled to its incorporation into France.
Gen. Clay believes that for security reasons—and doubtless also to effect a workable compromise with the French position—some form of international control over the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr may be desirable. He suggests that two international corporations might be established to operate the coal and steel industries of the area. The corporations would have two classes of capital stock, viz.: non-voting ownership shares that would be vested with German owners and non-participating common shares, with all voting rights, to be held by the governments participating in the control. During the period of the occupation the Control Council would supervise these corporations and allocate coal between German consumption and export. Ultimately, the supervision of the coal and steel corporations would be taken over by UN. The corporation would not enjoy extraterritorial status but would be generally subject to German sovereignty except on matters reserved to UN surveillance. These recommendations are in the direction of practical compromise but I believe [Page 542] their application would be attended by enormous difficulties. They accord closely with Appendix B of the departmental paper on Disposition of the Rhineland–Ruhr.89
One further comment on Gen. Clay’s paper is in order. Gen. Clay advances his case for economic control over the resources of the Ruhr solely as a matter of security. The French position vis-à-vis the Ruhr is somewhat larger than this. Because of the limitations of their own coal supply, they are interested in assuring an adequate supply of German coal for French industry without becoming economically and politically dependent on Germany. It will be necessary to persuade the French that proposals similar to those set out here are consistent with this larger aim.