740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–2746: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Military Governor for Germany (Clay)
u.s. urgent
3063. Personal for General Clay from Secretary Byrnes. Reurtel 2998, Dec. 27. I am distressed that the misunderstanding as to the Saar should cause you embarrassment. I realize the misunderstanding is in large part due to my failure to inform you of my commitments to Bidault in conversation and in my letter of October 14. At that time he had proposed to take certain administrative measures in the [Page 658] Saar without advising the Council of Foreign Ministers. I told him that while I had no objection to steps then proposed, I would earnestly protest if such steps were taken without first advising the Council of French intention.
Later Bidault wrote me he would not take action until he advised the Council.26 There followed my letter to him of October 14, quoted to you in my message December 24. You should have been advised of my statements. In view of my commitments, I did not feel called upon to make any statement when the French representative made his statement of intention to the Council on December 9.
I understand that the French contend that the silence that greeted their presentation of the proposals signifies the assent of the Council. But if the representative of any one of the four governments takes the position there was no agreement, I have to concur in that position.
In view of my statement to Bidault that I would support his action if the Council was first advised, I feel we are not in position to protest their action.
From press reports it appears the USSR takes the position the French action was not expressly authorized. With this position I have to agree. I assume the matter will be discussed at CFM in Moscow in March. If question is raised in Control Council in meantime, I think, as suggested in your 2998, you should take the position that while action was not expressly authorized, notice of intention was given without objection being raised and therefore it is best to leave the matter for settlement by CFM.
Department’s 2412 of December 627 was sent while you and I were in New York and was not seen by me. The Department considered that developments in CFM December 9 automatically superseded Department’s 2412. It is now clear that after December 9 the telegram of December 6 should have been formally canceled. I am very sorry it was not done.
Your statement to the press that the proposal had not been presented to Control Council and that you would have to ask for instructions from your Govt was an absolutely correct statement of fact and certainly is not inconsistent with position of US. The incident has attracted little attention here but if any question is asked of me I certainly will see that your position is correctly presented. I am disturbed about it chiefly because you are the one person I would not want to embarrass in any way.