Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, Council of Foreign Ministers; Germany and Austria, Volume II

862.60/8–1947: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Acting Secretary of State

secret
urgent
niact

London, August 19, 1947—9 p.m.

4500. For Lovett from Douglas.

1. Martin and Jacobs have reviewed my instructions on tripartite talks with Hoyer-Millar, who will be principal Foreign Office adviser to Jenkins, the British delegate. I will see Jenkins when latter returns to London tomorrow.

2. In general there is complete agreement on agenda and approach to French.

3. It was stated that Sholto Douglas had decided today to come since Clay was coming.

4. In response to invitation of UK Ambassador in Paris to talks French stated their delegate would be Alphand and French [apparent omission] can be present only when he can be spared from European recovery conference.⁹⁹ UK not disposed to press French since they consider Paris talks far more important. Our strong desire to start no later than 21st was expressed. (As Paris telegram told you French have agreed now to start 22nd.)

5. To my surprise Hoyer-Millar stated that UK Government has not approved bizonal agreement reached by Clay and Robertson and that it therefore has no agreed status as I had understood. The UK Government objects strongly to the preamble as being too narrowly addressed to Germany. I agreed with this and had already started Martin and Jacobs working on minimum revisions to meet expected French criticism. However, I now find that in view of UK objections, the French have only been given the figures and not the text. I consider it important that US-UK agreement be reached promptly on a preamble stating the objectives of the revision. Such a statement should help materially with the French. Can you authorize me to initiate at once discussions with British on this subject? Agreed draft would be for your approval. Would expect OMGUS-War representatives to participate in these discussions and be free to submit separate views. UK also objects to failure to provide for retention of capacity in prohibited industries as was provided in report of bipartite working party on level of industry revision. UK requests US Government to agree to original recommendations of working party. They are particularly interested in the import saving resulting in aluminum, magnesium and beryllium. May I have your instructions on this point also for discussion with UK on same basis as preamble? In response to General Clay’s objections to this step the UK takes the view that British representative in CORC had indicated that his agreement to prohibition production these industries was made with specifically expressed reservation that it depended on satisfactory agreement on level of industry and economic unity. UK add that they feel we both are engaging in breach of Potsdam (because Russians have previously broken it) and since spirit of Potsdam is broken it seems futile to allow ourselves to be obstructed by fact that two separate meetings of CORC are involved. They indicated that it was their belief that US commercial interest was involved. We denied this strongly indicating our belief that US position was determined by General Clay’s belief he was obligated by separate CORC agreement with Russians on this point.

6. British insist that this plan be final one for bizonal area so far as reparations concerned and not be subject to change by quadripartite action in event of agreement on unification at November CFM. They take position and have so informed French that in this event quadripartite level of industry might be negotiated but it would have to be on basis of acceptance present revision as final status bizonal capacity for reparations purposes. They have promised to give us a draft which will embody the view that present agreement determines finally what industry will be left in bizonal area and establishes maximum removals to be made for reparations. They consider its finality to represent large part of its immediate value in bizonal area.

7. Notes received yesterday from Benelux countries were read and Hoyer-Millar said similar notes had been presented in Washington and Paris. UK suggested that question of inviting Benelux views be first item on agenda of talks, with the US–UK position being to supply them with the figures and agree to consider their written comments if received before final US–UK decision is reached. There is no suggestion that they attend talks. It was agreed to transmit this view to Washington but it was pointed out that it was not clear why France should be consulted on Benelux invitation. I think that if we press them UK will agree to make the decision on Benelux a US–UK one. They feel strongly that there is a real Benelux interest in such matters and see no harm in giving them an opportunity to present views. I agree. Would appreciate prompt instructions.

8. British indicate only paper about which further US–UK negotiations unnecessary in their view is bipartite paper to be given us tomorrow morning. This document does not contain preamble.¹ We do not know yet whether differs in other respects from documents received from Washington.

Repeated Paris 463 and USPolAd Berlin for Murphy and Clay as 306.

Douglas

99. René Massigli, the French Ambassador in London, was subsequently designated the French delegate to the London tripartite talks.
1. The reference here is to the Revised Level of Industry Plan which was subsequently circulated at the tripartite American-British-French talks in London as document TT/P(47)1, August 22, 1947, not printed.