862.60/8–2747: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
urgent
niact
4660. At meeting this afternoon of heads of delegations, Massigli stated that his government would accept draft communiqué (Embassy’s telegram 4640, August 2722) subject to following amendments:
1. Paragraph 11 should be placed at end of paragraph 1 and the words “more complete” substituted for the word “better”.23
I agreed
2. That the words “including Germany” in paragraph 2 be deleted. I agreed. But at tonight’s plenary session, I stated for the record that the phrase “for the rehabilitation of Europe” must of course be interpreted so as to include Germany.
3. That the end of paragraph 3 be changed to read “do not prejudice such guarantees in this respect as may be established in the future”.24
I agreed
4. There was discussion of phrase in paragraph 4 reading “as might be established to control access to its products”. Difficulty largely one of translation, and I agreed to this wording “to assure to other countries access to its products” as a substitute for “to control access to its products”.
5. That final sentence of paragraph 4 be changed to read: “The French delegation took note of these explanations and reserved the [Page 1065] position of their government with regard to the arrangements for the management and control of the mines.”
I agreed
6. That the words “resulting from” in paragraph 5 be replaced by the word “in”.
I agreed
7. After discussion, due largerly to French misunderstanding of exact meaning of paragraph 6, I agreed to deletion of words “their plan is intended to establish a program” and the substitution of the words “in the fixing of capacities enables a program to be established, etc.”
8. That the word “recognized” in paragraph 7 be changed to “agreed”.
I agreed
9. That the words “on the understanding that the coal available for consumption in the Anglo-American zones of Germany as a result of the present sliding scale would not be diminished” in paragraph 8 be deleted.
Massigli stated that he would give us written commitment outside the communiqué including this thought. I told him that this would be misleading everywhere, that this was not acceptable, and that we would have to insist on retaining this clause lest it lead to widespread misunderstanding.
The British likewise declined to accept this proposal.
Massigli stated that under his instructions he would have to consult his government unless all his proposed amendments were accepted. He is therefore communicating again with his government with regard to paragraph 8 arid hopes to have their reply tonight.
Before the plenary meeting tonight, I spoke to General Clay on the phone about the French amendments and he is in accord with the position which I took as stated above.
10. At tonight’s plenary session, M. Massigli, for the French Government, agreed to the communiqué with the modifications suggested by the French as indicated above and with paragraph 8 intact as originally submitted to you.
11. I did not state, first, publicly that the United States Government, at an early date, is prepared to engage in discussion and to give sympathetic consideration to the establishment in connection with the peace treaty, etc. Nor, second, was it necessary to seek authorization to say that the United States Government had no objection in principle to the establishment in connection with the peace treaty of some [Page 1066] international device, etc. (Department’s telegrams 371625 and 3718,25a August 27).
As to the first above, I knew from previous discussions that I would have difficulty with the British.
As to the second above, because the first would have difficulty with the British, the second would have led to the same difficulty. Therefore I concluded that it was better to take the risk of obtaining French agreement to the communiqué as modified in form though not in substance.
12. I did, however, say privately to Massigli, after the meeting of the heads of delegation this afternoon and before the plenary session, that we would try to persuade the British to engage in discussion and to give sympathetic consideration to the establishment in connection with the peace treaty of some international device, etc.
13. The full text of the communiqué follows. It will be released for publication in the Friday morning press in England, on the European Continent and in the United States:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sent Department 4660, repeated Paris for Caffery as 491, Berlin for Clay and Murphy as 414, Geneva for Clayton as 139.
- Neither the telegram nor the draft communiqué under reference here are printed. For the identification of printed sources for the communiqué as ultimately issued on August 28, see the editorial note, infra. Differences between the draft communiqué and the communiqué as finally issued are indicated in this telegram and in the annotations thereto.↩
-
Paragraph 11 of the draft communiqué read:
↩“Eleven. The three delegations were able, as a result of the conversation, to arrive at a better understanding of their respective points of view.”
-
The conclusion of paragraph 3 of the draft communiqué read as follows:
↩“… do not prejudice such guarantees in this respect as may be embodied in the peace settlement.”
- Supra.↩
- See footnote 20, p. 1063.↩