840.50 Recovery/6–2947: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
niact
2588. Couve de Murville has just given me an account of yesterday’s meeting (my 2586, June 28). He said that at outset of the meeting Molotov stated that the Soviets did not agree with certain of the proposals contained in the paper which the French had tabled the preceding day. In particular, the Soviets felt that inquiry into the resources of European nations would violate the sovereignty of the individual countries. He went on to say that the Soviet view was that each individual country should make its own study as to its needs which would establish the amount of credit it needed from the US. The coal [Page 300] [total?] credits of all the participating countries would then be pooled and this figure would be transmitted to the US Government as the credit needed for European reconstruction. In other words, as Couve put it, “The Soviets want to put the United States in a position where it must either shell out dollars before there is a real plan or refuse outright to advance any credits.”
Both Bevin and Bidault strongly opposed this suggestion on the grounds that it did not constitute a European plan such as envisaged by Secretary Marshall and that it would not provide for maximum utilization of the sources of the individual European countries for the benefit of Europe as a whole.
The question of what European countries should participate was then discussed. The French proposal envisaged the participation of all European countries except Spain, which would be “provisionally” excluded. (Couve believes the British are disposed to go along on this). Molotov said that Soviets felt that only Allied countries which had suffered from the ravages of war should participate directly in the plan. The satellite and ex-enemy states could participate indirectly in a “consultative capacity”. Bidault then made a strong plea for Italian participation on which Molotov made no comment.
Molotov then stated that he wished to talk about the question of German participation. He said that since the German question was to be discussed in the CFM meeting in London next November, he did not see how Germany could be represented until important decisions on Germany’s future had been reached by the Council of Foreign Ministers. Both Bevin and Bidault rebutted this view and said that in view of the importance of German coal for Europe, in view of Germany’s food problem, et cetera, they believe it indispensable that Germany should be represented in the planning stage by representatives of the Allied occupation powers.
With reference to Molotov’s previous proposal that information be immediately requested from the US Government (my 2577, June 28), Couve said that Molotov had not raised this question again and he shares the British belief that it has probably been abandoned although he admitted that with the Soviets it was always possible they might return to it.
In summing up, Couve stated that it was abundantly clear that the Russians are in no hurry to get on with the meeting. Molotov, he said, has been unusually mild and the French believe that the Soviets wish at all cost to avoid giving the French or the British a valid pretext to break with them.
Couve believes that the Soviets will continue to proceed cautiously. He said that they are highly suspicious and at all costs do not wish to be helpful in setting up any plan which will permit the United [Page 301] States to exercise influence in Europe. On the other hand, Bidault and Bevin are determined, he said, not to let the Soviets sabotage their efforts to formulate a realistic and effective plan.1
The three Foreign Ministers will not reconvene until tomorrow (Monday) afternoon at 4 o’clock.
Repeated Geneva 62 for Clayton.
-
In London telegram 3568, June 29, not printed, Ambassador Douglas transmitted Foreign Secretary Bevin’s record of the meeting as well as the text of a personal message from Bevin to him, as follows: “I am asking that you should be shown my summary report of yesterday’s meeting (June 28).
“You will see that there is a wide difference between Russians and ourselves as to what should go into the programme. They want to confine it to an uncoordinated statement of requirements on a national basis, without any attempt to present a constructive plan or to indicate what Europe can do to help herself. I propose to continue to insist that the only procedure likely to produce the desired results is a programme, which provides for the maximum of self-help and makes a demand on the US with respect only to residual requirements.
“M. Bidault is taking similar line.” (840.50 Recovery/6–2947)
↩