840.50/7–1147: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
2766. For Secretary and Lovett from Caffery. Under Secretary Clayton, who had returned to Geneva, requested me to send you summary of conversation which we had with President Ramadier.
Ramadier opened conversation by referring to Europe’s difficult economic position and to need to re-establish international exchanges, commenting that it was easier to re-establish exchange of goods than an exchange of ideas. In this conversation, which occurred before Czechoslovakia reversed its position concerning participation in conference, Ramadier stressed need for economic unity in Europe, expressing his pleasure at what he believed to be Czechoslovakian acceptance of membership in conference and referring to important position which Poland occupied as source of coal for both France and other European countries. In this connection he said, “indeed, it is indispensable that this unity should include Poland for it can be said that Europe extends as far as Vistula. Beyond, things are different. To wish to have Europe stop this side of Vistula would be equivalent to having United States stop at Mississippi.[”]
Ramadier then said that independently of economic difficulties a profound moral uneasiness reigned in Europe. It could even be said that France’s economic reconstruction is more advanced than its moral reconstruction. European nations are now comparable to customers of bank about to suspend its payments. Marshall concept therefore, in addition to its economic aspects, is also remedy for this moral uneasiness, but rapidity of execution is above all necessary. European countries must move rapidly in this task but it is also necessary the United States place itself rapidly in position to define aid it considers it can bring us.
Mr. Clayton, in reply, assured Ramadier that he appreciated difficulty of French position: Europe at moment is under pressure as concerns foodstuffs, fuel and all current consumption goods, that this pressure is so strong that Europe does not have respite necessary for it to review its difficulties and make its reconstruction plans. If it should prove possible for American Government to extend assistance in form of coal, cereals and other items, this would permit Europe to concentrate effectively on its production and reconstruction problems. In this connection, Mr. Clayton referred to staggering costs of European imports of coal and wheat, and fact that European nations could not recover economically if they had to dedicate their available foreign exchange to that purpose. Disruption of Europe’s economy was much [Page 329] greater than indicated solely by physical destruction and it is now certain that economic reconstruction of Europe will require longer period than had been anticipated. Necessary measures for reconstruction, rehabilitation and development must be adopted and implemented by Europeans themselves, and it is Europe itself which will perfect means and methods which must be applied and which will permit it, with assistance of United States, once again get “back on its feet” economically. When Europe is economically “back on its feet” it is certain that it will also be “on its feet” politically.
Ramadier then turned to German problem stating that success of conference and subsequent work pre-supposes that German problem will be solved before end of the year, at least in its principal aspects. It must be solved from economic point of view and also, at least in part, from political point of view. Partition of Germany is inconceivable and, therefore, there could be no other solution than federal solution, at least during coming years.
Furthermore, from an economic point of view, solution must be found to problem of Ruhr. This, moreover, does not prejudice right to reparations of powers who can claim them, to extent, of course, that this right can be satisfied. These problems, which will not be brought up at conference, are, nevertheless, conditions for success of Marshall plan. On this point Ramadier concluded by saying that American aid proposals implied pledge to resolve German problem, at least provisionally.
Ramadier then referred to fact that there were European countries with overseas areas and inquired: “Does contemplated assistance to Europe include overseas countries under jurisdiction of European countries?”
Clayton, in reply, said this question had not been considered up to moment but that it was his personal feeling that Marshall suggestion had in mind primarily granting of assistance to continental Europe and not to overseas territories. He was cognizant of fact, however, that in many respects North Africa had been treated economically as part of France proper. Clayton added that it was clear that Secretary’s suggestion could not be considered as applying to Indo-China which is not regarded as European country. He added that assistance given to European countries would permit their overseas areas to profit from certain advantages but it was not contemplated that there would be direct aid to these territories. Clayton stated that with regard to undesirability of dividing Germany, at least economically, he concurred and that he also knew that Ruhr question is fundamental problem because it is reservoir of coal, steel and other raw materials located [Page 330] in middle of Europe. In closing Mr. Clayton mentioned that he had previously discussed same questions with Mr. Bevin and had spoken to him in same terms.
Sent Dept as 2766, repeated Geneva for Clayton as 81.