Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The British Commonwealth; Europe, Volume III

840.6362/3–1847: Telegram

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

confidential
us urgent

London, March 18, 1947—8 p. m.

1714. This is Salco 454. Reference Salco 451, March 14,¹ repeated Moscow for USDel as 105.

1. McNeil² has asked Porter if US will support request which UK will make to ECO for coal imports. UK probably will request one million tons or more for summer delivery. McNeil said he hoped that the desired import could be obtained from an increased ECO availability, thus avoiding a reduction in delivery to other European countries.

2. MEA confidentially informed that both Foreign Office and Ministry of Fuel and Power opposed imports at meeting Cabinet Fuel Committee and their position was reinforced by cable which Bevin sent from Moscow.³ Reasons for opposition were UK obligation to ECO and probably adverse effects upon British influence on continent. Fact that these views were overridden indicates serious assessment of Britain’s fuel position.

3. Outlook for third quarter makes support for British claim easier to justify than appeared likely month ago.

(a) For second quarter, increased US and German availability and computation French, Belgium, Dutch output on basis probable gross output rather than net merchantable will give these countries approximately 95% pre-war consumption. Authentic production forecast not yet available but being sought by MEA. It is reasonable to compute indigenous production on basis of gross output for these countries in order to establish common basis for comparison with UK consumption.

(b) On basis Ciszewski’s estimate of Polish exports and rising Ruhr output, ECO chairman believes third quarter availability from Polish/German sources will exceed second quarter by 1.4, perhaps 1.8 million tons.

(c) MEA has not encouraged hopes that US exports would be significantly increased over present rate 2.6 million tons per month. Would appreciate your estimate, however, of maximum that may be expected in third quarter. If US exports could be raised to 2.9, believe UK request could be met without serious friction in ECO.

4. On balance, MEA believes US should support British request. Factors which persuade us are these:

(a) British have unquestionably been encouraged by President Truman’s offer of February 13 to believe US would support UK proposal for import under ECO allocation, and public pressure for imports has been stimulated by President’s offer. MEA convinced US cannot afford seemingly to reverse its position.

(b) Aggravation of Britain’s economic plight might have serious economic and political consequences for rest of Europe and ourselves. British economic recovery more decisive in its consequences than that of any other European country.

(c) If ECO allocation denied and if sufficiently hard pressed, UK might take coal from Ruhr, even if this entailed withdrawal from ECO. Case for coal from Germany is that UK is paying large amounts of dollars for food and consumer goods to boost Ruhr production. Almost all European countries except Britain heretofore have benefited from increased Ruhr output made possible by US and UK expenditure. This argument, while not yet widely made in public, is being made privately with much force.

5. MEA aware that recommended course involves some risks for ECO and that other ECO claimants, who feel their need is greater, may object to allocation for UK. We recognize also French will probably use this occasion to again press forcefully for greater exports from Germany than is practical. Nonetheless, we believe President’s offer of February 13 overrides other considerations.

6. Foregoing matter discussed with Ambassador, who concurs view expressed in this cable, and urges every possible effort be made to raise US export availability to maximum.

Sent Dept 1714, repeated to Moscow for USDel as 112.

Douglas

1. See footnote 1, above.
2. Hector McNeil, British Minister of State.
3. British Foreign Secretary Bevin was in Moscow for the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. Concerning coal as a general European question and more specifically as a problem of increasing the output of German coal mines, see vol. ii, pp. 472 ff. and pp. 909 ff.