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

EUR/WE Files

¹

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Hickerson)

secret

[Washington,] September 12, 1947.

Participants:	M. Bonnet, French Ambassador
	The Secretary of State
	Mr. John Hickerson, Director, Office of European Affairs

The French Ambassador came in at 11:30 today by appointment made at his request. The Secretary left the Department for New York before this memorandum of conversation could be dictated. I am therefore preparing this memorandum in order that it may be distributed without being forwarded to New York for the Secretary’s approval.

M. Bonnet said that he had just returned from Paris and that he had wished to give the Secretary some of his impressions on the general situation. First of all, he said that he had been very much pleased to see that the French Government seemed to be pretty well in agreement with the position of the U.S. Government concerning the work of the CEEC in Paris.² He called attention to the fact that on three of the most important aspects of this conference the French Government fully supports what it understands to be the position of the U.S. Government. These are:

1. Emphasis on production. The French Government recognizes the full importance of setting production goals and attaining these goals.

2. Financial reform. The French Government fully agrees that the countries of Europe must in their own way put their finances in order.

3. Removal of trade barriers. The French Government recognizes fully the importance of trade barriers and is prepared even to agree to a European customs union although the French Government recognizes that there are numerous difficulties in the way of a customs union at this time which probably cannot be surmounted.

The Ambassador said that against this background he wished to raise with the Secretary and discuss briefly with him three topics: (1) The French dollar position (2) Wheat and (3) The Ruhr.

The Ambassador said that the French Government was handing to Mr. Caffery a note setting forth their acute financial situation.³ This boils down to the unpleasant fact that France will run out of US dollars some time between October 15 and October 30. He said that there had been much talk in the US of an interim period in which financial assistance to certain countries in Europe would be necessary. This interim period had been understood to cover that time between the opening of Congress and the voting of funds for a program, presumably about March. The Ambassador said that as regards France there are therefore two interim periods: October 15 until the end of December and January to March. He said that he hoped that if possible consideration would be given by the U.S. Government to this French note.

Next the Ambassador said that France is desperately short of bread grains and must have more wheat if the present inadequate ration is to be maintained. He said that he was conscious of the difficulties involved in getting more wheat but that it would have the most serious consequences in France, political and social, if the government found it necessary to reduce the present insufficient ration.

Finally the Ambassador mentioned the French interest in the Ruhr. He recalled the discussions which took place in Paris recently between the French officials and Messrs. Caffery, Clayton and Douglas.⁴ At that time he said Mr. Clayton had suggested that the French security apprehensions might be met by a provision in the peace settlement for the establishment of an international board on which Germany would be represented along with France, the UK, US and Benelux to allocate the German production of coal, coke and steel; this board would see to it that enough production was allocated to Germany for a peaceful economy and that the remainder was allocated for export in a fair and equitable manner. The Ambassador said that he frankly felt that this device would not be sufficient to satisfy France’s security apprehensions. He said that a control board was all right but that it must be more fully integrated with the economic life of the Ruhr and play a more effective role vis-à-vis management of the mines. He did not elaborate on this.

By this time the Secretary’s next caller, the British Ambassador, was waiting to fill an appointment with the Secretary. The Secretary said that he did not have time to do more than comment briefly on the third topic the Ambassador had mentioned, that is, the Ruhr. He said that he must point out to the Ambassador that he is deeply concerned over this whole question and the varying points which are emphasized in the policy of France, the United Kingdom and the United States in regard to the Ruhr question. The Secretary said that he can understand a natural French desire to see to it that adequate security measures are taken to prevent Germany from again menacing France but that he must say that he does not understand how in the present crisis the French can emphasize this to the exclusion of other important factors. The UK Government, a Socialist government, seems to feel that the most important matter in connection with the Ruhr is the early nationalization of the coal mines. The Secretary went on to say that the U.S. Government is frankly interested in achieving at the earliest possible date the maximum production of coal in the Ruhr and favors concentration on the solution of that question now and dealing with the other questions in a fair and equitable manner as soon as the coal begins to roll out of the Ruhr in adequate volume.

The Secretary said that adequate quantities of coal are indispensable to the revival of industry and thus the reattainment of the financial solvency of Europe. The Secretary went on to say that shortage of coal was in the final analysis back of most of France’s difficulties including the shortage of dollars. The Ambassador indicated agreement with the Secretary’s comments.

John Hickerson

1. Files of the Division of Western European Affairs, Office of European Affairs; Lot 53 D 246, File “Rhineland–Ruhr”.
2. For documentation on the Conference of European Economic Cooperation, July–September 1947, see pp. 249 ff.
3. The note is included in telegram 3725, September 12, from Paris, infra.
4. For reports on the conversations under reference, see telegrams 3239, August 13, 3263, August 14, 3316, August 19, and 3319, August 19, all from Paris, vol. ii, pp. 1029, 1031, 1039, and 1041.