740.00119 Council/6–1048: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France
niact
2057. Reurtel 3077, June 10.1 US Govt’s answer is no to suggestion that French Govt be authorized to inform Assembly that question of extension of Ruhr control to actual management of mines remains open for future discussion in connection with setting up International Authority.
French are aware of concession we made from our original position in agreeing that International Authority should make allocations rather than review German allocations between internal consumption [Page 327] and export. While we continue to believe agreed London recommendation is equitable and just, French must also be aware of unfavorable German reaction which will make it difficult to maintain coal production for general recovery needs. The mere fact of leaving question of extension of Ruhr control open for consideration, when it had been agreed in February to eliminate international management, would produce further unfortunate results in Germany and is moreover unnecessary from security standpoint. French Govt is fully cognizant that Ruhr recommendation is part of integral program. If crippling reservations are attached to program French should realize that insofar as the Ruhr and other commitments favorable to themselves and Benelux are concerned these will become inoperative. We appreciate implication of this action but would regard it straightforward and necessary step. As we understand it Massigli had been thoroughly informed of these consequences.
Re Deptel 20272 and Ambassador Douglas’ query in London’s 272 to Paris,3 we of course did not envisage amendment now or in near future of London program, particularly before it should have chance to justify itself. London agreements, like other agreements relating to developing situation, nevertheless cannot be regarded as immutable. It may be found that certain adjustments will have to be made and process of continuing consultation regarding all aspects of German situation may well lead to suggestions for change which we would be willing to accept by common agreement including that of the Germans. However on the Ruhr we cannot go beyond the basic position accepted at London.
Sent Paris as 2057; repeated Berlin 1022; and London 2182.
- Not printed; the suggestion about which it reported had been made by André Philip, the leader of the Socialists in the Foreign Affairs Committee, who warned Ambassador Caffery that the London recommendations would fail of approval in the National Assembly unless the suggested concession be made to the French Government (740.00119 Council/6–1048).↩
- June 9, p. 324.↩
- Same as telegram 2505, June 10, from London, not printed, but see footnote 3 to telegram 2027, June 9 to Paris, p. 324.↩