740.00119 Council/6–1048: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

secret   most immediate
niact

3091–A. In the Assembly vote on the London-German agreement it is obvious that as things now stand the Communists and Gaullist inter-group will vote against; that a majority of the MRP and Socialists will probably vote favorably; and that the outcome will probably depend largely on the position of the PRL and the independent Republican’s.

In view of the vital importance of getting the PRL and independent [Page 328] Republicans to go along, I saw Paul Reynaud and Laniel together this afternoon and explained again the tragic consequences for France if it rejected the London agreement.

At the conclusion of my exposé, Reynaud said that there was great hostility to the agreement in both his and Laniel’s group and that many of their followers in the Assembly still believe that if the London agreement is rejected negotiations for a new agreement could at once recommence with a new Foreign Minister in the place of Bidault who, he said, no longer has the Assembly’s confidence. (He added that Palewski and the Gaullists are spreading this “line”.) He agreed personally that it would be disastrous for France to isolate herself from the other occidental powers on the German issue. With this in mind he said he and Laniel would endeavor to convince their followers but he would need some ammunition.

In particular he said that it would be helpful to have a statement from a qualified US Government official (perhaps in answer to a question posed at a press conference) that if the French Government did not approve the agreement the United States, with reluctance, would feel obliged to carry through the London agreements with the other signatories but without France. He also said that any American press or editorial criticism of De Gaulle’s declaration on Germany would also be very helpful. Reynaud said that he would have to have this information by tomorrow evening (Paris time) if it were to be really effective in the final vote, which he expects will occur Saturday.

I believe that if we can supply Reynaud with something along these lines (which will permit him to endeavor to convince his followers and colleagues and at the same time not require him to pose as an actual champion of the specific terms of the agreement itself) it will be very useful. I have in mind a question at a Departmental press conference tomorrow or some form of question posed to a State Department “spokesman” with an answer along above lines.1

Sent Department as 3091; repeated London as 520, Berlin as 315.

Caffery
  1. The Department did not reply to this telegram, and there was no Departmental statement of the sort discussed here.