Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Germany and Austria, Volume II

CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 133: File—Ruhr Authority, Vol. I

The Department of the Army to the United States Military Governor for Germany (Clay), at Berlin

secret
priority

[Washington, October 27, 1948.]

WX–91587. From Dept of Army from CSCAD to OMGUS EUCOM.

1. Reurad Oct CC–6171.¹ Our reaction to your draft, which is being carefully considered, will be sent to you piecemeal as developed.

2. State working party² with Army and ECA observers now developing background material and position papers relative problems Ruhr Control Authority. Working party has so far developed tentative positions as follows on which your comments would be appreciated.

A. Definition of coal, coke and steel. Authority should be given power to specify export quotas not only in coal and coke generally but also in terms of such quality, size and other specifications as Authority deems desirable. While State’s preference is to leave open to Authority to decide breakdown according to which allocations are made, it is felt US should be prepared to yield if other countries strongly feel that agreement itself should specify particular product breakdown. Such breakdown would presumably cover separately metallurgical coke, domestic coke, coking coal, steam coal and gas coal.

(1) Brown coal should be regarded as included within the definition of coal. Actually very little brown coal is produced in Ruhr and almost none is exported from Germany except in form of briquettes. The main problems in this connection are simply special cases of the gen problems which the Authority will have to face of deciding what conversion ratio to use for different quality and of crediting non-Ruhr exports from Germany toward the agreed export quota.

(2) The definition of steel should include all crude semi-finished and finished steel as defined for purposes of OEEC but including pipe and tubes, and probably fabricated structural shapes and cold finished products other than wire. These products, which are classified as finished steel in this country, should be added to OEEC definition because of the probable importance of Germany’s export of these items to her neighbors. The Authority should be free to establish export quotas for the agreed product whether in terms of total steel or in such product breakdowns as it deems desirable. Castings (except for those made within the steel industries) and fabricated products such as machinery and transportation equipment should not be included with the definition of steel.

(3) Re pig iron and scrap US should not propose including these items but should be willing to reconsider position depending on how strongly and with what justification their inclusion is urged by others. Arguments for not including them are:
(a) Pig iron and scrap are not normally important German exports, (b) control of pig iron and scrap allocations might make it possible for Germany’s competitors in steel trade to deprive her of material required to maintain desirable level of steel production, and (c) scrap, unlike other steel products, is not especially concentrated in the Ruhr. Arguments in favor of including pig iron and scrap are:
(a) Pig iron may in future be important German export since no level of industry limitation governs pig iron production, (b) scrap may well constitute main steel export of Germany for a nbr of yrs to come and should mil control end before Germany’s extraordinary supplies of scrap have been fully utilized some means of assuring continuation of scrap exports in face of already demonstrated German opposition should be provided, and (c) without control over pig iron and scrap it would be possible to divert these metallics into foundry industries, the production of which will not be subj to jurisdiction of Authority.

B. Signatories and eff date. It is contemplated that all six powers will sign the agreement which will become eff upon approval 3 occupying powers. Latter provision to insure Benelux countries cannot delay formation German Govt by withholding approval.

C. Organization and beginning of operation. Organization of Authority should begin upon agreement becoming eff. Operation would begin on date agreed by occupying powers but in any event prior establishment Provisional Govt.

D. Duration. Agreement to continue in force until peace settlement and terminated by 3 occupying powers after consultation with other signatories. Feel necessary provide termination by occupying powers so that way left open for any Quadripartite negotiations.

E. Amendments. Provision should be made for amendment by agreement all signatories upon recommendation Authority.

F. Nature of instrument establishing the Authority. Believe instrument resulting from conference should be designated an agreement and that it should contain an article establishing the Authority, stating that the agreement constitutes its authority and terms of ref and that the Authority should be bound by its provisions. Present plan is to keep instrument in form of executive agreement and to keep out any provisions which might require submission as treaty to Senate. Designation as statute would give instrument character of legislation and would raise problem of whether signatory powers other than occupying powers have authority to issue such legislation. Same problem of Authority raised by designation of instrument as charter.

3. Another question which must be resolved and on which we should like your comments is the definition of the geographic area of the Ruhr. Working party is considering but no definite views yet formulated.³

4. We shall keep you advised to fullest extent possible.⁴

5. This part of cable being sent to Douglas by State. Pls repeat your comments London, info Douglas. New subj.

6. Douglas now suggesting to British and French that meeting be postponed to Monday 15 Nov. He will advise you if this change is agreed upon.

7. State has designated Wayne G Jackson, Office of European Affairs as Douglas deputy and Daniel F Margolies, Div of Investment and Economic Development, and Ben H Brown, Office of Legal Advisor, as advisors. They plan to arrive in London a few days prior to opening of meeting to allow time for consultation with your representatives and possible British.

8. Would appreciate having names your representatives.

1. October 3, p. 449.
2. The Informal Working Group on International Control of the Ruhr was organized at the beginning of October 1948. Its purpose was to assist in preparing the U.S. position for the forthcoming London six-power meeting on the Ruhr.
3. Message CC–6562, November 2, from Deputy United States Military Governor Hays to the Department of the Army, not printed, reported that agreement had been reached with the British regarding the definition of the geographic area of the Ruhr. According to that agreed definition, the Ruhr would comprise Regierungsbezirke Duesseldorf, Arnsberg, and Muenster in Land Nordrhein Westfalen, exclusive of the following areas: A. In Regierungsbezirk Duesseldorf: Landkreise Grevenbroich–Neuss, Kempen–Krefeld, and Kleve, a portion of Landkreis Rees, and Stadtkreise Muenchen-Gladbach, Rheydt, and Viersen; B. In Regierungsbezirk Arnsberg: Landkreise Arnsberg, Brilon, Lippstadt, Meschede, Olpe, Wittgenstein, Siegen, and Soest, and Stadtkreis Siegen; C. In Regierungsbezirk Muenster: Landkreise Ahaus, Beckum, Borken, Coesfeld, Luedinghausen, Muenster, Steinfurt, Tecklenburg, and Warendorf, and Stadtkreise Muenster and Bocholt. (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 133, File—Ruhr Authority, volume i )
4. The Informal Working Group on International Control of the Ruhr prepared seven additional progress reports reviewing its recommendations regarding the International Ruhr Control Authority. These reports were transmitted by the Department of the Army to OMGUS authorities in messages Warx 91771, October 30, 91912, November 2, 92003, November 4, 92132, November 5, 92254, November 9, and 92400, November 10. These messages are all included in CFM Files, Lot M–88; Box: 133, File—Ruhr Authority, volume i . For the text of the final, comprehensive instructions to the United States Delegation to the London Conference on the Ruhr, see instruction 459, November 10, to London, p. 465.