740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–1348: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Embassy in France


915. Reference Paris 5836, November 11 to Dept.1 We are mystified over statement made by M. Schuman to Ambassador Caffery to effect that he found it almost incredible that US and UK wanted to face him with a fait accompli two days before the beginning of London Conference on the Ruhr. This remark was incident to publication of Law No. 75 re the reorganization (trusteeship) of coal, iron and steel industries in the Ruhr.2 Fait accompli tactics have not been employed in this instance and French Delegation in Germany has been kept advised of development this plan since last August. We have reason to believe [Page 497] that both French Delegation here and Massigli in London no doubt inadvertently have failed to keep M. Schuman informed of this development.

We hope that Ambassador Caffery will find opportunity to emphasize to M. Schuman personally that there has been no intention to employ surprise methods but, on contrary, his representatives have been regularly and adequately informed of the evolution this step. We feel particularly disturbed at this juncture because we were happy over Caffery’s advice in his 694 of November 103 re M. Schuman’s reaction to supervision of western Berlin currency by the Bank Deutscher Laender.

Following indicates extent to which the French were informed and the various opportunities given them to express views.

[Here follows a chronological review of exchanges and meetings with French and Benelux representatives regarding the proposed plan for reorganization of coal, iron and steel industries. The review is virtually identical with that set forth in numbered paragraphs 1 through 8 of Gen. Clay’s message CC–6717, November 13, supra.]

US Economic Adviser OMGUS had just returned from Ruhr meeting in London after having had conversation with Alphand on this subject. According to Wilkinson, Alphand admits that Schuman was not kept informed. Wilkinson said that Alphand evinced a distinct desire to play down the matter. Wilkinson learned from him that due to some inadvertence, Massigli had not conveyed to M. Schuman the recent British note on this subject.

Department, of course, has been kept advised on the progress in this matter. I refer particularly to my telegrams which were repeated to Paris and London, 2474 of October 94 and 2537 of October 195 together with my letter to Mr. Saltzman of October 26.6

Please see Clay’s CC–6717 to Army of today’s date.7

It is requested Ambassador Caffery inform the Secretary of this message as well as General Clay’s CC–6717 which is being repeated to Paris separately.

Sent Paris personal for Caffery 915, repeated Dept [personal for Lovett 2734], London personal for Douglas 845.

  1. Not printed, but see footnote 3 to telegram 4824, November 11, from London, p. 472.
  2. See the editorial note, p. 465.
  3. (Not printed, but see footnote 1 to Ambassador Murphy’s notes of the meeting of the Military Governors on November 4, p. 434.
  4. Ante, p. 456.
  5. Ante, p. 458.
  6. Not printed.
  7. Supra.