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

740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1548: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State

secret

London, December 15, 1948—4 p. m.

5252. Ruhrto 43. A. At meeting December 14¹ Alphand stated he had reported to Schuman and could express latter’s views but not necessarily those of Cabinet. Schuman had expressed appreciation of sympathy for French position expressed by other delegates. Believed solution could be found. Ruhr authority an important element of security problem but not only one. Must be considered with others, and is difficult to consider it alone. Other related matters include:

(1) Military Security Board, on which Military Governors have reached virtual agreement.

(2) Prohibited and limited industries on which progress has been made but there are some disagreements, particularly re synthetic oil and rubber. Important matter and agreement should be reached soonest. If Military Governors cannot agree matters should be referred promptly to governments. Military Security Board and IAR will carry out decisions when reached.

(3) Glad there will be removals of excess over prohibitions and limitations.

(4) Great importance attached to statement that change in 10.7 level not presently contemplated. Understands change can only be made by agreement all three governments.

(5) Disappointed re discussions with Humphrey Committee and hope in negotiations with State will reach agreement near French view.

B. With respect IAR, French think necessary to give it power to prevent excessive concentrations, prohibit Nazis holding important positions and supervise management, investment and production. Proposals by Douglas (Ruhrto 37,² paragraph 2) were far from French proposals. Would be particularly hard for French to accept vague language re third point.

Necessary IAR have sufficient powers to carry out aims of preamble IAR agreement. Must have at least agreement in principle, though methods left to later agreement. If US will agree to defining in principle in agreement powers to be retained, French will be willing to postpone to later date decisions on ways and means. Schuman thinks this and Annex L sanctions are all needed in Germany and that he can get by with this in Assembly. Thinks prohibitions, limitations and sanctions should be kept to minimum necessary to security, and that when these assured, French willing to cooperate with Germany in European recovery and will enter into necessary agreements. Do not want misery in Central Europe. With security and reeducation of Germans, French willing to cooperate with and accept Germany as member European community, and will make public statement to this effect.

In answer to question by Douglas as to exactly what French want with respect to third point, Alphand said that future study is not enough, that they want present agreement that some powers of control over management, et cetera will survive and will be exercised by IAR or successor to Military Security Board. Then read French proposals for inclusion in agreement. See Ruhrto 42.³ In answer to UK question as to whether any powers over those exercised by coal and steel groups would be proposed, Alphand said that powers of coal group were ones they want retained, though perhaps not all of them. He did not know what powers of steel group were. Wanted sufficient powers to carry out all aims expressed in preamble.

Alphand, in referring US suggestion re appeal, wanted further details. Douglas said that he could not give any detailed suggestions, that he had merely stated last week that idea had not been abandoned. He fully appreciated French fears of any procedure that would paralyze IAR.

C. Douglas referred to Benelux question at last meeting about participating in working out successor to Military Security Board. Said that US view (toRuhr 29⁴) they should participate in planning for successor but could not say now whether would participate in organization.

Agreed to consider French proposals and discuss at meeting December 15, a. m.

D. Meeting then discussed communiqué. Plan to try to agree on broad outlines and refer to a drafting committee. Both Douglas and Alphand prefer comprehensive communiqué, stressing value of communiqué in presentation of agreement to public and legislative bodies. British expressed preference for Short one, not commenting in detail on provisions of agreement.

As part of discussion re general framework of communiqué, Douglas stated US favored, through. Military Security Board or its successor adapting and putting into effect ideas contained in old Byrnes proposals on disarmament and demilitarization. He made clear that he was not suggesting a treaty but thought appropriate language in the communiqué could forecast evolution and adaption of Byrnes proposals to the present situation. Alphand emphasized that French acceptance of something less than their original proposals would depend to large extent on indication of willingness to provide adequate assurances demilitarization and disarmament. US suggestions re Byrnes proposals helpful.

E. Alphand expressed hope that Military Governors could reach promptest agreement on limited and prohibited industries and coordinate this announcement with that on the Ruhr agreement. This would make Ruhr agreement more acceptable he thought to French public. Suggested three governments urge Military Governors to proceed urgently. Stevens UK suggested that even if agreement on limited and prohibited industries not yet complete, reference could be made in Ruhr communiqué to expected agreement.

Alphand expressed preference for issuance unilateral statement by his government to effect that once adequate security controls established it feels Germany must be free to become associated in great enterprise of European recovery and gradually to become fully integrated into Europe. Douglas suggested either multilateral statement or perhaps inclusion in IAR agreement itself. Will be discussed further next meeting.

F. If Department agrees, it might be useful to follow suggestion in E and urge Military Governors to reach greatest practicable agreement re limited and prohibited industries so progress could be announced in relation to publicity re Ruhr agreement.

Sent Department 5252; repeated Berlin 661; Paris 1036.

Douglas

1. This was the 17th Meeting of the London Conference on Germany. Only part of the meeting is reported upon in the telegram printed here. Other portions of the meeting were reported upon in telegram 5245, Ruhrto 42, December 15 and in telegram 5266, Ruhrto 47, December 16, both from London, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1548 and 12–1648). A copy of the U.S. Delegation Minutes of this meeting was transmitted to the Department of State as an enclosure to despatch 2502, December 21, from London, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–2148). Much of this meeting was devoted to a consideration of the remaining unagreed portions of the Third Draft Ruhr Agreement, circulated to the conference as document RC/16, December 7, 1948. Copies of RC/16 were carried to Washington toy Daniel Margolies. Additionally, a copy of RC/16 was transmitted to the Department of State as an enclosure to despatch 2452, December 13, from London, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1348).
2. London telegram 5209, December 11, p. 559.
3. Not printed; it reported on several French proposals for additional provisions in the draft Ruhr agreement; see telegram 5277, Ruhrto 50, December 17, from London, p. 569.
4. Not printed, but see footnote 7 to telegram 5209, Ruhrto 37, December 11, from London, p. 562.