No. 67
Bonn Mission files, McCloy Project, lot 311,
D(51)1259
Memorandum by the United States High
Commissioner for Germany (
McCloy)
to the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
(
Adenauer)
Frankfurt, August 27,
1951.
On August 27, 1951, representatives of the Federal Government on
the Committee on Coal Distribution Problems Relation to the
Dissolution of the DKV presented
to a meeting of the Committee a plan which called for the
substitution of a single central selling agency for all Ruhr
coal for the existing DKV.
From the very outset of our discussions with the representatives
of the trade unions and the representatives of the Government we
have made it clear that a single central selling agency for coal
was
[Page 131]
out of the
question, and indeed, the representatives of the trade unions
and of the government indicated that no such agency was desired,
but that certain functions outside of exclusive selling which
the DKV performed were
desirable. Moreover, and really more important, the maintenance
of a single central selling agency is in direct conflict with
your letter of March 14, 1951,1 and with
the terms of reference of the Committee.
I am really amazed that at this point the German representatives
should not only again raise this subject, but in effect should
repudiate the position taken in the letter of March 14, which in
itself represented a compromise worked out after much labor and
time, with concessions from both sides. The point is one of
principle on which no further compromise is possible,
particularly as it falls directly in the field relating to the
Schuman Plan.
In order to remind those involved of the series of compromises
and concessions which have been made following the letter of
March 14, I am annexing a statement of these concessions and I
urge that from here out the German representatives be instructed
to act in conformity with your letter of March 14 and the terms
of reference of the Committee in regard to a single central
selling agency.
[Annex]
Memorandum Prepared in the Office of the
United States High Commissioner for Germany
[Frankfurt,]
August
27, 1951.
Committee on Coal Distribution Problems
Relating to the Dissolution of the DKV
1. In view of the apparent repudiation by the Federal
Government’s representatives on this Committee and of the
Chancellor’s letter of 14 March 1951, with regard to the
dissolution of the DKV, and
their complete disregard of the terms of reference given to
the Committee, a very serious situation is presented which
makes necessary a review of the developments leading up to
the creation of the Committee and the considerations
involved.
2. The creation of the Committee was the outcome of a series
of events, to wit:
- a.
- Exchanges of letters and several discussions took
place with regard to the coal and steel industries
and their reorganization between
[Page 132]
representatives of the
Allied High Commission and representatives of the
Federal Government. Certain concessions were made by
both sides from the positions originally taken. On
14 March 1951 Chancellor Adenauer addressed a letter to the
Chairman of the Allied High Commission setting forth
certain proposals which have been, in general,
accepted as the basis for action.
- b.
- In that letter of 14 March the Federal Government
recognized that the continuance of centralized sales
organizations would be inconsistent both with the
Schuman Plan
and the provisions of Law 27 and proposed the
liquidation of the DKV to be accomplished in stages over a
period of time in order to provide an orderly
transition.
- c.
- My meeting extending over four hours early in
March with trade union leaders including Von Hoff,
Wagenfuehr, August Schmidt and Grosse in which the
trade union leaders expressed their concern about
problems which might arise in the coal industry as a
result of the termination of centralized sales. This
meeting resulted in my undertaking to include in the
transitional convention of the Schuman Plan Treaty
specific provisions for a study by the High
Authority of the problems alluded to by the unions.
It was stated by the union leaders that this would
satisfy their concerns. I then obtained the
acceptance of Section 12 of the Transitional
Convention which contains the agreed
provision.
- d.
- The series of conversations between the German
trade union leaders who are members of the Schuman Plan
delegation, Von Hoff, Wagenfuehr, and Grosse, with
representatives of the French Schuman Plan
delegation, of which we were kept informed, at which
the German trade leaders expressed their concern
that the problems to which they had previously
alluded might arise within the period between July
1st, the scheduled date for the commencement of the
liquidation of the DKV, and the coming into force of the
Schuman
Plan. At these meetings the German representatives
again fully accepted the Chancellor’s letter of
March 14 and recognized the inconsistency of central
sales of Ruhr coal with the Schuman Plan and
addressed their attention purely to the need for
other solutions of the problems of the coal industry
during the interim period. These conversations led
to the letter of Foreign Minister Schuman to Chancellor
Adenauer of
19 April 1951 stating that a High Commission
Committee to deal with such interim problems would
be proposed.2
- e.
- The meeting of 6 May which I had with the trade
union leaders including Imig and Grosse at which
there was a reiteration of their acceptance of the
Chancellor’s letter in its provision for termination
of central selling but in which they expressed
concern that by reason of the lapse of time, the
commencement of the liquidation of the DKV and its
transformation into a voluntary organization of 1
July would allow insufficient time for the work of
the Committee proposed by Schuman to deal with the interim
proposals. The result of this meeting was the
preparation of a memorandum by me in which I stated
that in order to permit an effective
[Page 133]
allocation system to be
instituted for the period of shortage I would
propose to the High Commission that the date for the
commencement of the liquidation of DKV be postponed to 1
October. We were informed by Dr.
Grosse that this memorandum
was completely satisfactory to the unions and I was
called by Von Hoff who said that this action would
fully satisfy the condition laid down by the DGB for its approval of
the Schuman
Plan.
- f.
- The issuance by the High Commission of terms of
reference for the Committee which included
provisions barring a central sales agency for the
sale of coal or coke in accordance with the
Chancellor’s letter of 14 March and the decision of
the High Commission.
- g.
- The luncheon meeting at my home in Mehlem in June
with trade union leaders including Von Hoff, August
Schmidt and Grosse at which they again affirmed
their acceptance of the termination of central
selling but objected to the implication which they
found in the terms of reference that there would be
no permanent organization able to deal with problems
as they arose. This meeting and a subsequent meeting
between the Economic Advisers and representatives of
the Federal Government resulted in making it clear
that a permanent agency consistent with the terms of
reference could be maintained. The terms of
reference were thereupon, with certain other
amendments accepted by the German government and
adopted by the High Commission.
3. I am advised by one of my representatives on the Committee
that, in spite of all of the foregoing history, the Federal
Government representatives on the Committee have, from the
beginning of its work, adopted an attitude completely
inconsistent with the Federal Government’s proposal of 14
March, the decision of the High Commission, and the terms of
reference of the Committee. They have
indeed gone so far as expressly to repudiate the Federal
Government’s letter of 14 March, stating that they
did not feel themselves bound by it since the trade unions
and industrialists had not been consulted prior to its being
sent. In this they of course have repudiated in addition the
agreements of the Trade Union leadership itself, which gave
rise to the very creation of the Committee. They have
consistently stated that they could not be bound by the
provisions of the terms of reference of the Committee
forbidding the creation or maintenance of a centralized
sales agency.
4. In addition, I am advised that the DGB, represented by Von Hoff and August
Schmidt, contrary to its previous statements, joined with
various special interest groups in vigorously pressing for
the maintenance of a centralized sales agency.
5. On their side, the Allied representatives have attempted
in the Committee seriously to deal with the problems raised
by the Germans and have worked out a proposal, initiated by
the French, which I am advised the German representatives
themselves say is within the terms of reference and is
“workable”.
[Page 134]
6. At the meeting of the Committee on Friday, August 17, the
German representatives stated that they would submit a
proposal on August 29, after consultation with the Federal
Government. When asked whether this proposal would conform
to the terms of reference of the Committee (i.e. would
eliminate monopoly selling) they stated they did not
know.
7. On August 27, 1951, the German representatives presented
to the Committee a plan calling for the substitution for the
DKV of a single central
sales agency for all Ruhr coal. The plan provided for an
Advisory Committee composed of representatives of labor,
industry and consumers.
8. The submission by the Germans of this proposal is in
conflict with the terms of reference and provokes an
extremely critical situation. As you know, the French
Schuman Plan
delegation has consistently taken the position, which we
believe to be correct, that the maintenance of a centralized
sales organization dominating the market for Ruhr coal is
completely inconsistent with the basic principles of the
Schuman Plan. It
was on the basis of the German recognition of this fact and
the proposals of the Chancellor’s letter of March 14 in
accordance therewith that the Schuman Plan was initialed and signed.
Within the past week my representatives have discussed the
matter in Paris with M.
Monnet who reaffirmed in the clearest
possible terms his position that there can be no Schuman Plan if there were
to be a centralized sales agency for Ruhr coal. They also
discussed the French proposal with technical experts in
great detail and concluded that with certain minor
modifications which will be proposed, it fully satisfies the
legitimate concerns of the trade unions, a fact which is
indeed recognized by the German delegates in pronouncing it
“workable”.
9. In view of the decision of the High Commission that
central sales must be eliminated, and of the fact that such
elimination is an essential condition of the Schuman Plan and indeed was
proposed by the German government in recognition of that
fact, the present German proposal for its continuance would
in effect amount to a repudiation of all that has been
cooperatively accomplished within the last year. While, of
course, such a proposal could not and would not prevent the
High Commission from taking the necessary action, the
position of the German Government vis-à-vis the High
Commission and the Schuman Plan countries would be materially
impaired and the opponents of cooperation in the unification
of Europe would be tremendously strengthened by an action of
the Federal Government which accords with the position taken
[Page 135]
by the
opposition but is wholly inconsistent with the entire
direction of the previous governmental policy.3
