396 1 PA/3–1752 Telegram
No. 73
The Secretary of
State to the Embassy in
France
1
niact
priority
5476. From the Secretary for Bonsai. Please give this telegram to Ambassador Dunn immediately upon his arrival in Paris:2
For the Ambassador: After you have read this telegram and the various messages relating to it which the Embassy will have, will you please telephone Mr. Matthews between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., Washington time Tuesday (I shall be testifying on the Hill)?
The first question to have in your mind is whether you can represent us in discussions in Paris with Eden, Schuman and Adenauer relating to our proposed joint reply to the Russian note on Germany. We should like you to do this unless you see reasons to the contrary.
The next question to have in mind is what help you would need from here from persons or persons who would have to leave immediately. If you feel, in the circumstances you can take this on, we would send Perry Laukhuff to bring you our latest thinking, and, if you so desire, possibly Julius Holmes, who has been in the tripartite discussions in London.
The problem is this:
Eden apparently wishes to settle on a joint reply this week. (We know too that Adenauer wishes to have a discussion of the problem in Paris.) At present our ideas diverge from the British and French [Page 184] although we started out with fairly parallel views, especially as regards the British. We believe strongly that our main purpose is to drive ahead with the signature and ratification of the EDC and the contractual relations with Germany, and that we should not permit the Russians to accomplish their obvious purpose of frustrating both by delay. We, therefore, wish to make the reply as simple as possible, and in particular we do not wish to get into questions about the status of a united German government if one should be created, nor do we wish to get into arguments about the Russian proposal for a treaty with Germany. Both of these questions, in our judgment, are calculated to bring about a conference or discussions about a conference, both of which would slow up the two matters we are so anxious to hasten.
You will see from Washington cables at the Embassy and London cables our proposed reply, the reasons therefor and the results of today’s conference in London, out of which two other proposals emerge. We dislike both of them. We have not seen the actual texts but what we have been told about them is distasteful.3
The attitude which we think should be taken with the Germans, French and British is that expressed above plus the argument that a reply to the note should not be indefinitely delayed, and that, therefore, we should center on those matters on which there is tripartite agreement, leaving disputed matters to a later stage in the correspondence, if such a correspondence develops.
If you feel you cannot take this on, you can discuss this with Matthews tomorrow over the telephone and alternative plans can be made.4
- Drafted by Secretary Acheson. Repeated to London and Bonn.↩
- Ambassador Dunn was arriving in Paris to assume his duties as U.S. Ambassador to France.↩
- On Mar. 17 Holmes met with Eden and Massigli to discuss further the Western reply to the Soviet note. The Embassy in London reported that agreement was reached on terms for the reply which embodied the substance of the U.S. draft (see telegram 4510, Document 67) and the language of the British draft. (Telegram 4093 from London, 662.001/3–1752) The text of the redraft was transmitted in telegram 4094 from London, Mar. 17. (662.001/3–1752) On the following day Gifford transmitted further changes in the agreed draft. (Telegram 4101 from London, Mar. 18, 662.001/3–1852)↩
- On Mar. 18 Dunn replied that he would be glad to represent the United States. This apparently confirmed a conversation with Matthews (no record found in Department of State files) which is referred to in Dunn’s reply. (Telegram 5672 from Paris, 396.1 PA/3–1852)↩