740.00119 Council/5–2748: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

top secret   us urgent

1980. For Douglas. Dept deplores fact that continued French objections delay acceptance of substantial conference achievements in which we have gone far to meet French wishes (Delsecs 1755,1 1757,2 1758,2 1759,2 1760,2 17613 and 17622).

Recognize that approach to security problem is best that can be reached, weighing respective French and German reactions. We do not insist on change in language re length of occupation. In light of new Berlin Soviet-licensed press campaign favoring total troop withdrawal, essential point is US view that occupation forces cannot be withdrawn until peace in Europe is insured.

Perceive no objection to extensive publicity on Ruhr as well as on security in form which will not lend itself too readily to Soviet-inspired deception that Germans be freed of virtually all restraints. Agree that full disclosure of political papers be reserved until Govt approval and notification to German Ministers-President.

Will communicate later re general reference to effect that ownership would not revert to industrialists supporting Nazi war effort.4

We have nothing to add to your forceful presentation of manner of selection of constituent assembly. We are inclined to accept any method of selection which is duly representative provided French for their part would agree that they would not reject direct election of lower house of constitutional Govt if such is recommended by constituent assembly.

Sent London as 1980; repeated Paris 1868.

Lovett
  1. London telegram 2270, May 25, p. 279.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Not printed.
  4. Not printed.
  5. Not printed.
  6. London telegram 2296, May 27, p. 294.
  7. Not printed.
  8. Telegram 2004, May 29, to London, not printed, requested that if mention of the ownership of Ruhr properties was considered necessary in the communiqué, the American Delegation was to endeavor to have the following language inserted:

    “The ownership question is one for future determination by the Germans themselves, except insofar as past ownership will of course have been affected by decartelization and denazification under due process of law.” (740.00119 Council/5–2948)