740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–3048: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
niact
5053. Ruhrto 21. 1. Alphand returned to London today after weekend conferences Paris, particularly with Schuman on Assembly Ruhr debate,1 with a materially stiffened position. At meeting heads of delegations, he clearly admitted French objective was to extend Ruhr authority beyond concept of annex C and have it control steel production. (French pressure for this aim has been growing since beginning talk.) When possibility was informally broached of writing into Ruhr agreement idea of expansion of territory and change of function at future date, he reacted very strongly asserting that any such proposal would cause breakdown present meeting, that Ruhr authority was designed to control an area which twice had been mainspring of German aggression and that in light of present conditions and particularly uncertainty of continuation of reparations program any attempt now to change nature of Ruhr authority from that of an instrument to control Germany would be flatly rejected by French Government.
2. As stated Ruhrto 18,2 British feel it important in view French political situation to make effort to meet French desires as far as practicable. British support US line that security matters are to be handled through security board. British present intention is to offer proposals along lines discussed paragraph 5 Ruhrto 18 at Wednesday’s meeting. They have doubt, however, as to whether this will satisfy French delegation or would induce French Assembly approval of the agreement in view present French sensitivity on all matters related to Ruhr.
3. USDel inclined, as stated paragraph 7 Ruhrto 18, to favor providing some additional powers for Ruhr authority regarding excessive concentrations, Nazis and some supervision over steel production and development programs, all to be exercised only at instigation of security board. Such an offer, however, may well be quite insufficient to obtain French approval of an agreement. On other hand we are definitely of opinion that we should not accept French proposal [Page 538] for Ruhr authority with powers, so extensive that they could be used to suppress German production to the detriment of the common good of Europe. In view foregoing we may eventually be forced into position of having to take one of two alternatives. The first is to tell French flatly that unless they can agree to a Ruhr authority to accomplish purposes of annex, and without powers which could be used to curtail production, we will agree to no Ruhr authority. The other alternative would be to recess these meetings until work has been completed on security board and other tasks under London agreement relating to Ruhr and decisions on dismantling, so that after recess we could take position that security matters had already been dealt with.
4. We are not sanguine first alternative would induce French to adopt more reasonable attitude, for while this matter of the Ruhr is not intrinsically as important as other German questions such as Berlin, it has in fact acquired great significance for French. Furthermore, too categorical rejection of French demands would furnish Soviet excellent opportunity to exploit division between western allies. Difficulty with second alternative is that French would undoubtedly use resumed Ruhr talks as final effort to obtain security objectives which they had not been able to have agreed in security board talks. There is merit in having final security talks take place in relation to security board rather than in relation to Ruhr authority.
5. USDel will endeavor to keep matter fluid until instructions received. On balance we feel that proposal along lines discussed first sentence paragraph 3 above is best move, insisting that security matters be dealt with at Security Board talks.
Sent Department Niact 5053; repeated Berlin US urgent 617; Paris Niact 953.
- On November 18 the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly adopted a resolution protesting against U.S.–U.K. Military Government Law No. 75 on the reorganization of the coal, iron and steel industries of Western Germany; for the text of the resolution, see Carlyle, Documents on International Affairs, p. 645. After Foreign Minister Schuman appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee in closed session, the National Assembly held a debate on the Ruhr question on November 30.↩
- London telegram 5032, November 28, p. 530.↩