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

740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–248: Telegram

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

secret

London, December 2, 1948—10 p. m.

5081. Ruhrto 22. At fourteenth [thirteenth] plenary meeting December 1¹ Alphand urged in moderate statement² adoption French proposals for transfer to IAR at end control period certain controls over structure, key personnel and management as described paragraph 2 Ruhrto 18.³ UK suggested counterproposals as described paragraph 5 Ruhrto 18. Benelux delegates separately in varying degrees supported French proposals. USDel reserved position pending study French and UK proposals, noting that in view US proposals went beyond terms of reference Annex C.

Only new point made by Alphand was that without control by Ruhr industries European cooperation very difficult.

Stevens (UK) expressing sympathy with the general French outline offered counterproposals as follows:

1. IAR be authorized to obtain such information as deemed necessary on industrial organization and on the basis of this information to decide if cartels or combines exist and if so determined that IAR could require that appropriate German public authorities take whatever measures the IAR considers necessary to terminate such concentration.

2. UK feels undesirable that all managerial appointments be cleared through the IAR but should be kept informed and have the power to require the removal of such persons if furthered Nazi aggression.

3. UK feels that objectives of IAR and maximization of German production within agreed limits would be frustrated if IAR were given wide powers of interference with day to day operation of Ruhr industries, and French suggestion goes far beyond what UK considers control of management. IAR should have full information on production and development and exercise control if necessary for security reasons but only for security reasons. Therefore, Military Security Board, or its successor should determine when operations of Ruhr industries constitute a security threat. Stevens proposed that IAR when and to extent requested by Military Security Board could require the Germans to submit to IAR any Ruhr investment, production or development programs and IAR should then have right to order any modification required by Military Security Board.

Alphand indicated interest in UK counterproposals although felt didn’t go far enough towards meeting French proposals. In reply to statement US representative that. French proposal went beyond scope Annex C, he argued that French had always considered security problem of Ruhr required special treatment by a specialized agency in addition to general security controls exercised by Military Security Board. French proposal was in principle expansion of concept in article 10 (b) of Annex C and was method by which IAR would cooperate with the Military Security Board in security matters. Further discussion postponed until USDel receives instructions.

Sent Department 5081; repeated Berlin 621.

Douglas

1. A copy of the U.S. minutes of the 13th Meeting of the London Conference on the Ruhr was transmitted to the Department of State as an enclosure to despatch 2402, December 6, from London, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–648).
2. A copy of the French statement, which had been previously circulated to the Conference as document RC/8, was transmitted to the Department as an enclosure to despatch 2359, November 30, from London, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–3048).
3. London telegram 5032, November 28, p. 530.