862.60/8–1947: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
3319. For Lovett from Clayton, Caffery and Douglas. We called on Mr. Bidault this afternoon and explained that we had received instructions from you to postpone further discussions on the Ruhr question until some more appropriate time; that the subject was not a simple one but involved agreement not only with France and the UK but between departments in Washington and that obviously this would take considerable time. We added that it was the desire of the Department to proceed with the London Tripartite Conference immediately [Page 1042] but that we were authorized to say to Mr. Bidault that at some more appropriate time we would be glad to give sympathetic consideration to the French position on the Ruhr.
Mr. Bidault’s first reaction was one of great disappointment and even chagrin. He said that no French Government, neither the present one nor any succeeding one, could agree to a revised level of industry for Germany, without some assurances as to French security and access by Europe to the products of the Ruhr.
After considerable discussion, however, and after assuring Bidault that France was at liberty to present its point of view regarding the Ruhr at the London meeting and that at some later and more appropriate time we would continue the discussions with the view of arriving at an understanding on the Ruhr, he seemed to be more reconciled. We said to Bidault that we would recommend to the Department that such discussions take place as soon as possible after the London meeting. We also said that we would recommend that the form of the announcement of the revised level of industry following the London conference should take into account the legitimate interests of France in the subject not only as to the level of industry but as to settlement of the Ruhr question. Since Bidault had continuously referred to the revised level of industry decision as a priority for Germany we said that we would recommend that the announcement would also deal with this aspect of the matter in a way to meet this objection so far as possible. We of course made it clear to Bidault that the level of industry had nothing necessarily to do with the level of production but he always replied that the two are the same in French opinion and that the revised level of industry will be considered by French people as “hope for the Germans and fear for the French”.
Sent Dept as 3319, repeated London for Douglas as 645.