 | also
DBPO,
Series II, 3: 26109; Acheson,
Present at the Creation,
43545; Bullock,
Bevin,
803-II. Bérard reported Adenauer's anger with the results at New York, and his pique over French "mistrust" (
Un ambassadeur se souvient,
34647).
|
| 15. Monnet memo to Schuman, September 16, 1950, Fondation Jean Monnet,
Monnet-Schuman correspondance,
5859; Memorandum of Conversation, Acheson and Lucius Battle, September 26, 1950,
FRUS, 1950,
3: 35253; Acting Secretary to Bruce, October 3, 1950, ibid., 35758; Monnet,
Memoires,
399401.
|
| 16.
Note pour It Ministre,
from Roland de Margerie, September 28, 1950, MAE, EU 194955, Généralités, vol. 88. Bérard too thought France must not adopt a "purely negative attitude," as it did during the debates about zonal fusion, when, in his view, France missed many opportunities to influence AngloAmerican policy (
Un ambassadeur se souvient,
353). These points were echoed in a memo from the Direction d'Europe, October 3, 1950; and see memorandum of October 6, 1950, MAE, EU 194955, Allemagne, vol. 69.
|
| 17. Bevin to Schuman, October 10, 1950, and Massigli to Schuman, October II, 1950, MAE, EU 194955, Allemagne, vol. 69.
|
| 18. Monnet to Schuman, October 14, 1950, Fondation Jean Monnet,
MonnetSchuman correspondance,
6163.
|
| 19. Bohlen to State, October 15, 1950,
FRUS, 1950,
3: 37780, and Acheson to Embassy in Paris, October 17, 1950, ibid., 38485.
|
| 20. Bérard to Paris, October 17, 1950, MAE, EU 194955, Allemagne, vol. 70. I am grateful to Marc Trachtenberg for bringing this document to my attention.
|
| 21. Seydoux,
Note,
October 18, 1950, MAE, EU 194955, Allemagne, vol. 70.
|
| 22. Bonnet claimed, in a discussion with Acheson, that the Pleven proposal "was not a tactic to delay progress on the rearmament of Germany," but Acheson remained unimpressed (Memorandum of Conversation, Acheson and Bonnet, October 25, 1950,
FRUS,
1950, 3: 4034). Sir Oliver Franks, British ambassador to the United States, expressed deep concern over the political implications of the army plan (Memorandum of Conversation, Franks and Acheson, October 25, 1950, ibid., 4046). Acheson detailed his and Secretary Marshall's objections to the plan in Acheson to Bruce, October 27, 1950, ibid., 41012: the plan "seem [ed] to give the Germans permanently second class status" and "blatantly'' considered them "inferiors." Bevin intially thought the plan ought not to be taken "too seriously" (Bevin to Franks, October 28, 1950,
DBPO,
Series n, 3: 23032). The contents of the Plan were summarized in
Le Monde,
October 25 and 27, 1950. For the accounts of two key players, see Monnet,
Mémoires,
40310, and Moch,
Histoire du réarmement allemand depuis 1950,
12839. Secondary works that deal with the immediate origins of the Pleven Plan include Clesse,
Le projet de CED,
2934; Willis,
France, Germany and the New Europe,
13032; McGeehan,
The German Rearmament Question,
6267; Schwartz,
America's Germany,
which gives an excellent account from the German perspective, chap. 5; and Large,
Germans to the Front,
62107. None of the above accounts relies on documentary evidence from the Foreign Ministry. Irwin Wall, who contributes a superb account of Franco-American financial wranglings during the summer
|
|
