prospect of future negotiations on the Ruhr meant that France must retain as many bargaining chips as possible. To agree to zonal fusion now, without the certainty of concessions in return, would only allow the Anglo-Americans to create the central institutions that France had opposed all along. Moreover, zonal fusion risked antagonizing the Soviets and left Bidault open to further criticisms from the PCF and the Socialists that he was contributing to the American policy of dividing Europe. Bidault, who had enjoyed some success in playing a double game between the Americans and the Soviets, accepted the argument that France could exert more influence on occupation policy by keeping the French zone independent of the bizone than if the three zones were fused. This line of reasoning, though not without critics, prevailed in the Quai d'Orsay and was reflected in instructions to General Koenig, the zonal commander, to abstain from any but the most limited administrative and economic arrangements with the bizone. 54
|
Bidault's policy, so reminiscent of de Gaulle's, vexed officials in Washington. In early September, Secretary Byrnes, speaking in Stuttgart, reiterated the American desire to treat Germany as an economic unit, called for German economic revival, and specifically voiced opposition to France's long-standing demand for the detachment of the Ruhr and Rhineland from Germany. The United States was determined to avoid further partition of Germany, regardless of France's wishes, and to go forward in rebuilding German economic infrastructure in the bizone. The Quai d'Orsay, by sticking to its position that an independent French zone was a greater asset to France than membership in a tripartite occupation, still hoped to exact concessions from the Anglo-Americans with regard to the Ruhr. 55 The conflict over Germany among the occupying powers was no closer to resolution in the fall of 1946 than it had been at the time of the liberation of France two years earlier. But how long could France remain intransigent in light of its suddenly deteriorating economic position?
|
The French Economy and the Moscow Conference
|
Historians have paid considerable attention to the debilitating economic crisis in Europe during the winter of 194647. 56 The harsh weather, the poor harvests, and the endemic balance of payments problems placed Europe's still fragile postwar recovery in jeopardy. In the French case, it is usually assumed that, by the time of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers in March 1947, the economic crisis
|
|