View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Speech delivered before
logeign Policy Association
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 9 , ig/,7

GERMANY'S ROLE IN EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION
Economic recovery of Europe is a prerequisite of economic stability
the world. Economic stability is a prerequisite of peace. Economic
chaos leads to w a r .
All short-range measures in the field of international economics,
sometimes apparently contradicting each other, must be related to our
-•ong-range policy: the maintenance of economic stability in this country
°na abroad, with one single a i m — p e a c e in the world.
Our own economy is directly related to what happens in Europe. We
nust enable Europe to produce and exchange goods. We must help rebuild
& sound system of foreign trade, in the interest of both the United
tates and the rest of the world, based upon the mutual exchange of
goods and services and the unrestricted flow of means of payments.
Meanwhile, however, we must weather a transition period. At present,
** export surplus is abnormally large: it will have to be c u r t a i l e d —
some day. x n the future, increased imports of goods and services will
supply other countries with dollars. Until then, foreign purchases of
certain scarce goods affect our price structure. The world is in short
supply of our goods, and of the means of payments for our goods. In this
Period of transition we must be concerned primarily with forestalling
starvation
and unrest in the world, in order to make possible in the long
n norn
fV
i a l economic conditions and stable economic relations between nations.
ou

This general aim has been the reason for a second stage in our
Policy in occupied Germany. During the w a r , we could not relax our ef~
^'ts. We had to win the w a r — r e g a r d l e s s of the economic consequences of
he destruction of Germany. The first directive sent to General Eisen^ower immediately before the end of hostilities in Germany expressly for"^he occupation authorities to be guided by the interests of German
enabilitation. By its own terms, however, that directive—commonly
Known as J C S - 1 0 6 7 — w a s only for "the initial post-defeat period" and
never was intended to be a long range policy. The Potsdam Agreement,
concluded three months later, softened that injunction, A more penetratstudy of the complex relations of European political and economic
problems has convinced most American experts and observers of the necessity of reintegrating the German economy into the European framework,
ormer Secretary Byrnes at Stuttgart, Germany, in September 194-6 gave a
c
- e a r public expression to this conviction. He concluded his historic
speech with this statement: "The American people want to help the German
People to win their way back to an honorable place among the free and
peace-loving nations of the world." This conviction resulted in the directive issued to the Military Governor of the U . S . zone of occupation
l n Ju
l y 1947. From that time o n , American policy has placed increasing
emphasis on Germany's importance for the rehabilitation of the rest of
Europe.

66
This shift in emphasis is not without some danger. Many European nations are apprehensive iest we go too far in aiding Germany. Such a fear
is perfectly understandable in view of Germany's aggressive war record.
It is exploited, however, by anti-American propaganda, which proclaims
daily that the American interest in Germany is a serious threat to the
safety of the rest of Europe. People are told that American imperialists
and capitalists went to rebuild Germany in order to use a reconditioned
German war machine for dreams of world domination similar to those of
Nazism. We can dismiss these charges as senseless but we cannot dismiss
the genuine anxiety of many Frenchmen, Belgians, and Central Europeans
that we may further German rehabilitation at the expense of the recovery
of the rest of Europe and that unwittingly we may help to rebuild a dangerous German war potential. In recent weeks such concern has been expressed not only by responsible European statesmen but also by serious
American observers like former Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles.
A continuous discussion of the German problem therefore is necessary in
order to refute the arguments against our participation in German rehabilitation, and, on the other hand, to define the limits which this participation should not exceed.
First of all we may concede that several reasons which sometimes
are advanced in support of this second stage in our policy cannot stand
up to serious examination. It has been said that a harsh policy toward
Germany would be inconsistent with our ideas of international justice.
This argument overlooks the fact that whatever the Germans have suffered
for the last two and one-half years is nothing as compared to the suffering they brought to the rest of jairope, and that morally the victims of
German aggression certainly have a better right to our assistance than
the Germans. Secondly, some people hope that the policy will lead immediately to a lowering of the cost of occupation. We shall see presently that this will not be the case.
Thirdly, some business interests—in the words of M r . Welles—expect fat profits from a highly industrialized Germany. These expectations
certainly will not be realized: even with all possible assistance, for
many years to come Germany will remain too poor to afford the importation
of American semi-luxuries. Moreover, the German economy is largely competitive with the American, and the reconstruction of the German industry
is just as likely to diminish as to increase the profits of American industrialists. Apart from those considerations, the expenditure of huge
amounts of public funds in order to increase the chances for profits of a
few exporters or investors certainly would not be justified.
Finally, some people cherish the hope that a. rehabilitated Germany
could be used as a buffer state against the Soviet Union. These people
may well be mistaken. It is true that today most Germans are emphatically
anti-Russian, but this attitude need n o t endure. If the Soviet G o v e r n m e n t
wants to gain the good will of Germany, it need only offer to the Germans
sufficient political and economic concessions. For instance, as Walter
Lippman recently pointed out, we could never match the territorial and
other advantages that Russia, as the suprome power in Eastern Europe,
could effectively promise to the Germans at the expense of its Eastern
European satellites. In such a case, any reliance upon Germany as an
ally against Russia would be ill-founded to say the least.

67
h U S W G

airQ v i l l i n

t o

a

r e e

na

bpe n b^r
S
S
n y of the arguments that have
°ught
forth
against
our
occupation
policy. These arguments, howQ
T
a
r
e
n
o
t
v
n. '
decisive because they overlook the essential point: unless
uormuny
is economically rehabilitated, Western Europe cannot attain econllc
stability.
In order to refute the arguments against our efforts
to
owara the rehabilitation of Germany, we have to show that this rehabilitation .is necessary for the recovery of Western Europe.
L e t

,. 5.
Europe
h e

m e

emphasize
the fact athat
X speak to German economic recovery
a n
r t i n t h e
essential P
recovery of the econony of

p l a y s

e c o n o m i c

unn r
interrelation of Germany and Western Europe is based
,on Germany as a source of supply and Germany as a market. Under the
| egent
conditions
the first point is far more important
n
h e
s e c o n d
T o of
a l ascarcity,
r
e
Eur P e W i.t i l t W -c i m n o d i t i Ee s extent Germany has to supply the rest of
du +
primary importance: coal and steel proM o s t o°
f t°
h e
f0
exportable coal comes from the Ruhr district, v;hich
ruis part
of the British zone of occupation. In peacetime this district
a 3 m U C h a S t h r e e r n i l i i o n t o n d
air°
Per month, mainly to Western
_ rope.
Ruhr coal was essential for the heavy industries in France, Belura
° > Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Hard coal production in the areas that today form the British zone
occupation
dropped from 117 million tons in 1936 to % million tons in
A f t e r
a d
establishing a system of substantial incentives, including
aaily
food ration to the Ruhr miners of 4,00U calories as compared with
rmal c o n s u r a e r ,
b « So ?
s ration of 1,550 calories, which made them by far the
;
supplied
part
of the German population, production increased in July
lq/
to
an
annual
rate
of 72 million tons. The deficit as compared to
S U U
a m o u n t s t o
to
about A5 million tons annually. These 45 million
ns are a principal reason for the present plight not only of Germany
t also of the industrial countries of Western Europe. They are the boteneck for the rehabilitation of transportation and for the production
steel and machinery. The lack of transportation facilities and
-achinory
retards
the ereconstruction
of all other industrial enteri n E u r o
e #
I t m a
v e
on
r
^
y
n be said that these A5 million tons are also
e of the main reasons for the present world-wide scarcity of foodstuffs,
e European food deficit is largely due to the lack of fertilizer, and
® luck of artificial fertilizer in turn is due to the scarcity of coal.
g
-iilarly, the lack of coal hampers the production of textiles and other
scarce consumer goods.
,

A lG

.
s s direct effect of the lack of Ruhr coal is the deterioration in
International financial position of the United Kingdom. If industrial
^oduction in continental Europe had reached a higher level, the United
^ ^ g d o m would have been able to purchase more of its necessary imports in
^entinental Europe. In that case, it would have experienced less of a
rain upon its dollar resources and perhaps would have been in a better
Position to maintain the convertibility of sterling.
t

G e

™ a n steel and steel products are equally indispensable to the rest
m r o p e . German machinery always has been extensively used in most industries of Western and Central Europe. Half of all industrial enterP lses in the Netherlands, for instance, are equipped with German machine
o f

68
tools. During the war and postwar years, inany machines were destroyed,
and the rest has deteriorated. Their owners urgently need spare parts
for repairs and new units for reconstruction and expansion* It is not
surprising, therefore, that a recent statement b y the Netherlands Government asserted that "the security and welfare of the Kingdom are in a high
degree dependent on the prosperity of Germany • • . and the Netherlands
is vitally concerned in the decisions which are ultimately to be made by
the Allies with regard to the future of the German economy." The shutdown of the German machine industry has prevented the mines in Polish
Silesia from working at capacity, hampered transportation in countries as
far apart as Austria and the LOT; Countries, and made it impossible for
many other industrial nations to reach their prewar level of production.
It has thus delayed the recovery of all of Europe,
The Committee of European Economic Reconstruction, which was appointed
by the Vfestern European nations in response to the historic appeal by Secretary Marshall, clearly has recognized these facts. Although many of the
nations represented on the Committee had every reason to feel extremely
hostile toward Germany, the Committee report emphasizes again and again
the need for an increase in the production of Cerman coal and steel. It
bemoans the "continued inability of the German economy to supply the coal
and other products upon which so much of Europe's economic life depends."
It proposes an increase in the coal production of the combined U.S.-U.K.
zones of Germany by 60 million tons and an increase in the steel production of these zones by 7.2 million tons annually over and above the present level. Finally, it states expressly that a large part of Western
Europe's import requirements for steel products should be met from these
zones. The proposal for the huge increase in steel output is particularly
remarkable in view of the fact that hitherto the French Government, whose
delegates played a leading role in drafting the report of the Committee,
had sharply objected to American and British proposals for large-scale expansion of German steel production. This change in attitude shows the interdependence of economic and political considerations in all European
problems. Deep-seated political animosities can be overcome once it is
understood how one country benefits from the improvement in the economic
status of another country.
The increase in German coal and steel production, however, cannot be
accomplished without an increase in total production. Ruhr coal output is
so much lower than before the war mainly for two reasons, namely the lowered productivity of labor caused primarily by lack of sufficient food and
the deterioration in mine equipment. The miners, despite the recent improvement of the economic situation, still cannot hope to receive for their
increased wages a substantially increased volume of food, other consumer
goods, and housing accommodations; they have little personal incentive,
therefore, to do their utmost in the mines. Moreover, after many years of
insufficient nutrition, defective housing, and lack of most amenities of
life, they are neither physically nor psychologically able to work as hard
as before the w a r . Thus any large-scale rise in Ruhr production villi be
possible only if sufficient food is supplied and if the amount of consumer
goods available to the miners is substantially increased. Such an increase
in turn depends upon a rise in the German production of food and consumer
goods since continued importation of the bulk of such goods would place an
unbearable stress on the German foreign exchange position. Farmers and
industrial workers who must produce the food and consumer goods needed by

i

69
the miners, also require more goods for themselves as an incentive for
harder work. It would be impossible, therefore, to attempt the regeneration of one particular branch of the German economy, such as coal mining,
"without being prepared to help all other industries that participate in
the production of consumer goods.
The second reason for the low output of the Ruhr mines is the obsolescence of the technical equipment. Since the beginning of the war and
especially since the end of hostilities, mine machinery has not been adequately renewed. More important still, transportation equipment has
been permitted to deteriorate so that the transportation of coal has become almost as much of a problem as its production in the mines. These
difficulties can be remedied only by making available large quantities
of steel and steel products to those industries that produce the necessary equipment. For this reason an increase in the output of coal requires not only the revival of the German consumer goods industries but
also the reconstruction of the German heavy industries.
Steel production hitherto has been hampered by difficulties with
labor, equipment, and transportation similar to those encountered in coal
wining, and especially by the lack of coal. Moreover, the so-called
level-of-industry plan, adopted in the spring of 1946 by the four occupying powers, limited steel production in all of Germany to $.8 million
tons, or about half the amount that today is being contemplated for the
combined
U.S.-U.K. zones alone. Although this limitation did not have
a
n y direct effect since actual production remained far below the permitted level, it probably had an indirect influence by making managers
and workers despair of the future of the steel industry. An attitude of
that's the use", fostered by the strict limitations of the level-ofindustry plan, certainly contributed to the reduction in the efficiency
German labor.
The recovery of the German industrial system also is necessary for
the solution of the second problem, namely, the restoration of Germany
as a market for the products of other nations. Germany needs large
quantities of foodstuffs, raw materials, and other producers' goods. At
Present, it is unable to pay for any substantial amount of imports.
Shipments that the occupation authorities in the combined U.S.-U.K. zone?
consider absolutely necessary for the prevention of disease and unrest
have to be financed by advances from the occupying powers. In the first
six months of 1946, such shipments into the combined zone were valued at
$299 million, including ^274- million of foodstuffs, £19 million of fer- 1
tilizer, and $6 million of oil products. In contrast, commercial import,
totaled only &17 million. The value of food imports, most of which came
from the United States, certainly looks very large, but it was just sufficient to keep the German people on a semi-starvation diet of about
1>500 calories a day for the normal urban consumer—one-third less than
the
amount considered a minimum subsistence level by the United Nations
F
ood and Agricultural Organization. If we want to restore a level of
nutrition that enables the German worker to reach his prewar efficiency,
food imports will have to be increased rather than reduced even if the
productivity of German agriculture can be raised to its prewar level.
Obviously,
these imports cannot be financed forever by the occupying pow
e
r s . Moreover, Germany needs raw materials and other producers' goods
in such quantities that their value should at least equal that of food

70
imports. Exports of coal and crude steel, significant as they vill be,
can cover only a fraction of that value., Germany must be able to pay for
its imports by exporting finished industrial products, just as it did before the war.
The future need to export will be even greater than before the war,
because of the necessity for imports of foodstuffs end raw materials previously obtained from those parts of the Reich which now are under Polish
administration. Moreover, a larger proportion of imports will have to
come from the sterling and dollar areas, at least as long as the grain and
timber surpluses of Eastern Europe are withheld from western markets.
Fortunately, the highest valued types of exports from Western Germany, like
special machinery, precision instruments, and chemicals traditionally went
to the Vest. It is true that as long as the general scarcity of dollars
continues Germany too will be affected. The dollar scarcity in Europe,
however, will be much smaller if Germany is reconstructed because Western
Europe will obtain goods from Germany which otherwise would have to be purchased from the United States for dollars.
At present, imports of raw materials and other producers' goods are
negligible because they are not financed by the governments of the occupying powers, but handled on a commercial basis. They cannot, therefore,
exceed the sum of exports end commercial credits. Curing the first six
months of 1947, exports from the co.ibined zones totaled only ^60 million;
they consisted mostly of coal and some other raw materials like timber and
potash, rather than of industrial products which before the war formed the
bulk of German exports. So far, it has been possible to negotiate credits
'only with the help of government institutions, such as the Export-Import
Bank, the U . S. Commercial Company, and the Commodity Credit Corporation,
and their sum has not exceeded ^60 million. Moreover, most of the credits
have taken the form of processing arrangements, German manufacturers receiving raw materials such as cotton, and paying for them out of the proceeds of the exportation of the finished products. Such arrangements are
feasible mainly in some consumer goods industries, especially textiles,
and not readily applicable to the heavy industries \;h.ich form the basis
of the German economy. Neither exports nor commercial credits, however,
can be expanded substantially as long as domestic industrial production is
hampered by the lack of imported raw materials and producer goods. Obviously, this vicious circle must be broken. At present, the bizonal Joint
Export-Import Agency has at its disposal a fund equal to more than $100
million, accumulated out of the proceeds of past exports and of certain
• former German assets made available to the Allies by the Swedish Govern- L
ment on the basis of an agreement concluded in 194-6. This relatively s:aalfund is to be used for initial imports that will stimulate the production
of export goods, but two-thirds of it consists of sterling and therefore
is available for international payments only within the sterling area,
which at present can supply only limited quantities of necessary commodities. Accordingly, the economy of the combined zones is confronted with
the problem of finding additional sums in dollars in order to finance adequate imports of goods other than minimum food requirements.
The extent of our contribution needed for the recovery of Germany
thus becomes painfully clear: we must not only continue and if possible,
in the light of world conditions and the needs of liberated countries, increase our exports of foodstuffs, but wo must also make advances of one

kind or another for the importation of raw materials and equipment,
moreover, as far as the materials have to be purchased in the dollar
area, ve are confronted with the fact that the United Kingdom has made it
^nov/n that it wishes to be relieved from the burden of having to use its
scarce dollar resources for German rehabilitation. The cost°of the Ger~
aan occupation to be borne by the United States during the next few years
m a i n l y will be higher rather than lower in comparison with 1946-47.
he

r e p o r t

o f

t h e

P a r i s

cit fr t h e
Conference estimates the foreign trade defix
.
combined
U.S.-U.K.
zones in relation to the dollar area alone
a
of Xt
billion for 1948. This would be almost twice the total deficit
the zones, as estimated for the year 1947 at the time of the bizonal
agreement
December
1946. Only part of that increase, however, would
a U S e d b in
r
y
t h e
lar°
.
P °P°sed extension of the reconstruction program: a
£ So Part
will be due toa r the
rise in American prices, especially for
ffS> a n d a n o t h e r
t t 0 t h e l a
can i <
P
S
the production of export goods
ubed
oy
the
catastrophic
weather
of
the
last winter. The sum is very
6
i t i s o n l y one
V/eo?
'
~
s
e
v
e
n
t
h
of
the
estimated
total deficit of
S
r n
!
f
Europe,
exactly
corresponding
to
the
proportion
of the population
o f
the zones to the total population of Western Europe. Since Germany's
is far less advanced than that of any other Western Eurodconstruction
n na
'tion, the estimate of German needs does not appear excessive.
. ^ e ^way for the implementation of our policy has been paved by the
joint
U.S.-U.K.
decisions that were taken in the past weeks. We have
S d t h e
e r r a i s s i b l e l e v e l o f
m-f ?
P
industry for the combined zones approxia ,ely to the 1936 figures so that there will be no artificial limitation
^ the ecapacity
of theW eGerman
industries the rehabilitation of which we
eni e s s e n t i a 1
a l s o h a v e
me + ^
'
secured an equal voice in the manageof the Ruhr mines. In addition, discussions are about to commence
the problem of sharing the occupation costs for the coming year be^/eent h ethe r United
States and the United Kingdom. They will determine how
e s e n t
P
agreement, under which each power defrays half of the
ota
l > should be amended, at least as far as dollar payments are concerned.
All our efforts toward a solution of the German economic problem will
® in
if we do not allay the fears of our Allies that we
P U t vain,
t i n g t however,
h e
Oth
interests of Germany ahead of those of our friends.
nerwise, we might lose, as a result of growing anxiety and animosity in
• e rest of Europe, whatever we might gain from German rehabilitation,
^ r tC Iu n taati ey lM ya ,r s the
h a 1 1 program adopted in Paris in response to the appeal of
ad +
promises the reconciliation of viewpoints. The plans
-opted in Paris show what commodities Western Europe needs. We also
ow what commodities the German economy can produce if we are willing to
naer initial assistance. For the reasons which we discussed previously,
would not do to concentrate exclusively upon the reconstruction of
^erman export industries since all branches of the German economy are
^eeded for the efficient operation of the export industries. Within these
C i t a t i o n s , however, we certainly shall put emphasis upon the development Peof those German industries that produce the goods needed in Western
eut° * Obviously, it is easier to propose these principles than to exe- te them. It will be necessary to reconcile the need for coal, steel,
^ ee other goods for German domestic consumption with the equally pressing
cls for these commodities on the part of other nations. Last Spring, a

72
compromise was reached with the French, ..promising them an increased percentage of Ituhr coal in case of an increase in output. The report of the
Paris Conference shows that a similar solution is acceptable to the Western European nations in the matter of Ruhr steel production. This indicates that working compromises also can be reached for other heavy industries.
In this connection, I am fully aware of the fact that our allies are
interested nob only in present allocations of increased German production
but likewise interested in future long-term allocations which relate to
their long-range planning for the reconstruction of their economies and the
maintenance of economic stability at a high level. This is a proper concern of our allies and should not be overlooked. I feel certain it will
not be overlooked.
The reintegration of the German economy into the European framework
will pay, in the long run, for the financial burdens in the form of fooa
and other supplies which we have to assume during these coming years. In
this respect, the fact that the German economy is competitive with the
American p a r a d o x i c a l l y will prove to be an advantage rather than a shortcoming. Whatever Germany can furnish to Western Europe need not be furnished by the United States. Since Western Europe suffers from a scarcity
of dollars, additional exports to Western Europe would have to be made
largely on the basis of advances, the repayment of which would pose difficult questions. It will be cheaper for us to furnish foodstuffs and raw
materials to Germany rather than more expensive finished goods to Western.
Europe. In this respect, the reconstruction of Germany will directly benefit the financial position of the United States.
German economic recovery and therefore European recovery, however,
can not be attained by one step or gesture. It requires, first, an attitude. That attitude is that European economic recovery is necessary—to
Europe and to u s . Second, it requires a realization that the alternative
is chaos. Third, it is evident to me that recovery in Europe is a gradual process in which we play an important part.
If we succeed in our rehabilitation program with proper safeguards
against German rearmament, Germany will plan again the economic role to
which it is predestined by its natural resources and the skill of its v o t ers, and the cause of intra-European economic cooperation will be materially advanced. Thus we are led back to our first premise. Our present
stage of economic policy in Germany is not dictated by soft hearts or shor
memories, and it is not destined to give Gorman recovery any priority over
and above the rehabilitation of the rest of Europe. On the contrary, it
is meant to make possible economic stability in all of Europe, and thus to
further the maintenance of our own economic stability at a high level,
and--most important of a l l — i t is meant to promote world peace'.