Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 37. (1984)
ORDE, Anne: France and the Genoa Conference of 1922
332 Anne Orde there was a spate of stories about the activities of M. de Chevilly, a commercial attaché for Russia and the border states in the French Ministry of Commerce. He visited Berlin early in February, and the fact that Soviet representatives were also there was used to give colour to reports (which de Chevilly thought originated with the Russians) that a Franco-Soviet understanding was in preparation34). Finally in the middle of March there were reports in the Baltic States that French emissaries were in Moscow negotiating about debts, concessions, etc., and also that the Communist deputy Marcel Cachin had been charged with a Soviet offer to the French government35 36 *). These stories were too numerous to be denied individually, but from time to time denials were issued. At a point when Poincaré was insisting on Allied agreement on Russia in preparation for Genoa, it was especially desirable to convince the British that the rumours of Franco-Soviet negotiations were false. On 9 February Saint-Aulaire was instructed to tell the Foreign Office that his government was refusing to give the least appearance of taking separate action in response to the Soviet approaches38). Nevertheless the British press continued to print reports of such negotiations, so that Poincaré was driven to summon the Paris correspondents of Reuter and Associated Press and issue a formal denial that the French government had had any contact with the Soviet government3’). Even after this, Lloyd George on 23 February gave a highly ambiguous answer to a parliamentary question on the subject, and Poincaré reproached him for it at their Boulogne meeting38). Denials were issued again in the middle of March39). On the financial and economic aspects of the Genoa plan, too, doubts and difficulties were felt in Paris. With regard to the form of the international consortium for reconstruction in central and eastern Europe, the French secured one gain at Cannes, where the British reluctantly agreed that instead of a strong central syndicate with a substantial capital in sterling, each participating country would have a national corporation with its own capital, and the central body would have little more than a co-ordinating role40). This ments of states including territory of the former Russian Empire, asking for an undertaking that they would acknowledge their share of the Russian state debt and take measures to secure the return of property of French nationals in their territory: correspondence in MAE Europe 1918-40, Russie 348, 349 and 423. 34) De Chevilly to Ministére du Commerce, 6 and 17 February 1922: MAE Relations commerciales 1920-29 108; Europe 1918-40, Russie 349. 35) Correspondence 11-17 March 1922: MAE Europe 1918-40, Russie 349; Relations commerciales 1920-29 108. 36) Poincaré to Saint-Aulaire, 9 February 1922: MAE Europe 1918-40, Russie 349. 3’) Saint-Aulaire to Paris, 16 February; Poincaré to Saint-Aulaire, 18 February; Poincaré to Saint-Aulaire, Barrére and others, 18 February 1922: MAE Europe 1918-40, Russie 349. 38) DBFP 1/19 no. 34: see Parliamentary Debates 5th series: House of Commons 150, col. 2089. 39) Correspondence 11-17 March 1922: MAE Europe 1918-40, Russie 349; Relations commerciales 1920-29 108. 40) DBFP 1/19 no. 8, 13, 14, 16, 25.
