In §6 of my general report of 29th July¹ on Mendès-France and his policies I indicated that there were doubts as to where he stood on external issues and that there were suggestions that he would bring about a radical change in foreign policy. In the same document I gave my assessment of his attitude on a number of important foreign questions by reference to different public statements of his; and in my report of 11th September,² I endeavoured to outline his probable attitude in the crisis which has arisen as a result of the rejection by the French Parliament of the EDC Treaty.

2. The more I read his various statements the more it seems to me that the professions of Mendès-France are sound and in particular that they suggest that he is definitely in favour of maintaining and, indeed, reinforcing the Atlantic Alliance, and likewise (as a derivative) in favour of permitting German rearmament. It is true that he is also in favour of bringing about a détente with Russia. These may, of course, be contradictory aims. At the same time I would say that solely on the basis of his declarations Mendès-France is not prepared to sacrifice the Atlantic Alliance (or to reject German rearmament) for the purposes of securing a chimerical understanding with Russia; indeed, the recent reply from the three Western Powers to the last Russian note suggests that he has not opposed the adoption of the line on this matter pursued by the three Governments before he came to power. It is a fact, nevertheless, that serious doubt is still entertained in many quarters as to where precisely Mendès-France stands in this whole issue. These doubts are provoked by a number of factors, the chief of which are the nature of the demands he put forward at the recent Brussels Conference, his refusing to take sides in the subsequent debate in the National Assembly which led to the rejection of the EDC, the fact that he is a Jew, and finally the character of some of his entourage and of some of the press which supports him.
3. Leaving aside the share of responsibility for the failure of the Brussels Conference which must be attributed to the atmosphere and the clash of personalities, it does seem that Mendès-France produced at Brussels a series of demands which were both numerous and far-reaching, and some of which at least do not seem to have been necessary if he was approaching the issue in entire good faith.

[matter omitted]

4. The neutrality of the Government in the EDC debate is difficult to explain having regard to the fact that the political motto of Mendès-France is ‘gouverner, c’est choisir’. He was taunted with this in the Assembly. His defence was that there are several (sic) formulae, apart from the EDC for covering German rearmament, that these various formulae have not yet been thoroughly studied and that hence, while remaining true to his guiding principle, he did not find clear alternatives from which to choose.
5. The mere fact of Mendès-France being a Jew would not in itself prove anything as to his sentiments, at least in France. Among the prominent men in political life here there are Jews whose racial origin does not provoke similar doubts. Obvious instances are René Mayer (whose mother was a Rothschild) and Maurice Schumann,³ a convert to Catholicism and one of the leaders of the MRP party. It has never been suggested that either of these men has particular political leanings because of being a Jew: both are in fact strong EDC advocates. Other prominent Jews are Daniel Mayer⁴ and Jules Moch.⁵ Each of these has been strongly opposed to the EDC. Some French people make a distinction between different classes of French Jews and tend to put Mendès-France in the less favourable category. I have heard men, who can find nothing whatever wrong with his statements of policy on either internal or external matters, express distrust on his real convictions solely because of his being a Jew. There is no doubt that there still persists a vague impression (which has survived the recent persecution of the Jews in Iron Curtain countries) that many of them are radical in their thinking and have a weakness for Communism.
6. As regards the final factor mentioned above, many people suspect the sentiments of men such as Georges Boris⁶ (who is one of the Prime Minister’s assistants) and feel that the entourage of Mendès-France has carefully nurtured a personal cult of the leader as an exceptional personality who will innovate in various directions, including in the field of foreign affairs. It is at the same time certain that he enjoys the almost unqualified support of the ‘neutralist’ press. One particularly ‘neutralist’ weekly (‘Express’) run by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber,⁷ seems to be completely at his command and to see no hope for salvation except through him.
7. The next few weeks, or at most months, should prove the reliability or otherwise from a Western standpoint of Mendès-France. I understand on good authority that NATO generally is at present not satisfied of his good faith or, in other words, is not satisfied that his declarations represent his real convictions. The doubts entertained there were not dissipated by the declaration (superficially a good one) which he made as Chairman of the Council at last week’s session.