entfernen  u.s.w...“  -  which  you  will  remember  put  paid  to  the  attempts  by  Hoffmann
  to  find  a  modus  vivendi  with  the  Bonn  Government  which  would  leave  him
with  some  position  and  power  in  the  Saar.  I  fear  that  the  Bonn  Government’s  wish
(if  such  it  is)  for  the  Saar  Statute  to  be  approved  but  for  the  present  government  to
be  replaced  by  one  nearer  to  Bonn  has  received  a  setback  in  the  decision  of  the
C.D.U.  on  August  7  to  vote  against  the  Statute.  If  the  Statute  is  approved  against
the  advice  of  the  C.D.U.  (Saar),  this  party  will  be  discredited  and,  save  in  exceptional
  circumstances,  will  not  be  included  in  the  subsequent  government.  If  the
Statute  is  rejected  -  but  that  is  precisely  the  second  question  you  asked  me  and
before  attempting  to  answer  it  I  will  mention  very  briefly  the  attitude  of  the  other
parties  towards  the  Referendum.
8.  The  C.V.P.  is  of  course  in  favour  of  the  Statute.  The  original  reasons  it  gave
were  that  the  Agreement  of  October  23,  1954  was  the  earnest  of  Franco-German
reconciliation  and  that  economic  conditions  in  the  Saar  would  be  improved  by  the
promised  tripartite  negotiations.  Not  so  much  has  been  heard  of  the  second  reason
lately  but  more  play  is  being  made  of  the  „building  Europe“  idea.  The  C.V.P.  also
likes  citing  Dr.  Adenauer  in  support  of  the  Statute  and  in  turn  defends  him  against
those  who  would  imply  that  he  was  forced  against  his  will  to  sign  the  Saar  Agreement.
  It  also  maintains  that  the  Referendum  is  not  a  question  of  voting  for  Germany
  or  for  France  but  that  in  voting  for  the  Statute  Saarländers  will  be  supporting
both  countries  and  will  be  no  less  German  for  that.
9.  The  S.P.S.,  which  is  also  in  favour  of  the  Statute,  concentrates  on  the  European
ideal  and  the  avoidance  of  an  atomic  war  -  its  latest  placard  depicts  an  atomic
cloud  with  the  words  „Nie  wieder  Krieg“.  The  S.P.S.,  through  the  „Volksstimme“,
has  reacted  far  more  sharply  to  the  irruption  of  the  German  parties  on  to  the  political
  scene  than  has  the  C.V.P.  and  it  is  the  „Volksstimme“  rather  than  the  „Saarländische
  Volkszeitung“  which  carries  on  the  press  war  with  the  German  parties.  I
have  the  impression  that  the  S.P.S.  feels  that  it  has  most  to  lose  from  the  competition
  of  the  other  parties  and  that  it  is  therefore  more  nerveux  [sic].  The  C.V.P.  on
the  other  hand  has  adopted  the  to  my  mind  wise  tactic  of  lying  low  while  the  initial
blowing-off  of  steam  was  taking  place  and  not  attempting  to  counter  all  the  arguments
  put  forward  by  the  other  side.  So  far  all  that  it  has  done  is  to  organise  a
meeting  of  party  officials  (press  not  admitted)  in  Saarbrücken  on  August  1  when
Hoffmann  delivered  a  speech,  later  reproduced  in  full  in  the  „Saarländische  Volkszeitung“,
  „defending“  Dr.  Adenauer  and  saying  that  the  C.V.P.  would  itself  decide
when  to  open  its  referendum  campaign,  adding  that  it  would  then  have  plenty  to
say.
10.  The  K.P.  is  opposed  to  the  Statute  because  it  is  part  of  the  Paris  Agreements,
because  it  prevents  the  reunification  of  Germany  and  because  it  will  mean  the
conscription  of  Saarland  youth  in  the  defence  of  Wall  Street.  Members  of  the  K.P.
have  tried  to  lend  their  support  to  the  D.S.P.,  bringing  brotherly  greetings  and  so  on

517