„kein  Europa  ohne  Vaterland“.  (They  answer  the  „European“  argument  by  saying
that  „Europe“  should  abolish  frontiers,  not  begin  by  erecting  an  artificial  one  between
  the  Saar  and  Germany.)  I  attach  as  an  appendix  a  translation  of  Schneider’s
eight  points  because  these  give  the  clearest  idea  so  far  of  the  German  parties’  basis
for  the  new  negotiations.  Conrad  is  in  general  agreement  with  them  and  I  doubt
whether  the  C.D.U.  would  differ  from  them  substantially.
17.  I  might  add  that  in  dealing  in  his  speech  in  Saarbrücken  on  July  30  with  the
question  of  what  would  happen  if  the  Statute  were  rejected  Schneider  emphasised
that  the  United  States  and  the  United  Kingdom  had  bound  themselves  to  support
only  a  solution  of  the  Saar  problem  which  was  approved  by  the  Saar  people.  In
conversation  with  me  later  Schneider  said  that,  as  far  as  the  U.K.  was  concerned,
this  came  from  an  answer  to  a  parliamentary  question  in  the  House  of  Commons
two  or  three  months  ago  -  I  take  this  to  be  the  written  answer  published  on  March
9. My  attention  was  first  drawn  to  this  remark  by  Gauthier,  the  Counsellor  of  the
French  Diplomatic  Mission,  who  said  that  Schneider  was  twisting  this  by  stating
that  the  U.S.  and  U.K.  would  support  the  Saar  people  if  they  said  „no“.  (Schneider
denied  this.)
18.  I  apologise  for  having  allowed  this  letter  to  become  so  diffuse  but  1  hope  the
incidental  observations  will  also  be  of  some  interest  to  you  and  to  Caroline  Petrie,
Duff  and  Leishman  to  whom  I  am  sending  copies  of  this  letter.
{Yours  ever,
Norman  Hillier-Fry}
(W.  N.  Hillier-Fry)

520