My telegram Circular D.52 24th October [1], my telegram Circular
D.67 of today. [2] Following is text of telegram of November 6th
from His Majesty's Charge d 'Affaires at Paris [3]:-

'In his despatch No. 1442 of 23rd October [4], Sir E. Phipps [5]
reported the profound conviction in France that there are not two
Germanys, the Germany of Hitler, and another to whose better
nature it may trust to advantage as a good neighbour and that
peace which follows an allied victory must be one which will
ensure French security and preserve peace in Western Europe for
something more than a brief generation. He added that there are
already signs that many Frenchmen doubt that Great Britain will do
what is in their view necessary to win a lasting peace. Sir E.

Phipps reported further by telegram the same day that if the fear
in France that Great Britain will again wish to encourage a beaten
Germany to greatness were given definite shape, for example, by an
announcement of war aims disappointing to the Frenchman, he might
well consider that it was not worth while to continue to fight.

2. Information which continues to reach me from all sides confirms
the depth and extent of the above feeling. Sir E. Phipps stated
that he had received the reports to the above effect from every
consular district in France. His Majesty's Consul at Lille wrote
on October 26th that there was no sympathy in his district for any
suggestion that allies are fighting for overthrow of Hitler. The
aim was destruction of Pan-Germanism and imposition of terms at
Peace Conference containing none of the areas (of weakness)
commonly associated by Frenchmen with the Versailles Treaty. His
Majesty's Consul-General at Strassburg reported on October 29th
that what are considered to be generous illusions of Great Britain
about Germany continue to be the subject of persistent but
unfounded comment throughout local press, which insists that, if
the German people are to form part of a happier Europe, great
Germany must be divided into its component units. His Majesty's
Consul at Lyons and the Vice-Consul at St Nazaire have sent
similar reports.

3. I cannot be too strong that, while there may be exceptions here
and there, perhaps chiefly amongst intellectuals, the above
feeling is widespread and profound. As a further illustration I
may state that when the British correspondents were first received
at French General Headquarters they were addressed by General
Pretelat who commands one of the groups of Army on the Front who
developed the ideas I have outlined above and added:

"I speak not only for the whole of the Army but for the whole of
France".

4. At the present moment when France feels herself closely united
to Great Britain in sympathy and destiny and when the British war
effort is being increasingly understood the principal danger to
French morale and most fruitful field for conscious or unconscious
[? propaganda by] Germany for the present seems to lie in a
divergence on the question of war aims. There is already disquiet
at the article in The Times, November 3rd [6] , and criticism is
appearing in the press. I have suggested semi-officially to
Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it would be wise to take any
possible steps to avoid a press controversy and I suspect that if
it were not for official restraint a great deal more would be
said. I feel it would be advisable to try and secure that the
British press refrain from too much discussion of war aims on
lines that might alarm French opinion and possibly discourage
French war effort.

5. I may explain that it would be a complete misunderstanding to
interpret French opinion as wishing to crush Germany and keep her
crushed. The mass of Frenchmen have certainly not clarified their
ideas as to military security and possible division of Germany.

Many undoubtedly think of the creation of a Catholic unit
including Austria and part of Southern Germany. Others concentrate
merely on the isolation of Prussia. But in any case there is
discussion of access to raw materials and the importance of
economic organisation and prosperity of component parts of Greater
Germany. These ideas in so far as they are expressed are tentative
and nebulous but they embody the idea of happier conditions of
life for the Germans in a different political and military
structure in the hope of diverting their thoughts to worthier
objects.

6. The above is the present background of French opinion against
which any discussion of war aims must take place. There is at the
moment room enough for, and a sufficient body of opinion in
France, to lessen compromise between extreme idealistic
suggestions such as are sometimes made in letters and articles in
the British press and the extreme demands at the opposite end of
the scale, such as are sometimes heard in conversations of
Frenchmen and (more rarely) advocated in the French press. The
compromise would of course have to satisfy the French from the
point of view of security. My point is that this desirable
situation may well be destroyed by a press discussion which
invites a public unofficial controversy between the extreme French
and the extreme British points of view. I know that the high
officials at Quai D'Orsay are strongly opposed to any public
discussion of war aims at present. The prospects of an agreement
on war aims reached by confidential inter-Governmental discussion
might thus be seriously compromised.'
Copy of His Majesty's Ambassador's Despatch 1442, 23rd October is
being sent you by this week's mail.