Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Western Europe, Volume III

840.50 Recovery/3–348: Telegram

The Ambassador in Italy ( Dunn ) to the Secretary of State

confidential

Rome , March 3, 1948—8 p. m.

922. Members of Embassy staff had conversation today along following lines with Santi, Socialist (Nenni) secretary of CGIL.¹ Santi had attended CGIL Executive Committee meetings at Milan and Bologna last weekend at which 13 to 4 decision was taken declining invitation participate London TUC Conference on ERP.

1. At Rome meetings of committee prior to Milan, Santi had attempted find compromise formula for Italian participation through “observer”, but Di Vittorio² for Communists opposed. This is best indication position of PSI on ERP. Santi says Communists in CGIL, of course, are dead against ERP, regardless what some of them may say publicly, and that although Socialists go along for “obvious” political reasons they emphasize in CGIL and elsewhere that Italy’s economic dependence upon foreign aid precludes outright opposition to ERP by Italian labor and that accordingly door must be kept open. PSI position formally is that they are undecided about ERP and need to know more about it. They believe that they would have some suggestions to make, and complain that Italian (i.e.) De Gasperi government has not consulted them nor told them what “Marshall Plan” consists of.

2. Communist-Socialist majority in CGIL is united desire not to take any action which weakens their support of WFTU. Majority opinon shared by Santi, is that London Conference is political. This view reinforced by Saillant³ during Milan talks.

3. Compromise reached by CGIL, while deciding not to attend London, was to indicate “interest” in ERP by inviting discussion on subject between CGIL and CIO leaders (telegram was sent yesterday to Philip Murray,⁴ Santi said, suggesting a meeting). Also, albeit unwillingly, majority has decided to make no issue of the liberty of minority elements to send observers to London meeting on personal informal basis.

4. Attitude of CGIL obliged by De Gasperi Government’s partisanship toward ERP from which De Gasperi seeks to derive strength, to be politically opposed. Santi pretends that election issue in Italy is De Gasperi Government, not Communism.

5. In regard CIO report of ERP before Congress, we asked, after CGIL talks with CIO, what would PSI do? His reply was evasive; for example he observed there is doubtless also a minority view in CIO and that CGIL would like to get full picture. We hit back at once that in democracy minority views are not stifled, and summarized recent developments in regard Communism in CIO Union of Auto Workers.

6. “What”, we asked, “would CGIL position be if Communists did not control CGIL and dominate PSI?” He sighed that life would indeed be much easier.

Sent Department as 922, repeated Paris 119, London 81, Moscow as 24.

Dunn

1. Fernando Santi, a member of the directorate of the P.S.I.; a member of the C.G.I.L. delegation to Russia in 1945.
2. Giuseppe di Vittorio, Communist; Secretary of the C.G.I.L.; Vice President of the World Federation of Trade Unions.
3. Louis Saillant, Secretary General of the W.F.T.U.
4. Philip Murray, President of the Congress of Industrial Organizations.