740.00119 Council/4–1746: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 17—7:55 p.m.]
476. Reference Embassy’s telegram 454 April 15.86 During late afternoon 16th April I called on Foreign Minister Spaak at his request. Minister stated that Cabinet at a meeting held on 15th instant had fully supported his point of view as to need of Belgium being represented when approaching Council of Foreign Ministers due to open in Paris April 25 discusses western frontiers of Germany or disposition to be made of Ruhr and Rhineland.
Continuing Spaak set forth at length his thinking on subject adding that a definitive expression of view on his part was impossible at present time due to his lack of information regarding position to be adopted by US, UK and Soviet Union on subject of Germany. He appeared to consider himself familiar with French point of view which had already been set forth in considerable detail. He reacted adversely to any suggestion that Ruhr be politically separated from Germany. Constitution of an autonomous state under supervision of the great or other powers would be an artificial contrivance which with the differing legal concepts of Americans, British, French and Russians would be virtually impossible to operate. Spaak did not desire artificial dismemberment of Germany although formation of a German national state composed of a number of federated states he would view with favor.
Although politically Ruhr should not be separated from Reich in Spaak’s view it would be necessary for prolonged economic control of that area to be exercised by Allied powers to make certain that Germany’s war potential should not again develop. Belgium had a definite interest in economic life of Germany which in past and he hoped again in future would be an important market for Belgian products as well as a source of Belgian supplies. It was impossible for 70 million people to live in an economic vacuum or to be indefinitely punished economically for their political and military sins.
[Page 64]Somewhat similarly Spaak felt the Rhineland should likewise not be separated politically from Germany although here too a degree of surveillance by Allies would be required. In both Ruhr and Rhineland Russians should be admitted to Supervisory Council. Spaak added that however little he relished presence of Soviets on frontiers of Belgium in any capacity he felt that collaboration with the ever suspicious Russians would be necessary. He felt certain that much of Russian dislike of idea of a western entente bloc or association was clue to belief (as Vyshinsky has indeed voiced to him in London) that such a group of western states would be joined by Germany and would utilize resources of Ruhr and resurgent Germany in opposing Soviet Union.
With especial reference to Rhineland Spaak feared that if even left bank were detached politically from Germany it would only be a question of time until both Rhineland and Ruhr would be integrated into France. The French undoubtedly counted on eventual removal of most of British and American troops from that area so that it would not be difficult for propaganda aided by French political and military pressure to bring about a state of affairs where Rhineland would be absorbed into France. Belgium would view expansion of its southern neighbor to east with very adverse sentiments, since with France in Rhineland as well as south of Belgian border Belgium would become little more than an enclave in French territory. Belgium could not regard such a prospect with equanimity. Accordingly in Spaak’s view both Ruhr and Rhineland although subject to close Allied economic supervision should remain politically a part of Germany, preferaby a decentralized German federation. Some US and British soldiers should be left in Rhineland as a symbol of international control.
As regards Saar he felt its incorporation within French orbit was a natural conclusion and to which Belgium would not object.
In conclusion Spaak stated that Belgium was desirous of voicing its views of this nature at any meeting of Foreign Ministers in Paris when subject of Germany was discussed.
I listened attentively but without comment to Spaak’s lengthy exposition.
I presume Department would be disposed in light of Tripartite Conference of Berlin chapter 11 (establishment of Council of Foreign Ministers (4)1) to give favorable consideration to Belgians’ contention concerning a right to be heard; and would indicate to me general line of thought on such matters whether or not to be further transmitted to Spaak.
- Not printed; it reported the informal views of responsible Belgian officials regarding the future of the Rhineland, Ruhr, and other nearby areas of Germany and concluded by suggesting that Belgium be given a hearing on these topics at the forthcoming meeting of the Conference of Foreign Ministers (740.00119 Council/4–1546).↩