740.5/11–1050: Telegram
The Chargé in Belgium (McClintock) to the Secretary of State
priority
747. I communicated substance of Deptel 614, November 9 to Van Zeeland in form of a personal letter1 and likewise gave him a paraphrase of intel November 5, 1 a. m.2 which I had permitted him to read November 8. I called on Van Zeeland late this evening and gave him these documents with caution. I did not expect an immediate answer as I should value his considered opinions after he had devoted time to careful study of my government’s views.
We have found that Van Zeeland, although sincerely eager to be of assistance, is inclined to give quick judgment. In consequence I thought his knight errantry impulse had best be checked by reflection.
Nevertheless, and after having scarcely read letter which conveyed substance of Deptel 614, Van Zeeland launched into a characteristic lecture stressing his conviction there were many points of agreement already admitted by both French and US and insisting that basic point of disagreement was still question of German rearmament.
Van Zeeland said French admitted necessity that German economic and manpower resources should be utilized in defense of West Europe. Their main problem was not a military one but on contrary political problem of “screening” metamorphosis of Germans from present completely disarmed state to one of military readiness to defend their share of Europe. (By “screening” Van Zeeland meant French Government’s desire to hide gradual German rearmament from French public opinion.) The Minister said that much progress had already been achieved by French willingness to agree that German economy should be used in NATO defense plans; that federal police should be strengthened and used on a nation-wide basis; and that “labor battalions” could be formed as basis for future military cadres which could in eighteen months time or so be transformed into actual troops.
1 did not attempt to debate Van Zeeland’s argument but confined my comment to pointing out that my country and a number of other [Page 444] NATO countries seemed to feel that French plan was militarily and politically unsound.
To this Van Zeeland rejoined that as he understood it, even on military level, question was one which was largely of semantics. He said both French and Americans agreed to concept of an NATO defense force under one supreme commander with a general staff recruited from all 12 NATO countries, and troop contingents to be supplied by all 12 allies. Point of difference, he said, was that Americans wished to add a thirteenth component labeled “German” while French were willing to admit a thirteenth component which would include some German units but would bear label “European”.
I said I did not think this was all as simple as it sounded, but did assure Minister that we appreciated his goodwill and desire to serve the mutual cause, particularly as time was pressing. Van Zeeland then said with great earnestness that he would very much like to confer with Spofford. He said he had already sent instructions to Belgian Ambassador in London to suggest this to Spofford on his arrival. He added that if Spofford could find time to visit him here next week, Van Zeeland would be delighted to receive him as his house guest. He said he knew Spofford had a meeting on Monday the 13th but wondered if he might not be able to fly over Monday evening, spend the night with Van Zeeland, and return to London on Tuesday, 14th. Van Zeeland even offered to go himself to London to see Spofford if Ambassador could not come here.
Following his talk with Spofford, Van Zeeland said he would then be in a position to give Embassy a considered reply to letter left with him today. Also, depending upon his conversation with Spofford, it might be mutually agreed that Van Zeeland should usefully go to Paris to try his hand on the French. I said that decision on possibility of Spofford coming must necessarily depend on Washington but that I should be glad to recommend that Ambassador in fact do have a talk with Van Zeeland.3 Latter has undoubted energy, quick appreciation and zeal to get things done which up to this moment seems not to be properly balanced with any carefullly weighted consideration of our views.
Sent Department 747, repeated information London 123, Paris 155.
- A copy of the letter, dated November 10, was transmitted to Washington in despatch 530 from Brussels, November 13; neither printed (740.5/11–1350).↩
- See footnote 3, p. 434.↩
- Spofford accepted Van Zeeland’s invitation and was his houseguest on March 17 at which time they had an inconclusive discussion. The memorandum of conversation by McClintock dated November 17, not printed, is in Department of State file 740.5/11–2050.↩