Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Germany and Austria, Volume II

862.014/9–1348

Report of the Working Party on Provisional Adjustments to the Western Frontier of Germany¹

Paris, September 1, 1948

[Translation]

In implementation of the recommendations which appear in [paragraph] F of the report of the Six-Power Conference on Germany (1st June, 1948) and which are laid out in detail in Annex K of the same report, a Working Party consisting of representatives of the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg has proceeded to examine the proposals for adjustments of the western frontier of Germany made by the Governments of The Netherlands, of Belgium, of Luxembourg and of France.

The Working Party has also examined the limits of the Saar.

The Delegations met in Paris from 22nd July until 5th August. There was then an adjournment to allow certain representatives, who so requested, to visit certain points of the frontier affected by the claims. The Delegations met again in Paris from 24th August to 1st September, 1948.

The Working Party submits the present report to the attention of the Governments concerned. According to the terms of Annex K mentioned above the solutions which are recommended, if they are approved by Governments, would be put into force as a provisional measure.

Done in Paris in 6 copies the first day of September, 1948.

Part I

general observations

1.—In cases where a modification of the frontier is recommended, the Working Party proposes a line which is described in the report as precisely as possible.

The Working Party wishes to stress the necessarily indicative nature of this line. It will be the function of a future Delimitation Commission to determine the exact line of the provisional frontier according to the indications which are given in the report and taking into account the various local interests at issue.

2.—In cases where the modifications of the frontier would involve the transfer of an inhabited area to one of the four countries which border upon Germany, the Working Party recommends that the future of the inhabitants of such an area should be dealt with in the following way:—German nationals who were in the area concerned before 23rd February, 1948 (date of the opening of the First Session of the Six-Power Conference) should be given the opportunity:—

(a) either to settle in Germany; in this case they would be allowed to take with them the movable property which belongs to them, even when they wish to retain ownership of their real property,

(b) or to continue to reside in the area concerned. They would then have no privileged status. No guarantee would be given against individual measures of expulsion; but any such measures of expulsion would be taken only as a defensive measure against subversive elements.

3.—The following idea was developed in the course of the discussions of the Working Party.

With a view to avoiding in the future the creation of new anomalies it would be desirable that by virtue of an international arrangement the construction of new buildings or roads should be forbidden within a reasonable distance of either side of the frontier. The Working Party considers that this question goes beyond its competence. Nevertheless, it draws the attention of the Governments concerned to the value to be had by making a study of this suggestion.

Part II

rectification of the western frontier of germany

The Working Party unanimously recommends the following modifications:—

A. German-Netherlands Frontier.

1.—From frontier stone 202E to frontier stone 1963 the frontier should follow the west bank of the Wijmeersersdiep, leaving in Germany the track which follows this bank over the greater part of its length. As an exception to the above, opposite the pumping station 1 kilometre south of Nieuwe Statenzijl, the apex of the triangle formed by the Wijmeersersdiep should be included in Netherlands territory, in such a way as to give to The Netherlands at this point a strip of about 100 metres on the east bank of the present course of the Westerwoldsche A. It is understood that The Netherlands Government would bear the cost of or carry out the realignment of the Wijmeersersdiep resulting from this rectification. (N.M. 1)^*

2.—Between Nieuwerschans and frontier stone 187 the frontier should run along the east bank of the Moersloot.

From frontier stone 187 to frontier stone 186 a strip of about 20 metres depth should be ceded by Germany to The Netherlands.

From frontier stone 186 to about 700 metres north of frontier stone 183 and between frontier stones 181 and 172 (Ter Apel) except for a distance of about 180 metres to the north of frontier stone 176, the frontier should run along the east side of the track and embankment. (N.M. 4&5)

3.—Between frontier stones 49 and 41 the frontier should run along the east bank of the Ramelbeek where this is not already the case; thence from a point on the Nordhorn-Amelo Canal, just to the north of frontier stone 41, as far as frontier stone 33 it should follow the east side of the German road about 75 metres from the present frontier, it being understood that the houses on the German side of the road would not be included in Netherlands territory; from frontier stone 33 to frontier stone 24 it should follow the east side of the Vrijedijk. (N.M. 14a, 14b)

4.—Between frontier stones 15 and 5 the frontier should be drawn along a straight line between these two frontier stones in such a way, however, as to include in The Netherlands the tributaries of the River Dinkel and to take account of the contours. (N.M. 15)

5.—To the south of Losser in the area of frontier stone 79 a small portion of German territory to the north of the River Dinkel should pass under Netherlands sovereignty in such a way that the frontier would follow the south bank of this river (N.M. 17)^†

6.—Between frontier stones 831 and 830 (Rekken) the path which follows the frontier should be entirely included in The Netherlands. (N.M. 20)

7.—Between frontier stones 811 and 810 the frontier should follow the east bank of the Ramsbeek. (N.M. 20)

8.—The German part of the village of Dinxperlo should come under Netherlands sovereignty. The Delimitation Commission should be instructed to determine a new frontier line between frontier stones 737 and 731, it being understood that Hubers Mill should remain in German territory; this line should be at a distance of about 300 metres from the present frontier.

It is understood that arrangements should be made for the use of the road by Germans living in the frontier area on the basis of the prewar arrangements and subject to a simple and effective system of control: this system should be established by The Netherlands authorities and the British Occupation Authorities. (N.M. 21)

9.—From frontier stone 702 to frontier stone 660 the frontier should approximately follow a straight line. (N.M. C)^‡

10.—From frontier stone 652 to the road junction 500 metres short of frontier stone 650 the track should be included entirely in Netherlands territory. From the road junction to frontier stone 650 the road should be in German territory. (N.M. 28)

11.—From the northern end of the Quer Dam the frontier should follow the south-eastern edge of the Quer Dam and the south bank of the Wijler Meer (in such a way as to include the road in Netherlands territory) as far as the road which forks to Lagewald and from there it should follow the west side of this road as far as frontier stone 627. (N.M. 29)

12.—Between frontier stone 594 and frontier stone 589 the road which follows the frontier should come entirely under Netherlands sovereignty. (N.M. 30)

13.—In the area of frontier stone 563 the frontier should be moved to the east bank of the River Niers where over a distance of about 200 metres it at present follows the west bank. (N.M. 32)

14.—Between frontier stones 561 and 555 in the area of Hommersum the frontier should be drawn along the following line:—

From frontier stone 561 to frontier stone 560 along the south side of the Vee Dijk, then along the east side of the track which, after following the frontier as far as frontier stone 558, follows a straight line to frontier stone 555;

Between frontier stones 537 and 535 the frontier should be moved so as to bring into The Netherlands the track which follows the frontier, it being understood that the local German users would retain access to this track. (N.M. 33)

15.—In the area of frontier stone 531 the frontier should cross the road at right angles at a point between the two road junctions. From there it should follow the west side of the road as far as frontier stone 532. (N.M. 34)

16.—In the area of Arcen the frontier should follow approximately a straight line between frontier stones 499 and 488, leaving in German territory the road between Walbech and Auwel via Lingsfort.

Between frontier stones 484 and 480 the frontier should follow the east bank of the Lugenia Canal as far as the bridge opposite frontier stone 481. From this bridge it should follow a straight line to frontier stone 480. (N.M. 36)

17.—In the area of Sittard the frontier should follow a line from frontier stone 324 to rejoin the present frontier to the north of Schinveld; this line, whose exact course should be fixed by the Delimitation Commission, would leave in German territory the localities of Saef-felen, Hastenrath and Gangelt. (N.M.D)

18.—In the area of Ubach the track to the north-west of frontier stone 256 should pass under Netherlands sovereignty for a distance of about 125 metres. (N.M. 49)

19.—In the Rimburg-Kerkrade sector between frontier stones 239 and 238 the frontier should follow the west side of the railway line from frontier stone 239 as far as a point to the north of frontier stone 238 where a branch railway line crosses the River Wurm; from there it should follow the east bank of the River Wurm as far as frontier stone 238. (N.M. 50, 51)

20.—In the village of Kerkrade the road and the track which follow the frontier between frontier stones 237 and 236 and between frontier stones 236 and 234 respectively should come under Netherlands sovereignty. Between frontier stones 232 and 229 the Working Party recommends that the Delimitation Commission should seek to determine a frontier line mid-way between the two north/south roads. If the work of this Commission makes it clear that such a line would result in more inconveniences than the present line, the de facto frontier at present marked by the fence should be confirmed. (N.M. 52)

21.—Between frontier stones 197 and 195 (Vaals) the road which runs along the frontier should come under Netherlands sovereignty. (N.M. 53)

Note: Where it is proposed that the frontier should run along the German bank of a river or stream, the Netherlands Delegation considers that for technical reasons a strip of territory should also be ceded to The Netherlands.

This opinion was not unanimously adopted by the Working Party since the British Delegation could not support it.

B. German-Belgian Frontier.

1.—Between frontier stones 1017 and 980 the frontier should follow the following line:

From frontier stone 1017, the former limit of Kreis Lupen prolonged to the east of the railway line at the entrance of the tunnel towards Aachen; thence a line along the railway as far as frontier stone 980.

The attention of the Delimitation Commission should be especially drawn to the first of the general observations in respect of the houses situated in the northeastern corner of this area.

2.—Between frontier stones 943 and 920 the road which runs along the frontier should come under Belgian sovereignty, as also:—

(a) the German customs post at the junction between this road and the road from Ober to Forstbach and the portion of this road opposite the customs post;

(b) the forest of Freyen (Aachen-Eynatten).

3.—The road from Rötgen to Konzen and the branch road from Fringshaus to Lammersdorf should be transferred to Belgian sovereignty, it being understood that the Belgian Government would undertake to conclude with the British occupation authorities a provisional arrangement to ensure the maintenance and use of these roads for transit traffic between Aachen and Monschau by the inhabitants of these two towns and of the area between them.

In the arrangements to be concluded with the British occupation authorities provision should also be made to ensure a simple and effective system of control which would prevent smuggling and any abuse of the roads.

The above undertaking by the Belgian Government would cease as soon as another route between Monschau and Aachen is developed into a satisfactory condition, and at the latest by a date to be fixed by common agreement between Belgian and British experts, taking account of technical considerations which only they are competent to judge.

4.—The German enclaves of Münsterbildchen, Rötgen, Lammersdorf, Konzen, Mützenich and Ruitzhof to the west of the Raeren to Kalterherberg railway should be included in Belgian territory; as also the village of Rötgen up to a line which from frontier stone 886F would come out at the railway in the area of frontier stone 790, leaving in German territory the Dreilägerbach Dam and reservoir and hydraulic installations, it being understood that the Belgian authorities would undertake to do nothing which would prejudice the supply of the reservoir. A strip of an average width of 100 metres to the east of the railway should be ceded to Belgium where this is possible without including German houses. The Administration of the Belgian railways would make the necessary arrangements, based on the rules governing the normal working of their system, to deal with the new situation so created along the Belgo-German frontier.

5.—Between frontier stones 652 and 648 the frontier should follow the Breitenbach stream.

6.—Between frontier stones 624 and 572 the German salient should be eliminated. The Delimitation Commission would be instructed to determine the line which would be most suitable to adopt.

7.—In the region of Losheim the following areas should be ceded by Germany to Belgium:—

(a) the triangle of forest-land extending for 1,500 metres to the north of Weisserstein, bounded on the west by the present frontier and of a width at its widest point of approximately 700 metres;

(b) the triangle between the present frontier and the road L. 25 where the road leaves the present frontier south of Losheimergraben;

(c) the area around Losheim village up to a line running east from the road/railway bridge north-west of Losheim, along the southern edge of the forest to the present Kreis boundary, thence south along the Kreis boundary to rejoin the present frontier at the road-bend 1,000 metres south-east of Losheim railway station;

(d) the road L. 25 through this area.

If after an examination by British and Belgian experts it is found that the alternative road which the Belgian Government considers to be adequate, is not equally satisfactory, a time limit would be fixed by common agreement between the experts for the adequate development and improvement by the Germans of the alternative road. In this case, during the agreed period the Belgian Government would permit German transit traffic to use road L. 25 in accordance with arrangements to be worked out with the British occupation authorities. There arrangements would include adequate provisions to prevent smuggling and any other abuse of the road.

8.—Between frontier stones 159 and 151 the German enclave to the west of the St. Vith-Trois Vierges railway and a strip of about 100 metres to the east of this railway should be included in Belgian territory.

C. German-Luxembourg Frontier.

To the east of Vianden the frontier should be modified in such a way as to include in Luxembourg territory the forest called Kammerwald and the village of Roth.

The new frontier should follow a line from the south of Roth to the west of Obersgegen and should then run north, following the river Gay as far as the south of the Wirbelkopf. Then, after passing slightly to the north of hill (trig, point) 497.5 (between Neuscheuerhof and Bauler), it would rejoin the present frontier at a point on the present frontier about 1,200 metres south-west of Bauler. The future Delimitation Commission should be instructed to establish the exact frontier line.

D. French-German Frontier.

To the north of Wissembourg the village of Schweigen should be included in French territory.^§

Part III

Agreement cannot be reached on certain frontier rectifications but the Working Party recommends that in the following cases special arrangements should be concluded:—

A. German/Netherlands Frontier.

1.—The Ems Estuary and the Dollart: The Working Party has been unable to reach unanimous agreement on frontier rectifications in the Ems Estuary and the Dollart. In view of the absence of a frontier in the Ems Estuary defined by international agreement it recommends that as a provisional measure arrangements should be worked out between the Netherlands authorities and the British military occupation authorities with a view to:—

(a) facilitating the detailed study of the projected plans for the development of the Ems Estuary and for the reclamation of the Dollart;

(b) ensuring that no work is undertaken in the Ems Estuary, apart from normal routine dredging, without the consent of both parties. The Netherlands authorities and the British military occupation authorities will agree upon rules to cover the extent of normal routine dredging.

2.—The Elten Area:^║ The Working Party has been unable to reach agreement on the western part of the Netherlands claim (rectification of the frontier on the River Rhone between frontier stones 657 and 660) but it recommends that The Netherlands authorities, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with the British occupation authorities, should have the right to anchor, search and control vessels over the entire width of the river.

B. German/Luxembourg Frontier.

The Rivers Our, Sur and Moselle along the German/Luxembourg frontier are at present jointly owned by Germany and Luxembourg. The Luxembourg Government has demanded the exclusive ownership of these rivers and the establishment of international servitudes on the German bank which would permit the Luxembourg Government to rest on the German bank the installations which are necessary for the regularisation of the rivers and for the establishment of communications between the two banks.

The American, Belgian, French and Netherlands Delegations have supported this demand.

The British delegation was unable to recommend the claim and the Working Party has finally agreed upon the following proposal:—

The French occupation authorities should be authorised to conclude with the Luxembourg Government arrangements which would permit the Luxembourg Government to establish in these rivers installations necessary for the regularisation of the rivers and for the re-establishment of communications between the two banks and which would further permit them to rest these installations on the German bank.

Part IV

Taking account of the observations made in the course of the preliminary study, the Governments concerned have not maintained certain of their proposals for modifying the frontier. Other proposals, however (although the competence of the Working Party to deal with them has not been disputed) have not been supported by all Delegations. These points, which are recommended only by a majority of the Working Party, are as follows:—

A. German-Netherlands Frontier.

• 1.—To the south of Losser; apart from the rectification unanimously recommended by the Working Party,^¶ the Belgian, French and Luxembourg Delegations consider that they can recommend the Netherlands claim for a portion of territory to the south of the River Dinkel; (N.M. 17)
• 2.—In the following cases the Belgian, French and Luxembourg Delegations have recommended the acceptance of the Netherlands claims. The American Delegation could also have accepted them if unanimity had been reached. The British Delegation, however, did not consider that the arguments in favour of rectification were sufficiently strong. Nevertheless, they would have been prepared to agree to the rectifications proposed provided The Netherlands Delegation could agree to the elimination of certain anomalies by three small rectifications in Germany’s favour. The Netherlands Delegation was, however, unable to agree to these arrangements since The Netherlands people could never accept cession of territory to Germany. These points are:—

  (a) The Netherlands Delegation requested that the frontier should be drawn along the track from frontier stone 826 to frontier stone 821 (N.M. 20);

  (b) The Netherlands Delegation requested that the frontier should be drawn in a straight line between frontier stones 719 and 725 (N.M. 22);

  (c) The Netherlands Delegation requested that from frontier stone 578 the frontier should run along the south side of the Reichswald to the track junction north of frontier stone 571, thence to frontier stone 570 and thence on the eastern side of the road to frontier stone 568 (N.M. 31);

  (d) The Netherlands Delegation requested that the frontier should run along the north side of the track 300 metres north of frontier stone 478 in a straight line to frontier stone 476 (N.M. 37);

  (e) The Netherlands Delegation requested that the frontier should run in a straight line from frontier stone 476 to frontier stone 464 (N.M. 38);

  (f) The Netherlands Delegation requested that west of frontier stone 452 the frontier should follow the north-western side of the track to frontier stone 448 (N.M. 40);

  (g) The Netherlands Delegation requested that the two small pockets on the east and west sides of frontier stone 363 should be eliminated, as also the two small pockets to either side of frontier stone 370 and that between frontier stones 376 and 373 the frontier should run on the south side of the Rothen stream (N.M. 43).

• 3.—In the following cases the Belgian, French and Luxembourg Delegations have supported The Netherlands claims. The American Delegation could also have accepted them if unanimity had been reached. The British Delegation however is unable to recommend these claims:—

  (a) In the area of Emmerich The Netherlands Delegation claimed that the area between the present frontier and the autobahn under construction, including the autobahn itself, should pass under Netherlands Sovereignty from frontier stone 702 to the point south of Gendringen where the autobahn at present passes through Netherlands territory. (N.M. C)^**

  (b) The Netherlands Delegation requested that in the area of Venlo the frontier should run in a straight line from frontier stone 457 to frontier stone 454. (N.M. 39)

  (c) In the area of Melick and Herkenboch The Netherlands Delegation desired the incorporation into The Netherlands of the triangle of German territory to the south of the spit of Netherlands territory which penetrates into Germany in this area. (N.M. 42)

  (d) In the area of Niederbusch The Netherlands Delegation proposed a frontier line which would include Niederbusch in Netherlands territory and which would thence follow the natural division between the cultivated area and the heath-land as far as frontier stone 257. (N.M. 47 and 48)

  (e) The Netherlands Delegation proposed that the salient of Lenders from about frontier stone 209 to frontier stone 197 should be eliminated (N.M. 52a)

B. French-German Frontier.

The French Delegation proposed that part of the forest of Mundat (to the north-west of Wissembourg) should be re-attached to French territory.

The American, Belgian, Luxembourg and Netherlands Delegations have supported this recommendation but the British Delegation has been unable to recommend it.^††

Part V

The American and British Delegations considered that the following proposals for rectifications to the western frontier of Germany could not be dealt with by the Working Party since it is impossible to regard them as “minor” rectifications.

A. German-Netherlands Frontier—Bentheim Bocht.

The Netherlands Government has proposed the elimination of the Bentheim Bocht by incorporating this territory in The Netherlands.

The Belgian, French and Luxembourg Delegations have recognised that this proposal can be discussed by the Working Party and have supported it.

The British Delegation has been unable to consider this claim as of a minor nature because of the size of the area, its population and its economic value.

The American Delegation has been unable to accept the claim because of the importance to the German economy of the oil-field of Emmlicheim.^‡‡

B. German-Luxembourg Frontier—The Our Dam.

The Luxembourg Government has demanded the cession by Germany of the area necessary for carrying out the plan for constructing dams on the Our and its tributary, the Irsen.

The Belgian, French and Netherlands Delegations have considered that this proposal can be discussed and recommended.

The American and British Delegations on the other hand contested the competence of the Working Party in this matter. In their view it is a question of a frontier modification over too great an area and based on economic considerations of such importance that they exceed the competence of the Working Party.

These two Delegations have emphasised that their attitude implies no judgement on the merits of the Luxembourg project and that a pronouncement on the possibility of its future execution is a matter for consideration elsewhere.

C. French-German Frontier—Kehl.

The French Government has demanded the attachment of Kehl to France. This attachment could be effected either by annexation or by a long-term international servitude.

The Belgian, Luxembourg and Netherlands Delegations have pronounced themselves in favour of this demand.

The American and British Delegations expressed the opinion that the French claim for Kehl is based on economic considerations which do not fall within the competence of the Working Party and that this question has moreover a major political aspect; for this reason it is their view that the Working Party is unable to consider the claim.

Part VI

limits of the saar

The Working Party unanimously recommends to the approval of the Six Governments the delimitation of the Saar territory as established by the ordinance of the French Commander-in-Chief in Germany, dated 6th June, 1947 including the following three modifications proposed by the French Delegation:—

incorporation in the territory of the Saar of:—

(i) the triangular road junction between Dunzweiler on the one hand and Lautenbach and Höchen on the other;

(ii) the commune of Waldmohr;

(iii) the commune of Kirrberg.

1. The source text was transmitted to the Department as an enclosure to despatch 1177, September 13, from Paris, not printed. One of the signed originals of the Report had been taken to Washington by messenger earlier. The remaining footnotes in this document all appear in the source text.

   In an undated paper entitled “Comments on the Report of the Working Party on Provisional Adjustments of the Western Frontier of Germany,” not printed, David Harris made the following recommendations with respect to the Report. In connection with Part I of the Report, Harris urged the establishment of a delimitation commission, or commissions charged with working out on the spot the exact location of the frontiers. Harris recommended that the Department of State approve all the cessions of territory proposed in Part II of the Report, and he also found no reason to take issue with special arrangements proposed in Part III of the Report. Harris felt that the claims referred to in Part IV and rejected by the Working Group could be endorsed by the Department. In connection with the claims considered in Part V of the Report, Harris suggested that the Department might find it desirable to attempt to meet the Netherlands’ legitimate grievance regarding the Bentheim Bocht, but he recommended that the Department continue to reject the French claim to Kehl. Finally, Harris recommended acceptance of the Saar frontier as described in Part VI of the Report. (CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 119, File—Western Frontiers, Reports) Harris also commented in some detail on the Report and the work of the Working Party in a letter of October 17 to Howard Trivers, Assistant Chief of the Division of Central European Affairs, not printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/10–448).

2. N.M. 1=Netherlands Memorandum of 22nd July, 1948, Part II, Claim No. 1. [Footnote in the source text.]
3. See also Part IV, A 1. [Footnote in the source text.]
4. This covers part of The Netherlands claim in the area of Elten. The western part of this claim is the object of the suggestion in Part III A 2 and the eastern part is dealt with in Part IV A 3 (a). [Footnote in the source text.]
5. This covers part of the French claim for Schweigen and the forest of Mundat—See also Part IV B. [Footnote in the source text.]
6. Netherlands Memorandum, I C. See also Part II A, No. 9 and Part IV A, 3 (a). [Footnote in the source text.]
7. See IIA, No. 5. [Footnote in the source text.]
8. See also Part II, point 9, and Part III A.2. [Footnote in the source text.]
9. See also II D. [Footnote in the source text.]
10. Owing to the importance attached by the Netherlands Delegation to this claim, the minor rectifications in this area were not studied in detail. (N.M. 7–13) [Footnote in the source text.]