711.624/26
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Germany ( Wilson )
Sir: The Department has received your despatch No. 120 of April 30, 1938, referring to the case of Ransom Otto Theodore Rupprecht, [Page 476] and concerning the attitude of the German Government with respect to the provisions of Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles, which was incorporated in the treaty of August 25, 1921, between the United States and Germany restoring friendly relations. The Department has observed that in its note to the Embassy of April 11, 1938, the German Foreign Office takes the position that Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles is not intended to declare a loss of German citizenship but to extend regulations regarding protection which are laid down in the preceding Articles, 276 and 277, in favor of citizens of the former Allied and Associated Powers on German territory, to apply to the new citizens of those Powers, and in particular to exempt them from those German taxes which are levied only on Germans. It is argued that the German view is inferred from the fact that Article 278 is not in Part III of the Treaty of Versailles containing the provisions as to citizenship, but in Part X, entitled “Economic Clauses” and in Chapter IV of such Part under the heading “Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers”. It is observed further that whenever the view has been taken that under Article 278 the acquisition of citizenship in one of the Allied and Associated Powers results in the loss of German citizenship the view has always been held in Germany that the Article can only be intended to apply to new citizenship acquired through the transfer of territory provided in the Treaty of Versailles, or through the treaties concluded to carry out the Treaty of Versailles, or, in other words, only in consequence of the operation of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
The Department has very carefully considered the arguments contained in the note of the German Foreign Office. It considers that these arguments are illogical and untenable. The principal argument seems to be that because Article 278 is contained in Part X of the Treaty of Versailles, which is entitled “Economic Clauses” and not in Part III which is entitled “Political Clauses for Europe”, which contains provisions as to citizenship, Article 278 is not intended to declare a loss of German citizenship but to extend regulations regarding protection to the new citizens of the Allied and Associated Powers resulting from the Treaty of Versailles, and in particular to exempt them from German taxation. The Department is of the opinion that it is illogical to draw any inference from the fact that the provisions of Article 278 are contained in Part X rather than Part III of the Treaty. There is no reason why such a provision should have been contained in Part III. An examination of Part III of the Treaty indicates that citizenship is treated specifically in connection with the provisions concerning each of the various territories, sovereignty over which was transferred to another state or to a new state or concerning which a plebiscite was to be held. Thus having dealt specifically with [Page 477] citizenship in each situation, there would have been no purpose in placing such a provision as Article 278 in Part III. It seems particularly appropriate, however, that the provisions of Article 278 be contained in Part X, Chapter IV, under the heading “Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers”. Under Articles 276 and 277 contained under such heading Germany made certain undertakings with regard to nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers. It was particularly appropriate that under such Chapter a provision should have been made under which the question whether a person was a national of an Allied and Associated Power could easily be determined. The provision is clear and unequivocal. It has no relation to the question of the mere right of a person to be protected in Germany as a national of one of the Allied and Associated Powers. Under it Germany specifically undertakes to recognize any new nationality which has been or may be acquired by her nationals under the laws of the Allied and Associated Powers or under treaty stipulations, and further, it specifically undertakes to regard such persons as having in all respects severed their allegiance to Germany. The provision is unambiguous. It is not limited as to time.
With regard to the second argument of the German Foreign Office that whenever the view has been taken in Germany that under Article 278 the acquisition of the citizenship of a person of German origin in one of the Allied and Associated Powers results in the loss of German citizenship the Article can only be intended to apply to new citizenship acquired through the transfer of territory provided in the Treaty of Versailles or through the treaties concluded to carry out the provisions of such Treaty, or, in other words, only in consequence of the operation of the provisions of these treaties, the Department considers again that the argument is illogical and untenable. It apparently has been overlooked that under Article 278 Germany undertook to recognize any new nationality which had been or may be acquired by her nationals under the laws of the Allied and Associated Powers and in accordance with the decisions of the competent authorities of these Powers pursuant to naturalization laws or under treaty stipulations and to regard such persons as having in all respects severed their allegiance to Germany. Under this provision Germany specifically undertook not only to recognize a new nationality acquired in consequence of the operation of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles but also any new nationality acquired “in accordance with the decisions of the competent authorities of these Powers pursuant to naturalization laws”.
While the Department considers that the arguments of the German Foreign Office are both illogical and untenable, it may be stated that when considering the provisions to be incorporated in the treaty which [Page 478] was finally signed on August 25, 1921, restoring friendly relations between the United States and Germany, the Department gave very careful consideration to those provisions of the Treaty of Versailles under which rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations, or advantages were given to the United States as one of the principal Allied and Associated Powers. During the course of the negotiations resulting in the treaty of August 25, 1921, it was made clear to the German authorities that the Peace Resolution of July 2, 1921, portions of which were incorporated in the treaty of August 25, 1921, indicated clearly the views of the Congress that the rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations, and advantages, accorded the United States under the Treaty of Versailles should be secured to the United States and that this Government would not enter into any treaty which failed to secure them. Among other things the Department considered the provisions of Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles. While it was considered that the provision of this Article obligating Germany to recognize any new nationality acquired by her nationals under the laws of the Allied and Associated Powers is unilateral, in explicit terms and eliminated all questions of dual nationality of persons of German extraction who acquired the nationality of one of the Allied and Associated Powers, it regarded Article 278 as a substitute for a naturalization treaty. As indicated, the Article is unilateral but under the laws of the United States the right of expatriation is freely recognized; hence, any American citizen who is naturalized as a German citizen loses his citizenship in the United States as a result of such German naturalization. No question was raised by the German authorities at the time negotiations were being carried on as to the view of the German Government with regard to the meaning of Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles, nor had it even been intimated up to the time when the case of Mr. Rupprecht arose that the German Government took a view as to the meaning of the provisions of Article 278 other than what its unambiguous and specific terms indicate, that is, that Germany would recognize any new nationality which had been or may be acquired by her nationals under the laws of the Allied and Associated Powers and in accordance with the decisions of the competent authorities of these Powers pursuant to naturalization laws and to regard such persons as having in consequence of the acquisition of such new nationality in all respects severed their allegiance to Germany. The Department considers that Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles has been incorporated as a part of the treaty of August 25, 1921, and that under it Germany is obligated to recognize the naturalization of a German citizen in the United States as resulting in the loss of German nationality.
It is suggested that you communicate the foregoing views to the appropriate German authorities and express the hope that Ransom Otto Theodore Rupprecht will not only be recognized as having been [Page 479] naturalized as a citizen of the United States under the laws of this country and in accordance with the decision of the competent authorities of this Government as previously conveyed to the German authorities but that in accordance with the provisions of Article 278 of the Treaty of Versailles he will be regarded as having in consequence of the acquisition of citizenship in the United States in all respects severed his allegiance to Germany.
Very truly yours,
[In despatch No. 1034, June 21, 1939 (711.624/28), the Chargé in Germany reported that the Department’s views as given in instruction No. 125, October 11, 1938, supra, were embodied in a note sent to the German Foreign Office on January 9, 1939, and that in a reply dated June 13, 1939, the German Foreign Office stated that the German Government after careful study upheld its position as explained in its note of April 11, 1938, quoted in despatch No. 120, April 30, printed on page 472. In reply, the Department in instruction No. 415, November 14, 1939, directed the Embassy to postpone indefinitely the presentation of the draft treaty to the German Government (711.624/28).]