Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

840.403/74: Airgram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)

Washington, January 27, 1944—7 p.m.

A–124. Your A–435, June 7, Department’s A–1370, October 8.² Before undertaking a reply to the British Government’s note of May 31, 1943, quoted in your airgram of June 7, the Department wished to avail itself of the views of the newly constituted American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in Europe.³ The entire question has been given detailed consideration in the light of the comments received from the Commission and you are requested to inform the British authorities substantially as follows:

Mr. Justice Roberts, Chairman of the American Commission points out⁴ that

“The primary purpose of the plan … was to protect and conserve works of art and artistic or historic monuments and records in Europe to the extent allowed by military operation. To carry out this plan, it was proposed that specialists in the fine arts, familiar with the description of works of art and of cultural monuments in Europe, and also librarians, would be attached to the United Nations’ military forces operating in the European theatre. Those specialists would lie prepared to furnish information and render such other services as might be needed with respect to works of art, cathedrals and other cultural monuments in Europe, so that their destruction might be avoided if consistent with military operations.”

This objective was included in the initial proposal submitted by the Chief Justice in his capacity as Chairman Ex-Officio of the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery of Art and has been approved by the President. The Commission points out that, in its opinion, this is the essence of the matter under discussion.

You may inform the British Government that the War Department is cooperating in the fulfillment of that portion of the plan falling within its province and that approximately 15 specialists have been commissioned by the Army and have been sent to fields of operations. The War Department is also planning to establish lectures in the schools of military government with the idea of training officers in the Specialist Branch of the services on the location and the care to be given to art objects in occupied territories.

With reference to numbered paragraph (2) of the British note, the Commission comments as follows:

“… the Commission believes that the proposed British committee should not be subordinated to the Reconstruction Commission contemplated by the British Government but should operate independently and give advice to the Reconstruction Commission when requested.”

The above observations of the Commission are quoted only as a matter of possible interest to the British authorities. Pending probable developments with respect to the establishment of the Reconstruction Commission alluded to as operating under the supervision of such United Nations authority as may be deemed appropriate, it is not desired to have these comments of the Commission construed as representing the studied policy of this Government. The question of the establishment of a Reconstruction Commission is beyond the purview of the present, discussion and it would seem to be premature to make arty positive statement at this time regarding the position of the American Commission and its anticipated counterparts in Great Britain and the Soviet Union vis-à-vis a possible United Nations organization of this character.

The American Commission’s observations follow concerning numbered paragraph (3) of the British note:

“The Commission has no comment with respect to the question of deciding on compensation in cases where works of art cannot be found or have been damaged, raised by Paragraph 3 of the note of the British Foreign Office. However, the Commission believes that it should collect information for presentation to the proper authorities at the time of the armistice upon which claims for compensation could be founded in the event such claims should be advanced.”

The Department agrees entirely with the views of the British Government that the question of deciding on compensation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the governments concerned and is not appropriate for consideration or action by the National Commissions, except as outlined in the above quoted comment by Mr. Justice Roberts with respect to the collection of information for presentation to the proper authorities. The Department feels that the National Commissions quite properly should not inject themselves into the matter of reparations and restitutions, and should confine their activities in this sphere to the compilation of appropriate and useful information as to the location and condition of works of art or historic monuments which may have been damaged or purloined by the Axis powers or by others with the knowledge and consent of such powers.

With respect to numbered paragraph (4) of the British note, the Department believes that the following quoted observation of the American Commission represents a practical approach to the questions posed:

“The Commission agrees with the suggestion in Paragraph 4 of the note that the function of the proposed commission should be clearly laid down and the nature of ‘works of art’ strictly defined. If desired … the Commission will be pleased to propose such a definition. Meanwhile, it is suggested that the phrase ‘works of art’ be taken to include in so far as they represent objects of cultural value:

• “1. Churches
• “2. Palaces, chateaux, and houses
• “3. Monuments, under which heading are included not only commemorative monuments and remains of ancient structures, buildings of historical and artistic importance (other than churches and palaces), open-air works of art, such as fountains, et cetera
• “4. Cultural institutions which include museums, university buildings, libraries, archives, and the like
• “5. Sculpture
• “6. Paintings and miniatures
• “7. Furniture
• “8. Arms and armor
• “9. Glass, pottery, porcelain
• “10. Jewelry and metal work
• “11. Textiles
• “12. Prints, drawings, water colors, pastels and manuscripts
• “13. Rare books.”

With regard to numbered paragraph (5), it is believed that the pertinent foregoing points, the statements contained in the Department’s airgram number 1370 of October 8, 1943, and the following quoted comment by the American Commission constitute a reasonably accurate resume of this Government’s views concerning the organization, functions and scope of activity of the proposed National Commissions. In this connection, and pursuing further the thought advanced in numbered paragraph (4) of the British note, it is recognized that it may be desirable for the three Governments to agree upon a delineation of the precise responsibilities and modus operandi of the National Commissions. The Department will appreciate receiving the suggestions of the British Government in this regard. The Commission’s comments referred to immediately above are as follows:

“The Commission will cooperate with the appropriate branches of the Army and of the Department of State, including the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations,^* as well as with appropriate civilian agencies. The Commission will also advise and work with the Schools of Military Government, and subsequent organizations of civilian character which may take over control of occupied territory when it is possible to relinquish military control.

“The Commission is furnishing museum officials and art historians to the United States Army so that, so far as is consistent with military necessity, works of cultural value may be protected in occupied countries. One of the principal functions of the Commission is to act as a channel of communication between the United States Army and the various universities museums and other scholarly institutions, organizations and individuals from whom information and services are desired. Already much valuable material has been collected and furnished to the United States Army by museums and universities through the efforts of individual members of the Commission and others serving in a volunteer capacity.”

The introduction of the question of an Inter-Governmental Committee in this field (numbered paragraph (5)) would seem to raise a question with respect to the position of such Committee vis-à-vis the three National Committees. Since the receipt of the British note, the Conference of the Ministers of Education of the Allied Governments⁵ has appointed a subcommittee to deal with the restoration of art objects. It is assumed that this subcommittee takes the place of the suggested Inter-Governmental Committee and should serve a useful purpose as a clearing house for information. The Department concurs, however, in the following quoted comment of the American Commission regarding the role of the suggested Inter-Governmental Committee (now the subcommittee of Education Conference):

“It is assumed that this inter-governmental committee would be in addition to a British Commission formed on lines similar to those established for the American Commission. The Commission further assumes that the inter-governmental committee would be available to the American, British and Soviet Commissions for consultation in matters involving European knowledge.”

The American Commission makes the following observation with respect to numbered paragraph 6 of the British note:

“The Commission believes that it would be desirable to associate the Committee of the Central Institute of Art and Design of the National Gallery in London with any new official commission which the British Government may set up in London, or at least to arrange for the information collected by the unofficial committee to be made available to the new commission. Similarly, the American Commission is utilizing studies which have been made by unofficial committees in the United States. Also, such information should be made freely available to the inter-governmental committee set up by the Governments referred to in Paragraph 5 hereof.”

The American Commission has expressed the view, in which the Department concurs, that it would be advisable to keep the Soviet Government fully informed of the steps which have been or are being taken to protect and salvage works of art in Europe. The Commission has proposed that the contents of the British note and of the reply containing the views of the Commission be communicated to the Soviet Government. You are requested, therefore, to inquire of the British Government whether it would have any objection to such initiative on the part of this Government.

The Department and the American Commission have been gratified to note that the British Government is in general favorably disposed to the proposal made by this Government and hope that the British Government will see its way clear to constituting a comparable official British Commission. Meanwhile the American Commission holds itself in readiness to cooperate fully with the appropriate British authorities or with recognized private institutions in the United Kingdom in matters falling within the general sphere of the Commission’s functions and activities as outlined above.

Hull

[The British Foreign Office notified the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) on May 17, 1944, that a British Committee on the Preservation and Restitution of Works of Art, Archives, and Other Material in Enemy Hands, headed by Hugh Pattison Macmillan, had been constituted. Members of the Committee were Lord Macmillan (Chairman), Sir John Clapham, Sir Kenneth Clark, Sir John Fors-dyke, Sir Frederic Kenyon, Sir Eric Maclagan, Mr. J. G. Mann, Mr. Vincent Massey, Mr. R. C. Norman, Professor G. M. Trevelyan, and the Duke of Wellington. By its terms of reference, the Macmillan Committee was (a) to be of service in the restitution of works of art and archives misappropriated by enemy governments or individuals; (b) to cooperate with the Roberts Commission; (c) to avail itself of special information concerning restitution; (d) to investigate and consider technical problems regarding restitution and offer advice to His Majesty’s Government; and (e) to promote those methods of collaboration best calculated to secure the general purposes of post-war preparations. (840.403/107)]

2. Ibid., pp. 474 and 480, respectively.
3. The name of the Commission was officially changed on April 21, 1944, by the substitution of “War Areas” for “Europe”. At the request of the Navy Department and with the assent of the Commission, the Secretary of State inquired in a note of April 8, 1944, whether President Roosevelt would approve the extension of the scope of the Commission’s activities to include the Far East. The President gave his approval immediately, and the name of the Commission was altered to reflect this extension in scope. In a note of May 6, 1944, Secretary Hull informed the Chinese Ambassador of this action, with the following qualification: “It is the Department’s understanding that the plans of the Commission of course do not envisage activities in or relative to China.” (840.403/104b)
4. In his letter of October 25, 1943, to Acting Secretary of State Berle (840.403/74).
5. This antedates the transfer of OFRRO to the Office of Foreign Economic Administration and the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. The American Commission of course will cooperate with both units. [Footnote in the original.]
5. See Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. i, pp. 1152 ff.