740.00119 EW/7–1545

No. 380
United States Delegation Memorandum 1
top secret

Meeting With British Reparation Group July 15, 1945

Present: British: Sir Walter Monckton, Sir David Waley, Mark Turner, MacDougall, Donaldson
United States: Pauley, Lubin, Marshall, Parten, Clayton, Collado, Despres, Murphy, Heath.

Mr. Clayton read those sections of our memorandum2 on the scope of reparation dealing with war booty, labor services, restitution and territorial cessions. Mr. Pauley then reviewed his proposal3 for payments by countries receiving property from Germany in connection with territorial cessions, when such property transfers exceeded their admissible reparation claims.

The British position was somewhat as follows:

British agreed in principle on war booty, but felt that the matter should not be pressed because an agreed definition would be adhered to by us and would restrict us but would not restrict the Russians. Pauley strongly opposed postponement of the issue.
British agreed in principle on labor services, but had assumed we were disposed to leave out labor services and to agree on apportionment of reparation excluding labor, and they were therefore ready to do the same.
British position has been that restitution of identifiable property in existence prior to German occupation should be a matter wholly separate from reparation. They will consider our position.
British agreed that property transferred in connection with frontier changes should be treated as reparation, but were dubious about Pauley’s proposal.

The group then discussed what reparation questions should be considered by the heads of government at the Conference.

It was agreed that the following matters should be considered:

Payment for current imports a first charge.
French participation.
Austrian reparation.

There was disagreement concerning whether the scope of reparation in relation to war booty, labor services, restitution, etc., should be considered. The British held that no agreed limitations would be enforceable as regards Russia, and in accepting limitations ourselves [Page 554] we would only be tying our own hands. Mr. Pauley disagreed, and said that the negotiations would be indefinitely prolonged unless agreement was reached.

  1. Authorship not indicated.
  2. Document No. 378.
  3. Attachment to document No. 893, printed in vol. ii .