Proposal by the British
Restitution and Replacement
In the view of the U. K. Delegation Restitution should be confined to the restoration of identifiable property existing at the date of the invasion of the territories from which the property had been removed, in so far as it can be recovered and irrespective of the form of dispossession by which it had come into enemy hands.
As regards replacement in kind, i. e. replacement of property, which cannot be traced or has been destroyed, by similar or comparable enemy property, this should only be permitted in the case of works of art; and only then provided such replacement did not take a form which would be contrary to the general interests of learning (e. g. the removal of a work of art from a place with which it was traditionally associated and where it was well presented, to some obscure and unsuitable surroundings). Other claims to replacement of unidentifiable and irrecoverable looted property should not receive any special priority but should be aggregated with all other claims for reparations.
- The file copy bears the following manuscript notation by Mosely: “UK paper July 21, 1945.” A copy in Frankfurt USPolAd Files bears the following manuscript notation by Murphy: “Submitted by Sir Walter Monckton” (presumably in the Economic Subcommittee). In Murphy’s copy only the last fourteen words in the first paragraph are underscored.↩