Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

740.00119 Council/9–1145

United States Delegation Minutes of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, September 25, 1943, 4 p.m.

London, September 25, 1943, 4 p.m.

Mr. Bevin in the Chair

Bevin—The meeting is opened with the matter of the Austrian Government. The United Kingdom circulated a paper on this.²⁵

Molotov—I think that we can quickly dispose of this because I am in possession now of the rest of the documents on the question of the memorandum from Dr. Renner. It appears that my colleagues are already in possession of these documents. I suggest that we approve the decision adopted by the Allied Control Council as the consultations with Dr. Renner already began yesterday, and therefore I think we should await the results before we deal with the matter.

Byrnes—I agree.

Bidault—I agree.

German Reparations

Molotov—I should like for the Soviet memorandum²⁶ to be taken first. The initiative of raising this question lies with the Soviet Delegation. The Soviet Delegation’s proposals are intended to expedite the work of the Reparations Commission and it is obvious that this rests not only on the Reparations Commission but also on the Control Council as well. In this connection we suggest that the Reparations Commission should be transferred from Moscow to Berlin, and that this Commission should work in the same place as the Control Council. We have understood that this was also the wish of the American and British representatives on the Commission, and if I am not mistaken also of the French Delegation. We are ready to agree. As you will recall, the Berlin Conference decided that the plan for reparations from Western Europe for Germany should be drawn up not later than within six months. Since that time almost two months have elapsed, but no progress has been made. Therefore we feel anxiety that this fulfilment of this task is being enormously delayed, and that the fulfilment of the Berlin Conference by the date laid down by it is not too sure. It is natural that time limits proposed by us cannot be considered as final, but I think in view of expediting the work of the reparations it is obvious that we by our common efforts can ensure the dates and measures set in order to expedite the settlement of the matter.

Bidault—I have some observations to make, but I can deal only with the essential part now. The French Government welcomes any proposal likely to lead to an acceleration to the procedure for reparations which hitherto had been too slow—the place where this will take place does not matter to us. We have no objection to Moscow, none to Berlin. What is important is that there should be a prompt and good settlement. The French Government recalls that the Potsdam Protocol provides for deliveries to be made from the western zones in general and the French zone in particular, and without the French Government having been called upon to agree either on the amounts or on the principle. With the problems that are essential for France, the French Government thinks that the solution of these problems concerning assets in the western zones and in particular in the French zone cannot be carried out without consultation with the French Government. The French Government cannot adhere to the Potsdam Protocol unless these conditions are fulfilled:

1. Steps should be taken as soon as possible and in any case not later than the 1st of November, 1945, in order to conserve or identify and obtain restitution of any goods or property stolen by Germany on the territory of the United Nations during the period of occupation and found now in any part of German territory or any other territory. The Commissions named by the Governments of the United Nations should have full facilities and access for such conservation and identification. What happened was this. In French factories machines were stolen, and stolen by force, during the period of occupation and the question which arises is this: are these to be used for reparations for all or, as it seems to us, and this is in conformity with international law, should these machines be restored to their legitimate owners, in this case the French State, the reparations being made by purely German assets. Reparations should only be made by German assets and not French. In other words, reparations must be levied on German property, not on property stolen from the Allied nations by Germany. Reparations must be made on enemy property and not on property the enemy stole.

2. The second point I wish to make is this: the property to be restored includes all the property rights and interests that have been stolen in the terms of our Declaration of January 5, 1943. This includes securities which Allied Governments and nationals have been obliged by the German authorities to give up. As to the carrying out of this essential part of this program, the appropriate procedure will have to be adopted in order to determine whether any particular item is German or Allied, and of course only German property can be given as reparations to any of the United Nations.

3. The third conditions of our adherence to the Potsdam Protocol is that the gold, precious metals and works of art, and all objects which are unique in themselves, when they are not to be found, be replaced by equivalent objects taken from any part of Germany. Finally, if it is recognized that the decision is going to be taken concerning advance deliveries, the French Government asks that in this respect it be treated not less favorably than the most-favored nation.

Byrnes—I have just said to my colleagues that the Nazis did so many things that are now presented to us as controversies to be decided that it will be surprising if the patience of the representatives of the Allied Nations can really stand up under the settling of these disputes. As I understand, one question raised by the French Committee relates to copper mine securities that were required by the Germans to be sold; the mines were then worked by the Germans, and then captured by the Yugoslavs. Now the question is, who owns the mines, and who has the right to operate them. I just don’t see how we are going to be able to work out the problems of that kind at this table. It is going to require some group having a lot of time and experts to sit down and work it out. I agree with the general principle that where there is positively identified property of an individual, that individual ought to receive the property. I understand there are questions of the owner having been paid for his property, paid in German marks but still paid, and the question is what are we going to do about the amount of money that he got and with which he could have bought something else. I was hoping that the Reparations Commission could decide that matter. Turning to Mr. Molotov’s suggestion, I am satisfied that much of the delay in the determination of German reparations has been due to the fact that the Reparations Commission was at Moscow and the Control Council in Berlin. Last week Mr. Molotov mentioned to me this matter of the delay and I immediately communicated with the State Department, urging that steps be taken to have the Reparations Commission move to Berlin, and that steps also be taken to ensure that the decisions taken at Potsdam are applied.²⁷ I am in receipt of a reply that there was going to be established this week an inter-Allied Allocations Committee, and that it would go to work in Berlin within two weeks. I am advised that my request that this work be pressed has been communicated to our representatives and that the Department would learn through the War Department every two weeks as to the progress that is achieved in working out the settlement. Our representatives still express the opinion that the agreement can be complied with.

Bevin—I think the first point for taking a decision is that of the Commission being transferred to Berlin. Everybody seems to agree to that. That is part of the Soviet proposal. The next point is the date. The Soviet proposal is December 1. The Potsdam Declaration has it after six months.

Byrnes—I wish to adhere to the Potsdam decision.

Molotov—When we indicated the December 1 date to be laid down for the work of the Allied Council and the Reparations Commission we did not depart from the decision of the Potsdam Conference. The fact should be borne in mind that in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam decision the final decision rests with the Commander-in-Chief and he should be given some time to make his decision. Therefore, we think that between the 1st of December and the 1st of February there will be ample time to enable the Commander-in-Chief of the affected zone to make final decision. That is why I suggested December 1 to be laid down as the date to finish the work of the Reparations Commission. But at present the Soviet Delegation looks at the fact that our meetings have dragged out enormously and all of us are interested in expediting our work, and therefore I would like to make a short suggestion. I want to present a new proposal of the Soviet Government consisting of only two paragraphs in Russian, which I shall have translated. Here is the proposal of the Soviet Delegation: 1. That the Allied Reparations Commission should be transferred from Moscow to Berlin. 2. The Allied Control Council should be instructed to speed up, with the assistance of the Reparations Commission, the work of drawing up the reparation program and in particular the program for advanced deliveries so as to ensure the accurate observance of the date laid down by the Berlin Conference.²⁸

Bevin—I should ask Mr. Molotov, do these two resolutions take the place of the old one?

Molotov—Yes. I withdraw the question of when the exact dates are and what remains is only the condition that the date laid down by the Berlin Conference should be observed.

Bevin—Now, I would like to ask a question as to whether it would not be wise for us to say a few words about the Allied Commission and the Control Council. I make this suggestion however. The Allied Commission on Reparations will meet to decide questions of policy and the function of the Control Council is to determine the equipment available for reparations in accordance with what is laid down by the Allied Commission. If they were divided in that way, we should not then have another delay to argue as to what they should do.

Byrnes—In the Potsdam Agreement there was language which seeks to define the duties of the Commission and the Council, and I don’t think what you suggested is any different. I think we should stand by the Potsdam Declaration. I fear some of the delay has been due to arguments of procedure and about the jurisdiction, and if they have those arguments now settled and we give them new language we will start them off on another delay.

Bevin—Just let me clear this up. I have been informed that this has been one of the causes of delay of the interpretation of the document. I don’t want to delay arguing about the difficulty, and I just wanted to know whether it was all right to move them to Berlin. (Addressing M. Bidault) I will come to your point presently.

Bidault—Of course, I would like to say for us that I am not bound by the decisions the others feel are binding on them because France is not a party to them. This, of course, does not mean that I ignore the services rendered by the Conferences at which France was not present, but there was a general agreement signed on January 5, 1943, and I think that the parties represented here adhere to it. That would be the common law in this case. This means in particular that as far as reparations in Germany are concerned, these reparations should be levied out of German property and not out of Allied property stolen by Germany. According to the declaration of January 5, 1943, therefore, reparations must be levied on German property and not on property stolen by the Germans. In order to avoid this, the French Delegation thinks that restitution, which has already been delayed, should start as soon as possible and that reparations should be levied on German property and not Allied property. I would therefore propose to add a few words to the Soviet text. I would like to suggest that in line 4, paragraph 2, after the words “in particular” add the words “the problem of restitution”.

Molotov—I would like to say that the problem of restitution raised by M. Bidault is an important problem but this problem calls for special study, and it is a complex problem. This problem was not to be considered, and it seems to me that we are unable to consider this problem here in connection with reparations as this problem in my mind calls for a special examination, as it is necessary in the interests of all for restitution to be settled. It is well known that there is a declaration of January 5, 1943 concerning the property and rights of the United Nations. The French Delegation adheres to the terms of this declaration, and so do we all. If the French Delegation submits their proposal concerning this question, then the Soviet Delegation will take part in its examination. If M. Bidault fears that some French property may be accounted as reparations, I think that we should bear in mind such cases and think they should be avoided. I think that France has every opportunity of obviating such cases which may be undesirable to her. We also have such an opportunity, and now I want to point out wherein they lie. It is well known that the policy of reparations in regard to Germany should be laid down by the Reparations Commission on which all of our States are represented. The amount and character and nature of reparations should be determined by the Control Commission, on which all of our States are represented. Hence if the property of France or the Soviet Union, the United States of America or Great Britain is removed in reparations, the representatives of the Governments of those countries may raise this question and place on record their disagreement. And according to the terms of the Berlin decision this question will not be settled without France and, on the contrary, they will be settled with her participation; and my suggestion is that we examine the question of restitution separately from the question of reparations when any one of us brings this question up for discussion. And now we should confine ourselves to adopting a decision on reparations only.

Bidault—I want to speak in concrete terms. Reparations can be levied on a certain number of things to be found, whether in German territory or in territory of neighboring countries at present occupied by the Allies. These things are either German or have been stolen by the Germans. The thing I ask is that before or at the same time as reparations are being settled we should have some means to distinguish between them and stolen property. I don’t think it is impossible for us to settle these two questions together. I will give you an instance. In a factory in one of the suburbs of Paris a machine was taken away by the Germans by force. With much force as you might have reason to know very well as three of our men died in defending it. Is that machine to be part of the reparations or will it be the subject of restitution? There can be no question about it.

Bevin—Is there any opposition to that principle?

Molotov—It is a question of its being placed on our agenda. We have not got it down on our agenda. Let us discuss the question separately. We are all interested in settling this question, but it is not prepared for settlement.

Bevin—What I wanted to suggest to our friend was: is the principle of restitution accepted? If it is, the problem should be referred for immediate and special study. That is what has been suggested.

Molotov—The basis is the declaration of January 5, 1943. Is this the basis?

Bevin—I don’t think there is any objection to their resolutions 1 and 2. As the French have no chance to raise this point, they have decided to raise it now.

Molotov—Can’t we discuss it separately?

Bidault—I think that there are two questions that are connected. I have said several times that we would not delay the work of the Conference on procedure, and therefore though I consider the two problems to be closely connected, once again I accept the suggestion that has been made that the question be discussed separately. I hope that the sacrifices we are making will be recognized. It must be well understood, however, that the reparations to which the various United Nations are entitled are not stolen property and it seems elementary that before taking reparations there should be withdrawn the property that has been stolen. If it is a question of procedure I would agree to make sacrifices, and I may be called upon to accept a few more. It is obvious, however, that it must be on the understanding that the other question raised will be discussed immediately after this one.

Bevin—Can it be agreed that if we agree to this resolution we go straight on to the question of restitution?

Molotov—Perhaps in order to get ready that may be done tomorrow. Perhaps someone will make proposals. I am ready to discuss the French draft,²⁹ but I should like to ask that that be done tomorrow.

Bidault—Almost a week ago we circulated a text stating all this before starting to work on reparations. We must know what is German and what is not German.

Bevin—Was that accepted that we discuss that note tomorrow?

(There was no objection.)

Bevin—Then there was the point I put as to whether the question of policy and action should be cleared up. If something could be put on record guiding the Reparations Commission as to what they have got to do; I don’t ask a formal decision. I suggest that the Reparations Commission be responsible for policy but that the Control Council be responsible for determining the character of the property to be taken.

Byrnes—The Potsdam Agreement provided that the determination of the amount and character of the equipment unnecessary for the peace economy, and therefore available for reparations, shall be made by the Control Council under policies fixed by the Allied Commission on Reparation with the participation of France and subject to the final approval of the Allied Commander in the zone. I thought there had been delays due to the different interpretation of that, but I understand now they are about settled and I am afraid that if we introduce new language that is practically the same it might just reopen the question.

Bevin—If everybody says it is settled, I don’t need to bother. It’s very refreshing to find something settled and these settlements take so long to percolate through that they have not reached the United Kingdom Delegation. Well, that is agreed now, is it? We adopt the short draft of the Soviet draft and we take up the problem of restitution tomorrow.

(It was agreed to hold the next meeting at 11:00 the following morning.)

25. C.F.M.(45) 48, September 23, p. 333.
26. For text of the Soviet memorandum on reparations from Germany, see C.F.M.(45) 15, September 14, p. 175. Memoranda on this subject were submitted by the French delegation (C.F.M.(45) 38, September 20, p. 285) and by the United Kingdom delegation (C.F.M. (45) 45, September 22, p. 325).
27. The Secretary of State’s communication to the Department referred to here presumably is telegram 9582, September 18, 10 a.m., from London, not printed; the Department replied to this communication in telegram 8195, Secdel 84, September 19, 8 p.m., to London, not printed. The Secretary’s remarks in the remainder of this paragraph are apparently based upon information supplied in the Department’s telegram. In point of fact, the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency (the eventual name of the body referred to by the Secretary as the “inter-Allied Allocations Committee”) eventually met in Paris and not in Berlin. For documentation regarding the reparations negotiations and the establishment of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, see vol. iii, pp. 1169 ff.
28. The proposal of the Soviet delegation, with only very minor variations in language, was circulated to the Council as C.F.M.(45) 53, September 25, 1945. (Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Documents)
29. Apparently reference is to the French memorandum C.F.M.(45) 38, September 20, p. 285.