740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–745
Mr. Donald R. Heath, Counselor of Mission in the Office of the United States Political Adviser for Germany, to the Secretary of State
[Received November 9—1:30 a.m.]
963. The 19th meeting of the Coordinating Committee took place on November 6 with the Russian member presiding.
. . . . . . .
The main argument of the day arose from the two papers from the Reparations, Deliveries and Restitutions Directorates on restitution. The first is the paper on interim restitution deliveries of easily identifiable property in clear cases which was blocked by the Soviet member in early October on the contention that the definition of property to be restored was not clear. (See my 767 of October 13, 1 p.m.) The second paper gives a final definition of property to be restored.6 The French member pressed urgently for both papers. The US member stated that although he had no objection to the definition, he could not give his final consent as a long-term matter without the authority of his Govt. The British member objected to the general terms of the article on replacement of destroyed or damaged works of art and unique objects, suggesting that these be replaceable only “when practicable” and under conditions set by the Council. He also suggested excepting securities as well as gold from the plan for interim deliveries.
On the other hand, the Soviet member was dissatisfied with the whole definition generally and made it appear that he intended to limit the scope and to block the whole program so far as he could. He argued 1) that the present definition does not exclude the many cases where citizens or firms in occupied countries legally sold property to the Germans for reasons of profit and thus strengthened Germany; 2) that restitution should cover only property taken by [Page 1374] force; 3) that the Govts of the four powers had never given to the Control Council the right to settle questions of restitution and that it was only being discussed to accommodate the French; 4) that the words “necessary repairs” in the definition were too vague; 5) and that there were many “general considerations” which should be considered; (he did not say what they were). He appeared deliberately to misunderstand the remarks of the French member and dragged in extraneous arguments. When pressed by the French and British member to submit his own text of a definition, he avoided agreeing even to this until the end. The French member in reply stressed: 1) that property apparently “purchased” by the Germans without force was in fact paid for with stolen money and should be returned to the French Govt; 2) that the paper had already been delayed 6 months since the German defeat; 3) that all but the Soviet member of the Committee agreed and even the Soviet member of the Directorate had agreed to the definition. The UK member referred sympathetically to the French argument that restitution is connected with reparations.
A compromise was reached under which: 1) the US member will submit his position after receiving instructions and the Soviet member will submit a text; 2) United Nations interested will be invited at once to submit lists of looted property to zone commanders of the zones where the property is believed to be; 3) the property when located will be held in custody by these commanders until final decision is reached.
. . . . . . .
As to advance deliveries on account of reparations, it was stated that neither the US nor the British member had had further instructions from their Govts as to the allocation to the Soviet Union of more than 25%. The French member made a statement that his Govt could not accept the compromise suggested earlier by the British that looted goods in factories set aside for reparations be compensated for in similar goods. The French position remains that the looted goods themselves must be restored to their original owners.
. . . . . . .