740.00119 EW/11–145
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Caffery)
5221. For Angell Number 20. Your No. 10, Nov. 1, from Angell to Dept,8 repeated to London as 783, to Berlin as 185. Re your question on CFM discussion of restitution for Italy. This question was not discussed by Council, but was referred to deputies for consideration. Brit submitted document9 which provided that Italy should have same treatment in connection with claims on Germany as United Nations in respect to restitution of identifiable property and restoration of property in Germany. Brit paper further provided that gold restored to Italy should be used toward payment of post-armistice relief debt.
Subject was discussed informally with representatives of Brit FonOff, Treasury and TED10 on Oct 17 by Mosely and Reinstein of US Delegation. Brit explained that their proposal covered both Italian gold recovered at Fortezza in northern Italy and gold removed to Germany. They believe gold at Fortezza to be clearly identifiable as Italian and therefore recoverable by Italy, under their restitution formula. Gold removed to Germany would be restored if identifiable. Under Brit formula, Albanian and Yugo gold claims against Italy would be dealt with by returning such gold wherever discovered if identifiable. To extent not recovered these would presumably become general claims. (Albanian claim is for about $10 million of gold held by Bank of Italy on earmark for Bank of Albania. Yugo claim is for $10 million gold looted by Italy.)
US position was set forth as follows. Gold at Fortezza has continued to be property Bank of Italy and should be returned there. Italy should be required to make full compensation to Yugo and Albania on their claims, taking assignment against Germany if gold had been removed to Germany. For these purposes Italy to have full rights of Albania and Yugo in claiming against Germany. With respect to Italian gold removed to Germany, US position still to be determined. Regarding use of gold for payment of relief debt, Brit were informed US view was that this debt should be cancelled as part of general reciprocal waiver of war claims other than certain specified ones to be dealt with in treaty. Views set forth were based upon treaty draft prepared in Dept prior to London Conference and [Page 1377] fully cleared in Dept.11 No conclusion was reached at Oct 17 meeting in view of relationship to German gold problem.
Foregoing for your information. Answers to questions in your 635112 will follow as soon as possible.
- See telegram 6351, November 1, 5 p.m., from Paris, p. 1366.↩
- Reference is to section V of part VIII of C.F.M. (45) 3, September 12, for text of which see vol. ii, p. 144.↩
- Trading with the Enemy Department.↩
- Draft treaty not printed; for documentation pertaining to the Italian Peace Treaty, see vol. iv, pp. 991 ff.↩
- Dated November 1, 5 p.m., p. 1366.↩