Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, European Advisory Commission, Austria, Germany, Volume III

740.00119 EW/11–1245: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

Paris, November 12, 1945—11 p.m.
[Received November 13—11:40 a.m.]

6559. From Angell 46. At Tripartite meeting on November 9, use of German labor as reparations and manner in which this subject should be handled by 17-power conference was discussed.

French Delegation raised following objections to treatment of subject by 17-power conference:

1. The principles involved have been inadequately explored by the major powers.

2. Labor, like current production, was not covered in Berlin Protocol as source of reparations, and therefore is outside scope of Paris Conference.

3. Question of whether labor shall be considered as reparations and charged to reparation account must be considered on quadripartite basis inasmuch as (a) Soviet reparation account would be subject to similar charge and (b) Berlin Protocol is based on principle Soviets would receive 50% of total reparations and Soviets might, therefore, request share of labor services from Western Zones corresponding to 25% of capital equipment.

4. At Yalta, industrial removals, external assets and labor were listed as sources of reparations but only first two were mentioned in connection with establishment of Reparation Commission.

5. It is difficult to evaluate labor services on a comparable basis with industrial removals.

French Delegation appeared to be advancing every possible reason so as to avoid necessity for decision on labor question at this time, although Rueff agreed that the question cannot be ignored as benefit to country using German labor. French position suggests that they wish to obtain their full share of other reparation items with subsequent determination of their additional share of labor services. Waley’s views were as follows:

1. Use of German labor should be considered as reparation and should reduce country’s share of other reparation items.

2. Soviets not involved in question of whether labor from Western Zones shall be considered as reparation. Berlin Protocol based on principle that Soviets could get 50% of capital removals plus whatever labor they might obtain from Eastern Zone.

3. Paris Conference should decide how receipt of labor shall affect global reparation shares.

4. Receipt of labor services should be kept in mind as a background factor in making appropriate reduction of global reparation share, instead of attempting to evaluate labor services and subtract value from country’s global share. His preference appeared to be based on evaluation difficulties inherent in latter procedure.

I expressed the view that the subject of labor as reparation cannot be ignored and will undoubtedly be raised by 1 of the 14 other powers. I stated that at the very least, the Paris Conference should decide upon method for accounting for labor services in event it is decided, by whatever body, that labor should be regarded as reparation.

With respect to the conditions of employment of German labor, which all agreed is not subject for Paris Conference, Waley submitted informal note on his Government’s views. (See immediately following telegram from Angell No. 47.²¹)

In addition Waley commented orally as follows:

1. The UK strongly desires to avoid impression Allies are employing slave labor. Therefore, humane terms of employment should be established as a condition of type of reparation labor. This policy should be widely publicized.

2. The work performed by either transferred PW’s or civilian labor should be restricted to such works as reconstruction, and should exclude commercial types of work since these involve competition with countries not using German labor.

3. In response to my comment that the memorandum took no stand on whether civilian labor should be obtained on a compulsory or voluntary basis, Waley stated that it was his general feeling that it would be advantageous to place the arrangement on a voluntary basis.

French agreed in principle with British memorandum with following comments:

(a) France is now using PW’s for dangerous task of de-mining, which is perhaps not in accord with Geneva Convention but is provided for in armistice.

(b) France intends to have employers pay commercial wage rate for services of PW’s which in their view would take care of commercial competition point.

(c) French labor will not at present time, because of strong feeling toward Germans, permit use of German labor beyond PW’s.

French stated that 550,000 PW’s were being used within France and that 70,000 were waiting transfer from French zone of occupation. Former figure does not check with figure in Repmem 12²² of one million PW’s transferred to France under Facs 240.²³ We are cabling USFET²⁴ for up-to-date information on this point.

Waley requested United States’ views of his memorandum, and suggested that it would be desirable, if agreement can be reached among the three western occupying powers on the principles which should govern the conditions of employment of German labor, that concurrence of Soviet Government be requested in response to Waley’s memorandum and statement of British and French views on labor as reparation. I propose to submit following memorandum to Waley and Rueff as statement of my views which I am prepared to submit to my Government (see following telegram from Angell No. 47).

If one assumes France will use in neighborhood of one million German laborers and that French reparation account is charged therefor at reasonable net value, French share of industrial removals and external assets would be substantially affected. In view of French position as stated above and possible effect upon Paris Conference of impasse over issue of effect of labor on share of other reparation items, a serious problem is presented. I shall continue to explore ground for agreement with Waley and Rueff. My preliminary feeling is that, if any agreement at all is to be reached with the French on this matter before the conclusion of the Paris Conference, it will be necessary for us to compromise by assenting to a fairly low value for labor services for reparation accounting purposes.

I urgently request Department’s comments and instructions. [Angell.]

Caffery

21. See telegram 6558, November 12, 11 p.m., from Paris, supra.
22. Not printed.
23. Not printed; this message from the Combined Chiefs of Staff to General Eisenhower, June 6, 1945, was intended as an interim directive to provide terms for the transfer of prisoners of war to the United Nations for rehabilitative work.
24. Headquarters, United States Forces, European Theater.