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

740.00119 EW/11–1945: Telegram

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

Paris, November 19, 1945—7 p.m.
[Received November 20—12:55 a.m.]

6699. From Angell No. 69.

1. The following countries have changed more or less substantially the statistical data originally submitted for reparations claims purposes: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Greece, India, Norway, US, Yugoslavia.

2. For purposes of study have tried numerous formulae for combining data and eliminating undesired items from original submissions. Formula least unsatisfactory for present purposes is unweighted average of each country’s percentage, as stated, of (a) direct war damage, (b) war expenditures during hostilities plus occupation costs, and (c) military man years including prisoners of war.

3. Application of this formula to unscreened data as now revised by submitting countries yields following rounded overall reparation shares in percents: US 26, France 21, UK 25, others 28. These results discussed informally with Waley but not yet with Rueff or others.

4. Have explored screening of data submitted to eliminate or adjust items which seem overstated or inappropriate. Preliminary examination suggests following:

a. Elimination of damages to monuments and cultural and historical objects from claims for direct damage as follows: For France 1 billion dollars, for Yugoslavia 3.6 billion dollars.

b. Reduction of direct damage claims as follows:

(1) France 20% because property damage was valued at new replacement cost with no allowance for accrued depreciation at time of damage and because some unit costs were unreasonably high;

(2) Czechoslovakia and Greece 10% each, for similar reasons; and

(3) Norway 50%, because ship losses seem seriously overvalued and because items relating to occupation costs and to under-maintenance were placed under heading of direct damage.

c. Elimination of prisoners of war from military man years.

5. This adjustment of revised submissions and use of formula proposed in paragraph 2 above would give following rounded percentages for overall shares: US 27, France 18, UK 26, others 29. Other formulae which are almost equally defensible in theory, however, yield markedly different results. Seems clear that arithmetic and formulae alone will not solve shares problem. Moreover, non-comparability within several categories of raw data and long time which would be required to get better figures make exact arithmetical basis impractical to achieve.

6. In private talks with Rueff over past week, prior to receipt of urtel to Angell 28,³⁹ I had already indicated my belief that probable French recoveries from restitution plus labor reparation plus French removals from French Zone would justify giving France a lower share in global remaining reparation pot than statistical formulae seemed likely to suggest, and that in any event, in light of growing body of information available, I thought that percent of 21 for France previously discussed was too high.

7. In further private talk with Rueff and me yesterday, Waley presented instructions from his Government to request as overall percentage US 30, France 15, UK 30, others 25. These proposals rest on a defensible statistical basis for UK and for small countries, but on same basis for US are too high and for France too low. Waley based this revision of his earlier proposals on much the same grounds I had previously given Rueff outlined in paragraph 6 above. Rueff insisted his Ministers would not consider seriously such a proposal for France but agreed to present it to them. He also argued French share should equal or exceed total for smaller countries.

8. I have not yet presented all of proposals in urtel to Angell 28 to Rueff or Waley for tactical reasons, but have indicated US would consider reduction of its statistical share. UK does not want to benefit therefrom, but Waley suggests benefit be spread ratably among other countries.

9. As practical compromise, lying between extreme UK position in paragraph 7 above and formula results in paragraph 5 above, and after reduction of US share to level you indicate, suggest as overall shares US 20, France 18, UK 28, others 34. Since the shares discussion will be very active by middle of week and is now stalled by lack of agreement among Big Three, propose to use substantially these percentages as ultimate objective in discussions with heads of delegation unless otherwise instructed. Reconciliation of conflicting views, however, may require some flexibility within range of one or two points either way for each major group, subject to minimum of 20 for US.

10. Am already fairly near agreement with Waley on relative size of individual small country shares within whatever percentage is allotted them in total. No further discussion has taken place on percentages for plant removals. [Angell.]

Caffery

39. See telegram 5326, November 15, 6 p.m., to Paris, p. 1388.