740.00119 E.W./11–2645: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:25 p.m.]
6801. From Angell No. 81. November 21 meeting of heads of delegations discussed table II, (see mytel No. 7756) categories of claims not measured in monetary terms. Discussion inconclusive.
I. Man years allocable to war effort (a) armed forces; (b) munitions industries; (c) other war activity.
Waley proposed less weight be given pre-war man years, POWs not measure of war effort, and (b) and (c) important but too difficult to get comparable statistics. Rueff questioned historical wisdom of giving less weight to preparation for war and stated POWs material loss and therefore basis for reparation. Indian, New Zealand and Australian [Page 1416] delegates stressed inseparability of (a), (b) and (c) in countries totally mobilized for war, but suggested less weight for POWs. Belgian view that loss of manpower through diversion to war effort, whether POWs or underground activity, should be given considerable weight.
II. Loss of potential income (a) deportation (b) forced labor inside territory.
Waley proposed account be taken of (a) only to extent of lasting effect on productive capacity of individuals and no separate account be taken of (b) unless account also be taken under II of similar loss to non-occupied countries of man years devoted to war industries. Rueff agreed on same effect for occupied and non-occupied countries. Czechs proposed account be taken not only of extent of contribution but also how far a country in position to contribute to war effort. Greeks proposed deletion of I (b), I (c) and II from table II and inclusion in third, roll of honor table.
III. Loss of life.
Yugoslav delegate explained high civilian figure as result of early, widespread, and ill-armed insurrections against enemy, fierce Yugoslav resistance and German brutality, executions and exterminations, and bombardments by Germans and Allies. Indian referred again to loss of life in Bengal famine as consequence of war and stressed indivisibility of armed and civilian losses of life.
IV. Disability. Rueff said comments on III also apply to this category.
In summary Rueff said (1) no agreed conclusion reached on relative weights except on importance of loss of life; (2) some delegates emphasized war effort, others war damage; (3) French view supported by probable majority including Belgium, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and possibly India.
Discussion of weights provisionally closed and subject of restitution opened. Waley submitted British views, said these views implicitly rejected theses that claims for replacement have priority and that claims for particular goods looted should be met by distribution from similar goods in proportion to losses.
I restated my position that subject was before ACC being discussed by other US representatives, therefore I could not express either agreement or disagreement with views expressed by other delegates, but would be glad to transmit such views to my Government. Alphand stated basic accord with British view with minor qualifications (a) burden of proof on enemy to show legality of act of possessing goods during occupation; (b) replacement of looted works of art.
Yugoslav proposed agreement on categories of looted goods to be restituted or replaced in proportion to losses without lessening reparation [Page 1417] share. Czech said injustice in Waley’s views since cow stolen but not identifiable remains in Germany for benefit of Germans, and he proposed replacement without charge against reparation. Belgian and Dutch delegates sympathetic to Yugoslav and Czech views. Greek agreed with British view. Norwegian unwilling to extend legal theory of restitution since extension would give losses incurred through German scorched earth activities importance secondary to pilferage.
Alphand proposed as compromise that each country claim categories of non-identified looted goods important to economy and that priority be given in deliveries of similar goods as reparations. Proposed further that reparation quotas be increased to take account of non-identified looted goods and that other categories be added to Waley’s shipping and rolling stock for allocation as reparation in proportion to losses.
French, Czech, Belgian, Dutch, Yugoslav, Luxembourg delegates instructed to submit views in writing. [Angell.]