740.00119 Control (Germany)/11–2845: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 1—2:18 a.m.]
1126. (1) Twenty-third meeting of the Coordinating Committee. Russian member presiding, was held yesterday and gave rise to a certain acrimony on the questions of restitution and decentralization of German economy.
(2) Economics Directorate produced a report77 containing on the one hand a Russian definition of restitution and a US, British and French definition on the other. Russian definition, which was essentially the same as that brought forward at last Coordinating Committee meeting (see 1092 of November 24, 6 p.m.78), was that restitution is limited to property capable of identification, forcibly seized and carried away from the territory of the country by the enemy. Alternative definition was that restitution will be limited to identifiable goods which existed at the time of the occupation and which were taken out of the country by the enemy, whatever the means of dispossession; it would also include identifiable goods produced during the occupation acquired by the enemy by force. French member pointed out that in this latter respect the alternative definition was narrower than the Declaration of January 5, 1943,79 which envisaged restitution of goods sold to the enemy with the consent of the victim country and/or pointed to the conciliatory attitude of his delegation in accepting this narrower interpretation. He referred to the positions taken at the current Paris Reparations Conference, by the US, British and French representatives. This provoked a question by the British member as to which body would furnish a definition and he stated his understanding that responsibility in this regard rested with the Control Council.
General Clay emphasized the urgent need of reaching a definition and pointed out that the intent of the present discussion was mainly to set a limit on restitution and that progress could later be made with respect to procedure. He suggested a compromise along the following lines:
“Restitution will be limited in the first instance to identifiable goods which existed at the time of the occupation of the country and which [Page 1427] were taken out of the country by the enemy through use of force. Also falling under measures of restitution are identifiable goods produced during the occupation and whose acquisition was accompanied by an act of force. All other articles removed by the enemy which existed at the time of occupation are eligible for restitution to the extent consistent with reparations and the minimum economy to be left Germany.”
French member pointed out French public opinion could not accept the leaving of certain important looted articles to the remaining German minimum economy, but he stated he would seek his Govt’s views on General Clay’s suggestion for presentation the next meeting. Russian member likewise requested time for consideration. British member expressed sympathy with French position and mentioned he would accept whatever definition is agreeable to the French.
. . . . . . .